Member Info for BroadfordBay

Mikey,

the statements you have made have not, as far as I am aware, been adequately clarified / explained / confirmed by the company.
As for the 5% TKI now being included in GKP Net Interest - can you substantiate this claim, where and when did the company confirm this?
The fact that the KRG/MNR has been unable or unwilling to contribute their PSC contractual obligations has resulted in a very muddy understanding of where we are in respect of legally-enforceable historical sums due.
The obligations implicit in Working as well as Net Interest calculations do not appear to have been honoured...

Mikey,
you cannot blame it all on the KRG/MNR.

A strong management team will go right down to the wire on issues that severely affect the financial health of the company. Not only that, a strong and switched-on management will clearly indicate to their stakeholders / shareholders (large and small) the reasons for non-agreement or -implementation.
If nothing else, a pragmatic sense of self-preservation normally wins out at CEO level.
In this respect JF is weak and apparently has no powerful opponents at board level who can challenge the positions he takes on certain critical areas / issues.
Small shareholders have no voice. Larger shareholders may have some earlier insight into certain matters but it's questionable how these actually help their financial health; in my opinion all major holders are actively trading within their notification limits and are therefore "coming out on the right side".

Lack of clarification ref the true Working Interest (58% or 80%), no apparent settlement of the 5% Texas Keystone issue, and various other issues that you touch upon all contribute to the view, held by many in the City, that the company and its senior management is tainted.

I'll stay with my $70M estimate...

CCC,
we are all entitled to our opinions, so allow me just say that I too consider some of your expressed opinions to be absurd - to say the least.

$100M - You'll be lucky!

We are owed approx $70M for the Sept thru Dec production and that won't be near enough for PF3.
Keep some money for when it drops, as it will.

Angina,
Slide #23 of the 2018 Annual Report clearly shows the positions of all SH wells at that time. Even without satellite imagery (subscription) the well can be seen to be somewhat N of E.
The statement, by the company at the time, that SH-7 would be drilled ESE of SH-1 was, like so many of these statements, "somewhat misleading" to put it mildly.
PF-3 does NOT yet exist - only as a 3D software image.

Correction needed:
The heading is 259° from SH-7, from PF-1 the heading is ca 79°.

Your "keen eye for detail" appears to have let you down again I'm afraid.

SH-7 lies more or less due East of PF-1, at a heading of 259° and a distance of ca 2.6km.

theoryman,
re. yr last posting...

There is deeper water - an Aquifer - of course, and the OWC is currently defined as about 1400m or so, but I suppose there are water contacts in a formation or field that are "active" (i.e. being constantly replenished / re-powered, via contact perhaps with a sea or ocean) and others that are not (or perhaps just being replenished by surface run-off). Just as there are strata in a formation that are being replenished / fed by pathways (i.e. fractures) that extend out more or less horizontally as well as vertically. I guess if you are unlucky in Kurdistan you could intersect fractures that extend a thousand meters vertically?
The energy being contributed by the Aquifer appears, from reading the last few presentations that even addressed this issue, to be less than hoped-for, aka minimal.

theoryman,
the posting was in response to another which claimed "minimal" pressure drop.

In itself, the pressure drop is not the only, or even the main, defining factor.
The depth of the producing formations - both sub-sea and sub-surface - are very important: It's no use having 1600psi if that only produces say 100bopd at surface at one location, while able to produce say 2000bopd at another location.

The ability, or otherwise, of the planned ESPs to ensure continued "high" output (ca 3500 - 5000bopd per well) is dependent upon how well the surrounding formation can replenish what is being pulled. Some of the wells appear to show a fast recovery at shut-off, others less quick (see SH-4). We need to hear/see/read something from the company as to just how the installed ESP(s) is/are performing, but I guess they have very little data at this time.

Re. Aquifer-drive, I thought the company had indicated almost no pressure support was expected from any aquifer?

I see the pressure drop as significant.

Angina,
the first two responses to your posting illustrate how dysfunctional this particular board has become.

The pressure decline in the various wells was well documented by the company in their 2018 Full Results & Capital Markets Event held on 28th Mar-2019.

Slide #51 shows the Pressure Declines for the period Jan-2014 thru Jan-18.
These pressure declines equate to:
SH-1B approx. -14%
SH-3 approx -15%
SH-2 approx -10.5%
SH-5B approx -10%
SH-4 approx -24%
SH-8 approx -18%
SH-10A approx -9%
SH-11 approx -9%
SH-7 (Butmah) approx -9.5%
SH-8 (Butmah) approx -11%

NB: These results are now 2 years old!

Bearing in mind that these declines were measured over 4 yrs, that they are more or less linear, and that we are now another 2 years further on, the actual reduction in the meantime can be increased by another 50%.

Significant...but the real frauds who post here will never admit that.

Victor384,

nowhere did I state that the company is a distressed seller - the term was introduced in an exchange with another poster and you have chosen to take it out of the context in which it was made.

Are you aware of what is distressing the company at present?
No, I didn't think so - and nor do you appear to be truly interested in finding out, just throwing unjustified allegations.

Ruminations are also defined by Merriam-Webster as:
"... to go over in the mind repeatedly and often casually or slowly."

To ruminate is a widely-used expression in English literature, where its use is as per the M-W above definition .

IMO only if you are obsessed with seeing everything thru the lens of a psychologist would you chose the meaning to which you refer; such people are themselves very often disturbed individuals.

This says much more about you than it does about Tony Oilman.

As I said, in a perfect world that might well be the case, but not here, and not now.

Are you aware of the expression: "distressed seller"?

It’s absolute nonsense to say that Oil Companies are sold according to their Asset Value - In a perfect world that would be the case, but we are certainly not in such a world, or area, or time.

The value ascribed to ANY company being sold reflects the desire / degree of urgency of the seller, the desire / hunger of the potential acquirers for the assets, and an appreciation by both sides of the strengths & weaknesses of their respective bargaining positions.

The above is the case even with multiple bidders. In addition of course, and especially in the case of ME oilies, can be added geopolitical- and conflict issues that need to be considered.

Any single one of these can have a MAJOR effect on the value to be ascribed.

...and don't forget that contribution from BBBS with his 100BB (100 billion barrels) projection.

Long departed of course.

PSC
ARTICLE 20 - TITLE TO ASSETS
20.2 During the Development Period, subject to Article 21, all Assets acquired by the Contractor for the Petroleum Operations shall become the property of the Government upon the completion of the recovery of their costs of all such assets by the Contractor, or the end of the Contract, whichever is the earlier.
Not yet...not yet.

No-one playing with you this morning...?

You are the one who said "Simple"...

I believe you!

Pfiadi Gott!

(continued)

They are NOT in my opinion what will drive consideration of takeover value to be attributed to the company’s assets.

At this point in time, I would say $1Bn would be a fair takeover value for GKP’s share of the PSC – this includes all installed plant / equipment / infrastructure already paid for (pro rata) by GKP & Texas Keystone.

I admit that my DNO remark was just “pri**ing your bubble”, but it’s highly significant that out of the dozens of companies that had access to the Data Room not one concrete offer was forthcoming.

Let me challenge you once again – show me you can generate some original thinking.

Slurryscot,
Let’s clarify one thing straight away – I did not abuse you, I insulted you. It’s called giving as good as you get.
If you don’t understand the difference please consult with your legal advisors and they will put you straight.

Ref the post-tax profit per barrel issue, let me say quite clearly: I have no interest whatsoever in what the CPR derived $/bbl figure is/was for projected future scenarios.

The content of my posting which appears to have set you off (the one where I break down the CO and PO contributions and arrive at a much lower figure as the main determinant for a takeover approximation), is my pragmatic view of things.
I accept completely that it’s not mainstream (at least not openly), in its simplicity and obvious utility – but it’s my philosophical approach and one that I believe increasingly has its adherents.
I also accept fully that it’s not one that finds its way into annual accounts / financial statements / balance sheets but it’s quite clear to me why that is so; all companies prefer big numbers to pad their reports but this does not blind them to the actual fundamentals of any possible deal.

I believe, however, that it is a view that is shared when getting down to the nitty gritty of value to be attributed at takeover.

Consider, if you will, the philosophical consideration of this issue:

A. I have to keep investing big sums (Capex) in order to earn relatively small sums. The money I invest is returned to me slowly via the Cost Oil formula (return rate directly governed by oil price and output).
I cannot receive more money back than what I have already put in.

B. The relatively small sum I earn (Profit Oil) is again directly governed by the oil price and output. As my Capex return approaches a level that mirrors revenues actually received (R-factor less than 2 but more than 1) the percentage of output that can be calculated acc. to the PO formula starts to decrease (we are at 30% currently, but it will eventually decrease after sum years to 15%).

In both of the above it should be borne in mind that an exploding oil price will accelerate the rate of return of Cost Oil Revenue AND significantly contribute to a faster reduction in the Profit Oil percentage that can be claimed, from 30% down to 15%.

So, let’s return yet again to your central point of “$/bbl value to be considered”.

The large sums (A) that I receive as CO contributions / revenues are great at inflating the perceived value of my endeavours – but It’s my view that they skew / misrepresent the actual contribution of the asset, as it’s just my money coming back to me – slowly.

My philosophical argument is that the only true gauge of the endeavour’s attractiveness & success is the Profit Oil contribution (B).

I repeat – I do not dispute that the big numbers as “recognized” by the bean counters and the creative accountants are important for padding my annual accounts & submissions.

They are NOT in my opinion ...(