Member Info for Ovets

My understanding is that the FI can't rely on squid, etc., as climate change is making them migrate to cooler waters, so they won't be in FI waters indefinitely.
If FIG want even more income than now, then oil (and perhaps gas later on) is the only answer.
HMG probably can't/won't continue to cover the cost of defending the FI indefinitely, so oil/gas will have to pay the bills, unless the UK eventually gives up and leaves the FI to the wolves (Argentina), who would probably start digging for oil & gas even before the UK's boats had disappeared over the horizon.

A more modest approach would stand a far better chance of success, which might fund any more grandiose plans if World demand justifies them.

I have no experience of oil production, so those who do, by all means heckle.
In view of current circumstances regarding World oil/gas supply & demand, one's head might be turned by current oil & gas prices, be too greedy with the initial system design, only to find that one is implementing a ginormous and very expensive system, just as demand drops away and prices fall.
Of course, demand may increase and prices rise further, but the last 5 years, or so, should have taught everyone lessons about the unexpected and how quickly that can happen.

Anyway, the current demand looks reasonably stable, assuming we don't have that monumental Market crash that some are forecasting.
In that case, a more modest start would stand a far greater chance of being funded and being implemented more quickly, producing quality oil and generating good (if not astronomical) revenue to pay-off the various costs that currently spook everyone and then generate good profit to be able either to pocket those profits, or develop the NFB and perhaps even the SFB, if World demand remains bouyant.

If this can get off the ground, I see it being potentially far more sensible than the growing, grandiose plans PMO seemed to have, which may have caused HBR to think that this wasn't for them.

One other thought, following Sam's presentation: Apparently HBR announced their SL decision during a conference call. Don't you find that a bit weird? Shouldn't such an important announcement have been made to RKH BoD in a more professional way? Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but it sounds a bit strange to me: "Oh, by the way Sam, we've decided not to bother with Sea Lion - sorry about that old chap, but it's not the strategic opportunity we had thought it was"!!

Tend to agree LTT!
I wonder if the Italians have been given an idea of the magnitude of the award, otherwise, why waste time on it, unless it's to wear everyone down?

Cyan: "The ICSD have given our lawyers VERY little time to respond. Suggests to me the ICSD have pretty much made up their minds ".
Agreed - I suspect they may have had an off-the-record chat and the RKH lawyers' response is more of a formality for the record.
The June 2019 ruling was the end of a process entered into and accepted by the Italians, so they would appear to be clutching at straws here.
As I posted earlier, I reckon this is more about political posturing than believing they have a realistic prospect af achieving anything.

However, to remind those of you who were saying that the Tribunal said they would announce the award by the end of July, clearly they didn't.
It's just this sort of legal shenanigans that keeps lawyers rich and drags-out the legal process, especially if you're dealing with the Italians.

However, I think I smell a result before too long.

Absolutely!
There has already been a ruling on this in June 2019, when the UK was still an EU member, which the Italian State accepted.

Now we're out of the EU, the recent ECJ ruling counts for even less, in this case.
I agree that the RKH claim provides ICSID with a very convenient moment to clarify this.

Can we chat about something else now?

Another point to consider is that if the Italian State just gave-in and pays up without a fight, that would be used against the current administration in the next election, so they cannot be seen not to have done everything to avoid the inevitable.

If you consider the confusion and misinformation on this BB about the process, then apply exactly the same confusion and misinformation to the Italian electorate, who would remember that their administration just gave in to a bunch of Slimey Limeys and aid them loads of money for nothing.

From a procedural point of view, the Italian State appeal probably has to be acknowledged and addressed, to show that the Tribunal is in no way biased in its ruling.

I don't see it that way at all.
If you were the Italian State, you'd have at least one last go to scupper any award ruling against you, or at least delay the inevitable.
I see this as strong evidence that a substantial award is to be made in RKH's favour, otherwise, why bother?

As far as I can see, they're going to fail on this one, as a ruling on this very point (when the UK was still in the EU) was given in 2019.
The latest ECJ ruling was made after the UK had left the EU, so I don't think the Italian State has much of a leg to stand on, except to waste more time (while RKH continues to burn money) and delay the inevitable.

In my

P.S. I was referring to the RNSs, dated 2/7/21 & 3/8/21, not earlier announcements, as these are the most recent, so presumably the most meaningful.

One thing I'm not going to do is try and guess what any delay indicates. Could be anything.

Look folks, no good arguing with me what was meant.
All I can do is repeat the RNS words, which was NOT that the award (or otherwise) would be announced by the end of July.

By all means interpret what was said/written in whatever way you wish, but you need to read the words in the RNS announcements, which wasn't what most here seem to think.

No, we weren't promised the results by the end of July.
What was said was that the tribunal would be in a position to complete its work, which is VERY different.

If you sh*t on your shareholders, that can have very serious repercussions.

One would assume that we're all trying to achieve more-or-less the same outcome aren't we?

Be careful Mr Lough, as you could come to regret this sort of behaviour

No, the result wasn't expected to be announced in July.

The RNS announcements were:
2/7/21 "The Tribunal has made significant progress and confirms that it should be in a position to complete its work in the course of July."
3/8/21 Further to the Company's announcement of 2 July 2021 in which Rockhopper reported that the Tribunal had informed the Company that it expected to complete its work in July, the Company can confirm it has yet to receive news of the outcome of the process.

"Completing its work" ISN'T the same as making the announcement. However, I think we deserve an update.

I reckon you're right - it wouldn't look good.

I'm certainly not that optimistic about the prospects for UKEF, but as COP26 approaches, I've been listening very closely to what Government spokespeople have been saying, including Boris.
They have all been very consistent in referring to the need to stop using coal, but absolutely NO equivalent reference for oil, or gas.

LTT, think you may have eaten (smoked?) too many mushrooms, but the points you make ought to be put to Sam & Co. for them to comment on Thursday, as there's some very interesting/good thinking there.

Because of COVID, I'd be amazed if they don't already have remote online meeting facilities, so it should cost them nothing and they wouldn't even have to provide tea and biscuits!

While it may not be possible to force RKH to provide an electronic link to the meeting/presentation, in view of the pretty dire situation and that most, if not all shareholders probably want more-or-less the same outcome as the Board, you'd think they'd provide an electronic link (e.g. Zoom, or MS Teams) without having to be asked.

If I were in their position, I'd want to reassure and hear from as many shareholders as possible, especially those who really want the company to survive and succeed.

If it proves too much for them to offer, then that will tell us a great deal.

I would agree, LTT, not the moment to chuck the BoD out (just yet!), but to ask good questions, which ought to be sent in advance of the meeting, so that good answers (hopefully honest) can be provided.

After Sam's AGM presentation on 29/6/21, I posted the following: "I have to say that Sam's AGM presentation sounded more like a sales pitch to me".
Even then it sounded very much as though he could sense (perhaps even knew) which way things were going to go with HBR.

If so, he's had quite a bit of time to get some decent plans together, with a good story to tell.
Even if he didn't anticipate what's just happened, the BoD should still have been planning for everything/anything, considering all the false starts SL has experienced.

So, on 30/9/21, I would like to know what those plans are and how things are progressing.

USA is the chosen enforcement jurisdiction for this claim.