Member Info for CitizenTS

@ SpceHoppa, don't think the cost of the investment has much at all to do with this case. You might reference what you'd paid if you were suing the seller. But the other party to this arbitration is not the seller, indeed the seller has no involvement in the case, and I'm not even sure the buyer is a principal party to the case either! Or at least it's standing in the case is entirely its role as owner of the operating company. Those transaction details are too remote to matter.
What we're arbitrating is the damage done by a third party, a vandal passer-by if you like, being in this case the Republic of Italy, to the operating company. Those damages are far more substantial.
But what I'm waiting for just now is any word from FIG on admitting Navitas to the licence and the length of the licence extension.

Am going to listen to it all. Wasn't at AGM.
My previous understanding was a possible FID late '23 and that is sanction in '24.
To my mind 2.5yrs fid to first oil wouldn't make sense.
But fid is dependent on all sorts and could happen earlier. Absolutely no reason to think Navitas would want to hang around.

"Sort of has to be" dratted typos

@SpaceHoppa, LTT
The $35m is correct on the numbers you are using.
I have clarified this - it was reasonably clear early on anyway though persistent misreading of terms on here actually made me wonder at one stage.
However to avoid any doubt the terms were re-stated in the 19 April rns where the second bullet of Navitas loan funding explanation stated that Navitas's interest free loan funding of rkh was "for any costs not met by third party debt financing". The third party debt financing wording there is as wide as it could possibly be to make clear how the deal works. ALL debt, whether arranged by Navitas or vendor financing or whatever counts; it does not have to be secured on the project and/or meet any particular definition of project financing. Its just what's left that is split 65:35 etc. Sor to has to be.
Really!
Good eh?

past, not last

Wonderful, and great find
Tricky sunset provisions but Italy could pay up now on OM with a much reduced fear of encouraging new claims!
Just a one-off to clear up their last misdemeanours erc :)

@LTT, Hoppa
This is mistaken, see earlier post and Rkh RNS.
Rkh have to find their likely 33%ish of 35% or whatever ONLY of development costs AFTER all debt raised. The part of costs funded by debt is, to state the obvious, funded by the lenders.
And Navitas is expected to arrange debt to cover most of the costs!
A (relatively) modest OM result along some of the excess that might be raised in the current exercise when warrant subs are included could quite possibly see us through by itself.
Think about it

Happy to correct, these mistakes have all been made before.
All those proportions only apply to funds needed AFTER all debt debt financing relating to the development. Navitas are expected to arrange debt funding for most of the development.

Absolutely ralphy, always a risk, especially so here. But a better one this week than last week.

dearest desperate deluded old ralphy, if it needs saying rkh is a better investment this week than last week, with the funds rather than without. That's why I'll have upped my stake after all dilution.
It depends where you're starting from versus risk appetite, resources etc, obviously.
But spare us the after-the-event, backward facing, self-justification, data-free zone.
For your own sake ralphy, it's not a good look

no brainer, absolutely right. Was a bit sloppy there!
All about from here to end '23

Well the warrants expire end of this year.
Whole shebang on the warrants, including any equity raise effect, is all about what happens before then.

I guess warrants are basically what we'd all like to have! Slight thing that I can see some folk feeling may as well part with the open offer shares, or half of them (or the same number of old shares now before they get the open offer shares), and just keep the warrants, which as I see it you have to be able to do. Open offer entitlements are set now I think. As buzz said, the shares were ex entitlement today so selling them doesn't lose you the open offer entitlement. Might be a few days till that works through.
Fancy they'll regret it though if Navitas announced as operator, operator management announced (albeit with some options) and all visibly moving forward by then.
Quite a few moving parts to this, as usual.

I'd say it's more that with the increased placing, likely raise through warrants if O M is a modest success and the open offer, then even a relatively modest OM result might mean SL project sanction could occur with no further rkh equity raise! :)

@ Deus, all agreed, it's just hard to see what exactly is the advantage to be gained by the "conspiracy or 'concert party'".
We're left with a possibility ... are they a privileged bunch of eco vandals whose real intent is actually to undermine Sea Lion? Alternatively are they plants (insects?) of the Argies?
Either way anyone who supps with them will end up a pawn in someone else's perverse game.

Just a detail re selling an eighth to get them back on open offer ...
You'll lose your eighth entitlement on the ones you sell if you do that early! The entitlement has to be set by reference to some (not yet fixed) record date.
Answer would be to sell one ninth and then pick up an eighth of the rest.
Always assuming that is, that you want to only have the same number of shares and have your upside diluted.

They're welcome to take a stake if/when we need to fundraise.
Would he theft to give them the whole company anything remotely close to the same price.

Merger with Hurricane would smash our share price prospects to pieces. Would dilute value creation from SL by around four times. Spread it across 4x the shares.
Insane idea, completely.

Right so here's a take on timing. We can all see Navitas will be looking for a second hand FPSO, redrawing requirements with contractors etc. The actual engineering will not take long, weeks maybe rather than months. They've volunteered that. Agreements with FIG etc, assume all gets done.
The task in hand that Navitas are actually engaged in at this point is positioning for negotiations with contractors etc. That's what determines how much it'll all cost after all. Only thing they or us should be interested in.
For that you wan't to be able to say we at any rate have got time. No public commitments to nearer term dates, two years on licence etc. If you want to play ball give us your best offer and so on.
It's the only positioning that might actually get us there earlier with the right deals at reasonable cost. Let's see!

Wonder why HyfromAires is here, oh yes ...