Gullit
I dag kl 19:46
38
Gullit skrev Det blir meldt når det kommer nyheter…
Og forventer å starte betyr ikke att den skal starte nøyaktig den dagen. Flere bør lese litt mer enn bare overskriften når det kommer meldinger fra selskaper..
Gullit
I dag kl 19:40
54
tsu for all skrev Ikke helt enig : Hva med gjenopptagelse av produksjonen i Tunisia?
Det blir meldt når det kommer nyheter…
futureistoday
I dag kl 17:36
144
Hadde nok ikke vært mye vits i og reise dit,av det jeg har funnet ut så er det ikke noe annet enn en postboks dit. De har nå hvertfall ikke noen som svarer på tlf i dette såkalte selskapet. Men som jeg har nevnt tidligere. Det er vi som er eiere, så vi har nok makt til og kaste styret pga vanstyre og dårlig styring. Dette er elementær råderett aksjonærer (i plenum) har for og sikre seg at driften er skjøttet best mulig. At vi skal sitte på sidelinjen og se på at firmaet blir kjørt i grøfta av noen som ikke engang besvarer eierne sine er ikke min stil hvertfall. Og til opplysning så har ikke jeg noe imot og stille opp og gå gjennom hva som egentlig skjer.
jantt
I dag kl 16:05
229
Det er fordi du ikke kan regne med noget af det AC siger, Han er fuld af varm luft og store ideer. Ingen af hans store satsninger er blevet til noget og pengene er fosset ud af kassen. Ingen tror på ham mere og derfor ligger kursen der hvor den gør. Kommer der ingen positive afgørelser af retssager eller penge i år vil kursen dumpe videre ned. Havde markedet troet på der ville snart ske noget positivt ville kursen være højere.
Piltingsrud
I dag kl 15:32
274
Det er tydelig at vi har veldig forskjellige krav til informasjon. At de ikke regner med å få inn de pengene som futureistoday beskriver indikerer at de ikke tror de får dem inn, i motsetning til hva de selv melder. Vi snakker om et selskap som ikke har levert en eneste krone i utbytte eller verdiøkning til eierne siden de startet opp for nærmere 20 år siden, men til gjengjeld har de sølt bort mange hundre millioner kroner på "fantastic opportunities". Den eneste som har tjent seg rik er AC. Du bør unnlate å tro du vet hva de som skriver her har av erfaring og kunnskap, ikke gå på person, hold deg til sak.
Redigert i dag kl 15:33
Du må logge inn for å svare
Gullit
I dag kl 15:17
299
Synes det oppdateres når det skal oppdateres. Mange enkelt aksjonærer som sender Mail i hytt og pine.. ting må være ryddig og alle må få samme info samtidig.. virker lovende att de har god lønnsom produksjon. Hva gjelder finansiering så kan de selvsagt ikke beregne saker som ikke er ferdig behandlet som penger i kassen. Så får det heller være en bonus om vi kan finansiere det selv. Mange som tydeligvis er verdensmestre her inne og kan alt bedre. Tror dere bør ta en tur ut i den virkelig verden og få litt kunnskap..
vider ønsker jeg dere alle en fin dag ..
vider ønsker jeg dere alle en fin dag ..
Piltingsrud
I dag kl 15:06
322
Enig, dette rimer dårlig. De skriver heller ingenting om størrelsen på finansieringen de trenger. De skal også selge riggen, var det rundt NOK 42 mill de forventer der? Og hvorfor har de ikke oppdatert om USA siden januar, der skulle de jo få royalties, har de greid å rote det til også? Hva med gjenopptagelse av produksjonen i Tunisia? Virker jo ikke som AC & Co tør å melde det de mener er negative nyheter, maken til idiotopplegg. Fullstendig på trynet hele selskapet. En ledelse som ikke oppdaterer sine eiere, helt banana airlines tilstander, aksjonærfiendtlig oppførsel. Noen burde reise over til Calgary å ta et møte med AC & Co og stramme de kraftig opp.
tsu for all
I dag kl 14:14
387
Vår italienske energiproduksjonsportefølje fortsetter å levere robust
lønnsomhet, understøttet av nylige økninger i energiprisene.
Vi fortsetter å utforske potensielle oppkjøpsmuligheter i Italia
samtidig avventer de nødvendige formaliteter for å reaktivere
Sant’Andrea.
Med tanke på de svært vellykkede energiproduksjonsaktivitetene ved Torrente Cigno
de siste årene – og EU-parlamentets anerkjennelse av naturgass som en
"grønt drivstoff" - Selskapet vil søke å tiltrekke seg finansiering i 2025 for å støtte
utvikling av Torrente Cigno, som oppfyller et langvarig strategisk mål å
potensielt betydelig øke produksjonen og tilhørende lønnsomhet."
lønnsomhet, understøttet av nylige økninger i energiprisene.
Vi fortsetter å utforske potensielle oppkjøpsmuligheter i Italia
samtidig avventer de nødvendige formaliteter for å reaktivere
Sant’Andrea.
Med tanke på de svært vellykkede energiproduksjonsaktivitetene ved Torrente Cigno
de siste årene – og EU-parlamentets anerkjennelse av naturgass som en
"grønt drivstoff" - Selskapet vil søke å tiltrekke seg finansiering i 2025 for å støtte
utvikling av Torrente Cigno, som oppfyller et langvarig strategisk mål å
potensielt betydelig øke produksjonen og tilhørende lønnsomhet."
TheLondonOiler
I dag kl 13:26
264
October 10, 2024
ZENITH ENERGY LTD.
("Zenith" or the "Company")
Update on Italian Energy Production
Zenith Energy Ltd. ("Zenith" or the "Company") (LSE: ZEN; OSE: ZENA; OTCQB:
ZENAF), the listed international energy production and development company, is
pleased to provide an update on its Italian energy production activities.
Italian Electricity Production - Torrente Cigno Concession ("Torrente Cigno")
The Company continues to generate electricity at the Torrente Cigno with an
average monthly production of approximately 1,000 megawatt hours ("MWh") during
the months of July, August and September 2024 (the “Period”).
Electricity prices averaged approximately EUR 120 per MWh across the Period,
resulting in cumulative net revenues of approximately EUR 360,000 for the
Period.
Zenith's current net production costs remain fixed at approximately EUR 35,000
per month.
Sant'Andrea natural gas production concession ("Sant'Andrea")
The Company had previously indicated an expected commencement of production
activities during the month of October 2024.
Zenith is still awaiting certain bureaucratic formalities to be completed and
will endeavour to commence production operations at the earliest opportunity
once the necessary approvals are received.
An initial production rate of approximately 1,500 cubic metres of natural gas is
expected upon the successful reactivation of Sant’Andrea.
Andrea Cattaneo, Chief Executive Officer, commented:
“Our Italian energy production portfolio continues to deliver robust
profitability, buoyed by recent increases in the energy pricing.
We continue to explore potential acquisition opportunities within Italy, whilst
at the same time awaiting completion of the necessary formalities to reactivate
Sant’Andrea.
In view of the highly successful energy production activities at Torrente Cigno
over recent years – and the recognition by the EU Parliament of natural gas as a
‘green fuel’ – the Company will seek to attract financing in 2025 to support the
development of Torrente Cigno, fulfilling a long-held strategic objective to
potentially significantly increase production and associated profitability.”
ZENITH ENERGY LTD.
("Zenith" or the "Company")
Update on Italian Energy Production
Zenith Energy Ltd. ("Zenith" or the "Company") (LSE: ZEN; OSE: ZENA; OTCQB:
ZENAF), the listed international energy production and development company, is
pleased to provide an update on its Italian energy production activities.
Italian Electricity Production - Torrente Cigno Concession ("Torrente Cigno")
The Company continues to generate electricity at the Torrente Cigno with an
average monthly production of approximately 1,000 megawatt hours ("MWh") during
the months of July, August and September 2024 (the “Period”).
Electricity prices averaged approximately EUR 120 per MWh across the Period,
resulting in cumulative net revenues of approximately EUR 360,000 for the
Period.
Zenith's current net production costs remain fixed at approximately EUR 35,000
per month.
Sant'Andrea natural gas production concession ("Sant'Andrea")
The Company had previously indicated an expected commencement of production
activities during the month of October 2024.
Zenith is still awaiting certain bureaucratic formalities to be completed and
will endeavour to commence production operations at the earliest opportunity
once the necessary approvals are received.
An initial production rate of approximately 1,500 cubic metres of natural gas is
expected upon the successful reactivation of Sant’Andrea.
Andrea Cattaneo, Chief Executive Officer, commented:
“Our Italian energy production portfolio continues to deliver robust
profitability, buoyed by recent increases in the energy pricing.
We continue to explore potential acquisition opportunities within Italy, whilst
at the same time awaiting completion of the necessary formalities to reactivate
Sant’Andrea.
In view of the highly successful energy production activities at Torrente Cigno
over recent years – and the recognition by the EU Parliament of natural gas as a
‘green fuel’ – the Company will seek to attract financing in 2025 to support the
development of Torrente Cigno, fulfilling a long-held strategic objective to
potentially significantly increase production and associated profitability.”
futureistoday
I dag kl 13:08
296
the Company will seek to attract financing in 2025 to support the
development of Torrente Cigno, fulfilling a long-held strategic objective to
potentially significantly increase production and associated profitability."
Hvorfor skal de søke finansiering i 2025, når de:
1. venter betaling for olje bå i oktober
2. har første icc mot etap som de forventer og vinne (6.5 mill USD) med avgjørelse i slutten av 2024.
3. forventer positiv avgjørelse på icc nr 2 i første kvartal 2025 på 85.8 mill USD (muligens denne er høyere nå)
4. forventer positiv avgjørelse i rettsaken mot smp energies på 9mill USD i mars 2025.
Alt dette innen de neste 6 måneder. Allikevel så skal de søke finansiering i 2025? Hva er det de ikke sier? Skal de bruke denne finansieringen for og tildele seg mer aksjer selv før eventuelle utfall av voldgiftskravene?
development of Torrente Cigno, fulfilling a long-held strategic objective to
potentially significantly increase production and associated profitability."
Hvorfor skal de søke finansiering i 2025, når de:
1. venter betaling for olje bå i oktober
2. har første icc mot etap som de forventer og vinne (6.5 mill USD) med avgjørelse i slutten av 2024.
3. forventer positiv avgjørelse på icc nr 2 i første kvartal 2025 på 85.8 mill USD (muligens denne er høyere nå)
4. forventer positiv avgjørelse i rettsaken mot smp energies på 9mill USD i mars 2025.
Alt dette innen de neste 6 måneder. Allikevel så skal de søke finansiering i 2025? Hva er det de ikke sier? Skal de bruke denne finansieringen for og tildele seg mer aksjer selv før eventuelle utfall av voldgiftskravene?
futureistoday
I dag kl 12:36
330
Da kom det melding ang Italia produksjonen, da hadde jeg rett i siste innlegg ang prisene heldigvis👍🏻
Galv
08.10.2024 kl 16:37
892
Thanks thelondonoiler
I am agree do we pass frist claim case against Tunisia - we can start with russian 🍾💵👌%% again it looks very good now - my box is like always full with zenith share
I am agree do we pass frist claim case against Tunisia - we can start with russian 🍾💵👌%% again it looks very good now - my box is like always full with zenith share
Redigert 08.10.2024 kl 16:56
Du må logge inn for å svare
TheLondonOiler
08.10.2024 kl 15:44
951
To provide a comparison between Zenith and GreenX's claims, it's important to highlight several key factors that differentiate Zenith's situation from that of GreenX (formerly Prairie Mining) in their dealings with the Polish government:
Acquisition and Investment:
GreenX (Prairie Mining) acquired the Debiensko mine for €500k in 2016, along with ownership of the Jan Karski mine, and invested approximately A$4 million into these projects before they were halted by the Polish government.
In Zenith’s case, $6 million was effectively taken by the Tunisian authorities, a more direct and immediate loss of capital. This money was linked to production assets, giving Zenith a more established revenue-generating foothold in Tunisia compared to GreenX’s undeveloped mines.
Nature of Government Actions:
The Polish government issued a formal decree banning the development of GreenX’s projects, following their own legal processes. While GreenX faced a significant setback, the government's actions, although damaging, were taken through a legal and transparent framework.
In contrast, the Tunisian government’s actions in Zenith’s case appear to have involved no formal legal process, constituting a direct, unlawful seizure of assets, which strengthens the validity of Zenith’s claim.
Production Status:
At the time of the ruling against GreenX, they had no active production at either of their sites. Any potential revenue was based on future developments, which required significant investment and time.
Zenith, on the other hand, had significant production in place in Tunisia, meaning that Zenith had a revenue stream already established, making the loss more immediate and quantifiable in terms of current earnings and operational capacity.
Scope of the Claim:
GreenX’s claim against Poland included not only the money they invested but also lost future profits and damages, ultimately totalling A$1.3 billion. Their recent ruling resulted in an award of A$490 million, which is roughly one-third of the total claim.
Given Zenith’s stronger case, which involves not just the loss of future earnings but the direct loss of funds and production revenues, it stands to reason that Zenith's case could potentially be awarded a higher percentage of the total claim. If, like GreenX, Zenith were to receive even a third of their claim, it would be a substantial win, though the nature of Zenith’s case could yield a more favourable ruling.
The main reasons Zenith’s claim against Tunisia is likely stronger than GreenX’s case against Poland are:
Direct theft of funds rather than a legally sanctioned ban.
Operational production losses from an already revenue-generating asset.
The fact that Tunisia’s actions bypassed legal channels, making the case more clear-cut.
Precedent from GreenX’s ruling suggests a favourable outcome for Zenith in terms of future losses, but Zenith’s stronger legal footing suggests the case has the potential for a higher award percentage due to the more severe and immediate nature of the damages.
Acquisition and Investment:
GreenX (Prairie Mining) acquired the Debiensko mine for €500k in 2016, along with ownership of the Jan Karski mine, and invested approximately A$4 million into these projects before they were halted by the Polish government.
In Zenith’s case, $6 million was effectively taken by the Tunisian authorities, a more direct and immediate loss of capital. This money was linked to production assets, giving Zenith a more established revenue-generating foothold in Tunisia compared to GreenX’s undeveloped mines.
Nature of Government Actions:
The Polish government issued a formal decree banning the development of GreenX’s projects, following their own legal processes. While GreenX faced a significant setback, the government's actions, although damaging, were taken through a legal and transparent framework.
In contrast, the Tunisian government’s actions in Zenith’s case appear to have involved no formal legal process, constituting a direct, unlawful seizure of assets, which strengthens the validity of Zenith’s claim.
Production Status:
At the time of the ruling against GreenX, they had no active production at either of their sites. Any potential revenue was based on future developments, which required significant investment and time.
Zenith, on the other hand, had significant production in place in Tunisia, meaning that Zenith had a revenue stream already established, making the loss more immediate and quantifiable in terms of current earnings and operational capacity.
Scope of the Claim:
GreenX’s claim against Poland included not only the money they invested but also lost future profits and damages, ultimately totalling A$1.3 billion. Their recent ruling resulted in an award of A$490 million, which is roughly one-third of the total claim.
Given Zenith’s stronger case, which involves not just the loss of future earnings but the direct loss of funds and production revenues, it stands to reason that Zenith's case could potentially be awarded a higher percentage of the total claim. If, like GreenX, Zenith were to receive even a third of their claim, it would be a substantial win, though the nature of Zenith’s case could yield a more favourable ruling.
The main reasons Zenith’s claim against Tunisia is likely stronger than GreenX’s case against Poland are:
Direct theft of funds rather than a legally sanctioned ban.
Operational production losses from an already revenue-generating asset.
The fact that Tunisia’s actions bypassed legal channels, making the case more clear-cut.
Precedent from GreenX’s ruling suggests a favourable outcome for Zenith in terms of future losses, but Zenith’s stronger legal footing suggests the case has the potential for a higher award percentage due to the more severe and immediate nature of the damages.
futureistoday
08.10.2024 kl 11:37
1103
Hva nøyaktig er forskjellene på disse sakene, og hvorfor har vi en mye sterkere sak? Vennligst utdyp i detaljer slik vi andre kan bli like velinformerte som deg angående saken vår😃👏🏻👏🏻
TheLondonOiler
08.10.2024 kl 10:54
1147
GREENX WINS COMPENSATION AND INTEREST TOTALLING £252M MILLION IN SUCCESSFUL ARBITRATION OUTCOME
GreenX Metals Limited (GreenX, Claimant or Company) is pleased to report a successful outcome of the international arbitration claims (Claim) against the Republic of Poland (Poland or Respondent) under both the Australia-Poland Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) and the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) (together the Treaties).
· The Company has been awarded approximately £252m (A$490m / PLN1.3bn) in compensation by the Tribunal under the BIT (BIT Award), which includes interest compounded at the Sterling Over-Night Interbank Average (SONIA) plus one percentage point (+1%) compounded annually from 31 December 2019 to the date of the award (7 October 2024). Interest will continue to accrue at SONIA +1% compounded annually until full and final payment by the Respondent.
· The Company has been awarded approximately £183m (A$355m / PLN 941m) in compensation by the Tribunal under the ECT (ECT Award), which includes interest compounded at the SONIA overnight rate +1% compounded annually from 31 December 2019. Interest will continue to accrue at SONIA +1% compounded annually until full and final payment by the Respondent.
· Both Awards are subject to any payments made by the Respondent to the Claimant in the other arbitration such that the Claimant is not entitled to double compensation i.e., any amount paid by Poland in one arbitration (i.e., BIT) is set off against Poland's liability in the other arbitration (i.e., ECT).
· Each party has been ordered to cover its own legal fees, expenses and arbitration costs in relation to the Claim, which in respect of GreenX are costs that have already been fully paid under the Litigation Capital Management (LCM) funding facility.
GreenX Metals Limited (GreenX, Claimant or Company) is pleased to report a successful outcome of the international arbitration claims (Claim) against the Republic of Poland (Poland or Respondent) under both the Australia-Poland Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) and the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) (together the Treaties).
· The Company has been awarded approximately £252m (A$490m / PLN1.3bn) in compensation by the Tribunal under the BIT (BIT Award), which includes interest compounded at the Sterling Over-Night Interbank Average (SONIA) plus one percentage point (+1%) compounded annually from 31 December 2019 to the date of the award (7 October 2024). Interest will continue to accrue at SONIA +1% compounded annually until full and final payment by the Respondent.
· The Company has been awarded approximately £183m (A$355m / PLN 941m) in compensation by the Tribunal under the ECT (ECT Award), which includes interest compounded at the SONIA overnight rate +1% compounded annually from 31 December 2019. Interest will continue to accrue at SONIA +1% compounded annually until full and final payment by the Respondent.
· Both Awards are subject to any payments made by the Respondent to the Claimant in the other arbitration such that the Claimant is not entitled to double compensation i.e., any amount paid by Poland in one arbitration (i.e., BIT) is set off against Poland's liability in the other arbitration (i.e., ECT).
· Each party has been ordered to cover its own legal fees, expenses and arbitration costs in relation to the Claim, which in respect of GreenX are costs that have already been fully paid under the Litigation Capital Management (LCM) funding facility.
TheLondonOiler
08.10.2024 kl 10:53
1148
Here is an arbitration success Greenx just won £252 million against the Republic of Poland. Our case is much stronger so I am very confident we will be winning at least 50% of the money owed.
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/GRX/compensation-of-ps252m-in-successful-arbitration/16703935
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/GRX/compensation-of-ps252m-in-successful-arbitration/16703935
futureistoday
08.10.2024 kl 09:44
1224
Så du får ikke svar du heller når du sender Mail til selskapet er det jeg tar fra denne utvekslingen 🫢
Sia
08.10.2024 kl 09:13
1299
Feil, vi er en hel gjeng som er akkurat like misfornøyde! Hvor mye produseres net til Zenith i USA?
Andrea Cattaneo, Chief Executive Officer, commented:
"We are pleased that CYAP has now completed its first acquisition in the US oil and gas space. The acquisition of a non-operated oil and gas production royalty delivers immediate monthly cashflow and will enable an attractive payback of the initial investment.
Andrea Cattaneo, Chief Executive Officer, commented:
"We are pleased that CYAP has now completed its first acquisition in the US oil and gas space. The acquisition of a non-operated oil and gas production royalty delivers immediate monthly cashflow and will enable an attractive payback of the initial investment.
TheLondonOiler
07.10.2024 kl 18:19
1529
It sounds to me you are the main one here repeating the same rhetoric on a daily basis. Others have invested waiting patiently to see if we win the arbitration or not. The other assets are completely irrelevant as neither of them will add 150% to the market cap overnight, however a successful arbitration will. I would also like to add those assets were also very high risk high reward assets (apart from USA) which to be frank I believe would have caused more drama than good, therefore it worked out for the best.
Redigert 07.10.2024 kl 18:22
Du må logge inn for å svare
futureistoday
07.10.2024 kl 15:47
1692
Hvis du ikke klarer og se selv at ingen har tiltro til ac og ser selv at han aldri har levert på noe, tvert imot så unnlater de og fortelle når noe ikke går som det skal. Ikke svarer de aksjonærer eller noe. Kjører sitt eget løp og driter i alle oss som har investert i selskapet. Du kan få en utfordring av meg, skriv til selskapet og spør hvorfor vi ikke har hørt noe om Kazakhstan , eller om det er produksjon i robbana/el bibane. Så kan du poste svaret ditt her 😃👏🏻
TheLondonOiler
07.10.2024 kl 15:38
1707
futureistoday skrev Look at ac’s track Record. Enough said
Is that your only response? You didn’t answer anything I had asked, each to their own.
TheLondonOiler
07.10.2024 kl 15:06
1758
Your claims about dilutions to shareholders seem to be based more on speculation and negative sentiment than on any concrete facts. Instead of vague accusations, why not clarify exactly what you're concerned about? How much dilution or management bonuses are you suggesting could impact shareholders? Let's have the specifics. What exactly is it you're trying to warn us about?
Currently, the company’s market cap is around $6 million, which is already less than the value of the first arbitration claim alone. The SMP court case is valued at $9 million, which is 150% of the company's current market cap. If you consider the full value of all three arbitrations, the potential exceeds 100 times the current market cap. Despite these facts, you continue to suggest that we shareholders are at significant risk of losing out even if the court cases are won, which frankly doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Additionally, the idea that the stock should have skyrocketed purely based on the arbitration value is unrealistic. The share price did indeed rise when the news was first announced, reflecting the new amounts in play. However, it’s clear that the market is waiting for concrete success in the first arbitration before fully pricing in the potential from the second and third. There’s always a level of risk involved in ongoing legal matters, and it makes sense that the market is taking a measured approach.
If you have any specific concerns or actual numbers regarding dilution or management bonuses, let’s discuss those. Otherwise, it seems like your arguments are based more on creating fear rather than on the realities of the company's current situation and legal standing.
Currently, the company’s market cap is around $6 million, which is already less than the value of the first arbitration claim alone. The SMP court case is valued at $9 million, which is 150% of the company's current market cap. If you consider the full value of all three arbitrations, the potential exceeds 100 times the current market cap. Despite these facts, you continue to suggest that we shareholders are at significant risk of losing out even if the court cases are won, which frankly doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Additionally, the idea that the stock should have skyrocketed purely based on the arbitration value is unrealistic. The share price did indeed rise when the news was first announced, reflecting the new amounts in play. However, it’s clear that the market is waiting for concrete success in the first arbitration before fully pricing in the potential from the second and third. There’s always a level of risk involved in ongoing legal matters, and it makes sense that the market is taking a measured approach.
If you have any specific concerns or actual numbers regarding dilution or management bonuses, let’s discuss those. Otherwise, it seems like your arguments are based more on creating fear rather than on the realities of the company's current situation and legal standing.
Aldara
07.10.2024 kl 14:59
1771
Nei! Ikke jeg! Jeg har vært med i atskillige år og det er ikke stort AC har fått til ! Men å prate.. Ja se det, der er han en fullblods italiener på sitt beste!
futureistoday
07.10.2024 kl 13:53
1814
Ingen som vil hylle ac for og få betalt for oljen som er den første icc’en der mesteparten av summen allerede er fryst i motpartens (Etap) midler i Sveits. Men skulle derimot den neste icc og/eller Icsid som er den siste gå igjennom med tilnærmet full pott uten enorme bonuser/ utvanninger til ledelsen som tar fra oss aksjonærer . Ja da skulle en tro at det blir delt ut smiger og ære i gode porsjoner. Men før det skjer så har ikke ac særlig god tillit i markedet. Det reflekteres til de grader i kursen som også er nesten uten handel. Hadde det vært stor tro til ac og tillit til hans utførelser så skal jeg garantere det hadde vært mye mer omsetning i aksjen enn 50-500k rett etter annonsering av krav om 7 milliarder. Der aksjen såvidt har beveger seg mot nord i det hele. Aksjen skulle jo gått rett til værs med enorm omsetning på slike nyheter, men her går det like fort som og øse vann med sil. En ren refleksjon av hvor mye markedet stoler på ac, det er ikke det første luftslottet som skulle gjøre alle til millionærer…
JobPeterson
07.10.2024 kl 13:31
1840
Vennligst slutt med å snakke tull. Vi får den første voldgiftsavgjørelsen om mindre enn 2 måneder. Hvis den er vellykket, vil alle hylle AC
Blientotre
07.10.2024 kl 11:21
1977
Det der er en annen sak som pågår etter drilling i Tilapia.
Saken i første voldsgift er omtrent 7.5mill$.
Saken i første voldsgift er omtrent 7.5mill$.
TheLondonOiler
07.10.2024 kl 10:25
2050
On February 17, 2023, Zenith announced that it had increased the claimed amount for SMP's failures during drilling activities to US$9 million in consideration of the significant commercial damages suffered by AAOGC, specifically the impossibility, as a direct result, to begin production activities from the Tilapia oilfield.
Jotun71
06.10.2024 kl 23:25
2242
hei, noen som vet hva som er kravet i den første voldgiftsaken som skal være ferdig i løpet av desember 2024?
Blientotre
06.10.2024 kl 23:15
2255
Håper du har rett!
Jeg har egentlig ingen peiling på hvordan de gjør det.
Jeg har egentlig ingen peiling på hvordan de gjør det.
futureistoday
06.10.2024 kl 22:51
2284
Har sett litt over tallene, og vi har nok funnet prisen samme sted, men når jeg leter litt rundt så ser det it som de faktisk har hatt godt betalt for den elektriske biten allikevel, og mye av gassen de produserer omgjøres til elektrisitet. Så det er nok ikke så mørkt på den italienske biten likevel.
Gjerne arrester meg om jeg tar feil her, men fant flere som viste samme elektisitetprisen som jeg får opp i denne artikkelen gjennom året.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/italy-power-costs-stay-sky-high-despite-clean-energy-push-2024-09-20/
Gjerne arrester meg om jeg tar feil her, men fant flere som viste samme elektisitetprisen som jeg får opp i denne artikkelen gjennom året.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/italy-power-costs-stay-sky-high-despite-clean-energy-push-2024-09-20/
Blientotre
06.10.2024 kl 20:03
2374
Det er helt sikkert det - ikke en eneste måned de siste 6 måneder har gassprisen vært høy nok for at de kan ha tjent penger.
Og om de har produsert så er regnskapet i minus.
Nå først har prisen begynt og øke. Og dagens gasspris forsvarer noen 10tusener i måneden.
Og om de har produsert så er regnskapet i minus.
Nå først har prisen begynt og øke. Og dagens gasspris forsvarer noen 10tusener i måneden.
Redigert 06.10.2024 kl 21:40
Du må logge inn for å svare