Member Info for SpaceHoppa

I always found it strange, that ICSID rules allow the winning arbitration party,
to take legal action to recover the award, before all legal avenues had been exhausted.

Perhaps it's an indication that ICSID feel do not lightly award compensation rulings,
and they trust in their judgements.

It may also be a way that puts pressure on the losing party to settle their debts early,
and not muck ICSID around with straw clutching appeals.

Seems the undemocratic so called rules based EU are recommending a big break in International Law wrt the ECT. Do as we say, not as we do, corrupt hypocrits!! So glad we left.
Guess that makes them pariahs. Think its only for future claims so won't affect Rock.
Rules based organisations my F Eckington A rse!

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/02/07/in-u-turn-brussels-recommends-eu-wide-exit-from-controversial-energy-charter-treaty

Unlike the initial Arbitration, this appears to be happening at pace.

January 10, 2023
The ad hoc Committee holds a first session by video conference.

January 24, 2023
Italian Republic files a request to continue the stay of enforcement of the award.

January 31, 2023
The ad hoc Committee issues Procedural Order No. 1 concerning procedural matters.

February 7, 2023
Rockhopper Italia S.p.A., Rockhopper Mediterranean Ltd, and Rockhopper Exploration file observations on the Italian Republic’s request to continue the stay of enforcement of the award.

' a financing package which could allow FID to be taken at Sea Lion during late 2023 or 2024.'

Could be either 23 or 24, depends on Navitas now, and they are very secretive !
PoO still looking good for the years ahead so very much a question of when, not if, FID will happen.

https://twitter.com/CutMyTaxUK/status/1617882952519782406?t=AKqEhPgFlapnmVJSuSYXiQ&s=19

Probably posted before, however it's good to see the nutty tax hike getting some negative coverage.

Flexibility over future capital allocation retained, including for meaningful acquisitions and

'additional shareholder returns over and above our stated $200 million annual dividend.'

Aisc "was" over $2000 per ounce as
The mining fleet was underperforming
The ore mined wasn't particularly HUMs best grades
And so ozs produced were low.
We know HUM are mining their best grades,
so IF the fleet is performing OK, then the ozs produced will be greater and the Aisc "should" be much lower.

" much slower "

Difficult to say Buffit. On face value it seems slower to make a decision.
However the thrush of the paragraphs seem more towards less likely.
Lets hope its the latter !

Also good to read regarding Stays of Enforcement on P16
Since 2017, ad hoc committees have become
much slower to grant stays. They have decided 38
applications, of which six remain unpublished. Out
of the 32 publicly available decisions, 15 applications
were rejected. Conditional stays were granted in seven
cases and unconditional stays were granted in the
remaining ten cases.

The new, more restrictive trend may be explained by
the fact that certain States now seek annulment and
stay of enforcement as a matter of course and are
finding it increasingly difficult to meet the unchanged
high legal threshold for a stay.

Thanks for the link PaulDrayton

''if they go down this route, they are by default agreeing that they have to pay something''

Perhaps LTT, however is it possible they have requested a stay, on more than one aspect, at the same time?
Like all things Rock, it takes a while to get anywhere. Happily I expect Navitas are quietly working towards FID in the background.

Swings and roundabouts. At the moment not paying the award is be financially beneficial to the RoI as inflation is higher than the interest on the award.

However for Rock, they couldn't get 7% interest if they had the money in the bank ! So beneficially in a way for Rock.

Clearly for shareholders the certainty of getting the money in Rocks account, is the most beneficial result we could have.

That is actually a very good observation BushyTail !
I just checked over the last two years and HUM did indicate they would miss guidance before the year was out.
They haven't done that this time, which ''suggests'', they have managed to hit guidance.
So Q4 may be 27,500 oz or more.

Always good to see a fellow Hopper on the forums :-)
Dugbe might be worth a decent packet, if Stalker can sell it.
Kou should on paper be a money spinner,
however so should Yanifolia, and we know how the mining fleet management messed that up.
2023 should be a much better year, but I am not yet convinced.
The huge question is how much better is Q4, over Q3??

Hmmmm. who to believe, Navitas with a proven ability to develop and fund large scale oil fields, who are already spending $millions on Sea Lion, and who will

1. provide loan funding to Rockhopper:
2. Pay Rockhopper's share of Sea Lion phase one related costs up to FID through a loan with interest charged at 8% per annum
3. Subject to FID, provide an interest free loan to Rockhopper to fund two-thirds of Rockhopper's share of Sea Lion

or some green needledick with zero credibility on the Rock forum??? Its a tough one !

As mentioned before, Navitas signed HOT's back in January 2020, and oil was approx $60/bbl.
I think they see the bigger longer term picture wrt oil price and the FI oil province in general.

Hello JHI. Proposed Sale of North Falkland Basin Interests to JHI Associates Inc. Argos look like they will be absorbed by another company, sadly not anyone with any financial muscle, but more than Argos!
As of 31 December 2021, JHI's audited financial statements indicate total gross assets of approximately US$30.7 million, of which approximately US$27 million in cash. Shows there is interest in the FI basin though.

Agree, a few people who don't like the ruling discussing why they don't like the ruling. Zero balance.

Trying to accurately estimate ICSID time frames is difficult, however we can logically make a reasonable assumption that ICSID are not likely to look favourably on the ROI rightful, but frankly timewasting attempt to annul the award.

It is equally unlikely I feel, that the award enforcement proceeding will be postponed by ICSID given the unanimous and quite definitive ruling against the ROI's breach of ECT rules.

I also feel that if allowed, then the lawyers, who are now looking to recover 20%/$50m of the award, will be keen to instigate enforcement proceedings immediately the green light is issued.

It should be noted that given the recovery now includes 20% for the Harbour/lawyers, then they should be paying 20% of the legal costs towards this end.

Perhaps of interest to some, legal costs for Rock/King and Spalding

The Claimants’ total for legal fees and expenses (leaving to one side claims for sums paid to
ICSID) is, therefore, GBP 4,339,328.37 and EUR 39,001.36.

Quite damning for Italy.
'' The Claimants went, in one fell swoop, from a position where they HAD RIGHTS to a valuable
production concession which would actually lead, under Italian law, to such production
concession, to essentially NOTHING at all.

No lengthy elaboration is required to arrive at this
conclusion. There was, factually speaking, an immediate and complete deprivation of the
Claimants’ investment. There were no indirect actions, whether described as creeping or
otherwise, cumulatively leading to such deprivation, but rather a SPECIFIC ACT on the part of
the Respondent which brought about this circumstance on 29 January 2016. ''

Skim reading, and thank you Mogger for posting, it's hard to see anything in there that gives any hope for Italy to be granted an annulment, or a stay of the enforcement proceedings.