Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Prairie Provident Resources Inc T.PPR

Alternate Symbol(s):  PRPRF

Prairie Provident Resources Inc. is a Canada-based company engaged in the exploration and development of oil and natural gas properties in Alberta, including a position in the emerging Basal Quartz trend in the Michichi area of Central Alberta. The Company has 167,869 net acres in its Michichi core area with approximately 40 Basal Quartz potential drilling opportunities targeting light/medium oil. Its core areas also include Princess. The Company's subsidiaries include Prairie Provident Resources Canada Ltd., Lone Pine Resources Inc., Lone Pine Resources (Holdings) Inc., Arsenal Energy USA Inc. and Arsenal Energy Holding Ltd.


TSX:PPR - Post by User

Post by nkbourbakion May 16, 2018 11:28pm
143 Views
Post# 28043387

NAFTA tribunal

NAFTA tribunalI was just doing some background reading on the NAFTA suit.  I'm sure most of you have seen the overview here:

https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/lone.aspx?lang=eng

Upon initial reading, it appears PPR doesn't have much of a case.  Does anyone have any insight or reasoning to suggest that there's a reasonable chance of substantive damages being awarded?

One poster indicated that nearly half of cases in arbitration led to compensation for the claimant.  But this doesn't shed any light on the specific merit of PPR's case.  Another poster mentioned the compensation provided by Quebec to Corridor et al with respect to Anticosti. But this strikes me as an entirely different situation as Corridor was in a JV with an affiliate of the Quebec govt. (far from a NAFTA tribunal).

I understand that this is effectively a "free option".  I'm just trying to better understand the mertis of the suit itself.





Bullboard Posts