Member Info for CitizenTS

Presume we ought to be assuming they do, especially following the AGM presentation.
The more speculative Q is the position of Navitas in that. All one can say is that with financing you actually do have a plan B. If you want it to look a realistic possibility nearer term that has to be accounted for they're probably in. "With financing" and "without conflicts" appears to require a bullseye sniper's shot.

Midday 30th June passes and no word from ICSID - unless announcement in in the next minutes/hours.
Maybe no notice on timing because decision itself will be announced "out of the blue" in next few days instead of tail end July?
just a thought ...

I thought in many respects it was quite a good presentation. You have to preserve the possibility that SL could happen without Harbour. They could look quite silly if they don't do it, RKH keep/get all the SL IP that Premier spent so much to generate, and someone else harvests all the value from it. I think they'll decide no to give it all away but we'll see.

76!

Maybe I'm out of step but very happy with a thorough review that could be a re-start. Isn't that what we want? Whole lot better than a cursory look and/or a more dismissive stance.

PoO over 70 and we're treading (hopefully not shipping) water here ...

agree Overs and would add, what do FIG really expect will happen to defence if it all becomes pointless (a lot more pointless than keeping the Chinese to their agreement on HK) because FIG get on the way of SL with silly tax demands?
Three thousand HK style free visas is the way it would go. Cheap at the price!

FIG need to smell the coffee. They're down to their undies in winter without SL.

No way HBR are going to pass up literally whatever %ge the Mexicans leave them with at LESS than $20 a barrel break even all in (ie lifting plus capital costs)!! Would be madness to walk away from free money.
Our only hope is they do both. Given the low cost of Zama I do not believe the funds needed for Zama determine anything.
What is blinding is that the cost level does drive the decision.
And yes, if FIG actually get in the way of the project with their demands, what do they really expect is going to happen to their defence?

Ralphy, that all sounds slightly bitter and twisted

Goddess, have to say I agree

Aren't these running late?
8th April last year
Surely I couldn't have missed them!

Surfit - think you've picked up the wrong end of the stick on this one. 'fraid about the only they are saying is that it WON'T be 20m.
Thats a (highly) risked valuation of something thats either zero or much much bigger
Errr ... I think we knew that!

Lot of comment here on Zama but not(hing) on the passing of the Zama deadline for unitisation yesterday. Deadlines passing or being pushed out should make all here feel very much at home, ha! But I doubt if Harbour folk are amused.
Presume Talos/Harbour have not agreed to Pemex's position that they get 50%+ for Talos consortium to be operator. Stevo says looks like 25% but Pemex say/think its 50% so ... whadya know, nothing's happening.
Hopefully a learning experience for Harbour, FI it is if they want to do something.

ha, good find bloo. Strrraange as it may seem to long termers here, if Harbour want certainty that's FI!
Complete control, all in their hands. They're learning a lesson or two all being well ??

I reckon operatorship would just about survive till they've done the engineering bit in front of first oil and then some political circus would start that would end with Pemex operating it all in production.

Stevo, I wonder, would you even want operatorship in majority Pemex oilfield? After they've their selling a burger-without-the-meat trick you'd end up not being being operator a few year's down the line and with a small no-control-at-all share. What they would turn out to have is 25% of the Talos consortium's 50% (or less) of Zama. Call it 175mln barrels if Zama is upper end 1.4bln.
I'd still prefer to do 40% of FI, or even both if they insist on supping with the Mexicans!

Stevo, I have to agree with most of what you say. But lets see on Zama. Pemex might agree to Talos operatorship, but only if Talos agree to Pemex's version of what the unitisation should look like, ie majority Pemex!
And then of course operatorship could be equally political down the line. After all AMLO has mostly put a stop to private sector interest in other new Mexican fields.
Same old same old really on dealing with the Mexicans over oil. If it goes wrong, and we might know in the next few days, then it will be quite a learning experience for Harbour on Mexico. If it goes ok then maybe they've got lucky on it - just for now anyway.

Thanks Stevo - I see you are right!

Profile of FI has clearly increased in these results.
Interesting comment that exclusivity period of Navitas extended so that Chrysaor can decide whether to continue with farm out. Thing is without that we have a bigger share but would be liable again for our cash share of pre-sanction costs