Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
even i have more shares than that.
still feel like it might go lower but plan on picking up 65k more shares here
Only mentioned once:
"You'd have to be crazy to not believe there is about to be a constant stream of new FLNG projects landing on Golar's doorstep. Shell spent over $15B on their FLNG project and Golar spent $1.1B on an innovative conversion project and delivered results in less than half the time... With the strong shipping rates, Golar will be free to fund and pursue multiple projects. Keep the following names in mind: Tortue, Fortuna, Delfin. That's just a sprinkling of the potential."
lastly, it seems like the entire span of the case from the original injunction has been rooted in moving the case to a federal court because it relies largely on federal law to settle. and the request by the plaintiff that station 44 be shut down would require the approval of the FERC.
it's an injury case by the plaintiffs seeking compensation or shutdown of the facility station 44. but the facility handles the processing of a large section of pipeline that technically operate with impunity as it's in the best interests of the federal government to secure resources in their own jurisdiction.
transco's case is that the facility wouldn't exist without offshore operations, therefore there is a right to usage of the land and facility -they own the facility- operating as under federal jurisdiction in tandem with offshore exploration facilities.
it's an ongoing court case against transcontinental and delfin over 'torts to land' which typically relates to a trespassing of land case. in this case, the complaint seems to be about damages of use of the land -which operates under federal jurisdiction for minerals/resources exploration- by transcontinental and by association, delfin since they plan on using the facility. it seems the plaintiff is really just trying to collect monetary compensation for damages that are typical for a facility operating in the manner of 'station 44' which is the facility on the land in question.
here's the original case file.
crain v delfin/transcontinental
From the 8/29 document you're trying to reference.
ORDER
Having considered Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company,LLC’s Sur-Reply Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand be filed into the record for this matter. SO ORDERED this 28th day of August, 2018.
the link he posted is a summary of events for Delfin, it's nothing new, and the case he thinks Delfin was denied is actually the exact opposite, Delfin's request with HIOS and the FERC was approved.
https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/2018/041918/C-3.pdf
it's the federal register.
tomorrow is the day the export license is officially transferred into the INC. my guess we see some new developments soon after this takes place. either way, holding until resolution.
shows total comments here:
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=DOE_FRDOC_0001
that's correct, 0 comments thus far regarding opposition to CIC transfer of license.
if you're saying the project isn't finished then i agree with you, but the CIC hearing is directly related to transferring the export authorization permit to delfin midstream, inc which is unrelated to the license requested from MARAD.
it was authorized before the license was issued by MARAD and nothing has changed so i don't understand the concern. if anything Delfin has more funds now than they did a year ago.
this is unrelated to the export authorization..
additionally:
XV.
ORDER
Pursuant to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, it is ordered that:
A. Delfin LNG LLC (Delfin) is authorized to export domestically produced LNG by vessel from the proposed floating Delfin Liquefaction Facility, to be located in West Cameron Block 167 in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore of Cameron Parish, Louisiana.
Delfin is authorized to export this LNG in a volume equivalent to 657.5 Bcf/yr of natural gas on its own behalf and as agent for other entities that hold title to the natural gas, pursuant to one or more long-term contracts(a contract greater than two years).
the term of authorization doesn't begin until they commence operations. the term of which is 20 years in total. and they are required to commence operations within 7 years of this authorization order.
there is no stipulation of required funds to keep the permit in any of the terms and conditions set out in the authorization order. you can read it for yourself and see that.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/06/f34/ord4028.pdf
if delfin midstream, llc satisfied the permit terms then delfin midstream, inc will also. the hearing is just a formality.
correct.
the objections would have to be to the change in control. it's outlined in the terms of authorization starting on page 165 here:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/06/f34/ord4028.pdf
see part D.
i'm assuming this clause is inserted for the case of protecting any public ownership if the company weren't private, or to protect private investors if they want to make an appeal.
time for appeal to prevent authorization has already passed and is not the reason the hearing period is in place. there have already been objections to the impact of the project in the gulf which were rejected.
they did a capital raise in june, none of us know how much it was, especially you. additionally, Enbridge has money to throw around and we know they already have around $320mil in the bank based on company records in Delaware. GL troll.
great! things moving along in a professional manner.
nvm i think they're only required to report once, annually, in March
how often is tax assessment adjusted? i'd be willing to put up $20 to see if we can get a new estimate
Would that apply to Delfin? Their application was already accepted and processed which is how they have the permit now. And in the permit stipulations there isn't anything that could have caused it to be revoked aside from not starting exports within 5 years of the approval. They already had a public comment period and even rejected an opposition case which is what preceded the final approval decision by the DOE.
i know what he's talking about and i searched the DOE website, federal register website, and looked through all the dockets posted for Delfin, coming up with nothing. even went so far as to go through all the volumes of the federal register published online since July 10th. looks like the DOE hasn't taken any action on posting a notice of the change in control that Delfin sent their way. not sure what it could allude to besides normal bureaucracy. the fact that the DOE was notified of the change in control itself shows Delfin's commitment to the project and keeping the permits/license in place. still doesn't mean anything about the relation to TGLO or whether an RM will happen. all just routine filing and upkeep as their process moves along so not really much to be inferred either way.
the point of the notice is to allow any objections by the public which, as was seen previously during the permit approval, it seems the DOE thinks the project is in the best interest of the country, economically, outweighing any concerns by the public, and is sure on their decision to allow Delfin to move forward.
i'd take a guess that the lack of DOE notice to the public for the change in control is holding up Delfin's plans.
i'm not finding anything. could be possible the DOE hasn't gotten around to posting a notice.
are you talking about this?
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/06/f34/ord4028.pdf
all this shows is that talisman and fairwood are the only entities with >10% ownership and that the export license and permits were transferred successfully to the new company structure, incorporated. "several investors" traded capital for equity but none contributed more than 10% worth of capital to the project in Delfin's eyes which i'm assuming to mean they are still far away from their total capital goal to fund the project. maybe some initial funds were raised to get everything off the ground but the entire project will have to be funded in stages as someone said previously. probably involving the RM and then several offerings over the course of development of the project through 2021, hopefully coinciding with marginal increases in MC along the way.
he's always said 'if the RM happens' because thats the truth.. we dont know if it will for sure until it does happen
i think you have pointed out the most realistic scenario. i think r/s and dilution will happen to some degree and i also don't see them doing more than 10:1 with maybe doubling the OS afterwards, which would still leave a lot on the table as far as returns if they complete a full RM with all assets. pretty excited either way, wonder how long we'll be waiting.
my gigantic brain is telling me that it's a common clause in companies without established revenue streams to cover themselves in the event things don't go as planned. similar to forward looking statements clauses.
must come as a surprise but that's what people typically do. then they use their brains to process the information and come to a decision that they won't regret.
i have all the shares i need, i already set my risk after reading pretty much every relevant document including the export license and their build out plans.
yeah i mean i doubt you know too much about any of these companies or the potential here so how can you say one way or the other whether you were duped or not? because nothing has happened yet? that's just impatience.. sell your shares
they can work on it without taking it down. the design is done offline and then you upload the files to whatever server you have hosting the site and it replaces or updates the page immediately without having to actually remove something to change it. i cant imagine needing to take a non-indexed page down for the sole reason of updating or working on it. i also am not sure why it would be taken down unless maybe they didn't want that info to be public yet and realized the public had found the page.
Yeah I didn't see anything new.
pretty sure MPET was already on NASDAQ
I don't think he's expressing doom and gloom, he's just stating the truth. There haven't been any material news or filings to lead to better price action so it's not likely we'll break out of the same range we've been in since 10K.
Interesting, I don't think that applies to issuance, though, it's only talking about the criteria set out in the license that would allow Delfin continued use (of the license). There was a pdf link of the actual license terms that outlined how soon they would have to begin exports and the terms of transfer of the license and all of that which is what I assume the link is referring to.
"As noted in Delfin’s prior reports, the Executive Director of the Maritime Administration, acting pursuant to authority delegated by the Secretary of Transportation, authorized the issuance subject to certain conditions of a License for the Port Delfin Project under the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 as amended on March 13, 2017. “Secretary’s Decision on the Deepwater Port License Application of Delfin LNG, LLC,” in Docket USCG -2015-0472. Delfin continues to work to satisfy the conditions for a License set forth in that Decision."
Here's the pdf of the license:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/06/f34/ord4028.pdf
Page 165 begins terms and conditions of the license. I don't think issuance is stipulated by any outstanding terms that Delfin hasn't met, merely they're referring to continued use and that Delfin is continuing development of the project to satisfy the terms set out in the license.
If they don't meet the criteria set out in the license then it will be revoked, but issuance isn't dependent on anything else other than the actual development of the license (legalese/paperwork filing).
I could be wrong.