Member Info for BroadfordBay

The calculations for Cost Oil (CO) and Profit Oil (PO) are straightforward to carry out - of course you have to make an assumption as to the Monthly Output, but the other variables (Brent, SH Discount) are known.

Using 58%WI does not produce the Revenue Figures we have been seeing - 80%WI does.

The simplest way to look at this surely is to accept that an informal agreement has been made, between MNR & the operating partners, to pay at this WI rate.

What the offsetting elements to such an agreement are, or will be, are open to conjecture.

Cookie,

the Legal Committee may consider they have a consensus but when it goes to the wider parliament, and the power-block mentalities kick in again, we shall see the same old divisions opening up again.

The PM is weak, is not a block leader, and is unable to force anything resembling an O&G Law through without the support of the major block leaders IMO.

The KRG's inability to live up to the "agreed" 250Mbopd contribution, at least before mid/end 2020, gives the new oil minister a major headache - and plays into the hands of those who still want to curtail the Kurd's economic freedoms.

Much as I would like to see an agreement on the O&G Law, for the life of me I cannot see it happening in the short term.

As per the official RNS', I believe SNM have agreed to split the Marathon holding (the 15%) 50:50 with TAQA.

Shamaran's holding will therefore increase to 27.6%.

Angina,

I believe the whole issue of back costs, the $/bbl attributed to past sales, the loss of revenues due to such late- and incomplete payments, the money due for KRG's (non-) participation in the Capex investment so far, the loss of revenue due to the KRG putting the brakes on faster field development, etc., etc., etc., are ALL mixed up in the everlasting "2nd Amendment discussions".
A bit like the current Brexit discussions...

At the end of the day perhaps the one thing that will resolve the log-jam is, quite simply, one party getting fed up with it all and just wanting to move on.

That "fed up with it all" moment will probably also include a certain amount of writing-off hoped-for settlement of certain sums...no matter what the contract might say.

IMO the deletion of the 30% Infrastructure Tax (said to be currently down from the 40% stated in the PSC) would make swallowing some of the other "losses" more palatable.

Do you really believe that the KRG/MNR will, at any point in the future, pay compound interest on any sums owing?

Re your assertions you are not telling the truth.

There is a word for false people like you...

Why are you so afraid to name the person to whom you refer?

You are a despicable piece of trash - in all of your iterations.

Your first assertion is incorrect - as you have already been told, and more than once.

Your second assertion is also incorrect.

In reply to your question I'm tempted to say it's none of your business, but that of course just starts your infantile joining of dots.

Can you clarify which Deputy Chairman you mean?.

Probably a mixture of some trucking to Ceyhan, local storage and trucking to local refinery.

There will be a 2-week closure of the ITL within Turkey towards the end of this month, or spilling into March.

BOTAS are scheduled to do a lot of maintenance work on sections of the old pipe which is springing leaks as it struggles to cope with the pressures & flows.

The premium currently being offered for Heavy Crude, while it should benefit slightly the Kurdish Blend price, does not directly correlate to the price being achieved by the Shaikan contractor group.

Let's assume that the Kurdish Blend is currently about 27°API and S2.5%; that blend incorporates a raft of crudes ranging from near-32 API, down to 17°API (if there is any TaqTaq crude still being exported, or condensate in there, then perhaps ranging down from ca 46°API or so).

SH crude, with its 17°API and S% between 4.5% and 5.5%, will have a lower value than that achieved by the Kurdish blend – and the determination of that $/bbl value is one of the main factors behind the extended negotiations and lack of agreement re. historical sums due to all operator groups (just listen to the recent DNO webcast, where the Chairman reiterates that very same issue, and for the nth time).

Having said that, the differential seems to have reduced – but by what amount and for how long remains unclear. Don’t forget either that the forward financing deal agreed between MNR and the major trading houses is agreed with defined periods and defined $/bbl. The trading houses will be the ones to benefit most from such market gyrations, not the MNR.

If and when a new sales agreement is agreed we may be able to see what any price improvement has become – but the negative, long-term forward financing aspects are not going to vanish overnight.

Mr Ferrier should have qualified his statement about being fully funded for the major step-up to 100Mbopd.

Being self-financing depends completely on the oil price remaining relatively stable, being higher than the upper 50s, and on output quickly being brought up to (or exceeding) previous levels.

Dec-18 and Jan-19 net payments will illustrate what I mean.

CEOs of GKP have always excelled at leaving out such trifling details...

surreyscot,

Your assertion re MTBF being a "design intent" was demolished.

Your lack of understanding ref the new ISO, what it covers and what it is designed to address, was demolished.

Your lack of knowledge ref the ESP Industry Working Group was highlighted.

Your lack of knowledge ref OREDA's deficiencies, the interaction with the SPE and the ESP Working Group were all exposed.

You my friend, along with your "highlander" buddy, are the fraud - it's just what you are and it is plain for all to see.

Googlescot would be a more accurate moniker...

My dear chap,

didn't your Google search turn up the workings of the ESP Joint Industry Project ?
Schade!

ISO has never been used as a "source of reliability information" - the clue is in the 2nd letter "S".

Bin for you, you fraud.

I see the people who claim to have "worked in the industry all of their life" continue to illustrate their own failings when they say that: “…reliability MTBF is a DESIGN INTENT …”.
Big, big BS indeed surreyscot, and from your own mouth too!
You have fallen into this trap before boyo and you should try learn from your mistakes; you are completely out of your depth here and you should acknowledge it.

Reliability data from the ESP industry is a subject of intense interest at the moment.

Terms and definitions such as MTBF, MTTF, MCTF, MTTR are all in the process of technical revision and more refined understanding.
The ISO has published a new standard – ISO 14224:2016 which details much of the ongoing work in this and associated areas.
(ISO 14244: Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries – Collection and exchange of reliability and maintenance data for equipment).

I could refer you to the recent Joint Industry Project held to discuss, among other, the way the industry is moving towards full adoptation of the ISO standard - but why should I bother? Your critical facilities are already severely strained, as are your fellow traveller's.

If you had quoted the ISO 12489 MTBF = MTTF + MTTRes I might not have been so severe with you.

I could give you much more evidence of ESP failure rates, in IR and KRG, but why should I feed you and your ilk?

Briangal26,

please continue posting your thoughts here, whatever they are.
There are some here who refuse to countenance any "negatives" (including potentials) whatsoever yet, when you examine their own postings, profound bias can be seen.

Re. the FCPA: every "funny-looking transfer" made by a US company to the MNR will be examined by their auditors and, to just home in on a current and related issue, should the current IRS investigations into a previous CEO throw up anything that warrants further explanation in this area, will increasingly be cause for qualified remarks being made to said US company's managing board.

If you are indeed a senior compliance officer the you will know how seriously these things are now looked into.

The one who tried to take you to task here (with his mud throwing "...you and your ilk can never furnish any cast iron evidence of wrong doing, just a load of innuendo & insinuation ...") is a classic case. If you have the time, or the inclination, please go back and check up on his (Mikey's) record of posting untruths re certain well drilling data and you will see what I'm getting at.

It's Dog Eat Dog here, but there is no need to bring yourself down to their level.

Speak further...

CCC,

Marathon Oil have just done the same - their whole WI% was picked up by TAQA & Shamaran.

Perhaps the FCPA is playing a role in their considerations...?

...should have mentioned that the 42,212 bopd was produced from the BSAM formations (Barsarin / Sargelu / Alan / Mus / Adaiyah).
The Butmah came in with less, and much heavier (ca 9°API).

Final depth was ca 1,750m and she was drilled in 49 days.

If they can stay with that sort of drilling performance then it'll be a good drilling season for GKP.

It's of greater interest to me that DQE were the drilling company who did Atrush-2 (using Rig #31) - at the time said to be the highest flow ever in Kurdistan (it flowed 42,212 bopd using ESP).

From the ERCE CPR:

5.4.2. Fracture Description
From the available data, comprising fieldwork, core and image logs, ERCE has concluded that two families of fractures are present in the Shaikan field. These are the small-scale fractures (including hairline, stylolites, stratabound joints and tension gashes), which form a background fracture system that is present throughout each reservoir interval and are often partially occluded by mineralisation.
The second family of fractures at Shaikan are larger scale and include non-stratabound joints, ‘fracture corridors’ and sub-seismic faults. The presence of this latter category was INFERRED by GKP, because of the possible higher fracture density interpreted in the image logs of Shaikan-10A and Shaikan-11 and frequent rubble zones in the core.

(CAPS are mine)

I never raised the issue of TK and the divorce hearings - that was someone else.

I did respond with an opinion concerning an assertion made here that "it has nothing to do with GKP".

Anything to do with TK' s past stewardship of the company and any financial shenanigans that might be proven is relevant to GKP.

Every nonsensical assertion that "everything's fine, there's no problems anywhere" needs to be balanced by pointing out some outstanding historical actions that are currently being brought into the light of day.

These are not attempts to damage sentiment but things that need said to balance the unhealthy euphoria that sometimes runs rampant on these boards.

As to providing proof to the person currently posting under "Cockeye", well-known as an agent provocateur; - why on earth should I dance to his, or your tune?