Member Info for CitizenTS

Gozziesky was likely a one-off

Some stuff still to be said about Gozziesky.
Let's just say the politics here have never, ever, been better.
As long as PMO do their corporate stuff which helps the b/Sht, we should benefit from that.

I mean Ovets!

I mean Overs!

Loosening what?

I'm learning from Trop

Anyone on exactly what the $200m write off of some falklands exploration X's relates to and what PMO have retained on their balance sheet?

In addition to looking to get Navitas done, am also encouraged re 20th Sept target date to complete their N Sea acquis. We'll get a lot more attention after that as long as PoO continues to recover a bit more.

yeh godawful but you always say that so it doesn't count.
and you're still buying 1 million shares a year.

Hey godawful, guess you'd know quite a bit about doing nothing for ten years eh!

Hey godawful, guess you'd know quite a bit about doing nothing for ten years eh!

I'm going to guess PMO are taking early steps re equity raise for N Sea acquis post yesterday's agreement with the banks.

Looks like I might have been jumping the gun a little from PMOs announcement this morning. Straightening out the banks for the interim before equity raise for N Sea acquis.

Thanks Mogger for this.
They'll be waiting on Pmo completing N Seas assets acquisition as well as Covid 19/ oil price considerations.
The N Sea deal is big stuff for PMOs balance sheet. Will ensure PMOs ability to do their 'equity' portion of SL at lower oil prices. Needs to be done to update UKEF submission.
I guess they'll be underwriting the PMO equity raise part of the B Sea deal soon. May even have started. ARCM are already on board.

It's all in the mix and on the table, I can tell you. How exactly FIG participate in bringing SL phase 1 to completion has yet to be finalised but it won't be on existing stated terms.
Not everyone will benefit, there's the ranting ralphski's of this world, basically busted and shake out higher up.
But all to play for over next few months.

Wraith - on the button there.
The issue with what FIG does as of now is that royalties at 26% are charged before cost break-even.
If it costs X to get the oil out and you sell it for Y then, economically, taxes/royalties are paid out of the Y-X slice of revenue, whatever the tax legislation actually says.
If FIG changed their tax/royalties (call it tax for short) to charge SL on revenue in excess of costs instead of total revenue, at whatever rate they might choose then -
breakeven comes DOWN FROM $40 to COST.

I'd broadly see this working as below:
At the moment it's circa $7.5 capital costs which, with actual interest costs, becomes $10.5
Rkh have, as I remember, said in the past (out-of-date imho) in the region of $15 lifting including lease costs. Let's say they meant $14.5. A best guess might be $13.5 as of now.
Then there's the use of risk discount rates in stated breakeven calcs which are a lot higher than actual interest costs. That project risk vaporises by first oil. Everyone is of course still exposed to oil price movements but we're calculating a cost type price to compare that with theat oil price. In any event the risk element in risk discount rates is not an interest cost, is not an actual cost of any sort, and is not in any prospective p&l.
But what it does do is increase stated breakeven costs by circa $5.
AND THEN there is FIG royalties at 26% of total revenue, call it $10 at a $40 oil price.
So total costs at a $40 price are
10.5+14.5+5+10 = 40 to make that breakeven.

If FIG charged royalties on revenue in excess of $25 then real breakeven is $25, whatever rate they charge!
There's no question that FIG are prepared to notionally forgo some part of their notional income on a project that doesn't happen in exchange for actual income on a real project, and all the job and infrastructure benefits of the capital spend which is all they ever would get in the early years anyway.
I'm sure the answer to Wraith's question is that the breakeven price could come down to $35 or less and financing/sanction would then slide out at a $45 (or less) oil price.
That's what they should do!

ha! I now understand that AIM shares are neither quoted nor listed.

See https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-381-0489?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

re why Canora's post ideally would never have been there at all

LSE were absolutely correct.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
People think they know but don't.
Canora's post was deeply and dangerously missleading. Let's say he just didn't realise it.

The post contained a link to legislation about quoted companies and Canora referenced Rkh.
Rkh is listed but NOT quoted. AIM doesn't count as quoted. The link doesn't apply.

People complain about Facebook etc hosting messages that shouldn't be there
Well here's an example of responsible monitoring in place.

naaa, old F*rtstone,
sounds like you got there before me
and your CV's such a shoe-in

re old F*rtstone's comment -
I see some villages are looking for idiots again , I assume your CV has been forwarded to the relevant persons

Put this piece of Old F*rtstone's residue in the corner of the barn with the rest eh?

Should add there's a very small amount of hydrogen that's a by-product of other processes. That's 'for free' and can be used on an experimental scale as now.
But 'industrial' use will add to oil demand