Member Info for pauldrayton

Harbour needed to exit because they were working on the Wintershall deal which included key assets in Argentina. They didn’t have time to sell the asset. Navitas’ and RKH’s gain.

Oscar was saying OM outcome after first oil recently.

His agenda is becoming ever clearer.

There are a few funding options (which do include a placing, and also a farm down or a combination of the two) but, none will be decided upon until finance and final costs are clear.

They wanted a FID-ready project to farm down, probably so they are doing it from a position of strength.

With Sea Lion’s breakeven of $25 I suspect it will be in demand even with the Argentina issue in the background.

I think RKH are more likely now to farm down a % of their equity. 35% is quite a chunk of Sea Lion (especially with the significant resource upgrade) and of course the license area is much bigger again.

If they farm down 2.5-5% for a cash sum and at the same time reduce their own funding requirement then they will still hold a very substantial share.

Navitas stated FID in Q4 2024 prior to the accident with Shenandoah and then changed it later in the year to mid 2025.

If I’m wrong please find me a Navitas press release saying Sea Lion FID Q4 2024 after the Shenandoah delay was known.

You’re talking nonsense as usual Chess.

Sea Lion FID is subject to production at Shenandoah. An accident caused a delay and hence the knock-on. Nothing to do with Navitas or GT being refused finance.

Chat GPT seems to think that whilst Poncet is immune from personal proceedings, RKH may be able to claim back full costs (ICSID costs and legal fees):

Possible Strategy for a Company Affected by Arbitrator Misconduct

1. Seek Full Cost Recovery in the Annulment Proceedings

• Present the arbitrator’s misconduct as the core reason for annulment.

• Request full reimbursement of legal fees and ICSID costs.

2. Consider a New Arbitration (if treaty or contract permits)

• After annulment, the underlying dispute may be reheard by a new tribunal.

3. Explore (but do not rely on) External Legal Action

• Theoretically, you could explore national court remedies against the arbitrator or the appointing body, but success is highly unlikely due to immunity doctrines.

It’s ridiculous to suggest that either the funders or insurers wouldn’t have known about Poncet. It was part of their annulment application, of which both funder and insurer would have been fully aware.

Do you really think it’s feasible for RKH to withhold the grounds for annulment submitted by Italy? Of course not, they would have been fully aware but dismissed the issue as irrelevant. I suspect they will all be shocked by this absurd decision.

Thanks icecream. So it sounds as if all parties will want a resubmission. How the costs and potential awards will be divided up is what is likely to be the current discussion, but a resubmission is extremely likely.

In the meantime RKH will claim on the insurance.

I’m no insurance expert either(!) but I would have assumed that the insurance was related to the award and annulment of this case. That case is over now - the insurance company has lost their ‘bet’.

If a new case is submitted with a different tribunal then the insurance no longer applies. The insurance company will just have to write it off as a loss - there is no method of recovery for them.

It’s different for Rockhopper though - they only monetised that award and took insurance out against the annulment of that award. Should they resubmit another case then it’s separate entirely.

Although I haven’t seen the small print.

It will all be being discussed as we speak and I’m certain this won’t be the end of it. Let’s see once we get an update - it’s all pure speculation for now because none of us know the fine details of each agreement.

Original verdict upheld Dai.

You are correct JEBR. Annoyingly the whole process does have to start from scratch with a new tribunal but all the legal work has been done and as you correctly point out, the new rules have stricter timelines than before (which effectively had none).

Seems very sensible to me Marunam. If this is feasible then every little in the short term helps towards financing Sea Lion.

Indeed. I say bring it on! No harm having it whirring away in the background on another ‘no win no fee’ deal. The Italians should not be allowed to get away with this on a corrupt technicality and I suspect the lawyers and funders might agree.

I’m pretty sure Rockhopper only monetised the award, they did not sell legal ownership of it or the case as a whole. It leaves it open for them to resubmit and start again. I know most people are sick of it and are pleased it’s over but with hundreds of millions of euros at stake I just can’t see it being left like this. Anyway, that’s for the future and hopefully the insurance will pay out in the short term.

On a positive note Brent is over $65 again and Navitas are climbing. First oil at Shenandoah must be in touching distance now.

Of course the insurers and their legal team would have been privy to the Italian case before agreeing anything. OIL is on a wind up as usual.

At the point the new funding was agreed and also when the insurance was taken, the Italian case was well known. They (and their legal experts) clearly didn’t think it would be an issue. King & Spalding were responsible rather than Sam, but it’s irrelevant because the issues were known at the stage the new funders and Insurers got involved. It shouldn’t have been an issue - it was a unanimous decision, agreed by all 3 arbitrators. I’m still shocked and angry about it but I suppose we have to move on.

Isobel/Elaine aside, some interesting exploration/appraisal targets in the NSAI report.

Prospective mid case resources (net to RKH):

Highlights:

Beverley 14.6mmbls

Hector 2 11.7mmbls

Hector 3 East 10.1mmbls

Gwendoline 18.6mmbls

Malena 23.3mmbls

S2 12.2mmbls

Zebedee East 15mmbls

Plus lots of others.

“If an award is annulled, the dispute can be resubmitted to a new tribunal.”

This is what I suspect will happen. If litigation funders were willing to bankroll the first case on a no win, no fee basis then why wouldn’t they again?

The complication might be that it’s Rockhopper’s case. They have to be the claimant in the new tribunal - that’s where the discussion with the new funder and lawyers will come in. Not sure how it will work but I’d be very surprised if this was the end of it.

I think WhaleSnails is actually onto something.

It isn’t likely to help in the short term but I suspect this will result in a new tribunal being appointed. The facts of the case have already been ruled on, and there is several hundred million euros at stake. I don’t see how this outcome can be left as is. There will surely be more to come, although I suspect it’s a complex and a discussion needs to be had with the funder.