Member Info for CitizenTS

Jame's, sounds like you're no longer quite so nervous.

So James Godbold, known more recently as aiminvestors on here, is nervous. Nothing new there then!

There's only one response. James, its THE END!

James, tell us your break even price. So where between here and 50p?

Re "Oscar I think we have a $400m capital gain bill to pay", another prodding for reassurance from James Godbold (known more recently as Aiminvestors on here). The guy's hugely over committed, goes weak kneed every time the share price wobbles, been snubbed by the company, and his OM is to say something negative as a plea for reassurance from peeps he thinks might know more. He's happy to say himself that he's got it wrong (haven't we all made mistakes?) just to fend off being called out.

The only proper response to floating the $400m figure is this: -

James, its $800m, hopeless. Made your day?

Correction, what a third party might pay need not go on the communal pot but project finance remains just that.

Well I don't particularly see why Nav would be keen to bring in a third party ... unless it was on some very good terms. Also don't see that it would work as suggested, that is with the the percentage of the project going to the new partner being, directly, the percentage of the $1.2bln development cost for what used to be called phase 1 of Sea Lion. To be clear you'd either be granting, or not, rights to the rest of SL and/or Isobel, all of which are part of Nav's interest. Sout Falklands (incl rkh's acreage opposite Darwin) is of course excluded anyway.

A partner that cones in would presumably pay something. But that would go in the communal project pot. The borrowings would remain communal/project borrowings.

So I'm coming from quite a different place on how it would work.

Still, Nav's approach clearly is to get paid for moving something from appraisal to sanction. Looks like they've done that bit here!

If there were to he someone who would pay, say, $350m for a 20% share of the whole caboodle, including benefiting from Nav's ability to project finance, then it would a) evidence valuations of existing shareholders' interests post such a deal that are, in rkh's case, high multiples of the existing mcap and b) be more than justifiable. Guess they might pay $500m plus to do the deal

Carlson are small time punters from Minnesota. Couldn't ever be visible shareholders of a larger market cap anyway,

Jhi should pay some.mob costs if they do that!

Speculative suggestion but if JHI want the rig to drill old Argos acreage, even for a year, they could have it in the period between SL phases 1 and 2. Would be mighty convenient for paying down most of the expensive project debt.

Just an ugly gùy wanting to be a despot - "We categorically and forcefully reject ... a popular consultation"

@SH - now thinking you may be right.

I guess Nav envisage some reorg of the legal entities - which might be necessary anyway.

Those losses would be worth 19p on each Rkh share when the time comes.

700m (or whatever) tax losses that is

For sake of accuracy the 770m is for Rkh only, not the project. Its rkh that owns the subsids with the tax losses.

As I would understand it Rkh will pay no tax for quite a few years, even post first oil. Nav might. Nav has a share of the licences (my understanding), pretty much directly, not the old subsids.

Perhaps some scope for discussion there but that's my current understanding.

Yeah, they won't be getting any profit tax for a while so the royalties are what they're.

I have $17 (rather than 20) as operating costs

Hi SH, thanks - and in the interests of accuracy the royalty is on turnover (if I'm reading your numbers correctly that it might be profit used there).

@Dai

.. . would add also that after paying debt off, which is pre tax money as its a depreciation charge for tax, the real profit after that is the cash flow with operating costs of $17 only. Capital costs will already have been paid at that point.

And even when costs are $17 only, the first few hundred million are tax free even then because of the $600m (or whatever) tax losses. Ain't that worth another 19p per share?

But biggest thing is the $17 ongoing cost per barrel.

Brilliant re Navitas, presumably timing just follows the EIS Option 1 and five wells (only) to first oil. Forget all the 33 months and or seven wells or whatever also me tinned in the EIS.

FID/Sanction this year and first oil 2026 it plainly is. Couln't be stated any clearer. Fizzzzz bang pop. Wonderful!

' should'a bin a primary school teacher, prob is