Member Info for Mitriti

Tally ho brother😅

It’s taking longer than I first expected given EME’s “coming weeks” wording. But if Conrad could have hard-enforced the notice cleanly, you’d usually expect a quicker, firmer follow-through. Being ~2.5 months on now with radio silence fits better with settlement drafting, approvals and stakeholder alignment behind the scenes, especially with the project still moving. Late Jan into early Feb still looks like the natural window to clear the cloud and deliver clean title for all parties. If nothing lands by mid-Feb, the risk of harder legal posturing rises, but an injunction would be a project-killer, so it’s typically leverage rather than the end goal and a path everyone has an incentive to avoid.

Assuming it goes materially higher than 0.1 with good news, to answer your question Africanskies

GLA🤞

Hello Africanskies, if there is a resolution, the structure will matter more than the headline. A simple cash-only deal might give a pop, but a more complex settlement (carry / retained interest / contingent upside) is the real sweet spot and usually takes longer to document.

I am optimistic, otherwise I wouldn’t be a holder , but negative outcomes can never be fully excluded. I consider that risk small, but it does exist.

Near term, a spike is possible on any positive RNS, but how high it goes depends entirely on the detail. I’m not fixing a number in advance.

If nothing lands by mid-February, the dynamic likely shifts toward escalation, which is a different (and more volatile) pathway altogether.

For me, the SP only really moves on news, not on hope or day-to-day tape.

It’s binary on news: no news = drift/noise, good news = re-rating. Hoping for good news soon 🤞

Nothing happens — until everything happens

Looks like weak hands flipping the spike / MM noise while patient holders keep topping up.

Nothing really changes intraday without an RNS The real move is binary and comes with news.

Until then it’ll likely stay choppy in this range.

Several Indonesian media outlets: Katadata, Suara and Mureks are now presenting Duyung/Mako as a strategic project that’s moving ahead, with Arsari/Nations fully committed on funding and ownership.

That local framing leaves very little room for prolonged uncertainty around title or unresolved minority issues.

Cash isn’t EME’s only lever, injunctive relief remains a real option, and with Q1 milestones and funding in play, time arguably works against Conrad rather than EME.

Agreed on the farm-down point ... the capex/default argument is clearly outdated.

I’d just add that disputes don’t necessarily imply weak outcomes..the need for clean title often drives hybrid solutions rather than simple cash exits.

It’s an older, no-settlement bear case that no longer reflects where the situation is today...

Agreed Blakie, if anything is announced, EME would logically need to update first. Possibly both at the same time if it’s a settlement.

With all the noise stripped away, Thursday now remains the most practical and statistically likely day for a complex settlement RNS on AIM/LSE imo.

For me, the key focus isn’t day-to-day price action (which is largely meaningless in an illiquid stock), but deal structure:

– Conrad still requires clean title

– Nations funding is incompatible with unresolved JV disputes

– Forced withdrawal has neither been completed nor legally tested

That leaves only two realistic endgames: escalation (which is unattractive for all parties), or a structural settlement, most likely hybrid rather than cash-only.

If news comes, I’ll be reading for retained economic exposure, carry/no cash calls, and full & final resolution... not headline percentages.

If there’s no RNS this week, that’s a timing issue, not a thesis break.

Waiting for facts.

Agreed Stephen... interesting days/weeks ahead of us :)

You're welcome Stephen.

At this stage I struggle to see why EME would materially concede. Forced withdrawal hasn’t been enforced, no arbitration has been initiated, and timing pressure now clearly sits with Conrad given the clean title requirements ahead of Nations/FID.

EME isn’t financially stressed and doesn’t need to rush. Even the threat of escalation or an injunction at this phase would be highly disruptive, which materially shifts leverage away from Conrad.

In that context, a weak or heavily discounted outcome feels illogical. If a strong deal with retained economic exposure is agreed, I think the initial upside move could be underestimated rather than overstated.

Even around 0.5p would still largely reflect contract/settlement value, not full project value....Unless EME capitulates...and it’s hard to see why they should... a more constructive outcome seems the rational path. GLA

For context, CORO settled with Conrad rather than pursue arbitration, but on weak terms with no meaningful retained interest, which capped any upside. The share price saw a short-term relief spike of around 2–3× on the settlement RNS, followed by no sustained re-rating. That outcome isn’t directly comparable to EME, whose position and deal leverage are materially stronger.

Hi Stephen,

CORO ultimately settled its dispute with Conrad rather than pursue arbitration. While the outcome was generally viewed as unattractive for CORO, the key takeaway was the precedent: once development timelines, funding and third-party partners were in place, these disputes moved toward settlement rather than prolonged litigation.

It’s also worth noting that Conrad followed a very similar playbook then, applying pressure via withdrawal mechanics as development momentum increased. That approach didn’t materially strengthen Conrad’s position in the end, and arguably doesn’t help their case now either — particularly under English law, where good faith and proportionality in JOA enforcement carry weight.

CORO was in a weaker financial and strategic position at the time, with limited leverage. EME, by contrast, has an executed GSA, a funded development pathway via Nations, and greater leverage on timing. For those reasons, many expect a negotiated outcome here as well, but on materially better terms than CORO achieved.

Cheers.

Hello Africanskies

Fair questions, and you’re not alone in finding this confusing, these situations are rarely straightforward.

WNEL can’t simply “walk away” and leave EME with nothing. The proposed withdrawal is exactly that ... proposed. EME has formally rejected it and responded strongly, which is why this hasn’t progressed. Under a JOA, removing a minority partner’s WI isn’t something you can just do unilaterally, especially where there’s an active dispute.

That’s really where EME’s leverage comes from. Time and certainty matter, but so does legal position. EME has a credible case that the forced withdrawal attempt could be seen as bad faith under English law, and English courts/arbitration panels don’t look kindly on that. There’s also precedent (CORO), but EME’s position is materially stronger than CORO’s was at the time.

Arbitration is something neither side wants. It’s slow, expensive and the outcome is uncertain – and importantly, it risks costing Conrad/WNEL more than a negotiated settlement. That’s why this is far more likely to be resolved commercially.

The small cash calls and loan notes get mentioned a lot, but in the context of a project of this scale they’re not decisive. They don’t justify stripping a partner of its interest.

Net result: EME has more leverage here than many assume, both legally and commercially. We’ll only know the exact shape once it’s announced, but it’s very unlikely to be a simple “walk away with nothing” outcome.

Hope that helps.

I don’t think anyone is arguing EME magically gets a better deal than Conrad. The point is different economics. EME’s position is being resolved within the CLA framework, not as a clean reset. Carry, retained WI and timing to first gas can coexist depending on structure. Conrad’s deal sets the benchmark, but it doesn’t automatically cap EME at a simple % comparison.

Have a nice weekend Pied.

Those payments are already built into the CLA economics and repaid at project level from cash flow. They don’t change EME being carried to first gas or its retained working interest. The market is pricing NPV and ongoing economic exposure, not headline cash. Indeed let’s see what they actually announce. Have a nice weekend!

You’re still framing this as a straight cash sale, which misses the point. A re-rating to 0.4p doesn’t require EME to receive $45m upfront for its 8.5%. The market isn’t pricing a disposal, it’s pricing retained economic exposure: carried interest to first gas under the CLA, future production cash flow, and optionality on PSC extension and upside. That’s NPV, not headline cash. Conrad’s own presentation confirms EME has carry and consent leverage, while Nations require clean title before FID. That shifts negotiating power. We’ll see what the RNS actually says.