Member Info for CitizenTS

Come on Happy, the replacement of negative cash flow from capex with only, say, two-thirds of that amount as a debt repayment (due to the equity component) is a positive for NPV.

We all know where you stand but you'd have to do better than that to have any influence.

Fwiw here's my tuppence on the scale of the share issue. It's being close to the wire on funds that could encourage a cheapskate low-ball bid on the now spurious basis that "rkh still can't afford this", or "we'd do it properly". Sam has to have had offers on some such basis that he'd prefer not to have seen.

For similar example is the often suggested 'why not drill Isobel (or whatever) half way along". Using the cash flow from earlier wells to do that instead of further development wells would delay project cash flows and debt repayment, if it would even be allowed by debt covenants. However a bit of extra cash might give that optionality so it wouldn't only be a low-ball new bidder that could do that without a further fund raise.

Just some thoughts.

Hi LTT, yeah but I was also wrong Darwin, Darwin is water depth of 2,000 METRES. Doubt it'd get anywhere close.

Oops, that's 500m but short of depth all the same for Darwin

LTT - specs say water depth upto 500 ft and Darwin is 2,000 feet. Yet again, Darwin/Borders only a pipe dream for quite a while.

Yes, and fyi dw.com is Deutsch Welle

Errr @divi, wiill find your nutty dictator mates in Libya and Moscow arw engineering a lot of this

See, just for one example to help you catch up

https://united24media.com/latest-news/putin-lukashenko-and-libyan-military-leader-suspected-in-plot-to-spark-new-eu-migrant-crisis-10616

Oh, and here's another

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/en/russias-role-in-trafficking-smuggling-from-libya-to-eu/a-72274806

Well what's not there @JEBR if do from 2028 is all the capital spent to get to that point. In practice that is the accumulation with interest of the project debt - call that 1.bln? then there's the interest foregone on the equity, and finay the 1.8bln npv10 would itself be expected to get the 10% return which .makes circa 2.5bln by end 2028.

Tninknyou'll find its all the same in the end. That's how it works.

Any doubters who might have felt SL was still pie-in-the-sky are now well and truly adrift!

My bet would be early Oct FID.

Reads to me that on this one Navitas have been perfectly prepared to learn from rkh on features of the offer - total script of non rights placing, warrants and accompanying open offer.

I see the 1.658 as a more precise version if the 1.8bwhich was the upper end of a previous range.

And remember that rkh's own cash contributes to its value, in additionally to the project cash flows (negative to begin with then positive) that are valued in the NSAI report at $1.8bln.

Post warrants that's circa £140mln from the capital raise plus around £20m left from existing cash/insurance related receipts/other cash outflows.

Anyway, a visible amount. Issuing shares is not just dilution of course, its also cash in. Something like another 16p or 17p or so per share on top of whatever you'd do with JEBR's figures.

@stevo, fyi the rkh NSAI report values were NOT a"at first oil" in the way some previous rkh numbers were - they were ALREADY discounted to a date around the issue of the report.

No need to further discount for your stated reasons.

OMG Gilf Keystone, really did have major highly profitable producing assets. But they were so wrapped up with royalties, fpr this, royalties for that, commission payments, production sharing and so on that the oil was barely theirs. Realised eventually that from the very beginning it was always just a management contract with the Kurdish government, and the execs had put together an agreement with the KDR to dress it all up as an oil company production licence - but a sham really.

Maybe I'm being unfair. Lost a bit before I got out.

@ Mirasol, outside the equity slice it's two parallel loans on the same terms that are non-recourse, ie secured on the project with no reference to Navitas tor rkh. So there aren't any rkh specific terms.

Conclusion, conclusion (not confusion!)

And fwiw buzz you're also right that a major impact of Shenandoah is securing Navitas's important so-called equity contribution to the Sea Lion funding (ie the element that is not to be project financed). This also is a postion Premier never got anywhere near.

Your analysis has always been good. It's just your confusion, or stated confusion at the least, that's suddenly got tainted by being out of the stock. I believe that really you know you should be getting back in next week.

Ha, buzz "banks are willing to lend the cash" is exactly what has changed! Our appointed lending bank is a cornerstone lender for 25-30% subject to due diligence. All completely new territory for the project, hence the new share price. And yes, you're correct to say this is not a circumstance we got anywhere close to "years back".

Shame you're not in but the share price territory you've missed is small compared to the prospects. Swallow pride and get back in next week - and that IS advice :)

@donalb yes, read quite a bit myself. One of the most singular, odd pieces of history out there. The treasure, in fact mostly silver across the years, travelled up the Pacific coast of Latin America, across Panama to then stop off in Cartagena before travelling on to Spain. Goods from the Phillipines actually traversed the Pacific before crossing Panama and stopping in Cartagena in the same way in journey that took two years. Madness!

As for the ships of the line, well, ships of the line they may have been (meaning they could line up end to end to deliver a broadside) but most of the tine theyvweren't naval. The Spanish galleons were raided primarily.by privateers, or out and out pirates. The difference being that privateers were acknowledged to be state backed (British and/or Dutch (the deal was the same) whereas pirates were more informally accommodated (at British/ Dutch ports in the Caribbean or mainland ports) and sponsored.

Your Columbian friend is of course hugely correct. The whole Spanish treasure extraction exercise was dry as dust in creative terms. It was not agriculturally led and nothing happened to compare to British innovations that added value such as introducing tea production to India (from China) and making it happen at scale, expanding Indian silk (also to cut out China), or introducing rubber to Malaysia (from Brazil).

Some peeps might be ideological and not want to know, but I'd say your Columbian friend's insight is on the button.

Alma, that's an interesting comment thanks, and I didn't know. The relevant family wealth I referenced will be a bit less than I thought. Was just a suggestion in light of Hess Corp's previous involvement in FI (1998?). But if it's of interest there's a pretty huge amount of wealth outside of John now looking for a home. When a family basically sells out like this by merging with a larger company, family members are usually at the same time freed up from agreements they might previously have had. It's often mostly the point to do the two together. What happens to other family wealth tied up in Hess may previously have been to a large degree controlled by John but that basically stops with this deal.

We'll see. Who knows, though as I'm writing you might be a good person to ask - any other family members more in the Leon mold? Some banker somewhere will put the possibility to them.