We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Market-Dealer, good evening to you too.
I have long thought, and posted that SL sanction will most likely happen.
Navitas have put their money where their mouth is, and demonstrated a pleasingly focused commitment to Sea Lion, even at $60bbl.
With regards your flamboyant report of a meeting held in the FI, the important details has not been proven,
either way as yet, so I can't yet judge how accurate it was.
However, most investors can agree that the meeting in the FI was positive , and Navitas, whilst inherently secretive, are also incredibly capable. I'm relaxed about my 500k.
Fecm, it's probably just officialdom corporate speak. We all know FI population, and FiG in general, are supportive to get the oil industry established, as long as the usual environmental safeguards are in place
The important points are words like
'Our team presented the significant progress made...., towards Sea Lion’s Final Investment Decision.'
Music to investors ears :)
To those who went to the Agm and have reported back. Very appreciated !
Any and all bits of information & realistic interpretations, impressions, are always welcome.
Thanks for the link CitizenTZ, very interesting.
Fecm, I think in general, the report was very encouraging. Especially from Gideon Tadmor as per below.
FIG also said
''Chief Executive, Andy Keeling said “The ENTUSIASM and can-do approach of the Navitas Team is very evident, having face to face meetings has been invaluable. (And as we all know anyway) Their COMMITTMENT to Sea Lion and to working closely with FIG has been very demonstrable and we look forward to developing this further''
The chances of Sea Lion being sanctioned is almost certain, it's more a question of when, not if.
'Chairman of Navitas Petroleum, Gideon Tadmor commented: "Our team presented the significant progress made, built on predecessor’s high quality work, towards Sea Lion’s Final Investment Decision. FIG’s collaborative approach and support will enable us to accelerate the development of Sea Lion to the highest practicable technical and environmental standards. Sea Lion is a win-win opportunity'
Not forgetting GClark was it ??
He seemed to have accurate insider knowledge that he was happy to anonymously share at times.
The old link was interesting, though the headline 'bankrupt by Sept 22'' was never a possibility. 'Equity raise by Sept' would have been a better phrase.
I always thought that Navitas JV was very likely, & certainly I feel, the chances of a 10, 20, 30 bagger in the next 5 years is much higher than people are yet to realise.
I agree with you Ovets, and others who have said 2026 would only be possible if SL is sanctioned very soon, that Navitas have many ducks lined up, and all goes to plan.
Realistically 2027 is probably the very earliest. However Rocks SP doesn't depend on seeing first oil, it will take off on sanction and these ****ant penny prices will be looked upon regretfully as 'why didn't I just buy another 50k when I had the chance'.
Then again most of us have a few 9p warrants :)
thanks for the link Ovets, I had not see that one before.
Regarding the discussion of can SL be producing in 2026, well the answer appears yes,
See link, slide about 12minutes in. 'First oil 3.5 years after sanction'.
Did everyone meet in the Falklands last week to finalise sanction?
https://secure.emincote.com/client/rockhopper/agm2022/index.html
Whilst any increase in the SP is welcome, it is peanuts at the moment when one considers just the Sea Lion potential.
35% ownership, 250mmbbls phase 1, >270mmbbls phase 2,
operating costs $45/bbl ?? POO average $77/bbl ? Corp tax 9%, Royalties 26%
35% of 520m x $32 x - taxes = $3.78billion
----and we are valued at $80m !!!
The Bid did indeed jump to 11.4p for the last 2.5minutes, and 3 trades.
(b) should read -
that the Tribunal has manifestly exceeded its powers; ---- It manifestly is within it's powers, it is the reason ICSID exist.
Looking at the possible reasons, I just can not see any of them getting traction.
(a) that the Tribunal was not properly constituted;----- I seriously doubt that experienced ICSID lawyers did not follow the correct process.
(b) that the Tribunal has manifestly exceeded its powers; It manifestly is within it's powers,---- Hardly, it is the reason ICSID exisst.
(c) that there was corruption on the part of a member of the Tribunal; ----- I presume this is solely wrt this case, and whilst not impossible, distinguished lawyers at K&S and ICSID are highly unlikely to kill their lucrative careers over an oil dispute.
(d) that there has been a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure;---- Can't see a 'fundamental' departure, unless Italy think it took too long. This is perhaps their best hope, trying to argue any trivial thing is 'fundamental'.
or
(e) that the award has failed to state the reasons on which it is based.----- Obviously not the case
As had been said before, it seems a delaying tactic, and possibly a bargaining tactic. I a full annulment a < 1% chance, a partial annulment a < 5% chance.
WRT a stay of enforcement, that's less clear but perhaps a full stay 15%, a partial stay 25%
Other guesses are available.
Thanks for sharing that Paul Drayton,
ultimately they either have grounds or don't.
I can't even see how they can find any mud to sling, never mind make any stick !
Below are the reasons to request an annulment. Italy have asked for one, however realistically with a unanimous decision against Italy, it is highly unlikely it will get traction I feel.
So logically it is also unlikley their request for a stay of enforcement will succeed.
I expect in the next week or so, that we will hear request denied, and also an agreement with King and Spalding to fund Rock, for another extra % of the award, or perhaps $5 - $10millions once money has been recovered.
Together with the all party high level meeting with the FIG recently, I'll stick my neck out and say I do not think we will be seeing ROCK's SP in single digits again after March is out.
(1) Either party may request annulment on one or more of the following grounds:
(a) that the Tribunal was not properly constituted;
(b) that the Tribunal has manifestly exceeded its powers;
(c) that there was corruption on the part of a member of
the Tribunal;
(d) that there has been a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure; or
(e) that the award has failed to state the reasons on which it
is based.
Donalb, I stand corrected on Schrodinger's Cat, shrew or indeed elephant.
LTT, I missed the information regarding a UK official being there as well, and that adds to the sense something important was discussed/agreed.
Your speculation 'tax breaks, reduced royalties' is quite possible. Possible sliding scale tax/royalties to PoG, delayed taxation, corporation tax, FIG guarantees on high/low tax limits. Maybe timescales agreed, FIG logistical or political support guarantees.
Probably many other things I can't think of, or maybe just a press the flesh meeting to look at the whites of their eyes before pulling the next phase trigger. Whatever it was, it's most likely a positive sign things are progressing behind the scenes.
Perhaps not exactly the elephant in the room, but in all the distraction about MD/Garbs post, although it has been mentioned before, what we are partially missing is the question,
''Why would Rocks CEO and Navitas's deputy CEO/Sea Lion CEO go all the very very long way to see Falklands Island Government officials''??
Some one said, it's not to see the penguins. I agree.
Logically either something quite important was discussed, or something quite important was agreed.
Good to see the bid did settle above 10pence, first time since November.
There is no logical desperate need to drill this year!
That's a red herring in the HUM Rns I feel.
A small bit of red meat to puff up the dilution reasoning.
However it does give HUM cover to raise a bit more, to perhaps ensure Kou is more than funded to production?
I can see Rock's bid price closing above 10pence today. The news that MD provided, even if it hasn't benn proven to be true, or untrue, plus the expectation that ICSID may soon hopefully rule against Italy again, should help sustain a glacial increase for the time being until hard news arrives.
Hopefully not too long now before a decision is made. I feel the odds are against Italy winning a stay of enforcement.