Member Info for Florida

I was of the opinion that Tunisia offered no defence at all in the Swiss court against Zeniths annulment claim. That in itself should increase our chances by at least 50%. I was also of the opinion that the annulment and the verdict would be made public somewhere between September and November, followed by ICSID early December.

If the Annulment for ICC-2 is approved and the verdict is given, they will have £130m in their back pocket and delivered much sooner than ICSID. As he said in the recent interview, none of the arbitration cases are linked, each case is heard as a separate entity. Also not forgetting, all three arbitration cases are self funded. Which means we get 100% of all awarded proceeds less recovery costs.

I wonder what side of 11p we will be by the end of May.

I'm quite happy with the situation as it stands, certainly nothing to whinge about. It's pretty obvious why the fund raise happened earlier than expected. As far as I recall, AC had two buyers for the rig back in December, and I remember hearing something from one of his interviews that he fully expected at least one of them to be a serious buyer with the rig sold by Christmas. Since December, and in addition, ex Prime Ministerial legal services were hired, adding to the already significantly high legal cost.

it's understandable to think that devaluation is a step backward, but really, 3.4% is nothing within the grand scheme of things. We have just passed through a milestone point of the companies history. A claim of $570m, with first signs looking good, this could not be any better. Not only that, within the next few months we have an excellent chance of winning the annulment, ICC-2 for $130m. More importantly, the annulment, if won, brings with it a speeded up legal process. No more four year waiting, the whole process could be over withing 3 to 6 months. That, in theory, could be done and dusted before we receive the result of ICSID.

Then we have the Uranium Exploration Licence. Apparently expected between Mid June and mid July. This should bring a considerable increase to the share price, all looking very good. DYOR Good luck

That makes more sense. Still a tidy sum.

How do they charge the interest on the $10m? I thought I read somewhere that 14% per month is added. Seems like a nice little income, enough to cover the entire legal expense.

Great news about the rig, the picture is all very clear now. I always thought there had to be a barrier of some sort preventing the rigs use. This now provides a bolster to our every day working capital and an added prevention against further dilution, not to mention keeping the naysayers mouths shut.

In addition to this, SNPC, the National Oil Company of the Republic of Congo, the Congo Ministry backed oil company, owed to AAOG/Zenith Energy, a sum of $5.3m plus interest, for unpaid services and oil produced prior to and during the drilling of TLP-103c. In 2018/2019. This is a separate debt via an agreement between SNPC, the Congo Ministry and AAOG (now owned by Zenith). Nothing to do with SMP. This was an inherited debt incorporated within Zeniths purchase of AAOG.

The validity of the debt was enhanced by the part payment to Zenith in August 2021 of $128,000 in order to validate/authenticate and acknowledge the debt owed.

"PAYMENT DETAILS

Amount: USD 128,000

Date: August 2021

Recipient: Zenith Energy’s subsidiary, Anglo African Oil & Gas Congo SAU

Source: Congolaise de Raffinage, a subsidiary of the Société Nationale des Pétroles du Congo (SNPC), which is the national oil company of the Republic of the Congo.

Purpose: Payment for past oil production from the now-expired Tilapia I licence

This payment was publicly disclosed and aligns with Zenith’s efforts to recover value from its historical operations in Congo."

In effect, we have two cases, one with SMP the drill company for a minimum $9m plus interest, and SNPC, the Congo National Oil Company for $5.3m plus interest going back 6 years.

Just to clarify. Co Pilot answer, the following.

"Yes, that’s correct. The rig contractor SMP Energies (formerly Société de Maintenance Pétrolière) was responsible for drilling operations at the Tilapia oilfield in the Republic of the Congo, specifically wells TLP-103 and TLP-103C, during 2018–2019. The performance was deemed unsatisfactory, leading to significant cost overruns and operational delays.

⚖️ Legal Proceedings Overview

In July 2019, Anglo African Oil & Gas Congo (AAOGC), then a subsidiary of AAOG plc, initiated a legal claim against SMP in the Paris Commercial Court.

The claim sought $3.1 million in damages, citing poor rig performance and SMP’s refusal to negotiate compensation.

After Zenith Energy acquired AAOGC in May 2020, it continued to pursue the claim.

SMP retaliated by obtaining seizure orders over AAOGC’s assets and bank accounts in Congo, which were later revoked by Zenith2.

🏛️ Current Status

A final hearing in the Paris Commercial Court was scheduled for March 14, 2025, to resolve the dispute.

SMP was previously ordered to pay €30,000 for “abusive procedural behaviour,” but failed to comply, prompting the court to seize the amount from an SMP bank account in France.

Zenith has stated it will vigorously pursue the claim and is also seeking $5.3 million in additional compensation.

This case has become a long-running legal and financial saga, and it’s closely watched by investors due to its potential impact on Zenith’s balance sheet."

In addition, AAOG, the company originally purchased by Zenith Energy invested a total in excess of £20m, that also could be claimed. So, September/October 2025 should see us with the result of the March 14th hearing.

Docit, I feel you may need some help here, and I don't mean this to sound like a patronising retort, more like a sympathising compatriot who has felt and suffered just as much as you. To put this into context, at 16p I was in profit to the tune of £280,000. To you this may not seem a tremendous amount of money , but to me, I can assure you this was a devastating blow. However, throughout my nearly seven year investment into Zenith I have never ceased to be astonished by our intrepid CEO's tenacious and courageous attitude. His defiance in the face of adverse bias, to corrupt judiciary to downright blatant racism, he's been through it all, and he still comes up with something to blow our mind. We are now a firm part of the ECO warrior brigade. Not only Gas to Electricity, now Solar to electricity and farming, who would have believed it.

Getting to the point, anyone who has ever invested into Zenith has not bought into a company that own's a balance sheet and a cheque book. This is a company with the greatest asset known to man "entrepreneurialism". This is what drives humanity and builds cities, this is what sends people to the moon. AC has what it takes to be a true dynamic entrepreneur and that is what keeps me invested.

Thanks Gareth. So in reality the next push forward is the SMP judgement, followed in July by ICC2. That makes sense.

What's your thoughts on the SMP case in the French High Court StockCheque? I have been out of the loop for a while and assumed the case had been brought to a conclusion in March. Are we waiting for the judgement?

GarethUK - anywhere between $350m and $450m would in my view be an acceptable outcome at this stage. However, if there is any truth to the rumour of $180m having already been offered with an 8 year payment timescale, that offer must have been for the entire package, including all three cases. So, they are continuing to play the long game, again, waiting to hear what is put forward in ICC2, as they did with ICC1.

With ICC1, they had nothing to lose, 10 million in the grand scheme of 639m is a snowflake by comparison. By letting this go they learn the mood of the court and know what to expect in case 2. If they allow court 2 to make a judgement, that money {$130m plus) is completely lost, all negotiations, at that point, begin/restart from a blank sheet. They would be in a position having already lost almost $200m, then having to make an offer on the $503m, in tern, leaving Zenith to fight with $200m in their back pocket, and certainly in a far stronger negotiating position. Tunisia has to come up with a settlement figure soon because they cannot gain anything by waiting what could be 6 months for the ICC2 result, then only to pay more interest at $100,000 per month.

threeputt - For your information, Marketgunslinger is a trusted long term holder who has an immensely informative knowledge of Zenith's history.

Great post by MG I must say. It does make you think, if the Tunisians were reading these posts, assessing whether they had a case against this onslaught, would they waist so much time, effort and humiliation, chasing what must be seen as an unwinnable position. The way that MG has presented our case, and the comments by the judges in ICC1 would make me think a settlement is the obvious play. Me, in their position, I would jump at the chance of a 30% reduction. In my opinion a settlement is odds on.

Threeputt - Personally, I think AI is brilliant, I use it all the time, never let me down so far.

Question: In an arbitration case, can both parties agree to an out of court settlement after the hearings have been heard, before judgement has been made?

AI answer: "Yes, both parties in an arbitration case can agree to an out-of-court settlement even after the hearings have been heard but before the judgment has been made. This is often referred to as a "settlement agreement" and can be a way to resolve the dispute without waiting for the arbitrator's final decision.

Settling out of court can save time, reduce costs, and allow both parties to have more control over the outcome. Once an agreement is reached, it can be submitted to the arbitrator or the court to be ratified, making it legally binding."

Just thought this was a good time to drop some information that might be useful to some people.

threeputt - This is one of those events that makes clear the overwhelming prowess and negotiating capability of our CEO, Andrea Catteneo. In my view one of the most lucrative deals undertaken by any CEO in the last 20 years and one of the main reasons why I bought into the company in the first place.

On the 4th May 2020 AC bought the rights to the licence that covered the Tilapia oil field in the Republic of Congo from AAOG. A British company that failed in an attempt to drill the Tilapia well in 2019, then subsequently went bust. AC paid £200,000 for the Licence which included a 100% interest in AAOG, of which, had a 56% majority stake in the Tilapia oil field. AAOG carried out and paid for work on the Tilapia wellhead on a 56% - 44% basis with SMPC. Unfortunately, AAOG never received SMPC's contribution to the tune of $5.3m. However, in 2019, in a last ditch attempt to prevent AAOG going bust, AAOG filed a claim against SMP, the rig company that ruined the attempt to drill the Tilapia well, but ran out of money before it got to court. Unfortunately, the licence ran out in July 2020, and after two visits to the then president of the Republic of Congo, and after two indications that the licence would be renewed, AC failed to renew the licence.

This was not the end. Having, effectively lost the licence, and the right to drill the well, he was left with a company (AAOG) that was owed $5.3m and a court case that had a clear case to receive $9m (SMP). In addition to this, in May 2022 Zenith received a payment of $128,000 as a sign of good will from SMPC and an acknowledgment that full payment was forthcoming. This in essence guaranteed the validity of the $5.3m that has now been filed as a claim in the court.

Thankfully, the original AAOG board of directors kept immensely important detailed records of the step by step procedures undertaken by SMP during the drilling of Tilapia 113. In so doing, increasing the potential of a favourable outcome at the end of March 2025, when we hear the final outcome.

As for the $5.3m, well, there is interest going back almost 6 years, to be added on. So a tidy sum with a potential outcome already proven. If AC wins both these cases he could in fact receive $20m for a £200,000 outlay. What a deal.

It's all good fun Deano.

It is reasonable to believe that any devaluation in share value, caused by a direct or indirect result of the arbitrary actions of the Tunisian government, in terms of the application of a placing or other losses, would be redeemed through the courts by example, ICSID 3.

It is reasonable to believe that any devaluation in share value, caused by a direct or indirect result of the arbitrary actions of the Tunisian government, in terms of the application of a placing or other loses, would be redeemed through the courts by example, ICSID 3.

Paul1deano - You know i can't believe what's just happened. Over the years you have single headedly reduced Zeniths share price by at least 25%, and of course this was your intended remit to do. So, congratulations on that, well done. Change the narrative to anything else in order to take potential investors thoughts away from the integral reasoning that would encourage them to invest. That is your main objective and it always has been.

StockCheque - let me show you why I don't use the reply button on this thread. If I do so, I'm locked into someone else's heading. Please see as follows -

Yesterday - 22:21 change of heading by Paul1deano "Away from the arbitrations". Now some people might say this is some kind of subliminal suggestion. God forbid I should accuse of such a thing. However, many will ask themselves what reason would someone write "Away from the arbitrations". Now most people reading this would probably say, this guy is paranoid. So, maybe I am, I like a bit of coincidence every now and then. It could well be just a coincidence, who am I to judge.

Having said that, for the very first time, you have actually said something I whole heartedly agree with. Zenith have proven they can manifest a product into something that is highly profitable. Not only in oil production but also with Gas to Electricity generation. If they remain within those parameters they will surely be successful, and I will be happy to stay invested. If not, I doubt any profitability of green ventures would materialise in my lifetime, nor would it be enough to encourage investors like me to stay invested.

Getting back to reality for a moment, and into the fundamental agender presented to us right now "Arbitration". Nothing else matters, the narrative should remain the prime subject of conversation. Everything else presented on here that I see, will be viewed as having an ulterior motive. Everything that others see is up to them.

It's getting really exciting here now, more so than any other time in the companies history folks. Let's enjoy the ride.

My thoughts and opinions only. DYOR

An unfavourable ICC 2 outcome might have limitations that aren't as severe as they first appear. I wouldn't take this too seriously, it's just a little bit of soft comfort for those reluctant to dip their toe.

While a positive result for ICC 2 seems likely, there really is no guarantee of success. With limited concrete input regarding the planned court strategy, it is extremely difficult to evaluate the depth of the potential damage we would face from a complete legal collapse. One approach is to estimate how much physical equity we had before it was unlawfully taken from us. The other is to estimate where our present position is, in view of the potential $52m interest claim.

We were producing about 450 barrels of oil per day. That would have been 680 barrels per day if the Tunisian Ministry hadn't refused to approve the purchase of KUFPEC's 22.5% stake in the Sidi El Kilani concession. When we acquired the three Tunisian concessions in 2019/21, they included various-sized storage facilities, with the largest holding 200,000 barrels of oil. To my recollection, on the 26th January 2022 we held 114,000 Barrels of oil in storage, along with two "liftings" (shore-to-ship transfers) April 2021 and Jan 2022. The first was willingly paid for by ETAP, while the second appears to be the ETAP $6.2 million ICC 1 non-payment. Since then, we assumed that oil continued to accumulate. However, no evidence has been shown to validate this. The question is, how much oil did we have in storage?, and at what point did the Tunisian Ministry of Hydrocarbons unlawfully take over production? This is crucial in determining the extent to which the ICC 2 case could go against us.

For instance, all the oil known to be stored by Zenith before it was unlawfully taken can be verified through the Ministry's daily hydrocarbon records. If the storage tanks were continuously filled, Zenith could claim a minimum of 200,000 barrels of oil ($17m, under the same conditions set in the ICC 1 case.

As a worst case scenario, Zenith shareholders would very nearly double our present market cap. This is the minimum we would receive from the ICC 2 case if everything else collapsed. My guess is that a good deal more than 200,000 barrels of oil were produced, on top of the 114,000 barrels already in storage during the almost three year period.

In answer to our present position regarding the $52m interest charge. This poses another question. Is the rumour from Ladyofaim true or not?. It is of course coincidental that our claim, now potentially raised to $182m, is almost exactly the same as the rumoured figure of $180m settlement. It certainly makes sense. The Tunisians could be restricted because they cannot be seen to acknowledge validating, the ICSID 3 case. By paying more than the ICC 2 - $182m, they are admitting partial liability in ICSID 3. Where does this leave us?. It looks like a cross table stalemate. I'm still for a settlement.

My own opinion only - all guesswork. DY