Adrian Hargrave, CEO of SEEEN, explains how the new funds will accelerate customer growth Watch the video here.
There is a tax treaty in place between UK and FI, so that any UK tax arising on the worldwide profits of a company are reduced by any amount paid to the FI Govt.
Additional local North Sea taxes like the EPL do not apply.
I expect that a local subsidiary company incorporated in Stanley will be the taxpayer, leaving only repatriation of dividends exposed to UK tax.
TCM asks : "Perhaps you are aware of some method they may use to fund exploration after 6months revenues whilst at the same time repaying 85% of revenues to the loans and retaining the other 15% for costs, unforseens,cashflow ect ? If so, please share ?"
I was taught that in the traditional business model of independent oil companies, equity funds exploration, debt funds development, and oil sales fund the resulting operating costs. Which is just as we see here. So if a huge exploration/appraisal opportunity arose after first oil, a placing would happen and would probably be oversubscribed, without damaging the SP trajectory.
Does that answer your question?
TCM
The situation has been explained here before. FIG holds security over ALL of Rockhopper's assets as a result of a tax deed settlement (which may, or may not now apply) . The OM funder wants a security over the OM award, which is a Rockhopper asset, before paying up. This conflict is a legal matter. It will be concluded with a ranking agreement between FIG and the OM funder, as is the case with any multiple security arrangement.
It has nothing to do with Navitas.
Navitas made it plain at a local meeting in Stanley that they were using the Temporary Dock Facility (Noble Frontier barge) that Noble energy left behind after the Eirik Raude drilling programme. They are refurbishing it now to make it ready as part of a shore base logistics for the Sea Lion development.
H&L issues and the FIPASS replacement are unconnected to the project.
According to the DT article : “In a statement following the ship’s expedition, the Russian geological agency Rosgeo said surveys had identified approximately 70bn tons of oil and gas buried beneath the Antarctic Shelf.”
There’s propaganda and outright lying, and this piece of horse manure is in the latter category. It is physically impossible for a seismic survey to identify oil and gas reserves, which DT says were “proven”. The editor’s pants are on fire.
Such a survey identifies geology which might include reservoirs which might contain hydrocarbons or water or might be tight and contain nothing at all. OK there are sometimes indicators in the seismic interpretation which suggest the presence of oil, but it’s a suggestion. Otherwise there would be no such thing as a dry hole, and exploration drilling would be a historical footnote in a world of plenty.
Desire oil to water anyone?
The Russians carried out an offshore seismic survey in international waters, not on British Antarctica land. They did not discover an oilfield, because the Russian vessel was a seismic research vessel, not a drilling rig. The story is clickbait.
Sometimes taking matters into your own hand works. See below
STRIKING OFF ACTION DISCONTINUED
08138246 NAVITAS PETROLEUM DEVELOPIWNT AND PRODUCTION LTD
Cause has been shown why the above company should not be struck off the register and accordingly the Registrar is taking no further action under section 1000 of the Companies Act 2006 pursuant to the
Notice dated 03/05/2024
Laugh as you wish, Ken Dodd, but this is the Sea Lion operating company
FIRST GAZETTE NOTICE
08138246 NAVITAS PETROLEUM
DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION LTD
Publication date in the Gazette: 30/04/2024
The Registrar of Companies gives notice that, unless cause is shown to the contrary, the Company will be struck off the register and dissolved not less than 2 months from the date shown above.
Upon the Company's dissolution, all property and rights vested in, or held in trust for, the Company are deemed to be bona vacantia, and will belong to the Crown.
OIL, I will write to the company secretary , Broughton Secretaries Ltd.
This company "NAVITAS PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION LTD" formerly "PREMIER OIL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION LIMITED" is the operator of the Sea Lion field and it carries over £700,000 of tax losses to consume, there is no way it can just be forfeit to the Crown in July if the strike off is not reversed.
Moving the licence asset to another company will not move its tax losses.
TCM's view that Companies House is irrelevant, is simply absurd. It talks a lot but makes little sense.
TheChessMaster, FYI
The Navitas company registered in England and Wales is the one with the Production Licence from FIG. If the Gazetted strike off reaches conclusion in 60 days, Gideon will have no licence to produce oil. So while he may not be interested in minor English matters in your world, the devil is often in the detail, and he will have to wake up and deal with it. If he doesn't, I will take in on to remind him because my economic interest through RKH is being compromised. So is yours.
Https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08138246
Someone ought to have a quick word with Gideon and remind him that his accounts are overdue and Companies House have gazetted a striking off notice for his company
I am sorry, but all this hand wringing about delayed legislation by FIG is cobblers. Navitas, Rockhopper, and Borders & Southern all have legal “Production Licences” which allow them to produce oil from those licences, as long as they agree to:
“Good oilfield practices must be observed at all times.
Licence holders must comply with additional conditions to the licences as detailed in Petroleum Operations Notices issued from time to time by the Government.”
Verbatim from….
https://www.falklands.gov.fk/mineralresources/offshore/production-licences
The so-called Offshore Minerals Project legal drafting is all about the islanders’ readiness for the consequences of oil production, not a precursor to it. It is not an obstacle to a field development which has an approved plan and an approved EIS.
As has been pointed out, as a British Overseas Territory, FIG could simply adopt all of the UKCS petroleum legislation, topped and tailed, if time was of the essence.
As PaulDrayton says, it’s a clever situation which benefits both RKH and FIG.
This “deemed Capital Gains Tax” from 2012 was valid at the time, but everyone knows that it is no longer payable including FIG. It has been written down to zero in the Company’ s accounts and the auditors approved that. The liability no longer exists under status quo. But there is a useful clause in the tax deed where it becomes immediately payable if the Company were to be taken over. It’s a poison pill to prevent a takeover and anyone in the know, knows it, so it’s useful to keep it.
When Odey tried to grab the cash element of the Premier farmout in 2013, via a court action to convert the share premium to distributable reserves, FIG used the CGT liability to take a security over “all” of the Company’s assets to prevent that happening. Odey was thwarted and left with his tail between his legs. That security is now the apparent clash with the OM award funder, as the potential cash assets increase.
It is a clash that can easily be resolved through a legal agreement for the ranking of securities, viz. who gets what first, if it all goes belly up. Banking consortia do this every day.
Maybe that’s why Sam is going to meet FIG next week?
I think the poison pill will remain even after the clash is resolved.
“London Calling” …..remember The Clash?