There's been a number of people speculating the
"countdown" to the settlement announcement has begun. Its reasonable
to say with Bolivia prepping its 'people' via various newspapers that
"they have to pay up"...that its not far off as per what was left as
a message here: Five companies ask the state $ 1,835 MM for expropriations (Oldish
article from 23rd October 2013)
The most comical of which is Evo Moralez's assertions early
last month. Yes Moralez actually asserted that a business part owned by the
Spanish Agency for Air Navigation (AENA) for the nationalization of its
subsidiary in Bolivia, Bolivian Airport Services SA (SABSA), and that instead
of paying for nationalising, the owners should instead pay the Bolivia!
Ok, its acknowledged that SABSA had received
subsidies to develop the airports, but likewise they had taken on the financial
risk and developed assets that Moralez is strangely remiss of his acceptance
that Bolivia can't do anything major. Its quite clear that Moralez' actions suggest he wrongfully entices companies
"with the promise" of protection to then only nationalise them once
they've achieved the objectives because Bolivia are incapable of it under his management. I base this on the
premise that if Bolivia were capable of developing these assets, including those
owned by Rurelec etc...they would not need to 'encourage' investment in their
country to later nationalise them. Or am I missing something there....
Bolivia, ironically are only damaging themselves with their conduct, albeit, with the legal 'expertise' being developed its likely Bolivia will now have to pay more and more in terms of 'fair value compensation' than they have previously. If correct in this view, Rurelec's award is likely to be the upper levels of what has been validate/evidenced during the process.
Bolivia will 'no doubt protest' over the level of the award, afterall, it's not because these businesses were so purposeful they were essential to the "nationalisation plan." One wonders why Bolivia has to nationalise anything if a) it's worthless b) never likely to make a profit and c) on the basis of a+b never likely to make a return why nationalise them? Perhaps there's a good case for Bolivia actually 'realising' they should pay fair value rather than this pathetic assertion the assets are worthless.
Lets wait and see, however I don't envisage news in October with the clock ticking, willing to be wrong!
