Herman*
29.10.2024 kl 15:35
2390
You seem to be quite smart for a Zenith shareholder. Personally I currently do not hold any position in the company as I got out a long time ago. My opinion is that this company is the least serious entity I have seen on the Oslo Stock Exchange for the last few decades. Zenith seems to be "chased out" of almost every country they try to enter. I am only speculating, but I think I see a pattern: They enter some of the most questionable jurisdictions where they have a theoretical chance to be awarded licenses. After a due dil, even these countries realise that they have no track record, financial muscles or the needed in-house competency. Another issue that I do not like is that it seems the company was created to make certain people very wealthy irrespective of how the company performs. Regarding the arbitration cases, I am in no position to predict the outcome with any type of certainty. What I can say is that I would guess that they will receive some compensation, but I am sure that their track record will be used against them for all it is worth. In this last share issue, I belive the management had to invest in order to avoid bankruptcy before they receive the outcome of the arbitration. In case they are successful, these people will stand to take a lot of the upside. So much for loyal shareholders. Investing in Zenith at this point is extremely risky. However, I do see that the share price could go 100-200% on moderately successful outcome.
Sia
29.10.2024 kl 17:16
2307
Hei, Var det ikke du som skaffet til veie liste over aksjonærer en gang for lenge siden?
TheLondonOiler
29.10.2024 kl 21:18
2147
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever why would the company go bankrupt if they didn’t invest? Explain your reasoning for this theory please
Herman*
29.10.2024 kl 22:59
2072
Simple. They need the cash, and in order to secure the rest of the finsncing, they had to put their money where their mouth is. Do you think the other investors would have put up the cash if a wealthy CEO did not? As for the warrants: Good grief what greed: If the legal cases fail, the company is pretty much done. If they succeed, the big winners will be AC and the inner circle. Others wont even get their money back even if the SP doubles or triples.
futureistoday
30.10.2024 kl 07:00
1964
Hei Herman, lenge siden jeg har sett deg her. Husker du la ut aksjonærlisten, jeg har også forsøkt og få aksjonærliste, skulle få kjøpe den gjennom DNB for 2500,- men så fikk de pålegg fra zenith om og ikke levere den ut… så tydelig at de ikke ønsker at folk skal se hva som står der. Antageligvis siden de har disse private emi’ene hvor de samme investerer gang på gang men merkelig nok aldri oppnår 5% da det skal flagges da. Miton premiere f.eks burde jo vært langt over 5% med alle de deltakelsene de har meldt… også har vi disse norske investorene de mener investerer om igjen.. var det DNB du fikk kjøpt aksjonærlisten fra?
Sia
30.10.2024 kl 09:41
1844
We shall apply our best endeavours to complete the international crude lifting
on or before October 2024
Ikke lenge igjen nå før 11 500 tønner er solgt. Og pengene renner inn igjen fra ROB og El -Bibane. Håper bare de ikke har glemt å gi gutta lønn da:-)
on or before October 2024
Ikke lenge igjen nå før 11 500 tønner er solgt. Og pengene renner inn igjen fra ROB og El -Bibane. Håper bare de ikke har glemt å gi gutta lønn da:-)
Barneskirenn
30.10.2024 kl 10:50
1756
HVIS de bare hadde fått 90boed opp og stå igjen.... hadde hjulpet mye på status quo! Tror det ikke før jeg ser det, og nå begynner tiden (iht. børsmelding) å renne ut.
MarketGunsling
30.10.2024 kl 11:08
1717
Barneskirenn skrev Hva skjer med oljesalget som ble meldt skulle skjer "by end of october"?
Ideally, Zenith would be able to sell the 11,500 barrels of oil produced in Tunisia in the coming days, which, at the current price of approximately $70 per barrel, would represent a value of around $800,000 to the company. However, in my view, this outcome is highly unlikely.
The Tunisian government has consistently blocked Zenith from benefiting from oil sales for several years, leading to the three ongoing arbitration cases the company has filed against them. I see no compelling reason why they would alter their position at this stage.
Had there been absolute certainty that this revenue would be received, there would have been no need for the recent share placement, which would have prevented shareholder dilution. However, consider the situation if the company had not raised funds and the Tunisian oil revenue still failed to materialise. This would have put Zenith in a precarious financial position. I believe this rationale drove the decision to secure funds now, as private placements require considerable preparation and planning over time.
As I mentioned, I would be very surprised if the Tunisian authorities allowed Zenith to receive any revenue from these oil sales. I think Zenith’s recent announcement of this potential development serves two purposes:
a) Should the funds materialise, it will strengthen the company's financial position.
b) If the revenue does not materialise, it further substantiates Zenith’s first arbitration case against the Tunisian authorities.
In short, there was no risk to the company in having the placing now and then getting additional money but not having the placing now and then not getting the oil money could have been a disaster.
The Tunisian government has consistently blocked Zenith from benefiting from oil sales for several years, leading to the three ongoing arbitration cases the company has filed against them. I see no compelling reason why they would alter their position at this stage.
Had there been absolute certainty that this revenue would be received, there would have been no need for the recent share placement, which would have prevented shareholder dilution. However, consider the situation if the company had not raised funds and the Tunisian oil revenue still failed to materialise. This would have put Zenith in a precarious financial position. I believe this rationale drove the decision to secure funds now, as private placements require considerable preparation and planning over time.
As I mentioned, I would be very surprised if the Tunisian authorities allowed Zenith to receive any revenue from these oil sales. I think Zenith’s recent announcement of this potential development serves two purposes:
a) Should the funds materialise, it will strengthen the company's financial position.
b) If the revenue does not materialise, it further substantiates Zenith’s first arbitration case against the Tunisian authorities.
In short, there was no risk to the company in having the placing now and then getting additional money but not having the placing now and then not getting the oil money could have been a disaster.
SebRiberac
30.10.2024 kl 11:20
1689
So you think that if the company are successful in getting the best part of $500 million dollars in compensation that the share price will only rise by four times?
Herman*
30.10.2024 kl 11:37
1663
No. I dont think Zenith will get anywhere near that amount. I think the Tunisian government will paint them as incompetent and having oversold their track record and technical/financial abilities. They might try to claim that this has caused damage to Tunisia. Having said that, the Tunisian government sounds a little bit like a mafia state-going too far in their efforts to punish/restrict Zenith. This is speculation from my side. If they get 10-15 million USD, I think it would solve their short term financial needs and send the SP up. They could also risk getting nothing. What ever happened to the case against the drilling company that screwed up in Congo and all the money the Congolese government owes them? And what happens to the money that Tunisia might end up owing them? Would it be easy to collect?
Redigert 30.10.2024 kl 11:38
Du må logge inn for å svare
Sia
30.10.2024 kl 12:17
1613
Tenker du på denne i Congo?
The Company has appointed Charles Russell Speechlys as new legal counsel before
the Court in connection with the legal claim against SMP. The final submission
for court pleadings is expected to take place on October 25, 2024.
The final pleadings of the case, resulting in a potential positive ruling in
favour of AAOGC by the Court, are expected to now take place on or around March
2025.
The Company has appointed Charles Russell Speechlys as new legal counsel before
the Court in connection with the legal claim against SMP. The final submission
for court pleadings is expected to take place on October 25, 2024.
The final pleadings of the case, resulting in a potential positive ruling in
favour of AAOGC by the Court, are expected to now take place on or around March
2025.
SebRiberac
30.10.2024 kl 13:08
1549
Comments like this make it hard to take your posts seriously. Saying they’ll only get $10-15 million from a $500 million claim is just way off. Zenith was making around $15 million a year from their operations in Tunisia, and it’s been over three years since they were allowed to sell anything. That alone adds up to $45-60 million in lost revenue – not even counting any potential damages. If successful we are looking at $100 million + minimum.
Herman*
30.10.2024 kl 14:10
1499
I think you missed my point. You are right that the losses suffered by Zenith are real and a lot higher than 10-15 mill USD. What I am saying is that the opposing council may argue that Zenith is to blame for most of these issues, and that it is Tunisia that has suffered damages. A small amount like 10-15 mill could be the «net» effect. Regarding the rig operator that was taking to court in Paris… how many years has that case taken?
Saw this (I have not been following closely the last few years)
«We are hopeful that the outcome of the ICC 1 arbitration, due by the close of
the year, will provide concrete confirmation of the validity of our position as
we direct our efforts towards the much larger ICC 2 and ICSID arbitrations, due
to be concluded in 2025 and 2026 respectively.”
So how much are they asking for in the ICC 1 case to be decided around year end?
Saw this (I have not been following closely the last few years)
«We are hopeful that the outcome of the ICC 1 arbitration, due by the close of
the year, will provide concrete confirmation of the validity of our position as
we direct our efforts towards the much larger ICC 2 and ICSID arbitrations, due
to be concluded in 2025 and 2026 respectively.”
So how much are they asking for in the ICC 1 case to be decided around year end?
Redigert 30.10.2024 kl 14:24
Du må logge inn for å svare
SebRiberac
30.10.2024 kl 15:51
1418
How do you suggest that opposition council blame Zenith for the Tunisian govt preventing Zenith from producing and selling $45 million of oil over the last three years?
Herman*
30.10.2024 kl 16:12
1391
In most legal cases, the two sides have opposing views as to who is to blame. If everything is obvious to all parties, there is often a settlement as it is cheaper and less time consuming. As for Zenith, they are not exactly the most trustworthy and competent company around to say the least. I am not saying Zenith will not get compensation, but the opposing side most definitely will try to pin as much blame on them as possible. Now to my question: How much damages are Zenith Seeking in the round that supposedly concludes in December?
SebRiberac
30.10.2024 kl 17:55
1292
Fact of the matter is the courts decide and the money will be seized in the bank accounts until payment is made. A country cannot run away and hide money in crypto like a scam artist.
futureistoday
30.10.2024 kl 21:00
1204
This is not how it works, you can find more information on arbitrations online. A country can not be forced to pay. No money will be seized from the countrys national accounts.
It is not like the money that have been seized from etap, that is a oil company not the state. There need to be a willingness from the country to pay.
But they can stand to lose international trades and support from other countries. And programs like IMF if they have a outstanding arbitration debt that they do not pay.
It is not like the money that have been seized from etap, that is a oil company not the state. There need to be a willingness from the country to pay.
But they can stand to lose international trades and support from other countries. And programs like IMF if they have a outstanding arbitration debt that they do not pay.
Barneskirenn
I går kl 07:57
1006
Siste avsnitt futureistoday skriver er relevant for om de kommer til å betale. Leste for en stund siden at de mottar/ønsker å motta støtte/lån, og hvis de ikke overholder en dom, vil det skape problemer.
SebRiberac
I går kl 09:40
903
Jeg tror vi har sett bunnen i aksjekursen, og jeg forventer at aksjekursen vil stige raskt fra begynnelsen av november.
futureistoday
I går kl 11:17
830
Hvorfor skal den begynne og stige raskt i begynnelsen av november? Den viser ingen tegn til oppadgående trend.. forventninger ang ICC hadde allerede gjenspeilet seg nå hvis det hadde vært interesse. Er på ca all time low, men ingen handel…
MarketGunsling
I går kl 11:40
805
Herman, I think some of your criticisms of Zenith may be unfair, though I understand and, to a degree, share your frustrations with the challenges the company has faced on its projects over the years.
In my view, some of these setbacks, specifically in Tilapia, Yemen, and Tunisia, were beyond Zenith’s control. For example, in Tilapia, Zenith initially went through a formal process to renew their license, only to have it revoked through less transparent means – likely due to questionable dealings. It’s hard to hold the company responsible for this outcome, especially since the new license-holder has yet to make any tangible progress in drilling.
Similarly, the Yemen deal was challenging. Zenith had arranged with OMV to acquire high-value assets, with OMV evidently confident in Zenith's ability to operate them. However, the Yemeni government rejected the agreement for unspecified reasons, probably due to a preference for retaining a large multinational operator rather than a smaller foreign company. Sadly, it’s likely that these assets may eventually end up under local political ownership.
The Tunisian acquisition is perhaps the most forgivable of all. During the COVID-19 downturn, Zenith acted on a rare opportunity to purchase assets producing about 500 barrels of oil per day for £250,000 from two major companies looking to exit Tunisia due to the relatively low production. These assets generated $13-15 million per year, and everything was progressing well until the Tunisian government stopped paying Zenith after the first uplift in April 2022. This move is clearly unlawful, and Zenith’s decision to pursue arbitration is fully justified. Had Zenith continued receiving revenues from these assets, it would have transformed their financial position, avoiding the setback caused by Tunisia’s actions and warranting significant compensation.
In your first post, you suggest Zenith might receive “some compensation,” and later you estimate this at $10-15 million. I believe this figure significantly underestimates both the impact on the company and the typical outcomes in arbitration.
Looking at similar cases, such as Rockhopper’s against Italy and GreenX Metals’ against Poland, Rockhopper was awarded €190 million for an undeveloped asset, and GreenX received £252 million for an asset they acquired for only A$4 million. Both cases involved substantial awards for assets that were not producing, and another poster on this forum has provided an excellent breakdown of the GreenX situation. With these precedents, it’s reasonable to expect that Zenith could achieve an award of at least $200 million – a considerable potential return on the current market valuation of just $8 million, even accounting for newly issued shares and warrants.
In my view, some of these setbacks, specifically in Tilapia, Yemen, and Tunisia, were beyond Zenith’s control. For example, in Tilapia, Zenith initially went through a formal process to renew their license, only to have it revoked through less transparent means – likely due to questionable dealings. It’s hard to hold the company responsible for this outcome, especially since the new license-holder has yet to make any tangible progress in drilling.
Similarly, the Yemen deal was challenging. Zenith had arranged with OMV to acquire high-value assets, with OMV evidently confident in Zenith's ability to operate them. However, the Yemeni government rejected the agreement for unspecified reasons, probably due to a preference for retaining a large multinational operator rather than a smaller foreign company. Sadly, it’s likely that these assets may eventually end up under local political ownership.
The Tunisian acquisition is perhaps the most forgivable of all. During the COVID-19 downturn, Zenith acted on a rare opportunity to purchase assets producing about 500 barrels of oil per day for £250,000 from two major companies looking to exit Tunisia due to the relatively low production. These assets generated $13-15 million per year, and everything was progressing well until the Tunisian government stopped paying Zenith after the first uplift in April 2022. This move is clearly unlawful, and Zenith’s decision to pursue arbitration is fully justified. Had Zenith continued receiving revenues from these assets, it would have transformed their financial position, avoiding the setback caused by Tunisia’s actions and warranting significant compensation.
In your first post, you suggest Zenith might receive “some compensation,” and later you estimate this at $10-15 million. I believe this figure significantly underestimates both the impact on the company and the typical outcomes in arbitration.
Looking at similar cases, such as Rockhopper’s against Italy and GreenX Metals’ against Poland, Rockhopper was awarded €190 million for an undeveloped asset, and GreenX received £252 million for an asset they acquired for only A$4 million. Both cases involved substantial awards for assets that were not producing, and another poster on this forum has provided an excellent breakdown of the GreenX situation. With these precedents, it’s reasonable to expect that Zenith could achieve an award of at least $200 million – a considerable potential return on the current market valuation of just $8 million, even accounting for newly issued shares and warrants.
BMU
I går kl 22:18
600
Since Zenith has managed to get such large law firm and heavyweight lawyers.legal help from the Sorbonne recodnaest legal prof.under the conditions ,, no win no pay´´I think is not much left to say from us stock holders:
Let the experts do they work, in the men time we can walk our dog, feed our fish and cross our fingers. ( somone sade beafore in this forum......ops it was me )
If it will give any camphor to any one: I know case flue decades a go where small cap company won the case against Russia. Contry at the time were it was wary difficult for foreign company to succeed in any thing. And they gat paid , and they are still alive ( important the last one)
Let the experts do they work, in the men time we can walk our dog, feed our fish and cross our fingers. ( somone sade beafore in this forum......ops it was me )
If it will give any camphor to any one: I know case flue decades a go where small cap company won the case against Russia. Contry at the time were it was wary difficult for foreign company to succeed in any thing. And they gat paid , and they are still alive ( important the last one)
Redigert i dag kl 08:28
Du må logge inn for å svare
Sia
I dag kl 09:57
453
Da kan vi vel konstatere. AC presterte ikke her heller. Hadde vært mye bedre av AC å melde ingen produksjon, gutta har ikke fått lønn, for vi i ledelsen skal ha bonus. Får sikkert ingen oppdatering som vanlig.
Blientotre
I dag kl 10:23
434
Utrolig frustrerende..
Aldri klarer selskapet å holde børsmeldt lovnader!
Heller ikke å varsle om ingen jobb utført.
Aldri klarer selskapet å holde børsmeldt lovnader!
Heller ikke å varsle om ingen jobb utført.
tsu for all
I dag kl 13:03
347
Mr. Cattaneo/Zenith Energy:
Når det gjelder obligatoriske meldinger fra 12. august.
«Zenith kan bekrefte at omtrent 11 500 fat råolje for tiden er på lager, og at et internasjonalt løft av råolje forventes å finne sted innen eller før slutten av oktober 2024.»
«Selskapet kan bekrefte at det arbeider for å sikre at lønnen til feltpersonell er fullt ut oppgjort, og at produksjonen forventes å gjenopptas innen eller før 19. august 2024, med en samlet totalsats på 90 fat per dag fra begge konsesjonene.»
Hva er statusen på disse obligatoriske varslene?
Når det gjelder obligatoriske meldinger fra 12. august.
«Zenith kan bekrefte at omtrent 11 500 fat råolje for tiden er på lager, og at et internasjonalt løft av råolje forventes å finne sted innen eller før slutten av oktober 2024.»
«Selskapet kan bekrefte at det arbeider for å sikre at lønnen til feltpersonell er fullt ut oppgjort, og at produksjonen forventes å gjenopptas innen eller før 19. august 2024, med en samlet totalsats på 90 fat per dag fra begge konsesjonene.»
Hva er statusen på disse obligatoriske varslene?
TheLondonOiler
I dag kl 14:54
257
What updates are you guys actually waiting for? Because the only update that matters at the moment is the first arbitration result.
olje
I dag kl 17:54
153
Ikke enig i det, de må klare å holde oss oppdatert om ting de selv melder i tide og utide. Jeg forventer en mer seriøs opptreden fra de, og det asap! Er mye penger for lille Zenit da det er snakk om ang oljesalg og oppstart av produksjon på nesten 100 fat daglig.
Sia
I dag kl 18:01
143
Helt enig. Er jo en selvfølge å melde ting som ikke er i orden, enn denne uvissheten hele tiden. Om du får svar av Zen, kan du jo spørre om USA også. Der meldte de inntekter med en gang. Meeeeeen fortsatt ingen som vet hvor mye.
TheLondonOiler
I dag kl 19:36
80
Similar to our case EML is now pursuing arbitration proceedings through the ICSID against the Moroccan government. This suggests that Zenith may not be the only, nor the last, company to encounter legal challenges in North Africa. In our situation, it is evident that AC successfully secured a highly favorable agreement during the COVID-19 pandemic, a time when many businesses were reluctant to make significant moves. As economic conditions normalized, the Tunisian authorities may have reconsidered the terms of this valuable asset transfer to a smaller company like Zenith. In light of this strategic deal-making, AC’s efforts demonstrate a significant recovery from past challenges, and, if successful, even a portion of the potential $500 million claim would be a substantial achievement for the company.
STATEMENT REGARDING NOTICE OF DISPUTE WITH MOROCCAN GOVERNMENT
Emmerson, the Moroccan focused potash development company, provides an update on its position with respect to its assets and investments in Morocco.
Emmerson has formally notified the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco ("Morocco" or "the Government") that there is an investment dispute between Emmerson and the Government. The Company has engaged Boies Schiller Flexner LLP as its litigation counsel and is examining various funding avenues for an investment dispute.
The dispute arises out of various breaches, by the Government and its Agents, of the Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, which was signed on 30 October 1990 and entered into force on 14 February 2002 (the "BIT").
The BIT provides that Emmerson may submit its dispute for settlement by arbitration to the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes ("ICSID").
There is no requirement under the BIT to notify Morocco of Emmerson's intention to submit a claim to arbitration and therefore, the Company has no obligation to wait for any specific period of time before commencing arbitration.
Nevertheless, before proceeding to arbitration, Emmerson has, in good faith and in the spirit of cooperation, invited Morocco to engage in discussions regarding cash compensation for the damages incurred because of Morocco's breaches of the BIT, with a view to achieving an amicable resolution of the dispute.
If such discussions with Morocco are unsuccessful, Emmerson intends to submit a claim for arbitration under the BIT, seeking damages for the harm described above, plus interest, costs, and any such further relief as the Tribunal may deem appropriate in the circumstances.
The Company remains hopeful that its dispute with the Government can be resolved amicably. The Company will consider any and all other actions necessary to ensure its rights are preserved.
Emmerson has always conducted its business in Morocco to the highest environmental and ethical standards, often well in excess of the local regulatory requirements, adhering strictly to local laws. The Khemisset Potash Project is one of the most strategically valuable fertiliser assets on the African Continent, especially for Morocco, which currently imports significant quantities of potash to its global fertiliser company, OCP.
With the implementation of its proprietary (and patent pending) KMP design, the Company was targeting the production of potash alongside several complementary fertiliser products that would have employed the lowest water usage of any potash mine globally, with the elimination of waste brines entirely, in order to create the world's most environmentally sustainable potash mine.
STATEMENT REGARDING NOTICE OF DISPUTE WITH MOROCCAN GOVERNMENT
Emmerson, the Moroccan focused potash development company, provides an update on its position with respect to its assets and investments in Morocco.
Emmerson has formally notified the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco ("Morocco" or "the Government") that there is an investment dispute between Emmerson and the Government. The Company has engaged Boies Schiller Flexner LLP as its litigation counsel and is examining various funding avenues for an investment dispute.
The dispute arises out of various breaches, by the Government and its Agents, of the Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, which was signed on 30 October 1990 and entered into force on 14 February 2002 (the "BIT").
The BIT provides that Emmerson may submit its dispute for settlement by arbitration to the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes ("ICSID").
There is no requirement under the BIT to notify Morocco of Emmerson's intention to submit a claim to arbitration and therefore, the Company has no obligation to wait for any specific period of time before commencing arbitration.
Nevertheless, before proceeding to arbitration, Emmerson has, in good faith and in the spirit of cooperation, invited Morocco to engage in discussions regarding cash compensation for the damages incurred because of Morocco's breaches of the BIT, with a view to achieving an amicable resolution of the dispute.
If such discussions with Morocco are unsuccessful, Emmerson intends to submit a claim for arbitration under the BIT, seeking damages for the harm described above, plus interest, costs, and any such further relief as the Tribunal may deem appropriate in the circumstances.
The Company remains hopeful that its dispute with the Government can be resolved amicably. The Company will consider any and all other actions necessary to ensure its rights are preserved.
Emmerson has always conducted its business in Morocco to the highest environmental and ethical standards, often well in excess of the local regulatory requirements, adhering strictly to local laws. The Khemisset Potash Project is one of the most strategically valuable fertiliser assets on the African Continent, especially for Morocco, which currently imports significant quantities of potash to its global fertiliser company, OCP.
With the implementation of its proprietary (and patent pending) KMP design, the Company was targeting the production of potash alongside several complementary fertiliser products that would have employed the lowest water usage of any potash mine globally, with the elimination of waste brines entirely, in order to create the world's most environmentally sustainable potash mine.