Member Info for BroadfordBay

...and don't forget the SH-3 retubing work, drill pad prep for SH-H, more prep for #5(?), etc, etc.

Design changes are not the issue - the ordering and payment for the incorporation of that equipment necessary (pressure vessels, piping runs, pumps, heaters, instrumentation changes, etc) - are the issue.

The "mood" at the AGM, and in the reporting media, will be determined not by what sums the company is due in 6 - 7 months, but by the facts as they are presented on that day.

The $500M figure is Gross (i.e. due to all contracting parties), not Net to GKP.

P4 of Full Year Results:
"It is also important to stress that the Company has immaterial outstanding revenue arrears."

The outstanding sum of ca $500M relates to Costs which are recoverable in accordance with the Cost Oil formula of the PSC - the sum is also GROSS, not Net to GKP. Kimberley has no leverage in accelerating the return of this money - it will be returned to GKP slowly over the years; the only way to accelerate its return is to ramp up the field output.

The Cash-at-Bank sum is certainly not $300M - that figure, of $296M, was the end-of-year amount (31st Dec 2018) and will have been reduced quite a bit by all of the work carried out since then.

Regarding funding, the statement reads:
"Under our CURRENT MARKET ASSUMPTIONS AND PREDICTED FIELD PERFORMANCE, the Company is now fully funded for all phases of the Shaikan expansion programme, up to 110,000 bopd."
(CAPS are mine)

To date, many of the company's assumptions have proved to be somewhat wide of the mark.

...yet again.

Money talks.

Good morning SS,

Finally, a civilised posting that doesn't start with "fraud".

Posting your CV here is not required – I would be interested, however, in your technical posts, if I can find them.

Re my posting 579321, this, if I remember correctly, was made around the time of the “ESP Installation” debate.

The posting is correct – but has been misinterpreted by you. The first sentence relates to the use of “Expert” which is what my job title was when I signed my first O&G employment contract many years ago (Rotating Equipment Expert). My employer (government national oil co.) agreed to my request to have this replaced with “Specialist”, which I felt was more correct & appropriate. I later moved on from rotating equipment to other managerial responsibilities within the NOC.

The 2nd sentence expanded on that O&G experience (mostly in a refinery environment) and made reference to other areas of expertise in advanced engineering, not in O&G, that I subsequently achieved in my career.

I have no interest in abusing you, but your repeated abuse of me invites a response - and your refusal to engage at a technical level warrants comment.

coldingrid,

your response is very telling - not say somewhat over the top.

The "questions" you posed re oilman were, IMO, purely rhetorical and merited no answer from me.

You are very free with your accusations about fraud, liars, etc, but much less so with details of any such misrepresentations .

I'm in no way ashamed to say that I support several posters on the other board - those who attempt to "tweak your tail" and to bring some healthy balance to the absolutely overblown nonsense that gets put out as "research" by some there...and here too it has to be said.

Re any ignorance & jealousy shown, well I'm all ears if you would like to bring such to may attention.

Your allegations of fraud would particularly interest me.

In closing, what informative postings have there been from slurryman?

coldingrid,

I'm afraid I must turn the Q back to you...

Why is it so important to slurryscot to keep emphazing his "experience" and yet offer nothing whatsoever supportive to that claim? Why does he keep on about it?

At least oilman has walked the walk, climbed the hill so to speak, and invested some considerable amount of time & money doing on-the-ground research.

If you are so hot, why does your moniker include cold?

You are going down a dead-end road.

SS,
you said earlier: "Whether anyone believes anything I say is of course up to them. All I will say it is based on 50 yrs experience in the O&G Industry including 10 yrs in Offshore Drilling in my younger days. If you prefer to listen to agenda driven trolls - be my guest,".

Enlighten us please, just a little, as to your experience(s) - in order that we may give more weight to your informed views.

Just to repeat, mcfly has NOT been banned from posting on the other board.

...and who will "compel" them to disclose what or who is being hidden?

You...the CEO...or a trusted NED?

I too have taken advantage of the 7.3% yield and put some of my retirement savings into BT.

Re the other "growth stocks" you mention, the SP growth in such stocks is more related to the excitement factor than any profit - forget dividends, as they will be a long time coming for most of these stocks.

I'm happy with what appears to be a good solid yield.

Mikey,

what you stated is simply not the case - " ...the 17p minimum payment per share will remain constant".

Not even the dividend of 8.4p will remain constant.

The supplementary payment of 8.4p, made to placate certain interests, should be regarded as a one-time benefit, nothing more.

Mikey,

I don't trade GKP so I have no detailed knowledge of how CFDs actually work in respect of dividends.

Looking at some web articles, however, it seems there is a methodology for sharing such payments. As to how that gets translated into a perceived yield - well, I leave that to you.

In classical yield terms, such are reported in the respected financial press, the yield is more or less what I calculate.

Mikey,

I assumed 229.43M shares in issue, $25M as the actual dividend, XRate as 1.3 and SP as 230p.

is actually only 3.64% - which puts it in the same ballpark as DNO, the current benchmark in Kurdistan.

Another $25M, or 3.64%, will be paid this year as a Supplemental Dividend, a sweetener, to placate certain interests.

Once the cash pile starts reducing rapidly end-19, latest mid-2020, you can say goodbye to supplementary dividends.

slurryscot,

there is another Forum, one to which you have no access.

We do look, however, and we laugh...

Bravedog,

I question, I generally don't just do negatives...

You obviously refuse to question, just spout nonsense.

But then, that's what so many here tend to do.

Take refuge in whatever "understanding" you are able to generate.

I don't consult for free - and I'm certainly not paid for for posting here or elsewhere.

If you ever did recommend me to do something - thank you, but I don't think your advice is well-meaning.

That self-congratulatory mode is back at full blast again I see; reminds me of the good old Todd days.

Keep swallowing it.

cockeye,

rhetorical, diminutio

CCC

we are each entitled to our opinions.

You are completely wrong in asserting that my postings are now "constantly negative" and, by implication, that I have an agenda.

My most recent postings, concerning whether or not the company is fully funded to the 100Mbopd output level, are a case in point.
I do not deny that the company is generating substantial revenues.
I do not deny that the company will achieve its 55Mbopd output level and is, barring unanticipated events, fully funded for that.

I have a a very critical eye for some important details, however, and I see funding difficulties in achieving both the 75Mbopd level and, ultimately, the 100Mbopd level.

My remarks ref. gas should be seen in that context (the 75Mbopd level) and, re funding, in the context of achieving the 100Mbopd.

In your diatribe you are the one who re-opens old wounds (the 2nd amendment, the FDP, the missed targets, etc), not I.

Nothing is served by ignoring issues and pretending that everything is now under control; It is not.

Why is the SP stuck at 250p?

It's because of the uncertainty of resolving these issues; managing future capital requirement is only one of these. The ability of the management to work the asset is quite another. There are other companies, in Kurdistan, who are achieving much better results.

I make it $56.5M per month if/when the targeted 100Mbopd is achieved.
Assumptions:
80%WI - both CO & PO
10% Royalty
CO at 40% of month's output (after deducting the 10% royalty)
PO at 30% of available crude (after stripping out the CO and the MNR's percentage of 70% PO)
Tax still at 30%
$21/bbl for discount and all associated transport tariffs

Don't forgot too that, as the facilities are extended, the company operating costs will increase - but not all of these will be recoverable via the CO formula, only those directly associated with the production of the oil.

Anyway, how long will it take to reach that 100Mbopd level?

The MNR will not sanction anything higher than 55Mbopd unless there is a viable gas-handling solution on the table.

tom_the_bomb,

can lay out ALL the parameters that were used to arrive at the Net sum of $68M per month?