We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
TM, but Gkp were never truly properly paid. But didn't Zahawi apparently sort that out ? Whether that's true, who knows? Truth is stranger than fiction here.
How well the LTHs will do is speculative. Depends on whether the company has the stomach to deal with criminals imo.
Good summary there Investrite.
Guess that is what most of us older and wiser sukkers on here feel.
Yes I agree the only way we might see true value here is if this company was sold !
The sooner the better !
All this bean counting to the n'th degree is just dandy - as a layman I have only two concerns however.
Firstly - buyback of shares will never be a benefit to us LTHs unless they are deleted from the books. I think we all have begun to realise that they will instead be dished out as bonuses to the BOD bods for achieving Whatever they define as their next industry shattering achievements..
Secondary - Sod the pathetic dripping roast dividend scenario ( it will be suitably manipulated at each of their share bonus award times to offset our horror at just how much they are giving themselves). Get this damned albatross sold while some of us are still alive and kicking.
Point1, so the question has become, why is so much of the revenue showing up as profit?
Wind back the clock and let there be no restructuring.
The Cost Oil would be contributing towards paying back agreed costs of setting up the operation - which was heavily funded by borrowing.
The Profit Oil would be paying for costs that were not agreed, paying the coupons on the borrowed money, running the company.....
So from the revenue there would be minimal profit, maybe even none...
The restructuring comes along and wipes out most of the debt.
So now the Cost Oil has a much reduced target to wipe out, the rest was removed by the DfE.
The Profit Oil likewise has a much reduced coupon payment
So now the revenue has very little demand placed on it, this shows up in the profits, which are now being used to pay dividends, buy back shares and hopefully fund the staged expansion we want.
The problem with this for the LTH is the increased number of shares that are benefitting from the increased profit and subsequent activities - all depends on their ratio of those two increases.
Tm- surely the revenue includes recovery of past costs. This is why 110k bopd is self funding. Pro-rata gives something broadly correct.
Hi, I have taken a much simpler view and mixed reality with the dream.
Take the individual daily production rates for the last 12 months for which we have the net revenue each different level generated.
Use this to calculate the revenue / actual daily production rate for that month, it will be different for each month to reflect the underlying real conditions.
Now take each individual calculated value and multiply by the dream 55k and see what the revenue would have been for that month if that figure had applied.
Sum the last 12 monthly figures that would have generated and get as close to $350 million as makes no difference.
Anyone care to question the logic and or the value I ended up with?
Hi TTB,
yes my misunderstanding.
"self-funding" claims being made"
yes fraudy, this was made by the BoD themselves
YOU made the claim that those that listened needed "their heads examined" i.e the BOD were lying, but you offered up no substantiation of those allegations.....as per
you have been caught lying, misleading and agenda peddling plenty of times, the sheer audacity and irony of your statement "do not lie, and nor do I" ......mind boggling, it really is
So BB in summary is your position that following increase from 30kbpd to 55kbpd will result in flat or reduced revenue, cash and p@l? Alternatively could you simply confirm that an increase in production might have a positive effect on GKP. Simple yes or no will suffice.
I see the gang of troublemakers has now hijacked this thread - those who freely throw the word "fraud" around but who offer nothing but BS, abuse and disingenuous obfuscation.
This is obvious in relation to my posting this morning to Max - where he had offered some revenue numbers based on $60/bbl crude. In my reply I kept the same number just to make a comparison easier.
Immediately put up against that were 2018 figures which, however, didn't reflect a stable crude price of $60 - as monthly Brent varied from $57.36 (Dec-18) to $81.03 (Oct-18)throughout 2018.
The numbers do not lie, and nor do I.
To support an expected revenue of $400m - $450M would require an average Brent price throughout the year of approx $76/bbl (all other variables assumed to remain as they are).
This bunch of troublemakers are ruining the board for others who are trying to see through the outrageous revenue- and profit, "self-funding" claims being made.
I see Robert aka bobobob posting here, with his ghost avatars.
Witless Wonders...
BB doesn't help himself does he?
But now he's gone, back to my original point which was simply that 55k bopd suggests annualised GKP turnover in a range between $400m-$450m. I think tom the bomb is looking at the same ballpark numbers.
This has massive ramifications for accelerated profits and cash flow. Net profits increase to well over $100m with monthly receipts ranging between $28m-$35m and a rock solid $300m + sat in the bank. All this after continuation of fully self funded capex, roll out of the dividend policy, and even some additional buy back activity if required.
Clearly it's all oil price critical, hence the spread.
But on the basis that we achieve our self imposed production targets in our self imposed time frames using our self imposed cash resources, then GKP is a remarkable business with a remarkable story to tell.
And if/when the FDP is approved and the second phase self funded capex is initiated we're starting to look like a Company whose future in Shaikan is limited only by reference to the oil reserves there.
With the cash flow projections following on from planned production uplifts, what's to stop us looking elsewhere for growth as well? Either organic, acquisition based, or both. There's no need for us to be shackled to Shaikan.
I'm just waiting for the sp to catch up with our potential.
All IMO. DYOR.
Stray nice one. BB is trying to suggest cash and revenue will stay flat from 30kpd to 55kpd.
lol broadfraud is at it again, either not smart enough to know what he is talking about, or so desperate to paint a negative image he'll squirm, twist and say anything to try keep pulling the wool over the eyes of those seeking to see the true picture
****eye is bang on calling you out broadfraud, and yes lets see you substantiate that latest cryptic and ambiguous comment........... you know like the ones you always end a conversation with after people call out your nonsense.............shall we hold our collective breaths.........?
BB,
Sorry I missed the fun but I'm back now, so:-
'Furthermore the 2018 sales revenues, as advised by the monthly payment RNS' totalled $216m although the company stated annual revenues of $251m.'
In that one statement you have demonstrated your complete ignorance of even the most rudimentary of accounting principles.
The monthly RNSs relating to Shaikan payments simply tell us how much we've been paid in any given month.
THEY DO NOT TELL US HOW MUCH WE HAVE INVOICED!!!
For all I know, we might have sold (invoiced) $35m by the end of October for the month, but we've only received $16.8m in October, for sales (invoices) dated July.
In that example, the correct figure forOctober revenues (sales) would be $35m, not $16.8m.
All the $16.8m denotes is WHAT HAS BEEN PAID IN THE MONTH. It has nothing AT ALL to do with what we end up invoicing in that month.
It would really help you to understand GKP's accounts if you could only grasp the fundamental difference between a Profit and Loss account and a Balance Sheet.
Sorry BB, but you got nailed, and with this you're attempting to divert from that fact... 'the only thing that matters to any company interested in acquiring GKP is what their goods can be sold for'.
And rather than this...'The revenue projection, based on the variables stated, is valid'. Why don't you really sock it to Straycat and break that all out for us to see? Shoot... :)
***eye,
you wish!
No matter what other items may be recognized by creative accountants as Revenue, the only thing that matters to any company interested in acquiring GKP is what their goods can be sold for.
The contract defines the barrels, the other deductions and variables are known.
My "arris" is still intact - as is my brain.
Watch BB scurry back to ADVFN after having his arris handed to him in a hat by Straycat. lol
straycat,
I need no lessons on balance sheet reading, thank you.
The difference needed to be highlighted for max.
The revenue projection, based on the variables stated, is valid.
So if GKP stopped all future development and just returned cash generated from 55k what would dividend be at current sp? Over 50% yearly. Hmm that would be nice. Over 10 year would get 5 times my investment lol!
Can argue till the comes come home regarding the details. Simple story is that 55k represents an uplift of 80% on 30kpd. All figures will be up revenue, cash and p&l.
BB,
Oh dear.
You seem to have equated revenue (a P&L item) and cash receipts (a balance sheet item).
For the uninitiated, the net value on an invoice is the revenue sum to be incorporated in the P&L.
The date on that same invoice stipulates when that invoice will be paid and is exclusively a balance sheet issue (classified as 'trade receivables' in GKP's case).
As a consequence it is perfectly possible, nay likely, that revenues and receipts will NOT MATCH in any audited or unaudited figures. But the two must not be confused. The 2018 revenues (not cash receipts) were $251m.
The fact that we only collected $216m is totally irrelevant to the Company's profit performance.
I hope that clears the matter up for you.
The revenue estimates were based upon $60 Brent - and were in reply to Armasmaximilian who had used that particular value for his estimate.
Last years monthly Brent values were:
Jan-18=$69.08, 65.32, 66.02, 72.11, 76.98, 74.41, 74.25, 72.53, 78.89, 81.03, 64.75, Dec-18=$57.36
Furthermore, the 2018 sales revenues, as advised by the monthly payment RNS' totalled $216M, although the company stated annual revenues of $251M.
The BS is spouted by others.
" We currently have a m'cap of just $585m "
TTB, the companies current market cap is $455.7, which makes it more ridiculous.
Hey Tom,
Then run the P&L on those revenue projections and stand back in amazement.
The market cap is ludicrous right now, look at how preposterous it will soon become.