Member Info for SpaceHoppa

The moronic COP 26 summit, to agree to beggar the west whilst China and Russia
continue on churning out CO2,
continuing to undercut the west with cheaper power,
and cheaper exploited labour,
will have no impact on when ICSID announce their decision.

What is a concern, growing daily, is why ICSID have yet to throw out the latest Italian/EU bu*LL****e attempt to avoid the consequences of inviting $millions of investment money to Italy,
only to then change the playing field and saying feck off suckers!

I can sympathise with wanting top management change, however I am not sure yet that would benefit Pure.
Also whoever you bring in would likely be like most Directors, greedy trough feeders.
Pure directors are rightly tainted with their actions, particularly insider selling en masse when they must have known they needed more funds and H1 numbers were disappointing!

All that said, they have 'on paper' at least, the knowledge and experience to make Pure a raging success story.

Hello Diadulus. Good to hear you bought at the low of 50pence. I took a few in the 50p's too on the way down to bring my average lower and round off my ownership to 100,000. That is me finished buying though, and I am here for the longer haul as things stand. I do not see Pure as a takeover target atm, but often these come out of the blue.

Pure management have not covered themselves in glory, and I agree they seemed too desperate to push forward but at the cost of unnecessary dilution. It may be they had to dilute anyway as H1 performance was perhaps more disappointing that anticipated.

As said, directors integrity and collective ability is in question for me, however I like the asset more than my concern for their credibility, and given their collective experience and deeper knowledge of the company, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt for now.

H2 should be far better in terms of gold produced than H1 as per RNS
''As production transitions to higher grade stopes in Q3 and Q4, head grades are expected to continue to improve for the balance of the year along with increasing throughput.''

However we have been warned that owing to the capital costs headline AISC will not look good as per RNS
''Cash Costs1 for the fourth quarter, the first full quarter of commercial production, are expected to be in the range of US$1,025 - $1,125 per ounce. AISC1 for the fourth quarter is expected to be in the range of US$1,600 - $1,750 per ounce. Looking forward into 2022, production is expected to increase and Cash Costs and AISC are expected to fall significantly driven by higher grades and throughput coupled with decreased investment in capital development and other sustaining capital programs. ''

There is much to look forward too, but it might take another 6 to 18 month perhaps, before we get above £1 again.

Nobody doubts the possible impact of the 8 zone, or it's potential,
however what I dislike is the company over ramping itself, directors selling en masse
and then after declaring commercial production, they flog off more of the company /diluting shareholders,
rather than getting a loan for $20million!

The asset is beyond doubt, but management's ability and especially their integrity is not.

That might be a fair explanation Ovets, however as Pauldrayton initially pointed out,
it only took ICSID just two days to reject the last spurious jurisdiction claim as below.

June 24, 2019 The Claimants file observations on the Respondent’s request of June 18, 2019.
June 26, 2019 The Tribunal issues a decision on jurisdiction and on the Respondent’s request of June 18, 2019.

The odds are in our favour that the OM award will be/is won,
and the pay out will be ok to good, $40m to perhaps $200m.
Meaning somewhere between $20m to $130m for Rock.
It is of concern and annoyance though, that it has been a week now since the submissions regarding jurisdiction.
I was expecting the biased/bent EU judges comments to be quickly dismissed as the irrelevance that they should be.

NM

Starting to tick up again.
A decent Q3 report and we'll be off properly I hope.

Well credit where credits due, they're doing a first class job of not looking interested!

Thanks for the reply TDDW.
I see it simply as a seller, HBR, trying to get something/anythng for an asset-Sea Lion, to a possibly buyer-Navitas.
Rock in this instance don't get a look in, but I assume Navitas would have to take on all the responsibilities and commitments that PMO/HBR made to RKH.
I was just a thought and not a suggestion anything like that will happen.

Just thinking out aloud here, as I am unsure if this is a possibility.
I appreciate Sea Lion is a big investment, & Rock has no cash to help a partner develop SL,
but what is the possibility of Navitas taking over /buying /being gifted, for a small royalty etc, all of Harbours SL rights??
I appreciate FIG may need to approve, but if Navitas can organise the cash, then that would be a massive opportunity for them if they have the balls and the means.

CHEATED.
I wished you well as you said you had sold out. 'Much better shares out there you said'
You have no shares. Your input here is tainted, your opinion is tainted, you are tainted.
Nobody gives a monkeys about an ex shareholder who is de-ramping after they sold out at the bottom.
P1 s5 off !

It took two working days for ICSID to dismiss the jurisdiction claims last time.
I would say the current claim has to consider the new spurious material from the bent EU judges comments,
however we could or should hear from them at any point now, if past speed is anything to go on.

June 24, 2019 The Claimants file observations on the Respondent’s request of June 18, 2019.
June 26, 2019 The Tribunal issues a decision on jurisdiction and on the Respondent’s request of June 18, 2019.

This old dog still have weak beating heart.
Just needs a decent OM injection.
And some tender Navitas
and she'll be up chasing sea lions again.

''The game is up here I am afraid.''

I must have missed the RNS were Navitas have walked !
The game certainly is not up, however to be fair the same hurdles are still in place.
Getting a partner with the desire and financial clout to develop SL has always been a problem.
Plus time is not on Rocks side.

All that said, a significant OM payment and a deal with Navitas who, unlike PMO, seem to get things done, added to oil above $80, and things could change around rapidly. The fat lady has not started to sing yet, but she is in the lobby.

Rock have the licence for another year and FIG can hardly ditch Rock, with all it's $100m's of paid for IP data,
and have a snowflakes chance in hell, of getting a replacement company in to develop SL !

Pauldraytons post about the very swift time of two days!! between submission for jurisdiction ruling,
to rejecting Italy's claim is very encouraging, so OM award could well be as early as next week.

Unlike other companies, like Cairn for example, Rock do not have the luxury of time to get paid from any award,
so I would be gobsmacked if Moody has not spoken with our lawyers to look for ways to get payment as swift as possible.
That could include pre award settlement, selling of the debt to our lawyers, immediate legal action to seize Italian Government assets.

The forums posts have by and large been very 'real', and quite informative.
Most can see that Italy are trying to delay and scupper the ICSID 'award', obviously not because they have won.
Most can see that the award is reasonably likely to be declared soon.
Most can see Rock could be awarded $20m, $50m, $100m, $200m.
Most can see Italy are likely to be reluctant to cough up the cash without being forced to.
Most know Rock as it stands, is in the last chance saloon with an OM award being vital
and Navitas being on board is central to Sea Lion development.

Frustratingly it is now just a matter of waiting for an ICSID decision and I think news this month is reasonably likely.

As long as Rock had the rightful expectation as given by Italy,
that all their work would proceed to a production licence provided set conditions were met,
then they have done due diligence.

You can not have the payment to Rock halved just because Government policy may or may not, change at some point in the future.
Asking for all future production profits might be a stretch to ask, however if that is what the ECT says, then possibly ROCK will get $300M +

Interpretation of the ECT
The tribunal proffers its own affirmative interpretation of Article 26 ECT. Of note: Its reliance on Article 16 ECT, which states that no prior or subsequent international agreements between two or more parties to the ECT shall be construed to derogate from, among other provisions, Article 26 ECT. Article 16 ECT is identified by the arbitrators as “a simpler and clearer route to the answer to the jurisdictional challenge”.

Responsibility for defining the scope of the obligations established by the ECT lays with the treaty drafters, finds the tribunal: “It would have been a simple matter to draft the ECT so that Article 26 does not apply to disputes between an Investor of one EU Member State and another EU Member State as respondents. That was not done”. Additionally, the arbitrators do not recognise a conflict between Article 26 ECT and Articles 267 and 344 TFEU, but remark that even when applying a variety of conflict rules – lex posterior, modification of the ECT or lex specialis ­– EU law would not prevail over the ECT.

While mindful of potential enforcement obstacles, the tribunal – “equally conscious of its duty to perform its mandate granted under the ECT” – does not consider such obstacles relevant for the jurisdictional issue.

Comment and conclusion
The Vattenfall tribunal’s meticulous jurisdictional decision will surely serve as a blueprint for tribunals still grappling with the intra-EU question in ECT cases. Juxtaposing the Achmea judgment, the Commission’s recent comments and now the Vattenfall jurisdictional decision only highlights the starkly different vantage points – EU law alongside public international law alongside private interests – that are in play when it comes to intra-EU investment arbitration. Although the Vattenfall decision solidifies international tribunals’ approach to the matter, the overall issue remains in flux: The CJEU may soon be called upon to express its view on the relationship between ECT and EU law.

https://www.linklaters.com/en/insights/blogs/arbitrationlinks/2018/september/vattenfall-tribunal-maintains-jurisdiction-over-intra-eu-energy-charter-treaty-claim-against-germany

The more I read this, the more I like it.
Surely a partisan, out of remit, comment by biased EU 'judges' will be given short shrift by ISCID who clearly uphold the ECT as a higher international authority.

The Vattenfall tribunal’s decision also takes into account observations filed by the European Commission in the arbitration as a non-disputing party.

Timeliness of the objection and ex officio assessment of the intra-EU question
Despite Vattenfall arguing that Germany could not raise the objection because it had not relied on the intra-EU objection earlier, the tribunal finds that the objection was timely, as the “very existence” of the CJEU’s judgment amounted to a new fact. The tribunal further emphasises its authority to consider any issues relating to its jurisdiction on an ex officio basis under the ICSID Rules, remarking that it would have seen fit to consider the intra-EU issue even if Germany had not raised the objection. This stands in stark contrast to a recent decision by an ICSID Tribunal in Gavrilovic v Republic of Croatia (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/39) under the Austria-Croatia BIT, where the tribunal both dismissed Croatia’s intra-EU objection following Achmea for being late and refrained from an ex officio review of the issue.

Applicable law to the jurisdiction of the tribunal
The Vattenfall tribunal thoroughly assesses ­– and ultimately rejects – the significance of EU law for its jurisdiction, based on a public international law analysis and strong reliance on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (“VCLT”). It identifies the dispute resolution provision of the ECT, Article 26, as the legal basis for its jurisdiction. While the tribunal acknowledges that the EU treaties form part of international law, it does not see EU law as “principles of international law which may be used to derive meaning from Article 26 ECT, since [EU law] is not general law applicable as such to the interpretation and application of the arbitration clause in another treaty such as the ECT”. It finds no room within Article 31 VCLT to draw from EU treaties (and thus indirectly from the Achmea decision) to interpret another treaty, the ECT.

The tribunal is particularly concerned about the potential of different interpretations of the same ECT provisions if EU law was utilised in interpreting the multilateral treaty. This would result in an “incoherent and anomalous result” that would be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the ECT. Instead, “terms of that treaty have a single consistent meaning”. Article 31(3)(c) of the VCLT, which states that any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties should be taken into account when interpreting a treaty could not be relied on to “rewrite the treaty being interpreted”.