Member Info for CitizenTS

... maybe, just maybe?!

oops, that's Godders

Goddess, you're about as chilled as a flaming frying pan

I might be very much alone (I know, I know ... ) in feeling it is fortunate the RNS did not drop just as The Guardian and others had their firelighters lit hoping no doubt to be well timed for a bit arson on an announcement.
But fortunately their attempts to kindle a fire pit now look slightly miss-timed. With a bit of luck, they'll be off the premises altogether and on holiday when the time comes.

after all the author was hardly constrained by references to the facts of the cases. There were hardly any there in the whole piece. Just a stream of consciousness trip written off the top of his head.

350? Here's guess. Someone took the 250 number, thought it was GBP (prob just the author) and grossed it up for USD. Ha!
Funny how these guys are all for legal protections when it's them claiming eh!

350? Here's guess. Someone took the 250 number, thought it was GBP (prob just the author) and grossed it up for USD. Ha!
Funny how these guys are all for legal protections when it's them claiming eh!

Obv Qataris and neighbours would rather others didn't produce oil. But that's the point. doesn't change oil consumption at all, just changes the $ flows a tiny bit and, I would say, for the better!

Re Wraith, Wolters Kluwer,
Well imho the only relevant part of this blog (which If I didn't know better I'd suspect is an influence peddling placement by the Italian's) is where it tries to argue that decisions of Italian courts and government pre acquisition should influence an award (expectations only were transferred - as defined by Italian courts/government). Those decisions themselves are of course part and parcel of what the case is challenging. The arbitrator is deciding on precisely those decisions amongst others. Accepting the Italians' argument would effectively undermine jurisdiction.
It's just a distraction. Who knows where it will land. If we get the Full Monty it will take a while to impound assets and collect. If that's the way it goes I'd sell the claim to a specialist to help secure SL.

@Glenrothes, you have plans including to find time to make yourselves known FI, Harbour, Navitas, potential funders, familiarise with options, including capital raises and implement in short order? Along no doubt with quite a long list of things to pursue any other options there might be. Not heard that
'fraid I'm in the "not the right time" to undermine board's position in front of counterparties just for now camp.

@Ovets, contributory negligence
The Italian state is liable for whatever the contracts it signed commits it to. That's the basis on which we're bringing the case. It's not less liable because a counterparty should have distrusted it. It's just not a contributory negligence thing. We're not saying a price was wrong.
Someone who hits you over the head with a baseball bat isn't less liable because he's an habitual criminal and you should have known he was in the vicinity! The Italian state is liable for exactly what it chose to sign up to do.
Let's leave this one there.
But so much stuff comes into any award it's bound to be a bit random whatever. There's no point in dwelling on it.

Complete rubbish re the contributory negligence crap. The Italian subsidiary's owners have the same rights whoever they are. Those rights are nothing to do with who bought what and when. The confusion, if it's even that, is with when a party is suing the person they bought an asset off - not what's happening here.
All sorts of other things might of course influence the outcome.

For me any Guardian/Italian objections to an OM award should he called out as ridiculous. None of this changes the amount of oil the world consumes. It just diverts some of the proceeds from Middle Eastern palaces to FIG's environment fund to help whales, penguins.
Surely needs to be said ??

@Godders, wondered, does the wife know about your losses?

@ Ovetts, re Padgett.
Well yes, things are indeed very different now.
For one thing you're quoting, as you say, a farewell speech!
The guy's gone. Might sense prevail?

They'll just do whatever the Mexicans leave them with at those prices.

Hbr have 25% of what the Mexicans say is only half or less of an extremely cost effective field that will only cost $1-2bln max up-front (that is, over a few years) in total. They could swallow that cost without the slightest flinch. Can't walk away from Dosh on the table in the form of $18 per barrell oil. The whole discussion around a choice is a distraction. Obv, they'll do both imho.

@godhimself. Really, you must re-connect. What does all this have to do with a spiritual presence in the material world?
We're all on the side of Angels , I know. Or might you mean "imminent"?

... but I'd still guess we'll hear soon. K&S have every right to ask ICSID what's going on at this point

well said all round on that.