Hi Bullant et al., Good find on the election of Arb Chairman....

Hi Bullant et al.,

Good find on the election of Arb Chairman.

For what is worth, this is what I received back from ICC Paris last week...

"Thank you for your message. We would like to inform you that ICC is submitted to a duty of confidentiality in accordance with its Rules of Arbitration. Therefore, ICC never provides any information concerning possible cases or parties to persons not involved in an ICC arbitration file.
Yours sincerely,"

I also checked out COP's 10K (2017 accounts) which it filed on the SEC 3 weeks ago.  180 pages of size 5 font type is the reason why I now have 'page rash' on my nose.  They have sections called "legal proceedings but no mention of the ICC issue here.  Yet under "Contingencies and Commitments" on page 104, they snuck in a few lines...

"...The arbitral tribunal is in the process of being  constituted."

This is all that they said of the status and backs up Bullant's claim.

Let's be clear here, there are 113 COP employed legal sharks listed in Link'd...and this doesn't include the possible 100+ external specialists that COP will have on the go at any one time.   Also, a pretty safe assumption to note is that there is every incentive for COP to stall/frustrate this process.  Which, IMHO, they have been successful in doing.

The COP 10K acknowledges that the arbitration process was initiated by FAR in June 2017.  This means that it has taken 9 months to get to this stage.  When you read through the description of the ICC process, one gets the impression that selection of the panel should (?)happen within 4-5 months.

But, as Zsaba-The-Hut has been correctly pointed out on this thread, the next phase is constructing the ToR which "...the Tribunal shall transmit to the Court within 30 days."  But the ICC process then states that.." the Court may extend this time if requested."

This is but one of the opportunities where COP can frustrate the process.

After the ToR have been approved, COP can stick their time-wasting fingers into any part of the remaining process.

1) the procedural timetable is to be established,
2) Parties submit case management proposals,
3) Tribunal to establish the Facts of the Case...may call witnesses, experts for evidence,
4) Parties may request a hearing of the Court,
5) The Tribunal then can can consider the matter closed and must render award within 6 months.

So...this matter won't be cleared within the originally stated 12 months (3 months remaining).  And, given the frustrated process to date, I feel it may be more prudent for investors to expect that the matter will not be resolved this calendar year.  Is it possible?  Sure.  But likely?   No.

Bottom line?  Factor in that this process will take longer than expected, and focus on what management do best: finding HC accumulations in the MSGBC basin.

Go Samo!

Cheers

PS...Peter Arden's (Bell Potter) this am put out an update on FAR.  Valuation effectively unchanged at 26c.