Member Info for CitizenTS

expedited presumably also means they see a possible shorter run-in to first oil

Will become clearer in the new year but this project really IS going to happen!!!!!
That means a share price ...

That's an interesting piece buzz; a lot of it sounds right to me.

It's unfortunate we have to tolerate Godawful's performance on here. LTT got it right. It's a pose to himself, so Godawful can tell himself he was right if this one goes through the floor ... and collect if it works.
For now Godawful's posts can only be an odd exercise in ego auto-stimulation on public display.

... and no doubt future profits - a large part of it all obviously, are discounted for the time value of money in the initial assessment.
All stuff that happens every day of the week in corporate transactions.
ICSID is there precisely so that market participants can resist the pointless/self-interested/corrupt actions of bureaucrats and autocrats. Those in Brussels get no white-man's privileges in the 21st century.
ICSID just needs to do its job.

... and no doubt profit in future years - a large part of it all obviously, will be discounted for the time value of money in the initial loss of profit assessment.
But it's all stuff that's done every day of the week for corporate transactions.
ICSID is there precisely to help market participants resist the bureaucrats and autocrats of this world, which includes those in Brussels.
It just needs to do its job.

well as you say Ovets, once the thought police at the GlenPhilby eco-Soviet have spoken, people no longer have to think

Overs, that's how mythology is created.
Lough wasn't there then - see Mogger's posts.
But ideologues never let mere reality get in the way.
The Glenphilby Soviet has decided. Lough is guilty so if they have their way he's off ... to the gulag.

I see, now that the Glenphilby Soviet has got control of levers of power it's off to fight it's next battle with Keith Lough!
Did anyone vote for this?

Hey Glenphilby, should we perhaps tear down all the courtrooms and replace them with Glenphilby Soviet appointees?

Seems Glenphilby has slipped his moorings and is off to the stratosphere.
The Glenphilby Soviet has decided. No need for a legal system to settle disputes, no need for ICSID eh!

Godders' says he'd "rather see the company go bust", Latics says he's "vindictive .... yes, but" and now is always the time for GlenMaclean/ Philby/Burgess to swing a wrecking ball.
Whilst man has walked the lunar surface, we see lunatics bestride our discussion here.

Happy, I don't think what Rkh paid for OM is relevant to the case.
It would be if you were suing the seller for what you paid, but that's simply not what's happening. Also it's in those circumstances that the seller can usually say, no warranties, dyor, and that they (the seller) are not liable for commercial risks you might/should uncover in due diligence. We didn't mislead you, or not completely, and we're not liable. You didn't rely, or only partially relied, on what we said etc.
None of that is happening.
Rkh are suing a third party (as a seller would usually say they should) for the consequences of what that third party, Italy, have themselves done by withhold the licence.
That's what's happening.
What Rkh paid for MOG and due diligence don't come into it. The purchase transaction is not in dispute.

Nailed it there much
Also it's an education. Godders' strident language (others are "completely wrong") should be ignored, he's completely ar*e over t*t himself!

Still trying to digest a green advocate lawyer working for nothing for Glenburgess on this board after canvassing support here to disrupt the company ...

Surprised not more comment on here following Mogger's below post from yesterday.

-----------+++++++
Legal NewsThu 20:21
Glen,
Are you sure your choice of solicitor was the best?

https://www.gla.ac.uk/research/cop26/az/georginatsagas/

It doesn't look like she would be the most ideal person to give an unbiased legal opinion when you look at her mission statement.

https://www.gla.ac.uk/research/cop26/

Probably just another coincidence though.

Mogger

I'll put it another way, it's not about due diligence - who knew what and when, and what should they have known or found out.
The question is whether or not it was a hammer.

well exactly NastyN if you were lawyer for Italy you might make those points. So what? Every unsuccessful defence makes arguments that fail.

due diligence is a rubbish red herring. It could, and only just possibly, have been relevant if Rkh were suing the person they bought MOG from for somehow misrepresenting what Rkh were buying. Then it would be "well, you should have looked what you were buying from us". But rkh aren't suing the seller. They're suing a third party for throwing a hammer in the works.

The idea that it's ok for the third party (Italy) to chuck hammers around because everyone should know that's what they do would never be given the time of day in any legal argument worthy of the name (so it might of course by the ECJ). Think about it! Its not ok for person X to do bad things just because people should know he's a sh*t.

re Glen
"Shenandoah was actually (Abu Dhabi) Mubadala's money via Delek if you tie out the timing of those transactions. Not really Israeli money. Maybe someone can help research what other Mediterranean gas licences are out there for sale - for reinvestment into Falklands oil companies."
- - - - - - - - -
I think you just made that up, maybe chucked in a few biases - and got it completely wrong for anyone reading your stuff.
For example the largest slug, two thirds of the total, is project financed across all the partners interests in the project (incl Navitas' 49%) through a syndicate led by Societé Generale.
You could do worse than taking a look at the Navitas website to start with. No mysteries, quite transparent really!