Member Info for BroadfordBay

to CCC and surreyscott,

ever since JG left we have been fed measly scraps instead of a full dinner.

Technical aspects that interest small and large shareholders alike are no longer properly detailed and addressed - not at the AGM and not in any of the half-year reporting intervals either.

Take the reduction in output, from ca 40Mbopd down to nearer 30Mbopd. Is this due to natural pressure decline in the producing formations? Is it due to insufficient (no?) work having been done to clean up slowly clogging fracture paths near the wellbore? Is it due to the PFs being unable in their current configuration to deal with water production - whether produced water or returning drill fluids? Is it due to the Gas:Oil Ratio going thru the roof, and the current PF separation vessels being inadequate to process the fluid volumes, leading to incoming flows having to be throttled back to allow gas separation? Do we need a 3-stage GOSP instead of a 2-stage? Does the 55Mbopd target essentially require only increased gas- and water handling (separation) capacity?

The quality of reporting back to stockholders is extremely poor.

Someone posted about needing another $250M -$300m...?

Top of Page 7, Full Year Results:

"... - The eventual target of the FDP will now be 100,000 bopd (rather than the 110,000 bopd previously envisaged), but this no longer involves the need for significant new facilities to develop the Jurassic production capacity, as there is more potential to expand the existing facilities than previously thought. The existing production facilities can be further debottlenecked to reach 75,000 bopd and this will be quicker and more cost effective than construction of a new site for Jurassic production.
The Company will provide further budgetary guidance as appropriate in due course..."

If 55 is the number our current CEO is focusing on then he should be shown the door; 75 is the number to concentrate on - and for that every penny will be needed.

Good morning gyp,

the Kirkuk-Ceyhan tariffs were re-negotiated in 2010 (sovereign agreement between Turkey & Iraq) and increased from $0.75/bbl to $1.00/bbl.

The current fee structure, which appears to have been agreed between KRG and Erdogan, is not in accordance with the legally binding international agreement.

Mikey,
you are of course completely correct in your assertion that "we" did not fund the company.

There is however another aspect to this interpretation...

I can sell my Invoice to another party, and they have then the same legal rights to ownership/payment/obligations as I did.

I can sell my Bond, and the buyer then has the same rights/obligations as I had.

I can sell my PSC Contract Entitlement, and so on...

Your ordinary share entitles you to be treated as a co-owner of the company.

I think it's just easier and cheaper not to issue new equity to the retail side; big chunks to a few new owners is what they like.
But perhaps there remains a vestige of feeling for the loyal band of smaller shareholders and perhaps there might be the possibility of an associated Rights Issue if demand for the new bond is strong enough ?

Of course, someone who invested say $25M has more weight or say in putting his views to the management.

you deserve an answer to your question. There are at least 2+1 significant items that appear to have been agreed between the company and the MNR – and which are not yet recognized in the current Contract: 1. The transfer of Texas Keystone’s 5% interest to Gulf Keystone. This has been stated as having been “Agreed” for years but for reasons we do not understand has never been implemented; there is a lot of speculation as to why this should be so – none of it very complimentary to either the MNR or to the company. 2. The reduction in the “Infrastructure Tax” element, from 40% down to 30%, which is applied to GKP’s share of Profit Oil. This is a particularly thorny issue as other companies (e.g. DNO) have been able to have this item reduced or even removed. The reduction (or removal) of such a “Tax” appears to have been used as leverage by the MNR to reduce (or remove entirely) payment of their outstanding, or historical, payments due to the oil companies. 2.1 The issue of outstanding or historical payments due has also to be understood in the context of: a) Revenues generated by oil sales (the so-called profit Oil), and b) Revenues generated by the Cost Oil calculation – whereby recognized Capital Costs are returned to the operators. The invested / spent capital sums are significant (hundreds of millions of dollars) and the potential consequences of agreeing any set-off agreement (as in 2 above) will have implications for the future financial health of the company. 3. The third item relates to the % allocation of Working Interest applicable to the KRG/MNR. This is important as it relates to both obligations to meet or carry costs, and the beneficial revenues associated therewith. The present “understanding” of both that Obligation and Benefit is murky and incomplete and requires clarification. There are other, and not insignificant items that require clarification (SH discount to Brent, pipeline tariffs, etc) but, in my opinion, these are the three main points that we hope will be clarified by a further Contract Amendment. Regarding "imminent" - in the GKP context the word should be accorded the meaning: "At some undefined time in the future".

cockeye, I'm afraid I am not prepared to "...excuse your (alleged) dullness..." - as I believe that "dullness" to be completely construed. The facts of the matter are clear to anyone who has conducted any reasonable research into the financial history of the Atrush block.

You are the only one highlighting the inconsistencies in the Marathon "sale". The official statement reads: "...an agreement to acquire a further 15% working interest in the Production Sharing Contract � Atrush Block, Kurdistan Region of Iraq dated 10th November 2007, as amended from time to time, (the "Atrush PSC") AND CERTAIN OTHER ASSETS from Marathon Oil KDV B.V. (the "Acquisition") for USD 60 million, SUBJECT TO FINAL CLOSING ADJUSTMENTS..." (CAPS are mine) The transfer of title re. the 15% PSC portion appears clear enough. But a direct read-across of $60M for 15% is completely wrong. Secondly By "Certain Other Assets" we might normally assume that Marathon's title share (WI) of assets (plant & equipment already paid for, installed and operating plus well drilling & development costs, and other Capital expended) as well as those historical revenues expected but not yet received, is also to be transferred as part of the deal. If both above assumptions are reasonable then, IMO, that $60M for Marathon appears to be very, very little indeed and the whole thing stinks to high heaven. In my opinion.

ok, thanks... Misunderstanding!

gyp, I think the last filings were for year-end? This particular operator has been experiencing 2 sets of problems: 1. Return of lost drilling fluids (ca last Oct?). 2. Fouling of processing equipment / pipework, incl heat exchangers (new just announced). His openness is in stark contrast to the lack thereof exhibited by GKP.

Morning Tony, So, 10th/11th/12th April Stalactite or Stalagmite...?

Oilman, depending on Dec output (33Mbopd - 34Mbopd?) the PSC-generated revenues would have been between $12.5M and $13M. The difference of $4M - $4.5M needs explaining - especially what compensating elements were involved.

surreyscot, NG, as a liquid, is transported by ship in a cooled liquid state at near-atmospheric pressure - NOT at high pressure. There is no reason whatsoever why NG cannot be piped, over many thousands of km, in pipelines that are not cooled. The main factor in gas pipelines is pressure - all pipelines operate at relatively high pressures. As volume of LNG is about one sixhundredths of the NTP gas volume (0.1666%), storage at the customer side is also normally in the liquid phase. I cannot see Qatar financing a gas pipeline up thru the badlands of N.Iraq. I can see them financing development of Iraqi and KRI Gas Fields, and contributing to local pipeline infrastructure, but that's another issue.

How right you are Tony. This will be a highly technical presentation for specialists who understand the issues - very similar to that just done by Dr Shane Hattingh of ERC Equipoise.

There will be a small TEMPERATURE drop as it comes up the well...

The old Ryder Scott CPR informed us that SH-1 well flowed oil from the Sargelu / Alan / Mus / Butmah formations at temperatures between 48�C and 55�C. Depths were between 1384m and 1754m TVD. Pressures between 2,028 and 2,354psig There will be a small pressure drop as it comes up the well and a further small drop as it flows to the PFs. GOSP processing in the PF, Amine treatment and crude stabilization will put some more heat back into it - but then local tank storage could lose some of that. Long distance pumping thru large dia pipeline, even when buried, will lose some of that heat. Rather cool crude actually... Even the KC-B formation, at 2,616m and 3,939psig, flowed at only 70�C.

Duffy no need to apologise, no problem with a misunderstanding. I actually think the Jan-18 payment ($15M Net) might be so late as to not make it into the Annual Results announcement, but we'll have to wait and see.

I conflate nothing... Last year (most years) the MNR has come up with the outstanding payments for the FY just gone - and I expect the same this year. Add those payments to the Cash Balance stated on 22nd Jan-18, take away the expected daily cash burn between 22nd Jan and 10th April and you get a certain sum. Add the possibility of another payment being received for Jan-18 and increase that sum. Add the qualifying remarks about "unexpected outgoings" and away you go. Nothing being conflated here...

Closed Period means whatever they want it to mean... See Proposed Consolidation of Common Shares and Notice of AGM Page #9 (Operation of VCP) "No award or grant of nil-cost options may be made during a closed period."

It appears that the staff LTIP awards have not been subject to the same 1:100 "devaluation" as have the stock owners. Good company to work for...but not to own.