Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
It seems we neither of us are 100% right ArielArrow.
"To be eligible to be carried forward a capital loss must be claimed within four years of the end of the tax year in which it arose, so by 5 April 2023 for losses that arose in 2018/19."
Also
"Where the negligible value claim is made in 2022/23 the capital loss will be set against capital gains arising in the same tax year before the deduction of the annual exemption. If there are no capital gains arising in 2022/23 or there are surplus losses after any gains have been covered by losses, those surplus losses carried forward to 2023/24.
But Flexxy P I was wrong about the order - the capital loss has to be established first.
Yes though you only need enough Capital Gain to cover the loss- so if you have only established a Capital loss of, say, £5,000 you only need to crystalise a Capital Gain of £5,000. And yes this tax year or next either way, it doesn't matter which capital event is established first.
Well I hope you all get some pleasure out of it - personally I find it extremely tedious and it puts people off using the board for posting anything relevant and useful.
You are meant to put them in your mouth Ranchez ;0)
Is this the really the level board has descended to yet again? No great surprise that no-one bothers to visit or post here any more is it? This really is scraping the barrel; totally pointless, cringeworthy and pathetic. School playground stuff.
And yes you have to do a self-assessment.
Yes Flexxy you are 100% correct - Capital losses can only be offset against Capital gains though can be rolled over for 12 months.
Ufufuo, without seeing the terms of the GSA nothing is a "given" but I can confirm that, as was the case at Kiliwani, the BD fully expect that any and all "condensate" that gets produced from Ntorya (NT1 , NT2 and beyond) to be the JV's to sell and to sell it direct to market and at the full market rate. So whatever may be true of ORCA and WEN is of no relevance the terms of their GSA are totally unlike those of the Kiliwani GSA, where the gas (note gas) is sold to TPDC at wellhead NOT the condensate.
Oh and please excuse my last post - wrong stock, wrong BB, sorry. DOH!
Though I only now note that we had a UT trade of 1 share after hours and above the "offer" - so I would not be totally surprised to see that RNS tomorrow.
Well email, in truth I have nothing more to say than hasn't already been said many times over and if you think I am going to waste half an hour reading through 40 something emails of total conjecture, point scoring and other "noise", then sorry, but you can forget it. I have laid my stall out; do I believe the recent "comms" from the Tanzanian top brass? Yes though it is only a precursor to the "real deal". Would they say that it has been approved when it hasn't? No! Though that doesn't mean that all is now over the line - as emptyend sated last week, without written confirmation, firstly to ARA and then from ARA to AEX the BoD cannot release an RNS. Will it come? Yes, I believe so. When? Soon - though this is Tanzania so "soon" could mean a little longer than we might expect closer to home. If you were to ask me when I expect to see it, I would "guesstimate" end of next week or the beginning of the following after.
My holding is now "complete" so, do not read any more into this BUT I am now reverting to "HOLD" - simply because that is what I am doing....
Correct Investdonk, very loosely everything above 1.34p is a BUY and everything below is a SELL.
Written confirmation and / or signature still awaited.
Agreed Roger - short term prospects for Oil died with the cancelation of drill to the Jurassic Targets. Not that even that was a significant prospect.
Do bear in mind Ufufuo and others these are "unrisked" assessments and there will always be an element of risk that would impact these valuations dependent on the perceived risks at any given point. The further through the drilling programme the further reduced that risk will become but will never become Zero until the last of the gas has been monetised.
However even with that being said these are some very encouraging numbers - if we ever get to 50% of these estimates (50% discount for perceived risk) it would be very good news. The GSA would be the first positive step in derisking....
Good night all and I wish you all a lovely weekend.
BG, I have ben doing a bit of digging and it seems that the Government of Tanzania began a review of all existing PSA's in 2018 to be completed in Feb 2019 with the expectation of amending and renegotiating those existing PSA's. What I have been unable to find is the outcome of that review but then maybe it is specific to each and every Agreement. Though I would freely admit that if our PSA had been amended under that review I would assume that we would/should have been informed - I don't recall being notified of any change.... but then again maybe those changes are contingent of the conclusion of the GSA? But I am purely guessing.
See https://arslaw.co.tz › review-of-production-sharing-agreements
It was only their expectation BG and not a given, conceivably, it may not have been put into effect. Maybe they managed to negotiate that away for (I am making this up) immunity from payment of historic costs? Most of which were probably due to AEX and not ARA!
Thank you ICB.
It was information volunteered in the Q&A sessions from the floor. In context it was in discussion regarding the GSA, terms and likelihood of selling gas at wellhead with TPDC doing the pipeline or the alternative of ARA building the pipeline for a better price etc They stated that they believed that whilst not their preferred option the former was the most likely outcome and with TPDC taking up their full back-in rights of up to 20% which is what they are entitled to under current legislation.
"As far as we all know, TPDC back-in rights, is up to 15% of the Ntorya development"
So I am making what I heard at the AGM up am I? Believe me, they were discussing the expectation of a 20% dilution. Agreed, that has yet to be evidenced BUT BG I am NOT making it up.
As regards the costs versus the loss of income - I stand by my claim earlier - saving 15 or 20% of the costs of Ntorya development is immaterial compared to losing 15 -20% of all future Ntorya income streams; future income, revenues, P&L are important metrics in the valuation of any entity, the cash on the balance sheet has minimal contribution to valuation. So $7m in additional cash will have no effect on the sp / MC or anything else, $8m of future revenues could add enormous value.
So no, BG I emphatically and totally disagree with you; any dilution of that scale is "material". Indeed the greater the value the underlying asset the greater the value of any dilution; increase in assets and resources, the bigger the impact. We might never be able to identify or quantify the direct impact to shareholder value, MC or sp but to simply dismiss it as unimportant or immaterial is pretty short sighted in my view.
I do though agree that I would rather have TPDC in the tent and not out but is that worth 15 -20% equity? I don't think so. Then again there is feck all we can do about it, so little point in arguing the toss - but again to dismiss it as immaterial is frankly out and out Ostrich mode.