Member Info for CitizenTS

Wouldn't expect so

Agree SH - though the detail is somewhat better than that!

The capex is not a cost in the years when the revenue comes in, but it is of course still a cost and can all be deducted and carried forward for tax

So ... no tax to pay till all capex expensed. Borrowings repaid by then and capex funded by equity also expensed.

Thereafter cash flow, and taxable profit, is basically brent less opex only.

ha, nice of you to seek clarification headder eh!

Mmbr1 - missrule is on a mission of his own that's not the same thing at all as our shareholder interest.

Also thinks everyone else is not nearly as clever as he imagines himself to be.

Remember he's perfectly happy to talk rubbish to us and hope it works.

Re LazymisRule

naaaa, options increasing all the time.

Suits rkh really just fine for Navitas to press ahead in 2024, pretty much post annullment and one year later so better sale pricing for slice of award.

Make of that what you will mate!

Deceased overleveraged is the ghastly godders

LazyMissRule is a single-issue oddity??!

Chessmess is a time waster

Yeh yeh laticsfule, as we know you're always unfailingly polite to anyone who disagrees with your gospel !

Chessmess gone away?

Pedantic ... and right

Ha, the only alter ego around hear is chesscheat!

No doubt they'll pop up with another

In practical terms the escrow question may hardly matter as the likelihood of actual money hitting the account before annulment is decidied is remote. Don't see that the escrow would affect any sale of the award.

Is it right right that the stay/escrow is, inevitably, being decided by the same ad hoc committee that is deciding the annulment? Think so. In which case the committee has no incentive to watch its back on the jurisdiction argument in the course of its handling of the case. If Italy is not cooperating at this stage as part of building its jurisdiction argument then it is truly shooting itself in the foot.

Perhaps someone might kindly remind them there's no such thing as an annulment of an annulment decision!

It remains a possibility, in principle, that they're not cooperating with a view to raising jurisdiction in future attempts to contest enforcement. If so, it means they've already thrown in the towel. They'd be diminishing whatever chances they have here in return for a notional crumb at the enforcement stage.

On the escrow thing, if RoI won't properly engage then they shouldn't benefit from an escrow. And the whole recoupment thing is an argument that because rkh are small and RoI is big/can pay/a state, rkh shouldn't get the money.

Isn't that the opposite of ICSID's purpose?

And the existing stay is of course provisional only. Again, no such thing for an appeal!

Entirely agree LTT. RoI are asking ICSID to treat the process as if it's an appeal. It isn't. If it were there wouldn't be any separate thing about a stay. The stay would come with granting of leave to appeal. None of that is happening here. Anyone can request an annulment without asking and asking for a stay is a separate thing. RoI would just love to be taking part in an appeal but they aren't.

A request for an annulment is more of a look-back review, after the event. Entirely reasonable for the stay to be lifted PERIOD in all the circumstances.

But we shall see!

@norseman, UKG is super-interested in getting capital markets to work - but unfortunately too many narrowly focused solutions being suggested. They'll find the right button eventually.

BBC thing ended on a remarkably good note with the academic that argued the importance of governments keeping to agreements, and then making the point that the real weight of Energy Charter cases was from governments, Italy and Spain in particular, committing to renewables projects with the private and sector and then, once companies have been drawn in, reneging on the terms!! RoI came off pretty badly. Thought presenter did a half decent job.

Don't see why Italy would voluntarily deposit anything in an escrow account.

@LTT, I'm reading the RNS to say it's escrow either way, just if they can't agree an escrow holder/terms then rkh suggest such to ICSID.

My reading was that if they can't agree an escrow arrangement the rkh propose an escrow arrangement to ICSID and stay lifted.

Yes, also saw that figure, higher than I'd thought.
And guess must be an earlyish '24 for FID

errr, should of interest on here ...
See https://ir.navitaspet.com/company-presentation/
Navitas investor presentation over the weekend/yesterday in ENGLISH!
Great stuff, one thing is confirms target first oil 2026.
Slightly surprised left to me to post this.