Member Info for Warrie

OWB,

Last time I looked in to read the posts you stated you were out and sad for investors, you also said it would be your last post.

Bit of a shyster aren't you.

CazAML

Your the expert, I guess we should all take your advice.

The S.P. has taken a battering and yet there are still people trying to influence the price down further, maybe close your shorts or buy in the dips.

Nairda1972

Filtered, I expect more this morning

Spellchecker sorry Blackieboy I meant

Blackberry

Ask yourself this question

Why would someone who has two posts to his credit be bothering this time of day to create uncertainty

It's all fud mate.

We see how investors have panicked today. If the buyer acquires Conrad and Coro and leaves EME to one side for the time being, I can see Tedwyns "wobble down" happening, this is typical of investor fear and when the smart money buys in the dip knowing the rebound will be more valuable when the buyer has to pay a premium to complete the 100% ownership ,..and they won't bat an eyelid to pay a premium to gain full control at that point.

Simple really HODL

Inlikeflyn

So I am not the only one left alive, we have had a vacancy for a Toolmaker for two years, I should be fully retired but the company can't replace me, so I keep going.🤣

Mossma

Primarily studied at comprehensive school ,then 5 years studied Mechanical Engineering in workshop theory and bias. Passed all exams with distinction , no university studies ,diplomas or bachelor degrees, 45 years experience as a Toolmaker, started up my own retail business in late 90's which I ran successfully for 8 years before designing kitchens,..now semi retired,

How about you?

SIMPLE VALUATION MODEL FOR EMPYREAN’S STAKE (Post-Settlement)

Key assumptions

Mako discovery: 2C ~ 495 Bcf gas (public number)

Empyrean’s stake: 8.5%

Gas sales price scenarios: $6 / $8 / $10 per mmbtu

NPV (Mako pre-FID typical 10–12% IRR discounting)

Production cost roughly $2/mmbtu (typical for Indonesia shallow water)

Quick valuation using netback:

Scenario A – Gas price $6/mmbtu

Netback after costs: ~$4/mmbtu

4 × 495 Bcf ≈ $2.0bn of netback value

8.5% interest = $170m gross

Discounted NPV10 ≈ $50–70m

Scenario B – Gas price $8/mmbtu

Netback: ~$6

6 × 495 Bcf ≈ $3.0bn

8.5% = $255m gross

NPV10 ≈ $90–110m

Scenario C – Gas price $10/mmbtu

Netback: ~$8

8 × 495 Bcf ≈ $4.0bn

8.5% = $340m gross

NPV10 ≈ $130–150m

Empyrean’s entire market cap is only a fraction of these numbers.

This is why protecting their JOA interest is existential.

Even at a heavily discounted pre-FID valuation, the asset is worth tens of millions to Empyrean if they retain it.

LEGAL VALIDITY OF THE FORCED WITHDRAWAL NOTICE

Summary: The Notice is almost certainly NOT validly issued.

Forced‐withdrawal clauses in Joint Operating Agreements are very rarely enforceable unless:

Cash-call default is clear, undisputed, and fully due

All dispute-resolution steps have been completed

The operator has complied with strict procedural steps

No negotiations or remedy discussions are active

No agreed standstill or in-principle settlement is in place

Empyrean’s RNS states:

negotiations were ongoing

dispute resolution under the JOA was active

there was an “in-principle verbal agreement”

the Notice frustrates tag-along rights (legally dangerous)

the Notice was issued while parties were still in good-faith discussions

This creates four fatal procedural defects:

Fatal Defect #1 – You cannot issue a forced withdrawal while in active dispute resolution.

If the dispute process is ongoing, the operator is prohibited from moving to remedies.

Fatal Defect #2 – Negotiations indicate the cash-call amount is not clear and undisputed.

This removes the operator’s right to treat Empyrean as “in default”.

Fatal Defect #3 – If a settlement framework was verbally agreed, the operator is estopped from triggering harsher remedies.

This is basic contract law: you can’t negotiate in good faith then pull a trigger to frustrate the negotiation outcome.

Fatal Defect #4 – Interfering with tag-along rights is legally toxic.

Courts tend to treat any action that bypasses or undermines pre-emption/tag-along rights as bad faith conduct.

Conclusion:

The Notice would almost certainly fail in arbitration.

This is why a negotiated settlement is overwhelmingly the most likely outcome.

Junior

When the green-eyed monster rears it's ugly head all common sense and logic goes out the window

🗓 4. Likely Timeline (Next 4–6 Weeks)

Week 1–2

Conrad engages lawyers

Empyrean’s RNS forces Conrad to respond

Pressure builds on Conrad due to ASX suspension

Conrad likely issues a “clarification” or engages privately to renegotiate

Week 2–3

Re-negotiation of the disputed cash calls

Legal teams define how the Notice is withdrawn or paused

A buyer for Conrad’s stake pushes for certainty

Week 3–4

Settlement agreement drafted

Empyrean’s interest fully confirmed

Cash-call terms agreed (discounts / staged payments)

Week 4–6

Conrad re-lists on the ASX

Conrad announces completion of its farm-down

Empyrean issues a follow-up RNS confirming resolution

Market response likely positive for both companies

🎯 5. Final Call

Empyrean’s RNS was strategically very strong.

It puts legal and commercial pressure squarely on Conrad.

Outcome will almost certainly be resolved in Empyrean’s favour, because Conrad must fix the JV dispute before it can finalise its suspended farm-down and restart trading on the ASX.

🧭 1. Most Likely Outcome (High-confidence prediction)

✅ Conrad will withdraw or neutralise the Forced Withdrawal Notice

Conrad cannot close their farm-down while:

Empyrean is publicly disputing the Notice

arbitration is threatened

tag-along rights are potentially engaged

title is not “clean” for a buyer

they are suspended on the ASX pending the farm-down announcement

This creates massive time pressure on Conrad. Empyrean has essentially “poisoned” the farm-down process until the dispute is resolved.

Likelihood: 70–80%

🤝 2. Expected Settlement Terms (very typical in JV cash-call disputes)

(a) Empyrean pays a negotiated portion of the US$789k

Not the full amount. Usually:

60–80% of disputed calls

paid on a schedule, or offset at completion of Conrad’s farm-down

interest may be waived or reduced

penalties removed in exchange for Empyrean dropping objections

(b) The operator (Conrad/WNEL) acknowledges the Forced Withdrawal Notice is withdrawn

This restores the original JV interest percentage and protects Empyrean’s rights.

(c) Empyrean’s tag-along rights remain intact

This is crucial.

If Conrad sells part of its 75%, Empyrean gets the right to tag along pro rata.

This can create a liquidity event for Empyrean.

(d) Glossy RNS from both sides stating the dispute is resolved

Because Conrad will want to:

restart ASX trading

complete their suspended farm-down

reassure their incoming partner that governance is stable

(e) Commercial cooperation agreement

Usually includes:

improved cash-call communication

dispute-process cleanup

periodic JV meetings

cost-sharing clarity

📈 3. What This Means for Empyrean’s Valuation / Share Price

Immediate effect (this week)

RNS removes the fatal “we lost our interest” fear

Market realises Empyrean has leverage, not a terminal problem

Short-term bounce is likely

Volatility until Conrad responds

Medium-term (post-settlement)

Empyrean becomes:

De-risked (interest secure, no forced withdrawal)

Aligned with the new farm-down partner

Likely able to monetise via tag-along

Valuation impact:

40–100% upside from current deeply discounted levels if Empyrean secures either:

a cash settlement

confirmation of their PSC interest

tag-along participation

or recognition of their interest in a farm-down valuation

Long-term (gas commercialization)

If the Duyung PSC progresses to FID and sales agreements:

Empyrean’s stake becomes significantly more valuable

The market will rerate the asset as a development-stage project

Potential 2–3x further upside if gas volumes and pricing are confirmed

⭐ 1. Key facts driving the situation

Conrad is in a trading halt + suspension because they are trying to complete a farm-down of their 75% stake in the Duyung PSC.

Empyrean disputes US$789k in cash calls and claims the JOA dispute mechanism was still active.

Conrad issued a Forced Withdrawal Notice that would strip Empyrean’s interest.

Empyrean went public with an RNS saying:

the Notice is invalid

negotiations were ongoing

they reached an “in-principle” verbal agreement

they will go to arbitration if needed

they will not accept a disposal of their interest at a discount

the Notice looks like an attempt to frustrate tag-along rights during Conrad’s farm-down.

This is extremely important:

No buyer will close a farm-down transaction if the licence interests are legally contested.

🧩 2. The Power Balance

Operational power → Conrad

They are operator.

They issue cash calls.

They manage the JOA administration.

Strategic/blocking power → Empyrean

They can put a legal cloud over the title.

That can stall or kill Conrad’s farm-down.

They can force arbitration and delay everything for months.

This is why the RNS exists — to warn Conrad and any buyer.

🃏 3. Scenario Analysis (Who Wins and Who Loses)

Scenario A — Conrad backs down and withdraws the Notice

Probability: High

Winner: Empyrean

Why:

Conrad needs a clean ownership structure to complete their farm-down.

Empyrean’s RNS creates uncertainty for any buyer.

Conrad’s lawyers will see that forced withdrawals during an active dispute are very vulnerable in arbitration.

Empyrean outcome:

Keeps its interest.

Likely agrees a negotiated settlement of the cash calls.

Tag-along rights remain alive.

Conrad farm-down proceeds only after Empyrean is settled.

Scenario B — Conrad refuses to withdraw, and Empyrean pushes into arbitration

Probability: Medium

Winner: Empyrean (in terms of leverage)

Why:

Arbitration will take 6–12 months.

Conrad’s farm-down is likely frozen until resolved.

Conrad is suspended on ASX and desperately needs the farm-down for funding.

Empyrean outcome:

Delay gives them leverage.

Conrad has almost no ability to complete a sale with a contested title.

Conrad may be forced into a negotiated settlement anyway.

Scenario C — Arbitration rules that Empyrean did default properly and the Notice stands

Probability: Low

Winner: Conrad

Reasons probability is low:

Forced withdrawal clauses require:

perfect procedural execution

exhausted dispute-resolution stages

unequivocal default

Empyrean says:

they were openly negotiating

there was an in-principle deal agreed

the dispute mechanism was ACTIVE

Conrad issued the Notice mid-process

Any procedural flaw voids the Notice.

Outcome if Conrad wins this rare scenario:

Empyrean loses its interest.

Conrad cleans up its farm-down.

Empyrean may sue for damages but

🔍 Where this realistically goes

Most likely scenario:

Conrad withdraws or reforms the Notice, and they return to a settlement — because their farm-down likely cannot complete until Empyrean’s interest is undisputed.

Worst scenario for Conrad:

Empyrean forces arbitration → delays for months → no clean title → buyer walks → Conrad share suspension dragged out.

Worst scenario for Empyrean:

Arbitration concludes the cash-call non-payment is valid and the forced withdrawal was properly executed.

But this is rare. Forced-withdrawal clauses almost always require:

strict procedural compliance

exhausted dispute mechanisms

clear, undisputed defaults

And Empyrean is signalling none of that has occurred.

🎯 So do Empyrean “hold the cards”?

They hold one card — but it’s an important one:

they can block Conrad’s farm-down and force this into arbitration.

Conrad still has more operational control, but Empyrean has strategic leverage because unresolved disputes make Conrad’s ASX farm-down extremely difficult, maybe impossible.

Right now:

Conrad has acted aggressively.

Empyrean has responded by raising the stakes publicly.

Neither side holds all the cards — but Empyrean has enough to stop Conrad getting what they want unless the dispute is resolved properly.

🔍 Who holds the leverage right now?

1. Conrad/WNEL currently hold procedural leverage

By issuing a Notice of Election of Remedy and Forced Withdrawal, they’re trying to trigger a mechanism in the JOA that would strip Empyrean’s interest and transfer it to the operator.

This move was clearly timed:

Conrad is in a trading halt on the ASX

Conrad is trying to complete its farm-down (sell a chunk of its 75%)

Empyrean’s tag-along rights would complicate or block that sale

The Notice therefore looks like a tactical attempt to neutralise Empyrean’s tag-along and tidy up the ownership structure before their farm-down announcement.

So on the face of it, Conrad are trying to dictate the pace.

🔍 But Empyrean’s RNS shifts the dynamic

Empyrean’s announcement says several important things:

a) They reached a “verbal in-principle” agreement on the disputed amount

This implies Conrad blindsided them mid-negotiation, which makes Conrad look unreasonable.

b) Empyrean states the dispute-resolution process was active

If arbitration was still the proper channel, Conrad’s Notice may be procedurally invalid.

If invalid, the forced withdrawal mechanism cannot lawfully be triggered.

c) Empyrean publicly rejects the validity of the Notice

This signals:

They will not walk away

They will not accept dilution

They will litigate if needed

Any buyer of Conrad’s stake is now on notice of a legal cloud over title

That last point is important:

No serious buyer wants to purchase a contested asset.

Empyrean knows this, and the RNS essentially “poisons the well” for Conrad’s farm-down until the dispute is cleaned up.

This is Empyrean’s leverage.

So while Empyrean does not hold the stronger hand operationally, they absolutely can block, delay, or devalue Conrad’s farm-down by maintaining the dispute.

I asked ChatGPT what it made of the RNS EME issued today , for those invested basically EME only had the one card it could play , the good news is it is a very good card.

I will post possible scenarios and what this will mean for EME shareholders.

Bid.0894 Ask.095 on I.G.

Big outages on Cloudflare atm

I blame Conrad