| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
  i3lurker you must be joking... RM5.5 million is peanuts when you already lost few hundred million Posted by Boon Keng > Jan 24, 2020 3:10 PM | Report Abuse Yes next week 69c!!! 24/01/2020 3:22 PM InvestorKING No wonder EPF kept selling previously, they already knew the outcome of the court 24/01/2020 3:23 PM Fc78020 armadatuah, youre the real stupid here for being pro armada. still living in denial. what is there left to push the share price back? your 11 billion debt will? or the lost claire case? hate to break it to you but todays rebound may just be a correction from the beginning of a downtrend after distribution phase for those stkll holding, good luck 24/01/2020 3:24 PM tumbler Next week GG liao . Expected 1.1b compesation from woodside now only get 5.5m . Drag so many years just got so little money , want to buy kacang also not enogh. 24/01/2020 3:27 PM Fc78020 how many consecutive 100mil profits from the next QR to breakeven the debt? lets see, interest aside, thats 110 quarters. that's almost 10 years of no loss commitment from armada for your hard earned money. interest kick in, die standing. without good profits, can only resort to selling revenue generating assets and means more profit reduction 24/01/2020 3:31 PM mikekim That's just the sundry issues that have been sorted for the RM5.5m. In fact, the judgment is not very clear. I think on a high level basis, the court said no to Armada's US$283.5m claims for breach of damages against Woodside. However, from Para 764 - 771: there are "secondary claims" to be determined, and this amounts up to US$165.5m damages to Armada. Then only final order can be made. ----EXTRACT--- 764 AB's objection must be upheld. As a matter of fairness, I am not prepared to allow WEJ to proceed in a fashion that I accept would be unavoidably prejudicial to AB, by denying it a fair opportunity to earlier engage as against these very late, as revised MPPT calculations. As a result, in the end, I must accept Mr Ashby's MPPT calculations for AB as the more reliable calculation outcome, grounded as they are upon an admissible base of trial evidence, unlike for WEJ. 765 As I have indicated, both forensic accountants produced impressively assembled and reasoned reports. Their trial evidence under their respective brief cross-examinations at trial, was in each case plausible, coherent and, in the end, largely unshaken. 766 However, at the end, I am left the more persuaded, as I venture down this hypothetical lost income opportunity damages path, by the logic of the conclusions as reached for AB by Mr Ashby, as seen reflected under the Ashby Bar Graph - subject to one qualification. 767 In particular, I prefer and accept as the more persuasive, Mr Ashby's methodological approach as concerning disputes over the following items as between the two accountants: (a) MPPT of $US33.3 million (which, as I indicated, is largely due to its secure trial evidentiary foundations); (b) accelerated costs of $US3.4 million; (c) interest of $US7.6 million; [2020] WASC 14 KENNETH MARTIN J Page 231 (d) the milestone B12 $US2 million payment (a necessary consequence of this wholly hypothetical alternate analysis - which necessarily proceeds in this hypothetical environment on the basis that practical completion would have been achieved by AB for its FPSO Facility); (e) tax of $US0.1 million; (f) other cash flows of $US6.2 million; (g) inflation of $US0.4 million; (h) working capital of $US0.5 million; (i) start date amount of $US2.7 million; and (j) discounting of $US0.3 million. 768 The only calculation by Mr Ashby upon the disputed items that I do not accept is his capital expenditure allowance of $US6.8 million. 769 Towards that item, I prefer as the more logical, the rival approach of Mr Jaski for WEJ as to a likely future incurring of potential future expenditure under circumstances, where there was no 'back-to-back' reimbursement applicable for it. By contrast, Mr Ashby's instructions had been to the effect it should be assumed by him no further capital expenditure would have been incurred by AB from April 2016 to August 2018. Mr Jaski was not in this realm conceptually fettered by such an instruction and so, I prefer his overall approach to this issue. 770 In end consequence then, I would, if necessary, under AB's less preferred damages scenario, assess AB's loss of profits in US dollars by reference to the Ashby Bar Graph - but with an excision of his capital expenditure figure. Hence, the end calculation is $US172.3 million, minus $US6.8 million, culminating in a net loss position for AB of $US165.5 million. 771 That completes all my findings and conclusions on the trial's secondary issues, should they be required. 24/01/2020 4:01 PM armadatuah2017 @fc why are you so concerned? you hold anything? we are not buying at the high side. you're upset because you can only watch and trying to get peopketo jump out from boat? 24/01/2020 4:01 PM armadatuah2017 all the risks and downside had been factored in. if you dont have any share, why so keen to show the world and repeating the same old shit 24/01/2020 4:03 PM mikekim To be clear - Armada did not "lose" US$283.5m. Any award - even a small RM5.5m, is a gain. Woodside's share price has almost no impact either - +0.4% gain. If you look at the discounted cashflow projections of all equity research analysts - all the projections do not include Claire's bonus award into their calculations, when they discount the cashflow back to present value to derive their TP. This is what it means by the market is "not pricing in any potential award by Claire". 24/01/2020 4:07 PM mikekim Need someone with legal background here to read through the court document in detail, and please let us know whether the "secondary issue" claim US$165.5m - what does this really mean? Thanks. 24/01/2020 4:08 PM mikekim Anyway, Happy Chinese New Year to everyone. Wishing everyone (and BA) a very prosperous new year ahead! Enjoy the holidays, relax, and look forward to Q4 (end Feb). Cheers. 24/01/2020 4:41 PM InvestorKING However, at the end, I am left the more persuaded, as I venture down this hypothetical lost income opportunity damages path, by the logic of the conclusions as reached for AB by Mr Ashby, as seen reflected under the Ashby Bar Graph - subject to one qualification. 767 In particular, I prefer and accept as the more persuasive, Mr Ashby's methodological approach as concerning disputes over the following items as between the two accountants: (a) MPPT of $US33.3 million (which, as I indicated, is largely due to its secure trial evidentiary foundations); (b) accelerated costs of $US3.4 million; (c) interest of $US7.6 million; Page 231 (d) the milestone B12 $US2 million payment (a necessary consequence of this wholly hypothetical alternate analysis - which necessarily proceeds in this hypothetical environment on the basis that practical completion would have been achieved by AB for its FPSO Facility); (e) tax of $US0.1 million; (f) other cash flows of $US6.2 million; (g) inflation of $US0.4 million; (h) working capital of $US0.5 million; (i) start date amount of $US2.7 million; and (j) discounting of $US0.3 million. 768 The only calculation by Mr Ashby upon the disputed items that I do not accept is his capital expenditure allowance of $US6.8 million. 769 Towards that item, I prefer as the more logical, the rival approach of Mr Jaski for WEJ as to a likely future incurring of potential future expenditure under circumstances, where there was no 'back-to-back' reimbursement applicable for it. By contrast, Mr Ashby's instructions had been to the effect it should be assumed by him no further capital expenditure would have been incurred by AB from April 2016 to August 2018. Mr Jaski was not in this realm conceptually fettered by such an instruction and so, I prefer his overall approach to this issue. 770 In end consequence then, I would, if necessary, under AB's less preferred damages scenario, assess AB's loss of profits in US dollars by reference to the Ashby Bar Graph - but with an excision of his capital expenditure figure. Hence, the end calculation is $US172.3 million, minus $US6.8 million, culminating in a net loss position for AB of $US165.5 million. 771 That completes all my findings and conclusions on the trial's secondary issues, should they be required. 24/01/2020 5:52 PM Boon Keng I think @fc must be loss alot of money in armada. So he jealous those who holding. Btw get a life pls, enjoys ur CNY Long holidays first. And comeback only next weeek lah. 24/01/2020 6:00 PM InvestorKING 770 In end consequence then, I would, if necessary, under AB's less preferred damages scenario, assess AB's loss of profits in US dollars by reference to the Ashby Bar Graph - but with an excision of his capital expenditure figure. Hence, the end calculation is $US172.3 million, minus $US6.8 million, culminating in a net loss position for AB of $US165.5 million. 771 That completes all my findings and conclusions on the trial's secondary issues, should they be required 24/01/2020 6:02 PM InvestorKING US 165.5 partial award for the suffering of the loss of incomes due to Armada by woodside 24/01/2020 6:03 PM InvestorKING Really need to read thoroughly and carefully then only know the report 24/01/2020 6:05 PM mikekim Maybe appeal can win US$165.5m as determined by the current judge. My read is that he’s saying there’s some merits to US$165.5m although he dismissed US$283.5m. Oh well, still an ongoing case. I’m sure BA will appeal, then maybe final order is some middle ground. But since many people don’t bother to read in depth, they only read headlines (which sounds negative though in truth it’s not) and may sell on weak sentiment. That’s how our market works. Perception > reality. Relax, enjoy the holidays, and see you after Q4 results. All the best. 24/01/2020 6:22 PM RJ87 ironman21, learn to see cash flow statement. Sept,2019 Operating profit before changes in working capital = RM862,324,000 Jun,2019 Operating profit before changes in working capital = RM570,236 ,000 Total Operating Profit before changes in working capital for latest quarter was = RM292,088,000 Sept,2019 Operating profit after changes in working capital = RM498,024,000 Jun,2019 Operating profit after changes in working capital = RM387,627 ,000 Total Operating Profit after changes in working capital was = RM110,397,000 For any Kong Kam that still think it's running into cash issue; do some math! Current orderbook 18.5Bil or 500mil a quarter are able to sustain armada for 37 quarters for 9 years with about RM100mil cash generated after interest and tax is RM3.7Bil. Conservative evaluation without factoring improvement on OMS and OSV. Just pure current circumstances. Armada will be in business for next 5-9 years conservatively. I'm not suggesting you to hold for next 5 years. Just you know, ride on global Capex on OnG until end of 2020. It's a fools ventures to forecast earnings past 5 years. At least for OnG, the capex is favourable for next 3-5 years. TL;DR: Company that need right issue are operational deficit company. Every one dollar in revenue hv to lose 20sen that type. RI is imminent. Operation alone, Armada is generating RM110mil a quarter. They are not operation deficit company. They make money one. 24/01/2020 6:40 PM InvestorKING Mikekim, honestly when I read dismissed, I already thought it's lost already, buddy hell, that's really misleading, really need to read in depth, otherwise got con again 24/01/2020 6:41 PM InvestorKING On 14 March 2016, ABPL filed a Writ of Summons in the Supreme Court of Western Australia (“Supreme Court”) against WEJ for, inter alia, (i) a declaration that WEJ was in repudiatory breach of the Contract and (ii) damages for WEJ’s breach of the Contract. Subsequently, on 20 April 2016, ABPL filed its Statement of Claim in the Supreme Court against WEJ claiming for damages in general for WEJ’s repudiation of the Contract, and the amount of such damages has been quantified by ABPL to include the sum of USD275,813,698.63 (being the amount of the termination payment to which ABPL is entitled had the Contract been terminated without breach) plus any additional damages for loss of bargain caused to ABPL as a consequence of WEJ’s repudiation of the Contract. ABPL is also claiming for the additional sum of USD7,700,000.00 for work done and materials supplied pursuant to the Contract. WEJ had, on 2 June 2016, filed its defence to ABPL’s Statement of Claim. The trial for this matter has commenced at the Supreme Court on 18 February 2019 and the parties served written closing submissions and made closing oral submissions on 26 and 27 March 2019. Judgement is expected before the end of December 2019. The management is of the view that there are reasonable grounds to expect a favourable outcome in respect of ABPL’s claims with regards to the said repudiation by WEJ of the Contract. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the award of damages in the event of a favourable outcome is subject to final determination by the Supreme Court. 24/01/2020 6:43 PM InvestorKING Armada claimed US 276mil, but being offered US 165mil, and asked for US 7mil, but offered RM 5.5mil 24/01/2020 6:49 PM InvestorKING Court said, I dismissed your claim for US 276mil, but only give you US 165mil, you want or not? 24/01/2020 6:59 PM InvestorKING Anyway I think shorties and investors don't know anything about this and not aware also, so they only *dismissed* 24/01/2020 7:10 PM RJ87 I read the whole thing. Armada filing USD 275mil is profit that they have yet make. IMO, u haven’t do the work, u cannot count future earnings as loss. If u consider WEJ position, they got conned by their consultant. Balnaves oilfield is more water field than oil field. Armada is contractor to convert the ship. Armada is paid by progress. And armada is supposed to be partner to dig oil from oilfield that has more water than oil. And WEJ used a performance issue on auxiliary as failing to meet QET and terminate the service contract on oil mining. If u think armada pitiful, WEJ even more pitiful. Spend so much money on oilfield that has no oil. At least armada still get paid doing the work. WEJ get nothing. If not because of stupid pump issue, WEJ will lose even more. Now better question to ask is, armada Claire belongs to who? Anyway, Better focus on eps 7.5sen with PE10, 75sen. 24/01/2020 7:14 PM InvestorKING file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/LTWORSB9/bumi-claim-dismissed.pdf 24/01/2020 8:47 PM  Robert Waters Try as I may, I do not see that as a statement that woodside needs to pay a lot ..... Ask Christine, here contact is there. _______________________________________________________ BUMI CLAIM DISMISSED Woodside and Armada Balnaves Pte Ltd (Bumi) have been engaged in proceedings in the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Armada Balnaves Pte Ltd v Woodside Energy Julimar Pty Ltd, CIV/1408/2016) with respect to the termination in March 2016 by Woodside of the services agreement for the Armada Claire FPSO. The trial was held in February-March 2019. In a judgment issued this afternoon, the Supreme Court has found in favour of Woodside and dismissed Bumi's claim. Contacts: INVESTORS MEDIA Damien Gare Christine Forster W: +61 8 9348 4421 M: +61 484 112 469 M: +61 417 111 697 E: christine.forster@woodside.com.au E: investor@woodside.com.au 24/01/2020 9:04 PM Robert Waters Now ... all over internet articles about bumi armada losing it's case. Either all those reporters and woodside, or people here get something wrong. _____________________________________________ The Woodside said on Friday that the Supreme Court of Western Australia had dismissed Bumi Armada’s claim for compensation following termination of the Armada Claire FPSO charter in March 2016. According to the Australian company, the trial was held during February and March 2019. To put things into context, Bumi Armada signed the contract with Apache to provide the FPSO Armada Claire for the Balnaves Field in September 2011. The contract was for an initial fixed term charter of four years expiring in August 2018, with options for four annual extensions. At the time of the award, the contract was valued at approximately $357.5M. Woodside bought Apache’s 65 percent interest in the field in April 2015, and the contract was novated to the company in May of the same year. Woodside then terminated the charter for the FPSO on March 4, 2016, more than two years before the charter contract end. Bumi deemed the termination unlawful and decided to take legal action against the oil company. At the time, Bumi said it had intended to fully enforce its rights under the contract, including initiating legal proceedings against Woodside for its unlawful purported termination of the contract. On March 11, 2016, Bumi Armada’s subsidiary Armada Balnaves sent a counter-notice of termination to Woodside. Under the counter-notice, Armada Balnaves reserved the right to claim damages for the breach of the contract. Bumi went further with the dispute by starting a court action against Woodside only days later. The FPSO owner stated in the court case that the damages for breach of contract would be quantified at a later stage and that it also wanted reimbursement for an additional sum of $66.2 million for work done and materials supplied pursuant to the contract, interest, costs, and other relief as the court deemed fit. In April 2016, the height of the damages was disclosed in a $283.5 million claim which was submitted to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. According to Bumi, the sum of $275.8 million is the amount of the termination payment to which Armada Balnaves is entitled had the contract been terminated without breach, plus any additional damages for loss of bargain caused to Armada Balnaves as a consequence of Woodside’s repudiation of the contract. An additional sum of $7.7 million was sought for work done and materials supplied pursuant to the contract. https://www.offshoreenergytoday.com/court-rules-in-favor-of-woodside-in-bumi-fpso-termination-case/ 24/01/2020 9:12 PM Robert Waters Here is one from the Bumi Armada prospective... https://www.oedigital.com/news/474956-bumi-armada-loses-woodside-fpso-case Malaysian FPSO specialist Bumi Armada's claim against Australia's oil firm Woodside for a 2016 FPSO contract termination has been dismissed in court. Woodside in 2016 terminated the contract for the Armada Claire FPSO unit that was operating at the Balnaves Field, offshore north-western Australia since August 2014. Bumi Armada, via its Armada Balnaves subsidiary, deemed the termination unlawful, and then took legal action against Woodside, seeking a $283.5 million compensation. According to a statement by Woodside, issued on Friday, January 24, 2020, the Supreme Court of Western Australia has now ruled in favor of Woodside. Woodside said: "The trial was held in February-March 2019. In a judgment issued this afternoon, the Supreme Court has found in favor of Woodside and dismissed Bumi’s claim." Worth noting, Bumi Armada had originally signed the Armada Claire FPSO deal with Apache in 2011. Apache then in 2015 sold its Australia operations to Woodside which eventually terminated the FPSO contract. The 240-meter-long Armada Claire converted into FPSO by Keppel in 2013, has been listed as „available for re-deployment“ on Bumi Armada's website. According to available info, the FPSO with 30,000 bpd production capacity has been cold-stacked in Batam, Indonesia. 24/01/2020 9:14 PM armadatuah2017 interesting on Tuesday but i believe it will shake off lots of retailers away into cutloss 24/01/2020 10:48 PM mikekim There are 2 components: 1) 275.8m - court dismissed this, but states that 165.5m has some merits on “secondary issues”. So this will most likely be in the appeal of BA - 165.5m. Takes another 6 months or so, then we’ll know whether BA can get anything or not. 2) 7.7m - other sundries. On a net basis, BA is awarded around AUD2m or RM5.5m Woodside’s announcement is based on 1), without considering the 165.5m potential appeal by BA which the Supreme Court judge acknowledged may have some merits in the event that his decision gets overturned by court of appeal. So I think BA’s announcement is going to be like, we’re awarded about AUD2m, and we’re going to appeal 165.5m because we believe we have grounds to win the appeal, which the Supreme Court has acknowledged there are merits to it. So based on this, make your call. Actually, just assume 0 Claire award for 1), and AUD2m for 2), so basically is a small gain because Claire has been written down in 2016. The company had a lottery ticket that won a small prize, that’s it. It’s still consolation peanut ibox prize. This judgment has no material impact on BA’s operations or financial results (small gain only), and Q4 results are way more important, esp Kraken and OMS performance. I look forward to a dip next Tuesday (hopefully). The bigger the better for collection before a rebound in Q4 before market comes to its senses and see the turnaround big picture. The market always does this, so it’s an opportunity to take great advantage. Get ready your bullets!! 24/01/2020 11:09 PM RJ87 Nope. They don't and shouldn't. Technically, what woodside has not paid yet was the work that Armada has not yet done. They havent dig anything out from Balvenas field and there is nothing to dig out either. Better take the Armada Claire and park it somewhere else. I will say it's blessing in disguise for Armada Claire. The charter rate goes by bpd. And Balvenas field is filled with more water than oil. It's gonna shit show operationally. Back to my question, Armada Claire belongs to who? If it belong to Armada, it's a good news. WEJ has been paying for all the conversion work on Armada Claire. Imagine, people pays for renovation work for your bar and you get to be the boss and keep all the profits. If SA proceed, it's gonna be a split. Now if u can find new oilfield; u get to keep all the profits. It's not such a bad deal. I can understand why Australian Court dismissed Armada's demands for compensation. I will hv issue if Bumi Armada paid for everything and WEJ refused the ship. But the truth is WEJ paid most of it and give it to Armada. Now, Armada claims for compensation on "hypothetical" loss of profit. If i'm Gary, I will park it in Brazil basin on discount tomorrow. Since WEJ paid half of it anyway, just quickly park somewhere and monetize it. If I'm a judge, I won't pay Armada too. That's like someone else pays for the Ferrari together with you but you get to keep the Ferrari for yourself and later sues the person and pays for it. What logic is that? I said what I have said, I don't care if it's 30sen next week. I didn't buy Bumi Armada for Claire compensation. I bought Bumi Armada for Annualised EPS 7.5sen on PE10 WITHOUT Claire. Not that Armada Claire contributed a penny to EPS 7.5sen. 25/01/2020 12:34 AM RJ87 This blunder is all on ONE guy. Gomez. I wonder if he is still a director in Armada. If Gary is a no garbage CEO, if Gomez is still the executing director; he should be on top of Gary's blacklist to be fired. Self confessed "cunning fox" in court material. If he didnt f*ck up on the Auxiliary System that failed QET that gives WEJ grounds to terminate the contract; the case will be straight forward. If the contract is worth USD 400mil until 2018 to Armada; Armada is entitle to profit that he has yet worked for. In the end of the day, it's not Armada that doesn't wanna work on the field. It's WEJ. But now, Armada has a Auxiliary System that failed QET; it becomes sticky. It's not WEJ conveniently terminated the contract; WEJ spent USD180+mil on a FPSO that "doesn't work". Armada Claire do meet production need; just one auxiliary system that suppose to pump waste water back to the well isn't working that requests leaked gas to be flamed out causing future "environmental" concern. Again, don't park in Australia la. They care more for the penguins. Go park it as Brazil where people burns Amazon for fun. Armada Claire will be more profitable there. If Gary reads this; he will agree. 25/01/2020 12:51 AM RJ87 I'm not sure about "$275.8 million is the amount of the termination payment to which Armada Balnaves is entitled had the contract been terminated without breach". Is that the amount that Apache/Woodside agreed to pay if they terminate the contract regardless of the circumstances or what? If it's WEJ will pay Armada 275mil regardless of circumstances if the contract been terminated without breach...or maybe WEJ don't really have to pay if Armada delivered a 90% functional FPSO facilities which is a breach of contract. That's in dispute. See what's the management comment next week. 25/01/2020 1:13 AM i3lurker EPF was selling non-stop, EPF sold the fooking silly comment ===> share prices says all if want to hold better pray for a Global War 25/01/2020 8:16 AM MM78 @RJ87 “I said what I have said, I don't care if it's 30sen next week. I didn't buy Bumi Armada for Claire compensation. I bought Bumi Armada for Annualised EPS 7.5sen on PE10 WITHOUT Claire. Not that Armada Claire contributed a penny to EPS 7.5sen.” Well said RJ 87, I agreed to very large extend the main reasons some rationale investors who bought Armada base on its inherent potential of EPS of 7.5 sen or even more . Claire was history with its associated costs already written off and reflected in Armada share price long ago. It was a lottery some hope to get bonus if WA Supreme Court rules in our favour. Whatever awarded and potentially appealable to get more is a bonus. Expecting PE of 10- 15 of Armada is not unreasonable. Buy on dip next week if one has the” bullets” , vision of its values and courage to do so. It is your money , you can make decision . Good luck. Come 39 cents or 46 cents, we can deal with it . Thanks to Mikekim, RJ 87 and the rest for your opinions in Claire case results. 25/01/2020 8:22 AM  |
 358 242 498 874 ActiveGainersLosers
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
