Member Info for BroadfordBay

I cannot recall anyone ever claiming GKP is worthless...

Some of us do believe that the company is Worth Less (than what the true frauds like you posting here and elsewhere claim, the $25/share or the $8/bbl crowd for example) - but that is most definitely not the same as Worthless.

value,
I have already posted on this particular approaching cliff - or double-edged sword if you prefer.
In a certain sense it is now a sword of Damocles hanging over their (GKP's) head - if they don't run up some big numbers quickly (Capex) then they suffer the PO cuts. That point could be approaching with 12 - 15 months, if the POO stays strong.
Problem for all of the independents is that they have yet (with exception of DNO who seem to have found a good formation into which they are injecting) no working solution for the gas issue. GKP failed to find a good place to inject (for pressure assistance) and they seem not yet ready to just "throw it away" as DNO are doing. The costs of treating wet, dirty gas are, when viewed purely from GKP's viewpoint, just not worth contemplating. Same argument applies more or less to all the neighbours, but the KRG seems intent on forcing the OilCos to fund any gas treatment project - a silly, piecemeal approach to the country-wide issue of flaring which should be managed, driven and at least partially funded by the government.

All IMO.

If I may contribute...?

The recovery of Petroleum Costs is NOT limited by any R-Factor - only the Profit Oil suffers from this.
The maximum amount (converted to barrels) that may be claimed as CO in any month is 40%; if your outstanding and as yet unpaid Costs still exceed this, then you roll them forward.
If your outstanding and as yet unpaid Costs are less (when converted to barrels) than what you are permitted to claim, then the barrel difference just goes to the Profit Oil side.

PSC Clause #25.3
"Subject 10 the provisions of this Contract, from the first production in the Contract Area, the CONTRACTOR shall at all times be entitled to recover all Petroleum Costs incurred under this Contract, of up to forty percent (40%) of Available Crude Oil...
.. Available Crude Oil above this percentage or otherwise not used for the recovery of Petroleum Costs shall be Profit Crude Oil....."

TM,
as the KRG are still not contributing their share, and are riding free on the "carried costs", that 18% might actually be more like 22% Working Interest - for the foreseeable future at any rate.
That brings the $/bbl down from around $2.27/bbl to nearer $2.00.
Knock off 33% for the lower API and the higher Sulphur...I'd say it's nearer $1.50/bbl as a benchmark.

It was reported back in Dec-2020 (Brent ca $50/bbl) that Total was expecting to receive around $500M for their 18% stake in the Sarsang/Swara Tika fields.

Today, with Brent 50% higher, that has dropped to a more realistic $135M plus $20M.

Humble pie...

$25M Special dividend qualifying date is 30th July 2021.
Payment will be on 6th August.

Look what happened to the SP after the last dividend qualifying date of 25th June...

Ref TSC terms etc.
it appears that this particular pot of soup is coming to the boil yet again.

Hellenic reported this 4 weeks ago, and it appears to tie in nicely with the current kerfuffle about $/bbl returns etc. Bear in mind that the Baghdad folks have always believed that the KRG terms are FAR too generous, and the present oil price represents a bonanza for the contractors in the Kurdish region – cue “they’re stealing Billions from us up there, do something about it!”

“ https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/iraq-to-conduct-study-on-oil-gas-exploration-and-transport-contracts-with-foreign-companies/”

“Iraq plans to conduct a study to review all oil and gas exploration and transport contracts with foreign companies, according to a Cabinet decision, amid calls by some politicians in OPEC’s second-largest producer to amend some agreements with international oil companies.
The oil ministry should conduct an “appropriate” study on the contracts, the Cabinet said in a June 1 statement carried by the state-run Iraqi News Agency. The Cabinet issued the decision following its regular weekly meeting.
Some members of parliament and other politicians often express concern about certain contracts signed with oil majors, which they believe carry unfair financial terms, a debate that has gone on for years.
The government of Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, which was elected in May last year, listed in its program at the time a number of measures that included plans to restore the country’s oil market share and renegotiate contracts with IOCs.
Iraq wants to form a negotiating delegation to discuss amending technical service contracts with international oil companies in light of the current oil market developments, according to the program released in May 2020.
The current calls for a review now coincide with ExxonMobil’s planned exit from the giant West Qurna 1 oil field in southern Iraq.
Iraq is considering buying Exxon’s 32.7% stake in West Qurna 1, the country’s oil minister said May 3, as the US major seeks to exit one of the world’s largest oil fields with expected recoverable reserves of over 20 billion barrels.
Oil minister Ihsan Ismaael had previously said Iraq was in talks with potential unnamed US energy companies to take over Exxon’s stake. Other partners in West Qurna 1 are PetroChina (32.7%), Japan’s ITOCHU Corp. (19.6%), Indonesia’s Pertamina (10%), and Iraq’s Oil Exploration Co. (5%).
Biggest fields
International oil companies in Iraq operate some of the country’s biggest fields in return for a per barrel fee linked to production.
The terms of the contracts have been a point of contention over the years, although Iraq needs international expertise to run these fields.
Exxon’s exit from the southern West Quran 1 field may be similar to Shell’s 2018 divestment of its stake in Majnoon, where operations are now managed by state-owned Basrah Oil Co., the minister said May 3.
In February, Oslo-based DNO bought Exxon’s 32% stak

Just to add to my last post....
Hussain al-Shahristani, in his book “Free of Fear”, wrote that he discussed these oil contract issues with many IOCs.
Among the interesting content I found the following in discussion of the TSCs:

“Years later, I met Paulo Scaroni, CEO of Eni, in Baghdad. “Please write your memoirs one day and explain to us how you managed to convince the IOCs to accept such contracts that we signed with you”, he told me. “When we (CEOs of IOCs) sit together and look, we wonder why we agreed to the terms of those contracts”.

The foolishness of man knows no bounds it seems.

Good morning Cookie,
trying to put things into perspective, I've just gone over the XON TSC for the W.Qurna-1 field and see that the agreed "Remuneration Fee" was $1.90/bbl.
Leaving aside the targeted output plateau (seems to be constantly changing) and the final Capex sum to be returned to the operators over the 25-yr contract period, that remuneration fee compares very unfavourably with the "Profit Oil" element of ca $4.35/bbl currently being earned by GKP under the Kurdish PSC terms (w Brent at $77 and output at 44Mbopd).
North and South, the operators all seem to be suffering from the intermittent / irregular payments syndrome.

Cookie,
although the TSC is different from the PSC, it has a similar weakness - the $/bbl "profit oil" that was agreed when the blocks were given / auctioned is not, in an era of high crude prices, all that great and I think this has something to do with the moves you mention.
The most attractive part of both contracts, TSC and PSC, is (or was) the fast return of your invested capital.

TM,
among other things we should also very much not forget is the case, still to be ruled upon by the International Chamber of Commerce’s International Court of Arbitration (ICA) in Paris, regarding the unauthorized use of the Kirkuk-Ceyhan Pipeline (the ITP) by the KRG.
This dispute, now in its 6th (7th?) year, concerns the use by the KRG of the jointly-owned pipeline which is governed by an Iraq-Turkey government agreement signed in 1973 (tariff rates have been modified/increased since then).
According to the Iraq Oil Report in Jan-2021, the Baghdad Oil Minister had requested damages of $26Bn by April of this year.
Even if the requested sum is reduced, or in some way offset against other tangibles/intangibles, there will be serious financial consequences for the Kurdish Semi-Autonomous Area - and consequently, for the oil producers in the KRG area.

peabody,
you mis-read the RNS.

Genel are partners (30%) with Chevron (50%) developing the SARTA field.

The KRG can currently export ca 500Mbopd from all fields under their control.
Note that this number is the official one that can be verified by the export meters - it will not include the "off the radar" teapots, the "private" truck exports into TR, and nor does it include the border levies and taxes collected at the Kurdish border crossings, both official and unofficial.
Assuming a discount to Brent of $15/bbl for the "Kurdish Blend" and IF (big if) crude stays around $75 for the year, this implies annual revenues of ca $11Bn - for for the official exports alone. The other items mentioned greatly increase these sums.
Such a healthy revenue stream induces great envy down in Baghdad and raises yet again the prospect of any budget transfer "agreement" falling to pieces.
The payment by KRG to international oil cos of up to 53% of that revenue just inflames the passions even more.
The longer the POO stays high, the more public unrest there will be, both North and South.
Make hay while the sun shines...

TM,
I have attended several GKP AGMs and at all of them there were attempts, some not entirely unsuccessful, to worm out out additional snippets from the directors there. Todd and I exchanged many hard words over the years on several such issues.
As you say, unwelcome questions are generally blocked or the issue is partially answered but obfuscated. Sometimes how an unwelcome question is answered, or responded to, can tell you something about what's going on.
As a shareholder it is your right to question the officers of the company - not only as you claim, about the factual content of the meeting but about the running of the company, the conduct of the officers and any other matter(s) that may concern you.
The purpose of the AGM is not only to inform shareholders in a way that suits the officers of the company, but to allow the shareholders to take the managers and officers to task for their performance or non-performance. Included in that is also an understanding of the the willingness, or otherwise, to share certain facts with shareholders - carte blanche is of course never offered. I have been to some very angry AGMs in Switzerland and Germany where the boards of directors were left sweating blood after hours of hard and persistent questioning, so I have to disagree with you that we have to eat dirt and shut up.
Large shareholders, institutions and the like, have always had a direct line to the CEO and the Chairman - who try to make sure they, the large shareholders, are kept informed on major issues of concern (such as JH's replacement and when a major fundraising might be coming up).
GKP has a bad name for investor relations - insofar as they don't care about small, retail investors; moving to the main exchange has not changed or improved that reputation.

There is SOOO much interest in this company - in its reserves, its financial strength and its future potential, that no-one, absolutely NO-ONE, asked a question at the Q&A period when the electricity was switched off and the nodding donkey / Chairman finally finished.

NO-ONE.

Says a lot, doesn't it?

Not one single question...

Discuss.

The bond is steady at 99.625% this morning.
The company can buy back in the market at any time should they so wish.

Any Redemption of the notes will involve not only 100% payment of the face value, but also all accrued and unpaid interest on the notes due up until the Redemption Date.
Furthermore, such redemption is generally (at the issuer's discretion) coupled with other conditions, which must be intimated to the note holders beforehand - which can, for example, include an obligation to take part in a related equity offering.

In view of the uncertainties facing SH field development once the 55Mbopd hurdle has been jumped, and the associated financial obligations, it would be unwise in the extreme to force a redemption at this time.
You may need such friends tomorrow...

“The company is committed to the highest standards of corporate governance including ensuring we undertake appropriate due diligence and third party professional advice and has an appropriate share dealing code, disclosure and compliance procedures.”
Vomited all over my STel.

Have you noticed how none of the GKP CEOs who spout such ****e are actually British, or UK-resident taxpayers? They float around the international stage, picking up a good number here and there, and are as easily grasped (aka held to account) as a cake of wet soap.

The "City of London" is a sewer, one which is very well-served by greedy, well-paid and unscrupulous lawyers, PR toadies and non-compliance "compliance officers".
Shady and greedy individuals are attracted to it like moths to a flame.
And I didn't even mention the Auditors...

The debate about just much of the Climate Change (whether felt, observed, or measured) should be ascribed to human activity will continue ad infinitum.
What cannot denied, however, is the way our actions (and consequences of such actions) are increasingly negatively effecting others on the planet, both fauna and flora.

Whether its plastic polluting our oceans and choking the whales and dolphins, or microplastics and chemicals / hormones in our drinking water, whether its deforestation or shipping our plastic waste to other (generally less wealthy) countries for “disposal”, whether it’s making the air in some of our cities so bad that ICE-free days are becoming the norm, ALL of these many negatives are now coming together under the umbrella of “Climate Change”.

The developed countries have a duty to step up to the line and try to show by example what, if anything, can be done. Compared with the plastics issue, dealing with internal combustion engine pollution appears to be the easier path to take.

Yes, I believe much of the hype is overdone and I personally don’t subscribe to the “Armageddon tomorrow” view, but I will certainly do what I can to help to reduce my hydrocarbon use and avoid using pollution plastic; and I don’t need little Greta to tell me either.

Interesting report just out by the International Energy Agency IEA (Net Zero by 20250 - A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector).
You might not like it and you might not agree with its conclusions or recommendations, but you really should read it.

For example:
"The energy transition envisioned in the NZE involves a major contraction of oil and gas production with far-reaching implications for all the companies that produce these fuels. Oil demand falls from around 90 million barrels per day (mb/d) in 2020 to 24 mb/d in 2050, while natural gas demand falls from 3 900 billion cubic metres (bcm) to around 1 700 bcm.
No fossil fuel exploration is required in the NZE as no new oil and natural gas fields are required beyond those that have already been approved for development."
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/0716bb9a-6138-4918-8023-cb24caa47794/NetZeroby2050-ARoadmapfortheGlobalEnergySector.pdf

Correction
Should of course have said it generally falls when it goes ex-div, not when paid.