The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Agree SH - though the detail is somewhat better than that!
The capex is not a cost in the years when the revenue comes in, but it is of course still a cost and can all be deducted and carried forward for tax
So ... no tax to pay till all capex expensed. Borrowings repaid by then and capex funded by equity also expensed.
Thereafter cash flow, and taxable profit, is basically brent less opex only.
ha, nice of you to seek clarification headder eh!
Mmbr1 - missrule is on a mission of his own that's not the same thing at all as our shareholder interest.
Also thinks everyone else is not nearly as clever as he imagines himself to be.
Remember he's perfectly happy to talk rubbish to us and hope it works.
Re LazymisRule
naaaa, options increasing all the time.
Suits rkh really just fine for Navitas to press ahead in 2024, pretty much post annullment and one year later so better sale pricing for slice of award.
Make of that what you will mate!
In practical terms the escrow question may hardly matter as the likelihood of actual money hitting the account before annulment is decidied is remote. Don't see that the escrow would affect any sale of the award.
Is it right right that the stay/escrow is, inevitably, being decided by the same ad hoc committee that is deciding the annulment? Think so. In which case the committee has no incentive to watch its back on the jurisdiction argument in the course of its handling of the case. If Italy is not cooperating at this stage as part of building its jurisdiction argument then it is truly shooting itself in the foot.
Perhaps someone might kindly remind them there's no such thing as an annulment of an annulment decision!
It remains a possibility, in principle, that they're not cooperating with a view to raising jurisdiction in future attempts to contest enforcement. If so, it means they've already thrown in the towel. They'd be diminishing whatever chances they have here in return for a notional crumb at the enforcement stage.
On the escrow thing, if RoI won't properly engage then they shouldn't benefit from an escrow. And the whole recoupment thing is an argument that because rkh are small and RoI is big/can pay/a state, rkh shouldn't get the money.
Isn't that the opposite of ICSID's purpose?
Entirely agree LTT. RoI are asking ICSID to treat the process as if it's an appeal. It isn't. If it were there wouldn't be any separate thing about a stay. The stay would come with granting of leave to appeal. None of that is happening here. Anyone can request an annulment without asking and asking for a stay is a separate thing. RoI would just love to be taking part in an appeal but they aren't.
A request for an annulment is more of a look-back review, after the event. Entirely reasonable for the stay to be lifted PERIOD in all the circumstances.
But we shall see!
BBC thing ended on a remarkably good note with the academic that argued the importance of governments keeping to agreements, and then making the point that the real weight of Energy Charter cases was from governments, Italy and Spain in particular, committing to renewables projects with the private and sector and then, once companies have been drawn in, reneging on the terms!! RoI came off pretty badly. Thought presenter did a half decent job.