Member Info for Carcosa61

https://www.**********.co.uk/articles/crestchic-executive-chairman-peter-harris-discusses-the-company-s-impressive-h1-results-1fd68b8/

Crestchic Executive Chairman, Peter Harris - 32 min video interview

Crestchic Executive Chairman, Peter Harris

Also worthwhile remembering that at some point in the future this will reverse and DEC will be booking Fair Value Gains which, for the same reasons as Jim explained should be ignored.

You can also review the Alternative Performance Metrics contained in the Presentation material to get a more reasonable idea of what's going on.

Did not see any mention of Lithium in the article you linked to.

Maybe you meant this? https://www.ft.com/content/7ca99f9f-3b67-489a-a83c-477b6b12764e
Which is essentially a re-hash of the recent IEA report

Not true as implied. It's actually a quote from Cape Wrath Focus Fund Manager who said it's their fair value estimate.

Fair value is not the same as market value and it's market value most investors are interested in.

Given the fact it has not influenced the share price, I would say it's more likely a cross trade, or possibly even a principal trade.

Because of the way I have to trade (I am not in UK) I can only realistically buy/sell during auction times on some shares. JOG being one of them. Auction trades are automated. Market makers are not mandated to provide liquidity during those times and play no role during auction trades. Therefore Market Makers have no direct bearing on liquidity or pricing. All trades done during auction times are wrapped up under one print and marked as 'UT'. This is why UT trades should be ignored by most market participants because it is relatively meaningless due to the buyers/sellers setting their own prices independent of Market Makers. Market Makers can, if they wish participate in the auction but often do not.
Very very occasionally a trader will have an automated/repetitive buy/sell well outside the norm and if some piece of news affects the company near auction times I can be the counterparty and gain an immediate 20+% share price advantage. This is a very rare occurrence and only happens on very illiquid shares though.

Should a large trade, typically at least x3 NMS be made then that trade can be delayed from being printed in order to maintain market calmness. Usually anything from 20-60 min is a typical delay time but can be several hours in some instances. You can make a reasonable guess as to whether it is a buy/sell by referring back to the estimated trade time and/or seeing if the MM's moved the price up/down in the intervening period if the trade was made by a certain MM.

As for not being able to buy/sell shares outside of NMS then remember this only applies to online trading. Get your broker to telephone the MM directly and place your order. MM's are mandated to satisfy any size order originating via a direct phone call. A good broker should also be able to get your shares at an advantageous price to the market. Other options are to have direct market access.

Yes, see here: https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=514729#p514729

Did you forget about the cash pile? That's worth about 15.5p/share.

Emirates will buy the aircraft from DNA1.
My thoughts here as to how it may affect DNA3
https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=24434&p=514729#p514729

Got it wrong. Sorry
"Restoration of trading in the Company's Existing Ordinary Shares on AIM is expected to become effective at 7.30 a.m. on Monday, 11 July 2022."

Shares will be allowed to trade again after the EGM and publication of the 'Supplementary' Admission Document. Aiming for Q4/2022

Interesting little amendment to the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Bill today (8 July 2022) which states;

"This new clause would require a six-monthly review by the Government of the oil and gas market to assess whether the levy is still needed and whether it should continue in order to promote decarbonisation of upstream oil and gas activities."

In practice that largely means electrification It also implies UK govt will continue and extend favourable tax environment for for such companies after the sunset period for this Bill.

This clause is not a major issue but provides a 'feel good' factor in the overall scheme of things.

https://twitter.com/Orcadian_Energy/status/1544388606197899265

From yesterday's first reading of the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Bill; seems yet more positive news for JOG following initial feedback of the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Bill.

Perhaps the risk is that oil prices return to historic norms quicker than many expect; although JOG have considerable tax losses to be employed as a back stop.

Sounds perfect for JOG

Not sure I understand your question. It is the "Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Bill". Interesting to note what is in the parenthesis. Suspect more levy Bills will be introduced for the Electricity and other sectors; but they are more compl

Whilst I think it abhorrent govt introduces a Bill like this, accepting that it will be done then it is good for JOG that there is no early phase out of the levy. Certainty is preferable in this instance.

The Draft bill can be read here. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1084203/Draft_Energy__Oil_and_Gas__Profits_Levy_Bill.odt

Will be interesting to see how it gets watered down by the time it becomes legislation.

The Bill includes the expected sunset provision of 31 December 2025. The original announcement had indicated that the Levy could be phased out earlier “if oil and gas prices return to historically more normal levels”. The Bill does not include any provision in this respect. This means that the Levy would not end before 31 December 2025, unless the Government brought forward amending legislation in the future.

When a company is treated as having incurred investment expenditure for these purposes depends on the type of the expenditure. In relation to capital expenditure, this is determined by a general rule is that the expenditure is treated as incurred as soon as there is an unconditional obligation to pay it. This general rule is, however, subject to certain exceptions. If, for instance, the expenditure is not required to be paid until a date more than 4 months after the unconditional obligation to pay has come into being, the expenditure is to be treated as incurred on the payment date.

Overall, this means that the investment allowance may not be as generous as it appeared when the measure was first announced, and it is questionable whether it really works as an incentive for new investment. Given the long lead time for a lot of oil and gas projects, in practice, the investment allowance will likely benefit only those projects that are ready for final approval in a fairly limited window and not those sanctioned between now and the end of 2025 where a material part of the expenditure will not be incurred for the purposes of the legislation until after 2025.

For JOG there is an expected Capex (incl. 20% contingency) of around £1bn for Phase 1 which has a target first oil of Q4/2025. So in theory the timescales fall nicely for JOG but with the ever present risks of UK govt rescinding the tax levy 'early' and/or the likely ambitious development Phase one date over running by a wide margin. In other words, the quicker the farm-out/development programme the better; based on the draft legislation.

Consultation period should have finished yesterday over the draft legislation;
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/draft-legislation-energy-oil-and-gas-profits-levy-bill#:~:text=On%2026%20May%202022%20the,measures%2C%20also%20announced%20in%20May.

PJT12, Any particular reason why you think July for legislation?

The Bill has yet to be introduced https://bills.parliament.uk/ and the summer break starts 21 July 2022 until 5 Sept 2022 so it seems to me it will not become law until Q4/22 at the earliest.

I would think no Board of Directors would approve major capital expenditure until the legislative details are known; unless any such agreement with JOG carries a number of caveats.

All those reports are available for download from the originating brokers. However the Hannon & Partners is more difficult to access.

I disagree. What the arden note is saying is:

Say each claimant gets £2100. Of that, 50% of that goes to Anexo £1100
Say each claimant costs £2000 in legal fees. 100% of that goes to Anexo, totalling £3100
3100 x 13000 claimants = £40.3m less £4m marketing fees, less £20m litigation funding (fees, interest and a share of the proceeds), leaves = £20.3m pre-tax for Anexo

From AGM Presentation:

Players with significant UK tax losses are able to shield future project cash flows from tax
Tax payers are able to utilise project capex to shield existing cash flows from taxes