Member Info for Medjed

50p, that would be amazing! Is it possible? That would be a £338m mcap

I guess Greatland is in the £billions so why not :)

Not on IG, 26.5 buy vs 25.8 sell, only 2.7% spread

Was the original JOA published anywhere? Has anyone/can anyone find a copy?

Conrad settled with CORO although they pushed them to accept a crap deal. So the precedent is that they will settle just depends how much EME can negotiate out of them with threat of arbitration.

Im response to PiedPiper’s AI my AI responded:

No — the fact that SKK Migas will still allow the project (GSA, FID, development) to proceed does not prevent Conrad and EME from reaching an amicable settlement.

These are two completely separate tracks:

⸻

✔️ TRACK 1 — Project-level approvals (GSA, FID, development)

Handled by SKK Migas.

These continue regardless of the JV dispute.

This does not pressure EME. It simply means the government won’t slow a national project.

This DOES NOT prevent a settlement.

⸻

✔️ TRACK 2 — Ownership dispute (EME vs Conrad)

Handled under the JOA + English-law arbitration, not SKK Migas.

This can be resolved in 3 ways:

① Commercial settlement (most likely)

This is the normal, preferred outcome in disputes like this.

Why?

• Cheap

• Fast

• Zero reputational risk

• Keeps the operator and buyer (Nations) happy

• Removes uncertainty before FID

• Avoids arbitration costs of ~$1–2M+

This is ~60–70% likely.

⸻

② Settlement after formal arbitration notice

Once EME files an arbitration notice, Conrad’s risk spikes.

Tribunals hate “minority squeeze-outs” and Conrad knows this.

Many companies settle after arbitration starts but before a ruling.

This is ~20–30% likely.

⸻

③ Full arbitration (least likely)

This is the most expensive, slow, and risky path.

Conrad does NOT want:

• injunction hearings

• discovery

• cross-examination of their notices

• scrutiny of their conduct

• the forced withdrawal timing analyzed

• the farm-down timing questioned

• damages calculated based on lost opportunity value

• the reputational and partner-relations impact

This is only ~10% likely.

⸻

⭐ So does SKK moving the GSA/FID stop a settlement?

No. Not at all.

The AI you quoted made a category error:

• SKK Migas approvals → KEEP THE PROJECT MOVING

• Ownership dispute → ONLY between Conrad and EME

SKK Migas is not involved in the dispute.

SKK Migas does not care how the dispute ends.

SKK Migas does not block commercial settlement.

Conrad and EME can negotiate a settlement at any point, regardless of SKK’s actions.

⸻

⭐ In fact, SKK progressing FID increases the pressure for a settlement

Why?

Because Nations will NOT want:

• ownership unclear

• arbitration risk

• title disputes

• injunction risk

• a claim against their 75% stake

Nations wants clean title before spending billions.

They will pressure Conrad to settle.

⸻

⭐ So SKK moving the project forward does NOT push EME toward arbitration — if anything, it makes settlement MORE likely

Why:

• Nations wants the dispute cleaned up

• Conrad want

You guys are making me feel better, I’m ‘only’ £11k down with an average of 0.095

That’s a lot for me I don’t have much. So if this goes under I’m screwed.

Tempted to average down but then I’d be all in which seems unwise.

I’m praying for all invested this recovers so you all recover your losses.

Regulatory approval being pushed through before dispute resolution was just one possible scenario Chatgpt suggested, although it said it is unlikely.

It said unlikely because it is reputational risk for MEMR/SKK Migas to approve a transfer of participating interest (PI) thats disputed and then have the arbitration court overturn that decision later on.

Just digging through some scenarios in Chatgpt

Yes — paradoxically, if SKK Migas approves the transfer while the dispute is unresolved, it can strengthen Empyrean’s case in arbitration.

This may sound counter-intuitive, but here is why it works in EME’s favour rather than against it:

⸻

✅ 1. It creates a clear case of procedural unfairness

Arbitration panels (especially under English Law) look for:

• Whether the majority partner (Conrad) acted in good faith

• Whether the default process was executed properly

• Whether the minority partner was treated fairly

• Whether the timing and behaviour indicates bad faith or opportunism

If Conrad:

• forces EME out,

• during ongoing negotiations,

• during farm-down talks,

• with notices disputed,

• and gets SKK Migas approval before the dispute is resolved…

…it signals procedural unfairness and bad faith actions by the operator.

That increases damages in arbitration.

⸻

✅ 2. It shows EME was deprived of rights to negotiate or benefit from the sale

If SKK approval goes through, it becomes a powerful argument that:

“EME was deprived of its rightful opportunity to:

• participate in the farm-down

• negotiate its share

• receive fair value

• exercise tag-along/drag-along rights.”

This supports a wrongful deprivation claim, which tends to attract higher compensation.

⸻

✅ 3. Conrad’s rush to complete the transfer looks like “oppression of a minority partner”

English arbitration frameworks (including LCIA) are very sensitive to:

• majority oppression

• disadvantaging a minority interest

• using technicalities to strip value from a junior partner

If SKK approval happens prematurely, the optics worsen for Conrad:

❌ “They rushed regulators to secure a commercial deal.”

❌ “They ignored ongoing negotiations.”

❌ “They weaponised the default clause.”

❌ “They transferred an asset under active dispute.”

This behaviour is penalised by tribunals.

⸻

✅ 4. SKK approval does NOT validate wrongful procedures

Arbitration panels don’t defer to the regulator on contractual rights.

Even if SKK approve the transfer, the tribunal can still conclude:

• The default notice was invalid

• The forced withdrawal was invalid

• Conrad breached the JOA

• EME is entitled to compensation or reinstatement

• Conrad acted oppressively or in bad faith

Regulator approval does not cure a defective contractual process.

⸻

✅ 5. The rushed approval actually sets up a stronger damages argument

If Conrad/wnel complete the transfer and Nations starts spending money, EME’s legal team can argue:

“EME’s loss is now permanent and cannot be reversed.

Therefore damages should be calculated as the full fair value of their interest.”

This often leads to:

✔ Higher compensation

✔ Pre-judgment interest

✔ Costs

Conrad better soften up and be reasonable. Can you imagine if this goes to English court arbitration it could cost them $3m+ plus if they acted in any way improperly with this withdrawal notice EME could be awarded to have part if their legal costs covered by Conrad. A large chunk of their $16m they are due to receive from Nations could be wiped out.

Massive risk for Conrad.

Mannan that is an old valuation. You have to plug Conrad’s latest rns into AI to get a more up to date valuation based on the value Conrad & Nations have assigned to Mako (although still not precisely know as future revenues remain unknown).

The likely settlement EME could get is now projected to be much lower than $49m

Pied here are ChatGPT’s thoughts about your post:

The poster’s statement is partly logical — but it oversimplifies how markets value distressed microcaps and misunderstands how debt, uncertainty, and risk are priced.

Let’s unpack it clearly.

⸻

🔹 Is the market valuing EME’s 8.5% at zero?

Not literally zero — but heavily discounted due to risk, uncertainty, and debt overhang.

The current market cap (~£3M) does not mean the market thinks EME’s 8.5% is worth £3M.

It means:

“The market thinks that, after factoring in major uncertainty, risk of losing the stake, debt complications, arbitration risk, dilution risk, and survival risk, the company is worth about £3M.”

So, the market is not pricing 8.5% asset value — it is pricing the probability-weighted net outcome, after debts and risk.

⸻

🔹 Why the poster’s argument is flawed

The poster assumes:

“Market cap of £3M + net debt £12M ≈ implied asset value of £15M.”

That is incorrect, because:

Reason Explanation

Debt is not fully repayable if asset value is low Convertible loans have risk-sharing terms (15% of proceeds) — they don’t automatically add to asset value

Market cap reflects huge uncertainty Legal dispute, default notices, possible loss of asset, arbitration, dilution

Possibility of zero outcome still exists Not high probability, but it drags down valuation

Risk of big dilution If EME must raise cash through placings or settlement restructuring

Timing risk Settlement or arbitration could take years — discounted heavily by market

Survival risk If they lose Mako, EME may become an empty shell with no cash and cannot continue without raising funds

So the market does not assume debt will definitely be covered.

It assigns a probability that debt might get cleared — and a probability that it won’t.

⸻

🔹 Does the market think EME will clear its debt?

Probably something like:

Scenario Probability (approx) Value outcome (for equity holders)

Strong settlement / retained % interest 20–30% Equity worth £10M–£25M

Modest cash settlement (debt cleared, little left) 40–50% Equity worth £2M–£6M

Debt mostly cleared, but little surplus (shell scenario) 15–25% Equity worth £1M–£3M

Near-zero or nothing (worst case) 10–15% Equity worth £0–£1M

So yes — the market is valuing EME’s stake at more than zero, but at a low probability-weighted expected value.

⸻

🔹 Final part of the poster’s question:

“If EME paid all debt and walked away from Mako with nothing but a clean shell, would its market cap be higher or lower than today?”

A debt-free AIM shell typically trades at £2M–£4M, depending on:

• Cash level (ideally £1m+)

• Clean structure

• Number of shares

• Management credibility

So if EME cleared debt but had little or no cash, its market cap would probably be similar or even slightly lower than now.

BUT

If EME cleared

On IG spread is 'only' 7% for 10mil shares.

If they do go for the same deal as Conrad, and keep 2.125% free carry, that wouldn't be so bad. Chatgpt estimates on a very conservative estimate that would equate to £1.6m income per year over the well life, which could be 10+years. Even only £1.6m a year could justify a mcap of around £10m, and based on that free income they could potentially re-negotiate any remaining debt?

It was not possible to sell any meaningful amount at 0.08 on the 18th, believe me I tried. I got an offer at 0.076 at 8am on the dot but it didn’t process because the share price was dropping so fast. The next quote available, still before 08:01 was already down to 0.061. Perhaps on the dead cat bounce at 0.064 was the time to get out what you could.

You can’t beat the MMs when bad news drops, or good news for that matter. Either you’re lucky or clairvoyant & sold/bought the day before, or you’re screwed.

Chatgpt 5.1says

Oil & Gas joint-venture disputes — especially those involving default, farm-downs, or withdrawal of minority partners — are most commonly resolved through commercial negotiation and settlement, before formal arbitration is completed.

⸻

📊 How such disputes are typically resolved

Resolution Method Frequency in practice Notes

Commercial settlement (pre-arbitration) ⭐ Most common Parties negotiate compensation or reduced interest to avoid lengthy and expensive arbitration.

Settlement during arbitration (before award) Very common Arbitration begins, but is paused or discontinued after parties reach a deal.

Full arbitration hearing to final award Less common (but still occurs) Only happens when parties are far apart, or principles/legal rights are strongly contested.

Court litigation Rare Usually avoided due to confidentiality, time, and uncertain jurisdiction.

⸻

⚖️ Why settlements are preferred in Oil & Gas JVs:

Reason Why it matters

Cost of arbitration Arbitration can cost $1M–$5M+ in legal, expert, tribunal fees.

Time delays Arbitration may take 12–24+ months, delaying farm-down and FID.

Commercial urgency Operators want a clean title before they can finalize with buyers or finance partners.

Confidentiality Arbitration awards are often published; settlements can stay fully private.

Relationship risk JV partners often work together again — better to negotiate quietly.

Project financing & government approvals Disputes can delay approvals, gas contracts, and development.

⸻

⚡ Specific to EME–Conrad–Nations situation

There are strong commercial reasons for Conrad/Nations to resolve this quietly rather than through full arbitration:

✔ Nations will need clean title to secure financing, government approvals, and lenders

✔ Arbitration would freeze or complicate the farm-down deal

✔ Indonesian regulators prefer clarity and frown upon messy partner disputes

✔ Conrad itself recently settled with Coro before arbitration completed — a clear precedent

👉 That strengthens the likelihood of EME also receiving a negotiated settlement.

⸻

🔍 Typical settlement forms (based on past cases)

Settlement Type Description

Cash-only compensation Payment based on fair market value of forfeited interest

Reduced retained interest (e.g. 1–3%) Limited production share + compensation for being forced out

Debt clearance + small settlement Creditor debt resolved, minor compensation paid

No reinstatement, but “fair exit payment” Similar to forced buyout at discounted value

⸻

📌 Overall Takeaway

🟢 In the Oil & Gas sector, most JOA/PIC disputes are settled commercially — often before arbitration is finalized.

🔶 Arbitration is frequently used as leverage, but rarely goes all the way to a final award.

🔴 Full removal without compensation is rare, unless there is clear contractual allowance and perfectly executed process.

⸻

Ed,

Why didn't you tell us sooner lol?

Its already near 2022 all time highs, I'd be very scared to get in now.

If you got in in the summer nows the time to take profits, as a poster below wisely advised.

“ It’s almost as if Conrad intentionally created the scenario where Empyrean didn’t pay they so they could try to pull this stunt”

That is exactly my thinking! Eme raised the cash back in the summer to pay them, but its as if Conrad now didn’t want to be paid back for some strange reason now the PSC was signed, hmmm.

But that doesn’t excuse EME for failing to pay in the past since 2023, so both parties are not saints in any way.

Good catch. There is also this clause, so that’s definitely more than the $16m

WNEL is entitled to recover 75% of its agreed historical costs in the PSC after repayment of the CLA

Because they haven’t been through due process. Conrad claim EME breached JOA due to missing cash calls. EME claim they were already in positive talks to resolve that. EME claim Conrad surprised them with the Withdrawal Notice which may be breaching their drag along/tag along rights as the minor partner.

So if they cant come to agreement by themselves they will go to arbitration.

But don't forget the 25% of gas sales that they kept. If EME can negotiate a deal on the same terms, that is worth (conservatively) £1.6m per year to EME for 10 years of well production life. Tiny, but not nothing. Could justify a MCAP of around £10m

Even a crappy deal like CORO should return the sp to near 0.1p hopefully. Even if it drops back after that.