REMINDER: Our user survey closes on Friday, please submit your responses here.
If DEM is right that it’s working days only so we exclude weekends and a few Bank Holidays then I suspect Italy’s 10 days will end at the end of this week. No doubt they will leave it until the last minute if they do object to Rockhopper’s proposal, so the committee may need a couple of weeks after that to review.
I’d be very surprised if we didn’t hear anything by mid July. In the meantime I guess Rockhopper must be preparing their counter-memorial.
37p is a bit silly but clearly some disgruntled sellers want out, and who can blame them?
This looks cheap now so I’ve taken a position, but they really have messed this up given where they were a year ago.
And a damp squib from the government. Both the Conservatives and Labour seem intent on decimating the UK oil & gas industry.
We can only hope the FIG are more sensible.
Italy will no doubt have raised concerns about non-recoupment if they’re successful with their annulment proceedings, as part of their request for the stay to remain in place.
The committee have done the ‘right’ thing by taking Italy’s concerns into account, whilst also seemingly wanting to honour the original judgement and not delay Rockhopper any further.
It was a sensible approach, and probably the best Rockhopper could have hoped for given the circumstances.
It’s possible the committee might lift the stay entirely now that Italy have refused to commit, but I suspect they may just accept Rockhopper’s proposals and lift it with the appropriate conditions to protect Italy (not that they deserve it).
The one outcome I can’t see is the stay being extended.
I would suggest everybody should email Hunt/Shapps/Sunak to explain just how idiotic they are.
I agree LTT. I think it’s fair to say the committee may need a couple of weeks or so to review Rockhopper’s proposals, and perhaps suggest any changes if necessary. But I would expect a decision soon and by the end of this month at the latest.
Not sure if this has been posted but this is an article from Baroness Bennett following her recent visit to the Falkland Islands (hence her questions in parliament I guess):
https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/news/world/the-falkland-islands-a-remote-territory-of-great-climate-importance/
She seems to accept that oil development is inevitable:
“As for oil, well I spend quite a bit of my time pointing out to the UK government that the International Energy Agency (IEA – not known for being a radical green body) says the world cannot afford any new oil and gas fields. But the UK government is opening up new fields around these islands, so Falklanders I met understandably respond to the IEA message by saying that they were only looking to do what the UK is itself doing – and local debate very much links this development to the urgent need for new port facilities in Port Stanley, as well as desire to diversify its budget from fisheries dependence.”
It’s up to ICSID what happens next with Italy’s request for a stay of enforcement. Italy can’t apply to the US. Their 10 day grace period to respond to Rockhopper’s proposal has expired so it’s in the hands of the ICSID committee now.
If the stay is lifted either with or without conditions, then Rockhopper may choose to enforce in the US, or another jurisdiction of their choice. It will then be up to the courts in the chosen jurisdiction to decide but it’s likely they will side with an ICSID ruling. I don’t think the likes of Harbour would get involved in funding these cases if they weren’t confident that awards would be enforced.
Given that the 30 days are up, we now know they are not just working days, so Italy have until the end of this week to respond to Rockhopper’s proposal.
I suspect we should therefore have a decision from the committee by the end of the month at the latest, and Rockhopper will presumably update the market on what they intend to do next at that stage.
I suspect they will want to get the enforcement wheels in motion at the very least, as I’m sure it’s not a swift process. They must be working now on identifying assets in various jurisdictions - the RNS alludes to the fact that it might have to be “multiple legal jurisdictions”.
In terms of costs and warrants, I wonder if Rockhopper might choose to delay the enforcement procedure until after year end (when the warrants need to be exercised by)? Or at least the most costly part which will probably be court fees etc - it might actually take a while to get to that stage anyway.
It would be beneficial for the company and most shareholders if the warrants were exercised now, so I shall do my bit and exercise mine!
Whilst I appreciate that the decision on the stay is unrelated to the merits of Italy’s annulment case, it surely can’t do them any favours ignoring the committee at this stage.
Let’s see what the committee decide to do, but Italy will struggle to oppose Rockhopper’s proposal if they’ve refused to cooperate in the first place. I would anticipate a lifting of the stay in due course, perhaps with some conditions attached depending on what Rockhopper have suggested.
At least it gives a head start on enforcement if that’s the case.
Assuming it’s not just working days, the 30 days to come to an agreement with Italy are now up.
I guess we will get an update next week with the results.
Sea Lion The partnership is currently working across the board to promote the development of the project, including- ? Formulation of the detailed development plan for the project and its other components while in existence Ongoing dialogue with the authorities in Falkland and England. the development plan It is expected to include ingredients that will reduce the scope of carbon dioxide emissions during the establishment and operation of the project. ? Forming the financing plan for the project, which will include, among other things, Bank financing, financing through bond issuance, supplier financing and financing .Oil traders of ? Locating and negotiating in connection with the supply of the production and storage platform (FPSO) for the project and its operation. ? Examining the possibility of introducing another partner to the project before the decision date The final investment (FID.) The partnership intends to act to obtain the final investment decision (FID) for the development of phase A during the year 2024. The gradual realization of a plan The development in phase A is intended to enable the start of production from the oil property (Oil First) During the year 2027, with limited capital investment, while the rest of the development drilling and production will be carried out gradually after the start of production from the oil property. Warning regarding forward-looking information - the aforementioned estimates, including The expected date for receiving a final investment decision (FID), plan structure The development, the scope of the capital investments in the development until the start of production and the deadline The start of production from the oil property is based on general and preliminary estimates only and can have substantial deviations. These estimates constitute observer information Peni Atid, as defined in the Securities Law, based on the partnership's assessments As of this date, there is no certainty that it will be realized and which may be updated As a result of a set of factors related to projects under development. It will be clarified that there is no Certainty that the project will indeed be developed and that the partnership will obtain the necessary funding for it
BrightSpot is borgo22’s username on here.
Oh dear borgo22 is back. Judging by your previous predictions I hope this isn’t a bad omen that you’ve returned.
I suspect Mogger might be referring to Navitas’ Q1 report which is scheduled to be released tomorrow, but I might be wrong.
What I’m saying is you’re stating the obvious.
I wouldn’t have thought anybody would anticipate drilling on Argos’ acreage before 2026. Probably a while after, if at all. It certainly isn’t a priority.
So we’ve gone from “first oil in 2026” to “IMHO, nothing will be happening in the north basin till 2026+” today.
Either Navitas’ plans have been pushed back a couple of years in the past few weeks, or as usual Garbled is talking nonsense.
I wonder exactly what’s being asked of the Treasury.
I have to admit I don’t hold out much hope of the clowns in government being kind to oil & gas development.
Much better in their minds to avoid a bit of screeching from the eco-warriors than make decisions to secure energy security.