Member Info for Mitriti

Good... a few things really stand out for me…

The dispute-resolution process is still active and ongoing… and Empyrean explicitly states that no remedies such as the Forced Withdrawal can be exercised under the JOA while that process is in play. That alone kills any idea that Conrad has “already removed” EME. Legally, they can’t.

What’s even more interesting is that EME confirms real progress had been made and that an in-principle verbal understanding on the disputed amounts had already been reached before Conrad suddenly issued the Notice. That tells me settlement was already on the table. FW looks more like a pressure tactic than a genuine legal position.

Add to that the Nations farm-out… which absolutely requires clean title and government approvals. None of that can move forward while a partner dispute is unresolved.

This is very bullish to me

Agreed, I originally expected news before Christmas… but with the current silence, early January now feels more realistic, maybe the second half if they’re still finalising things. Early February would be the outer edge of the timeline, where pressure on Conrad really starts to build and the legal route becomes more likely.

I don’t mind if this turns into a mid-term hold… because if a proper settlement lands, it’s jackpot time.

In the end it stays guesswork for us… they already know exactly where this is heading.

Nothing much to tell… it’s waiting for news. In between 0.03 and 0.055 is just noise.

Roger copy

Over

To clarify one point: the £16m figure was only the upfront component of Conrad’s transaction, not the total value of their 75% WI. The deal includes substantial contingent payments and full development carry, so you can’t pro-rate WI value from the £16m upfront.

Settlement isn’t based on Conrad’s upfront either, it must compensate for EME’s 8.5% WI, future cashflows, FW process issues and the need for clean title before Nations can proceed. That’s why a figure materially higher than £6m is normally required to avoid arbitration.

So the 0.12–0.35p range reflects a very low input scenario, not the realistic one imo

Even 0.12–0.30p is very conservative. EME holds the key leverage for a premium settlement at this stage.

Bargains🙂

Strategic theatre to see if EME blinks but the real pressure stays on them. Legally nothing changes..only our timeline shifts a little, that's all.

Hello Pied, I get what you’re saying, and your questions were fair but a couple of things often get misunderstood in these situations...

Even if the dispute drags out ,EME doesn’t control the pace. Under English-law JOAs, the operator has to resolve the status of a disputed partner before progressing major commercial steps. If they push ahead regardless, it actually increases their liability, not EME’s.

And yes, the loan note interest is real but that’s exactly why these disputes almost never turn into year-long slogs. As mentioned multiple times arbitration is expensive for both sides and Conrad/Nations have far more to lose if this turns into a drawn-out, bad-faith process.

The onus isn’t on EME to sort it out

It’s on Conrad to avoid turning a contractual dispute into a full-blown damages claim.

It is under English contract law.. that part isn’t guesswork.

And without completing the dispute process, a Forced Withdrawal can’t take effect under any English-law JOA. So yes, details matter…

…but EME stays a legal partner until the dispute is resolved or setttled.

That narrative is simply what Conrad wants the market to believe, but it is legally incorrect. The dispute is not a simple JV issue. Under the PSC and Indonesian petroleum law, no operator can remove a partner without due process, validation and dispute resolution. A Forced Withdrawal notice has no legal effect unless confirmed through the formal JOA dispute mechanism. Until that happens, Empyrean retains full PI rights, and Conrad cannot lawfully complete FID, PSC closing or transfer interests without resolving EME’s position.

The project may progress technically, but the ownership cannot progress until settlement or a formal decision. Conrad’s “business as usual” narrative is PR, not legal reality!

File an injunction and that would freeze the whole Mako project completely.

Quite revealing 🙂

Indeed, an injunction would basically freeze Mako completely... no work, no spending, no progress...And heading into year-end audits and reporting, that’s the last thing Conrad can afford.

If anything, this level of pressure actually increases the chances of a reasonable settlement in December💪

And the clock continues ticking… IMO Conrad can’t take this into Q1. Audits, reporting and shareholder scrutiny would turn it into a nightmare for them. Arbitration is costly and risky on their side.

A year-end settlement just makes the most sense🎄

GLA

EME’s leverage is growing by the day now. Arbitration is the hammer, Mako’s deadline is the fuse, and Nations/Conrad can’t move an inch without cleaning up our 8.5%.

That’s why this doesn’t drift toward a bargain deal in my opinion, it pushes towards a premium settlement, whether they like it or not.

We’ll see soon enough....Patience and time my friend;) Markets price outcomes, not emotions.

Hello Pied… the point is being missed. The current market cap isn’t an “implied valuation” of the 8.5%. It’s the market pricing in uncertainty, debt overhang, dillution risk and the small chance of a bad outcome. Microcaps in dispute don’t trade on asset value… they trade on fear. If the market genuinely believed the 8.5% was clean and worth £12–15m, the price wouldn’t be 0.03–0.04p obvious as day. As for the shell question… a debt-free AIM shell usually trades around £2–4m depending on cash, so clearing debt and walking away with nothing else wouldn’t magically lift the cap. But that scenario isn’t even what’s on the table. The real value only shows once the dispute is resolved and we know what EME gets… cash… a reduced WI… or a structured interest. Until then the market prices worst-case risk, not intrinsic value.

Yes it can multibag...not because anyone is pumping it,just because the market is valuing EME’s 8.5% at literally zero. That’s not how English law or the JOA works.

A forced withdrawal for nil won’t stand.

And once you accept that EME will get something, even the low-end outcomes are multiples above this price.

The upside is wide open... the “zero” scenario is the one that’s unrealistic.

DYOR.

It’s difficult to pin a single number on it Stella because the final value really depends on how the settlement is structured. The key point is that it’s based on PSC economics, not the current share price, and the debt usually gets handled inside the agreement. The market will only rerate once the terms are clear. I’m not here to throw around wild numbers, just giving my view on how the process actually works… let’s see what the next RNS brings.. GLA