Member Info for damofarl

shanny80; to put a buy order in at 235 is just dreaming, shows no understanding of this company, no consideration of the numerous varied views on here. With a punt like that you'd be better of on their tables.

Yes this is volatile, but its already at a low, for no discernible reason, so to think 235 is a goer, id sign up to their offerings and put a grand on zero - there's more chance of that happening

shortlisting of the bids was meant to be announced 7th January, hence suggests they were not successful in their bid?

cperkin; how is it more relevant when it's taken from a 4 month old RNS? Frankly, if its taken anyone 4 months to digest something they shouldn't be invested here, or frankly in anything.

And to believe a 'fresh' post from a journalist who has taken 4 months to read something publicly available as relevant shows where the irrelevance is.

i look forward to your/the journalists next post on the 21 August.......

bloody rampers constantly posting about rising oil price, rising income, rising bid interests trying to close out their long positions, impatient with not receiving the profit potential NOW. Probably got multiple posting names; probably Swedish, probably watching porn inbetween their numerous postings.......

in this BB fantasy land, the reality is, anyone investing today, is going to make money tomorrow. Although for the rampers, tomorrow, might actually be October, or next year. I'm sure they will keep venting their frustration at invisible derampers till then.....and beyond. Maybe to infinity and beyond.....

ha ha, anyone who thinks GKP are really looking into ANY post on here rather than getting on with the business of getting oil out of the ground is delusional.

And frankly if i'm wrong and you are right, you've got to question the management of a Company doing so - i would. Thankfully i feel they are more focused on revenue than rants.

cperkin; whilst the article you link is today, the interims were 4 months ago, so hardly new news for anyone that takes the time to follow the company they are invested in.
Not really sure what the point of the post it?

parnas; no

canetoad; revenue isn't profit (maybe for the partners) and considering the array of great new talented partners that have joined them, the revenue has definitely not reflected such; yes they need to rebuild confidence, yes i too am happy to be proved wrong, as for the Arden Adventure, i actually feel Arden was Ince like in being unloved/undervalued but it wasn't for ambition they pounced, it was the cash on the books to flatter the lack on their own. Deflect you own lack of growth by buying something to give the illusion of ambitious growth. Smoke and mirrors, and your historical share price post illuminates that.

mick2020; frankly they could double the dividend out of cash balance, forget the increased production/potential CPI uplift!

They won't, but i do see a 50% divi increase, probably delivered as a 'special'. I'm really optimistic here. Yes i know it's flattered to deceive, but i do think it's turning a corner; steady but sure; let's take some cash out for long term holders whilst waiting to see what the Co's long term 'vision' is

been catching up on the posts here..
I don't see anyone (bar the baloney short stats poster) talking this down; all i see is differing views on how it will appreciate. I don't see egos, i see differing views trying to inform, broaden our understanding of what the success we all here believe in, might represent; disagreements on the level of GKP value appreciation, but no disagreement it will appreciate.. I personally feel that the suggesting of negativity/ego polishing here, is more from people seeking a 5 bagger on the 16th January 2022 and frustrated that some like me don't see it that way, or frankly want it that way, and that they have to wait, more than a day. Personally i'd rather see 10% divvis for 5 years, an appreciation of the share price that will come with a greater understanding of it's inherent cash generation, and then a 3 bagger of a doubled share price; good luck to anyone that gets a 5/10 bagger etc, but i don't take the baloney/targeting of those, like me that calculate conservatively but believe optimistically.

As has been said my maths is trite, and my reading of financial data dung, so who am ii with such a pedigree to question the suggestion that the recent receipts are tracking the increase in oil; but i do; yes they are rising but they are not in near direct correlation to such; the receipts for September/October do not track the increase in oil price, compared to say the receipt in April, when oil price and production was lower; oil price has increased 25% but despite a 4% production increase this produced only a 20% increase in payment - this suggests to me the Company's hedge hasn't just been downside, but the October figure comparatively higher (against Sep and before), is either out of the hedge, or reflecting a higher moving floor hedge.

I find laughable the suggestion that it would pretty poor just to get $100 million a year out of this; i think i may be guilty of putting this figure out there - i did it on a worst case basis, based on us receiving 15% on an ongoing basis post recovery of costs; NOT as has been highlighted, whilst we are still recovering costs at a considerably higher figure. Frankly, if, based on GKP's market cap, you are going to throw me out JUST $100 mill a year, i'd be fecking delighted, because at the current rate of production i'll be depleted before the field is.
Dismissing of the likelihood of buybacks, that ...'...and optimise the capital structure' doesn't mean buybacks is naïve; to my mind a capital restructure is for new shares (struggling for funds), to redomicile (tax avoidance/evasion) or buybacks; only the later makes sense - to state such implicitly would hold you hostage to fortune and impact your options/negotiating power. I believe there will be a mixture of dividend AND buyback ( i prefer just the former).

I don't agree that a$100 million dividends reduce your mkt cap by $100 mill - if you are a stagnant Co. yes, but not when throwing off more than that.

dubiousinvestor: ironic post of the year so far that!

putup; i took the 60% hedged figure from the last announcement i could find on hedged amount, and saw no difference in why they would materially change that policy; which announcement/presentation shows it's all unhedged? I do hope your right!!!

luck counts; thanks your fastidious figures which serve only to conflate my point; a calculation can't be concocted, it can be right or wrong. and we may use different figures (i choose historical less giddy figures for a base worst case scenario), but even with my cursory ignorance of finances, i can figure out a bargain when i see one, on your figures or mine.

jmarsh1 et al; i agree there is likely considerably more now than the GKP announced December cash pile, but asked my question on the basis of that stated figure; on the basis that with continued ongoing cash inflows, the stated balance would clear the debt and still leave cash presuming no further inflows. There is also an undrawn facility of i think $ 300 mill within that loan - but with cashflows being what they are surely that would cover any increase (above already budgeted) for increased E&P.

Elsewhere....yes there is a cost to closing a loan, but i can't believe such would be equal or be greater than 2 years worth of 10% interest.

If we knew exactly what the profit per bbl was we'd all be working for Glencore; there are so many variables in shifting sands that we don't, hence we don't. But for a a starting point, do your own maths, and use the info that is out there as a starting point (the slide PUTUP refers to is your starting point, and i think it's unreasonable to expect him to answer posters specific requests beyond helping - if you want detailed advice specific to inquiry, pay for it i say, rather than haranguing someone trying to broaden understanding). In that slide it says GKP realise a price around $22 below Brent price, so that would suggest to me around $58 less GKP's stated $3 production cost ergo around $55 bbl.

Suggestions of a GKP share price of £4 or £5, are to my mind fanciful, certainly in the near term; yes i believe it will get there but adverse political influence could just as easily put it at £1.5 and whilst i think that unlikely, it's not impossible. Personally i think, (and would be happy with this), GKP are looking to exploit the potential, but on a sure and steady long term basis, spending as they earn rather than a jam today indigestion tomorrow short term mindset, throwing off money in divis (buybacks) as she goes, hence i don't see a material rise to £4/5 for at least 2 years, a rise yes, but you will divy paid handsomely as it rises.

manicminer22: got to say the R value, cost recovery stuff is a bit over my head! I just did the following to validate my investment/belief, in a very simplistic and conservative way:

GKP's 80% share of 15% of 18.2mill bbls (based on 50k a day) = 2.19 mill bbls @ $52 bbl (60% hedged around $40 and the rest @ $70 bbl), which gives revenue of $114 million a year.

And revenue isn't profit i know, but the way i see it, on that basis, 4 years revenue is equivalent to the market cap of GKP. I'm happy with that.

Can anyone explain to me the purpose of maintaining the $100 million loan? Surely it would be value accretive to pay that off out of the £140 million cash at hand rather than pay a 10% coupon. What am i missing?

mick2020; thanks for that; for those of us who aren't geologists that was a simple succinct explanation. Really helpful.

theoryman; thanks your thoughts - may i say how refreshing it is to have a discussion to broaden considerations/understanding, not a ****ging match centred on individuals. It's a breath of fresh air!

I don't really disagree with anything you say, but what the 2 sides of the coin we've discussed thighlight is actually a wider issue, not specific to GKP, but how to invest, what your aims are, risk profile, timeframe etc, which will be different for all of us.

For me using dividends to diversify is valuable for exactly the opposite reason you'd prefer buybacks - i don't want to concentrate risk (or opportunity) just manage/balance it; that doesn't mean i didn't know/wasn't happy with the risk/opportunity at first investment. Couldn't agree more that to reinvest elsewhere would be foolhardy unless you have an equal/better proposition, but that presupposes that you are still investing for growth, whereas you may want to take from 'racy profits' towards dull boring but predictable (say UU), because you are near retirement and certainty has more value than opportunity.

as for not wanting to compound through buybacks, i don't think that questions the appropriateness of the original stock selection, or its opportunity/risk profile - i just don't want to skew it's place within a widely diversified portfolio. Compound the risk.

of course we should be aware of a stocks profile, say IMB, high dividend subject to govt legislation/litigation, and GKP subject to political/governmental influence and factor that in, but as you say we don't know which in that diverse basket are going to truly deliver or flop. Some very long term holders thought back then as i do know that GKP had a great future, and are still nursing losses. Just within the last 48 hours another holding (STCM) which is throwing off cash (divvis) has dropped considerably, precisely because the political risk i thought was small (and aware of) has materialised.

That's the value for me, diversifying the opportunity of GKP and such risk attached stocks through it's divis into boring Tesco or SSE that one never need think about.

Large continual divvis are very in your face, which is precisely why they catch divvi hunters attention - but equally they must stand out to the KRG, and if that was me, indeed, i'd be renegotiating the T&C's, cutting a less generous slice of the cake - in that i see the only merit of buybacks - being less obvious (FGP used it very effectively to minimise disquiet from Govt/unions).

In finality, for me divvis are real, crystallised; a buyback enhanced SP could pop or drop; by holding and reinvesting divvis, i feel i get the best of both worlds. Again, thanks your valuable contribution.

Dividends all day for me....i'm no fan of buybacks, i think they are an easy/lazy way to disguise performance and largesse to bosses. If you are throwing off cash, and have no accretive investment proposition for it, i'd rather have the cash, and make MY choice as to whether to reinvest or use the divi to diversify elsewhere.

And whilst we are all positive about the potential here, we are all aware of the political considerations too, so concentrating that risk by buybacks, rather than diversifying through investment spread of divvis is not for me.

i also think buybacks draw less attention of potential new investors than high (regular, sustained) divvies do. The difference is YOU get the choice with divvys.

Now we know why it was slowly but surely creeping up. That's some dividend

theoryman; i invested here on the basis of GKP only receiving 10 payments a year, and that missed payments would be continually, perpetually negotiated, and strung out over ever elongated periods causing a wagging tail, believing in the potential, and that 10 payments would produce enough for shareholders to see a return.

So far, with 10+ payments and some arrears, i'm patiently happy; personally, with the ever present political impact/influence, and the current high oil price i would prefer dividend payouts to buybacks in the absence of diversification, as such gives ME the option to reinvest dividends or use to diversify.