Member Info for Marunam2

https://www.offshore-energy.biz/westwood-30-fpsos-to-become-available-by-end-of-2022/#:~:text=Market%20research%20provider%20and%20consultancy,by%20the%20end%20of%202022.

Let the horse trading begin , or not.

Arden,
So money not required anytime soon, as even they point out that G and A is $3m a year.

Ralph,

WITHIN 6 months and that's ONLY IF they ask for more time after the case is closed.

Once the transaction completes with FIG, all Sealion costs up to to FID are covered by a loan from Navitas @8%.
$3.9m cash in hand at 31 / 3 /22.
So 2 to 4 weeks for FIG to approve the deal and the loan is in place to use right up to FID for all Sealion costs.
$3.9m will last a good while by which time OM will be in( famous last words ) .

OM award could come in the next 2 to 6 weeks , already nearly 3 weeks since they were told a "few weeks ".

The board of directors have to warn shareholders that a fund raising will take place because OM panel is without doubt the most awful advert for justice I've ever seen .

The deal is in place and a partner is likely and at $100 a barrel many will be sitting on the side lines looking for a really quick and long term return.

Bloody hell Ralph, I agree with you. lol

Look at the companies partnering with Navitas already :
Navitas' main assets include the Buckskin and Shenandoah major oil discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of the United States as well as Block 7 off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador in East Canada.[8] Navitas' JV partners include LLOG Exploration, Repsol, Equinor (formerly Statoil), Delek Group, Blackstone, Warburg Pincus, and Riverstone portfolio companies.[9

The Achmea decision continues to cause uncertainty. At this stage it seems a step too far that the decision can impact upon multilateral treaties such as the ECT by removing the jurisdiction of tribunals in intra-EU disputes. . Nonetheless this is unlikely to be the end of the saga, and it will be interesting to see how this issue continues to unravel.

Isn't this the most important thing : "In the author’s view that is to be applauded, parties who have agreed to submit disputes to arbitration should not be able to unilaterally retract that agreement "
Jurisdiction has been rejected twice !!!

Nine months to repay the well costs !!, lets hope it keeps pumping for a long time .

Paul Drayton,
Your post is the best one regarding what will happen after the award .
If RKH win ,then Harbour will have as a litigation funder worked out all of the possible ways Italy could try to delay payment.
ICSID - Their ruling is enforceable in many countries , but New York is the place they will go to most likely. The lawyers have offices there already .
I would urge people to go to the Harbour website and spend some time there and look at how they will process the action and how they can expediate it using specialists in the field.
As I said yesterday I believe this case will have reached the highest echelons of ICSID, there is a lot riding on this for them as an organisation fighting for their independence.

GLA

What is interesting to note is why ,as yet, they have not released how they came to this decision. Previously the jurisdiction objection from Italy was released for all to see.
Interestingly it's not published on the Icsid website under the case "procedural details " which is where all updates are published. This is a significant ruling in that EU law does not take precedent over ICSID convention, so one of the parties
(ahem , Italy) may have objected to the release of the ruling, hence no release.
Can of worms for Italy if the ruling is based on concrete law principles. We may still see the ruling , but ICSID needed to get this watertight as their very dependence on using the ECT would be null if they agreed with the ECJ.

Can't see it being too far away now.
January / Q1 , could see an award , a partner and sign off on a consortium for Sealion from FIG.

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/371517/oil-ceos-strike-back-with-warning-on-the-energy-transition/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Energy%20Voice%20-%20Daily%20Newsletter%202021-12-10&utm_term=Energy%20Voice%20-%20Newsletter

Timing and luck , Navitas have both in their favour on this deal.
Energy supply is going to become acute , even more acute I should say.
Some credit to FIG, they must have pushed HBR for a decision when extending the license last time, without any push HBR could have dragged this out for a couple of years more and killed off RKH.

High % held here in retail hands and MM and Insti's will start shaking out weak holders before any major push up imo.
Cheaper than chips .

Why would a company not interested in developing Sealion take a 65% stake and pay for RKH's upkeep till FID and fund 2/3 of the development cost with a loan for RKH. Those costs to get the new feed and re sign new contracts, pay RKH's share all along does not sound like a cheap option for any company.

As I said previously ,expect another RNS with a bigger boy coming in .
Navitas would not have come in if they did not have a nod from someone they can trust.

Cheap as chips .

Gideon Tadmor , Navitas Chairman , is not going to go into a deal without the financial backing to get this done. The man was major factor in huge gas finds 11tcf and 22tcf , secured a good bit of Israel's energy needs in the long term at least.
Delek was where he helped achieve this and would not surprise me that they come in.

If RKH have been in constant touch for the last year with Navitas, funding assurances would have been required , so expect another rns of further farm in .

OM- so disgusted that this international body set up to protect investors and Government can put people out of business by taking an unheard of time to make judgements, bureaucracy at its worst and deadliest.

Hi Cyan2,

I would very much doubt Harbour would not have planned for this contingency from day 1, they would obviously like the extra insurance of settlement via the use of these specialists and in addition to the sales sales pitch they are correct in what they say. It's better they are on board from day 1 , then after the award. It's a well used tactic by the state, so nothing new now , litigators and for that matter ICSID are wise to it.
If you have not got this service included then there would be "chanllenging " issues , which would take time
If I were Harbour and putting in at my own risk the sums involved in the litigation , then it would be professionally negligent of me to not foresee that the chances of the state declaring that they cannot pay and that the tribunal stay the award and RKH wait (forever in instances ) while it sorts out it's finances.
I would make sure that any legal means to escape are covered entirely.

Re the De comm for the dock , most likely Harbour will have to pay their share when exiting , but RKH are still the owners of the license, so no need for de comm costs now , unless FIG want it dismantled even as the other dock is nearing the end of its life. I'm sure at some stage we will hear more on this and with greater clarity.

Without
warning and in breach of the Energy Charter Treaty, the host government introduced
restrictions preventing foreign companies from oil exploration. No compensation was
offered to the company for removing its production concession, and the State permitted
domestic companies to continue their operations.

Pretty damming I'd say.

Also : The respondent State then failed to pay its share of the
advance arbitration costs, but again, Harbour provided the required funding so the case
could proceed.

Beggers belief that a state would fail to pat it's legal costs.

For Cyan2 : Enforcement against a sovereign State is challenging, but Harbour is able to take
advantage of its experience and extensive network of specialist advisers with long and
proven track records of success to identify attachable assets in appropriate jurisdictions
and reduce the risk of not recovering damages.

From my understanding, this happens at any hearing after the award where if the state ask for a stay on the ground it has no assets to pay the claimant, the specialist advisors have identified up to date assets that can be siezed, taken right up all the way to a court in Ney York I presume.

https://harbourlitigationfunding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Harbour-Investment-Commercial-Treaty-Arbitration.pdf

Arbitration case study
Harbour is supporting a listed company which developed a project to explore an oil field
in a host State’s coastal waters. The company sunk significant costs into surveying the
field, as well as obtaining the relevant environmental and regulatory licences. Without
warning and in breach of the Energy Charter Treaty, the host government introduced
restrictions preventing foreign companies from oil exploration. No compensation was
offered to the company for removing its production concession, and the State permitted
domestic companies to continue their operations.
The company was prevented from enjoying the benefit of its investment, and knew it had
to do something to protect the interests of its shareholders. However, like any business
they wanted to focus on core revenue-generating work, rather than have resources
diverted by a potentially lengthy and costly investor-state arbitration.
Together with the company we developed a funding arrangement that de-risked them
entirely, paying all costs whilst allowing them to retain control over their claim.
Investor-state cases are notoriously uncertain in their progression, but Harbour is wellused to the issues which can arise. In this particular case an early jurisdictional challenge
that threatened to end the case was defeated as we provided additional funding for this
unexpected additional work. The respondent State then failed to pay its share of the
advance arbitration costs, but again, Harbour provided the required funding so the case
could proceed.
Enforcement against a sovereign State is challenging, but Harbour is able to take
advantage of its experience and extensive network of specialist advisers with long and
proven track records of success to identify attachable assets in appropriate jurisdictions
and reduce the risk of not recovering damages.
The company have commented to shareholders that without Harbour’s support they would
have most likely withdrawn the claim when faced with the challenges which arose.
Harbour’s solutions and experience opened up opportunities for them at a business-critical
time and has allowed them to assert their rights.

On Friday, 5 March 2021, 10:46:49 GMT, Sam Moody wrote:

Mr XXXXXXXX



Thank you for your e mail


Wind down costs are difficult to quantify. The biggest potential cost is the decommissioning of the dock facility in Stanley harbour but in all likelihood the government would want that kept as the existing dock is nearing the end of its life. The other potential wind down costs are fairly small and include closing the Premier office in Stanley and making the premier project team (currently <10 people across London and Stanley) redundant.



Should Harbour decide to withdraw then we would seek to “inherit” the licence but in the end we would need FIG consent. Additionally it might be that we try to keep Navitas in the acreage should Harbour withdraw.

THIS REPLY WAS SENT TO ME IN MARCH .

I hope that all makes sense.



Thanks

Sam





Sam Moody

Chief Executive Officer

Sam.moody@rockhopperexploration.co.uk

Mobile: 07795 820682

https://harbourlitigationfunding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Harbour-Investment-Commercial-Treaty-Arbitration.pdf

I refer you to page 4 and 5 .

OM - No one can prove they could not have made money from it can they Happy ?
The very fact an exploration license was granted, a drill was permitted and an EIA approved shows more than just intent. Also there is no proof of it not going to FID and production itself, how can there be when a moratorium is announced without recourse or recompense to a contracting party.

Lets see where we end up , the RKH lawyers will surely regurgitate the same objections to the "ruling" from the CJEU and the panel will concur.