Welcome to the Church of fun
Kindly posted from others first ; during the last few years .
----------------------------------
What happened with EEL?????? (Equator Exploration Ltd)
EEL a UK AIM listed Oil Exploration firm bought world class
assets in Nigeria. The EEL Shares were sold to UK Private and Institutional
investors for between £1.00 and £3.50 a share!!!!!.
A "dispute" in NIgeria over these world class
assets caused EEL to simply run out of money and end up being suspended from
AIM about 2 years ago.
Surprise surprise a "White
Knight" in the shape of a Nigerian company called Oando turned up and
managed to get hold of 78% of the EEL shares.
I wouldn't presume anything yet.
They recently recieved funding @40p from a group of private investors and have
20m in cash. Hope they do drop sub 10p on panic as I will definitely take a
dip.
For David Quinlivan, a Perth-based 31-year veteran of the
mining industry, it was the $50 billion find of a lifetime. In a
remote 35,000 hectare concession in East Kutai in the
Indonesian portion of resource-rich Borneo island, the exploration
work by his company, Churchill Mining, had come up trumps.
While expecting to find perhaps 100 million tonnes of
medium grade coal, the company had found more, much more.
Almost 3 billion tonnes of cheap coal sought by Chinese and
Indian power stations, in fact. The second largest undeveloped
coal mining asset in Indonesia, and the seventh largest in
the world.
By Mr Quinlivan's reckoning, the 1 billion tonne reserve of
coal so far certified will yield a cash operating surplus of
between $750 million to $1 billion a year for 25 years.
"If you can confirm that you can upgrade some of the 2
billion tonnes of resource not included in the reserve, it's quite
easy to see that you might be able to push the life of it
beyond 50 years," the chief executive of Churchill says. "And that's
without doing any further exploration at all."
The
irony, though, is that Nusantara is now on the property doing exactly the same
work in the forests that Churchill was censured for doing. No censure for
Nusantara so far, and no revocation of its licences either. Under WTO rules and
bilateral treaties, that’s illegal, David points out. How much ice that
argument will eventually cut in Indonesia, which is famously corrupt, remains
to be seen. But Churchill is still hopeful that it can cut some sort of a deal.
As far as damages and compensation are concerned, David’s not keen. “That’s a
long hard road to hoe”, he says. “That’s the last option. You just don’t want
to be doing a scorched earth policy.” There’s still US$19.5 million in the
Churchill kitty, so the company can afford to keep exploring its options for
now. One of those options, of course, is that it gets another asset. But we’re
a little way away from that outcome just yet.
Nusantara Group originally held six licences in the disputed
area. According to court documents filed by Churchill, these lapsed between
March 2006 and March 2007. The East Kutai government declared the area open to
other companies and Indonesian firm PT Ridlatama received four mining licences,
Churchill said.
Between November 2007 and February 2008, Churchill bought a
75 percent stake in Ridlatama’s licences and spent about $40 million on the
project. But after Churchill announced in May 2008 that the project could yield
substantial coal, things turned messy.
A few weeks later, the East
Kutai regional government granted extensions to the Nusantara Group mining
licences that Churchill believed had lapsed.
In today’s results Quinlivan told investors that Churchill
will “continue to vigorously pursue its claim for the full reinstatement of its
rights in relation to the EKCP”.
Churchill revealed that it has now made impairments totaling
US$75 million in relation to the stalled project.
It explained that the full group
carrying amount of the East Kutai Coal project has been written down to the
tune of US$27.89 million, as at 30 June 2011, and it has also impaired its
subsidiary investment and intercompany receivables of US$47.12 million.
And then there was my stuff ;
01-04-12
Hold Indonesian intrigue
Gold or Silver
An interesting story,about to become more interesting.
gla concerned.
20-04-12
Reasons to be cheerful
Gold or Silver
1
Especially when it hits 20p.+
Which one feels it will,within eight months.
The price will fly ,back up to
80p .
4 months out ,d`oh
__________________________________________________________________________________
gla concerned
More View thread 4 Respond Login to Vote up
20-04-12
Buy Market Discombobulations
Gold or Silver
1
Seems this has a similar story to oxus gold .
Therefore,I now rate this a buy.
gla concerned
Easter 2013 ;
From whence we have come , to where we are going.
On the latest uplift in share price . One can be reasonably confident in predicting , invest
as much as you can afford to lose.
Having a large chunk at 12p
.
I will keep adding ,
as and when funds are available .
Even at today`s 24p , there are great gains to be made.
Obviously , when news
arrives , I will reconsider . At what point to add more .
Gla @ The Church of Boom
Thankyou Mr Quinlivan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Addition 08 /09/13 ;
Recourse to investor state arbitration is increasingly used
as a last resort option by investors who have
unsuccessfully exhausted other avenues of redress
against foreign states. ISCID’s latest statistics (published
in January 2013) show there were 50 filings made
globally in 2012 - a record level. Though ICSID
arbitration represents a tiny (if high profile) fraction of all
international arbitration activity globally, the availability of
treaty remedies against states can perform a wider role
to encourage compliance with investor protection
obligations in treaties. Potential claimants will also be
encouraged by the success rates - it is noteworthy that
63% of claims which fight succeed (11% failed and for
26% the Tribunal declined jurisdiction).
There is often more public attention on ICSID claims than
on other arbitrations. The process is comparatively
transparent, with no general rules of confidentiality, and
published awards can be found on ICSID’s website.
A real attraction of the ICSID route for investors is that
ICSID awards are binding, and are not subject to appeal
via national courts or otherwise. There are very limited
grounds to challenge provided for in the ICSID
Convention. It seems these are frequently being raised
but rarely succeed - the January 2013 statistics show 10
out of the 34 awards given in 2011 were the subject of
annulment proceedings, but only one of these 10
challenges succeeded. Financial obligations arising from
ICSID awards must be recognised and enforced as if they
were final judgments from local courts, though defences
are often raised on state immunity grounds at the
enforcement stage.
ICSID itself is an organ of the World Bank, and there is a
perception that the failure to comply with an award may
entail indirect political consequences. Publication of the
arbitral decision, coupled with a failure to enforce an
award will at the very least, lead to public recognition of
a state’s lack of credibility.
Indonesia’s application for an injunction
In November, Indonesian sought to protect its reputation
against Churchill’s media activity by applying to the
Tribunal for an injunction to (a) restrain Churchill from
making what Indonesia alleged to be “false, unfounded,
and misleading statements to the media” and (b) prevent
Churchill representatives from“approaching and/or
persuading and/or inducing any officials of the
government to settle this dispute outside the present
arbitration proceedings”.
The move was triggered by Churchill press releases and
comments in the media made by Churchill’s Chairman,
which (amongst other things) advised investors to “tread
very carefully”. Indonesia’s concern was that these were
disparaging and harmful to it, and it claimed that
Churchill’s conduct would endanger Indonesia’s “right to
welcome foreign investors in its territory.”
In an order made on 4 March 2013 Indonesia’s application
for an injunction has been rejected. The Tribunal took the
view that the statements were not sufficiently serious to
cause any harm to Indonesia’s reputation and that the
state’s rights were not threatened. Further, parties could
not be restrained from settlement efforts. Despite being
unsuccessful, the fact that Indonesia sought provisional
measures in the arbitration demonstrates the level of its
concern to protect investor sentiment.
BLP Mining Team’s Perspective
It is too early to say whether the serious allegations made
in this case will be upheld. Obviously Indonesia’s
reputation as an attractive destination for foreign
investment would be harmed by an adverse finding, but it
may emerge with some credit regardless if it engages with
the allegations on their merits and respects any adverse
award. The failed injunction application shows that
Indonesia values its reputation and wishes to continue
attracting foreign investment in order that it can capitalise
on its vast natural resources.
The case will be watched with interest by both investors,
not only in the mining sector but generally by those with
interests in emerging markets where the legal
infrastructure is less well established and the political
systems are, relatively speaking, in their infancy.
Churchill and Planet’s recourse to ICSID arbitration
highlights its usefulness as an option (albeit usually a last
resort) for investors to engage with foreign governments
under a public spotlight.
Where treaty claims do arise, these claims can be a drain
on a company’s financial resources. Some companies
listed on the TSX or AIM have been turning to alternative
sources of finance, which may include litigation finance for
international investment treaty claims where a financial
provider will fund the legal costs of the treaty claim in
exchange for a share in the potential proceeds. Given the
constraints of equity fundraising this may be a useful tool
for a company when pursuing a claim against a state
which has greater financial resources.
The Churchill case It is also a useful reminder to investors
to structure their arrangements in such a way as to be
able to take advantage of the protection afforded by
investor-state treaties. This should be done not only at
the outset but kept under review
-------------------------------------------------------------
Addition 08 /09/13 ;
Recourse to investor state arbitration is increasingly used
as a last resort option by investors who have
unsuccessfully exhausted other avenues of redress
against foreign states. ISCID’s latest statistics (published
in January 2013) show there were 50 filings made
globally in 2012 - a record level. Though ICSID
arbitration represents a tiny (if high profile) fraction of all
international arbitration activity globally, the availability of
treaty remedies against states can perform a wider role
to encourage compliance with investor protection
obligations in treaties. Potential claimants will also be
encouraged by the success rates - it is noteworthy that
63% of claims which fight succeed (11% failed and for
26% the Tribunal declined jurisdiction).
There is often more public attention on ICSID claims than
on other arbitrations. The process is comparatively
transparent, with no general rules of confidentiality, and
published awards can be found on ICSID’s website.
A real attraction of the ICSID route for investors is that
ICSID awards are binding, and are not subject to appeal
via national courts or otherwise. There are very limited
grounds to challenge provided for in the ICSID
Convention. It seems these are frequently being raised
but rarely succeed - the January 2013 statistics show 10
out of the 34 awards given in 2011 were the subject of
annulment proceedings, but only one of these 10
challenges succeeded. Financial obligations arising from
ICSID awards must be recognised and enforced as if they
were final judgments from local courts, though defences
are often raised on state immunity grounds at the
enforcement stage.
ICSID itself is an organ of the World Bank, and there is a
perception that the failure to comply with an award may
entail indirect political consequences. Publication of the
arbitral decision, coupled with a failure to enforce an
award will at the very least, lead to public recognition of
a state’s lack of credibility.
Indonesia’s application for an injunction
In November, Indonesian sought to protect its reputation
against Churchill’s media activity by applying to the
Tribunal for an injunction to (a) restrain Churchill from
making what Indonesia alleged to be “false, unfounded,
and misleading statements to the media” and (b) prevent
Churchill representatives from“approaching and/or
persuading and/or inducing any officials of the
government to settle this dispute outside the present
arbitration proceedings”.
The move was triggered by Churchill press releases and
comments in the media made by Churchill’s Chairman,
which (amongst other things) advised investors to “tread
very carefully”. Indonesia’s concern was that these were
disparaging and harmful to it, and it claimed that
Churchill’s conduct would endanger Indonesia’s “right to
welcome foreign investors in its territory.”
In an order made on 4 March 2013 Indonesia’s application
for an injunction has been rejected. The Tribunal took the
view that the statements were not sufficiently serious to
cause any harm to Indonesia’s reputation and that the
state’s rights were not threatened. Further, parties could
not be restrained from settlement efforts. Despite being
unsuccessful, the fact that Indonesia sought provisional
measures in the arbitration demonstrates the level of its
concern to protect investor sentiment.
BLP Mining Team’s Perspective
It is too early to say whether the serious allegations made
in this case will be upheld. Obviously Indonesia’s
reputation as an attractive destination for foreign
investment would be harmed by an adverse finding, but it
may emerge with some credit regardless if it engages with
the allegations on their merits and respects any adverse
award. The failed injunction application shows that
Indonesia values its reputation and wishes to continue
attracting foreign investment in order that it can capitalise
on its vast natural resources.
The case will be watched with interest by both investors,
not only in the mining sector but generally by those with
interests in emerging markets where the legal
infrastructure is less well established and the political
systems are, relatively speaking, in their infancy.
Churchill and Planet’s recourse to ICSID arbitration
highlights its usefulness as an option (albeit usually a last
resort) for investors to engage with foreign governments
under a public spotlight.
Where treaty claims do arise, these claims can be a drain
on a company’s financial resources. Some companies
listed on the TSX or AIM have been turning to alternative
sources of finance, which may include litigation finance for
international investment treaty claims where a financial
provider will fund the legal costs of the treaty claim in
exchange for a share in the potential proceeds. Given the
constraints of equity fundraising this may be a useful tool
for a company when pursuing a claim against a state
which has greater financial resources.
The Churchill case It is also a useful reminder to investors
to structure their arrangements in such a way as to be
able to take advantage of the protection afforded by
investor-state treaties. This should be done not only at
the outset but kept under review
No comments:
Post a Comment