The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
FID is not going to happen by the end of March. Pick up the phone to Elizabeth Brooks at PMO or Stewart McDonald at RKH and I'm sure they would confirm to you as much. There might be a catalyst shortly there after which could be as good as though.
At today's price, the question however is does that really matter? 23p is not saying FID is imminent, so I'm inclined to think not.
Ovets,
Unless I misunderstand you, that's because it isn't capped. Any award will first be applied to the lawyers fees and any excess will be split between the parties at pre-agreed percentages as has been disclosed by the company on several occasions. I understand that the percentage payable to the lawyers will decrease as the size of any award increases, but I do not believe there is a hard $ cap as well.
The outcome is expected 3-6 months after the hearing, so potentially July at the latest, assuming the hearing is held in early February.
Italy has been unsuccesful so far in stalling the process, despite a number of attempts (see https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/cases/casedetail.aspx?CaseNo=ARB/17/14.), but there are examples of ICSID cases where submissions have been made and hearings deferred with only a week or so to the initially scheduled hearing, so I would retain some caution until they're actually sitting in a room.
Also, please can we stop this talk of $1bn+ of potential damages based on some wild and wonderful formula. Ask RKH themselves and they will tell you the claim ranges from around $30m (lost investment) to $300m (lost profits). The lawyers will take their fees first and a percentage of any award over that.
Fingers crossed, but without being privy to the actual detail it's pure speculation as to the merits, particularly the lost profits element. The no-win, no-fee basis, provides some comfort on the lost investment element. I've seen these sort of things before, and you might think you have an idea, but then it actually becomes public in a hearing what was actually said and done behind closed doors, and often it's very different. That's true of both sides. Of course RKH is going to tell us they are very confident and they might well be, but they're hardly going to flag a claim as "speculative". Time will tell.
Careful about this person.
Reliably informed their motives aren’t genuine.
Tuggy,
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but my point was that ENI and Edison are not one and the same. ENI don't have (and haven't had) any exposure to the Falklands, no? You also still haven't said how it is you know compensation was paid to Argos?
ENI or Edison?
As far as I can see there is no public information on what (if any) payment Noble/Edison made to exit the agreement. Have you had this confirmed, or are you speculating? If it's been confirmed this seems like pretty material information.
Still very sceptical ARG are going to get a deal (certainly anything as generous as the prior) one when they're effectively on the clock.
Carrot,
I think its fairly obvious that I was referring to the ability to "draw out" the process, by which what is meant is possessing the ability to go ahead, yet deciding not to for presumably nefarious reasons. Out of PMO and RKH it is only PMO that has this potential option. PMO certainly could if it wanted (and I'm not suggesting it will) draw out the process towards FID/sanction. It doesn't imply PMO has sole discretion over the actual outcome of the FID/sanction process or timing, but it could certainly act to delay that process if it so wished. RKH can't.
Praying licenses extended...You're having a laugh.
Can of worms there Frogga.
Don't forget the options; these are pretty large considering the math under which they were awarded. Those potentially vesting in March 2019 require a share price of around £0.60 (all else being equal) to trigger a pay-out.
More generally, the idea that RKH has any desire, let alone capacity, to draw out this process is ludicrous and forgets one of the most important points. PMO drives the timetable here, not RKH, not by a long shot. One can argue that PMO might have reasons to draw the process out (it can be argued both ways), but RKH, no. If it was down to RKH you can be certain this would be sanctiond this afternoon.
Much. I think you may want to re-read what I actually wrote before you jump to criticise. I'll add "attention to detail" to a grasp of numbers as one of the things that doesn't seem to have been too pivotal to your long and successful banking career.
The truth is that no-one on here as an f'ing clue about export finance, despite what they might try to piece together. It's application in this instance sounds strange to me in many respects. However, I think one can reasonably assume from the fact that it has been talked about for years, special ECA advisors have been appointed, SCB has been appointed to bring it all together, and the development team is ramping up, that they haven't missed something as simple as the eligibility requirement. We'll find out soon enough.
An interesting observation, but I don't believe the Aug 17 and Oct 18 events are related to the same specific thing (perhaps more generally). The former is associated with UKEF providing support, the latter is an "under consideration" notification. It doesn't follow that the latter happens after the former. Maybe it relates to different elements of the same overall project? Either way, it's speculation about something I don't know a whole lot about.
Also, see the latter part of "We publish certain information about Category A projects that we are asked to support, in line with the requirements of the OECD Common Approaches, as long as we have the consent of the applicant."
Perhaps an email to PMO might clarify?
FI. Please let us know when you buy back in so we can take advantage of your prescient timing. Thanks.
A day or so ago you were claiming to own 1m+ shares; now you are prophesising a 50% fall. Presumably you can't be doing so with much conviction. A (very) long-term holder should be prepared to weather the daily/weekly volatility that is inevitable with this share, but an expectation of a 50% fall; I think not. You wouldn't be trying to join the "if it goes up i'll participate, if it goes down I can say I was right all along" mentality that seems prevalent here...
Deflection, diversion... You'd make a good politician.
If you go back to my first response, you'll see quite clearly that at no stage have I claimed that the the oil price is not a variable in any determination of quantum, although for what its worth I doubt that the c$300m number was arrived at based on a simple spot price of the day the claim was filed. If this can be subsequently adjusted after the claim is filed we don't know. Again, have you asked the company to add some veracity to your claim?
My response to you has been entirely directed at the size of possible award and any adjustment to it as a result of a changing price. You stated quite clearly that such change could result in an increase in profits (any by inference what RKH might claim) of $1.2bn. This is very obviously wrong. It's quite ridiculous talking about this level of quantum (even anything in the same ball park) for the various reasons I have stated. You have no clue of either the macro or the micro.
No doubt, yet again you'll claim it was a general point you were making, that the numbers are irrelevant, that we're all in this together, etc....
Much, you can deflect and divert as much as you want, but you continuously use numbers (wrongly) to make your points and defend them when questioned. Then at some you realise perhaps you are in fact wrong and fall back on "oh, I was making a general point...". If it wasn't for your not so subtle ongoing references to being "a banker" (whatever that really means) with years of experience I'd cut you some slack. People should be aware when the output does correlate to the credentials.
Sorry Much, but you've been caught with your pants down on some very simple principles. Take it on the shoulders and move on. And maybe go back to the textbooks before your next bankers test.
"If oil is $30 more expensive now than at the beginning of proceedings then the value of future profits on 40m has unfortunately for the Republic of Italy just increased by the princely sum of $1.2bn....... oops! "
Doesn't sound at all hypothetical...
Much,
You are repeating the same flawed logic! All else being equal, an increase in oil price (A) for the same level of production (B) results in an increase in REVENUE of AxB. This higher absolute revenue will result in higher absolute tax, royalties, etc. These cannot be included within a fixed LOF per barrel cost. It DOES NOT result in an increase in PROFIT of AxB.
In any case, your actual numbers are clearly way out, even discounting to present value. I'd be pretty sure RKH weren't claiming lost profits on the basis of $50/bbl (or less) oil and under whatever assumption they did use, it seems they came out at c$300m. Have you actually asked them? SM is pretty responsive.
Markap,
It sounds like you have read and regurgitated the following articles perhaps?
http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/01/27/rockhopper-vs-italy-weighing-legitimate-expectations-investors-due-diligence-ma-deals/
As referenced in the article, it's not a binary win c$300m or nothing. IF there was a lack of due diligence it doesn't necessarily preclude an award; it might just effect its size.
Much, your $1.2bn number (not £) is nonsense for the reasons stated; confusion of revenue and profit being just one of them. Ask the company and they will confirm. Have you done this? What LOF costs has to do with incremental revenue through a higher price I'm not sure.