Member Info for Flavius

Here is a concise summary of our analysis regarding the current state of the global oil market and the Venezuelan export crisis as of December 2025:

The Disconnect Between Market Narrative and Physical Reality

1. The Venezuelan Export Collapse

As of mid-December 2025, Venezuelan oil exports have plummeted by over 70%, dropping to approximately 258,000 barrels per day (bpd) following new U.S. sanctions and tanker seizures. Despite the loss of these significant heavy crude volumes, global oil prices (WTI and Brent) remain suppressed, trading near yearly lows.

2. The "Surplus" Myth vs. Physical Scarcity

There is a profound divergence between mainstream media narratives and actual data:

Narrative: Agencies like the IEA continue to predict a massive supply surplus for 2026.

Reality: U.S. commercial inventories are currently 4% below the five-year average (~425.7M barrels). Global physical stocks are near decade lows, not at surplus levels.

3. Debunking "Oil on Water" and Chinese Overstocking

Re-routing, not Storage: The "excess oil at sea" is a logistical illusion. It is not unsold oil, but rather "oil-in-transit" taking much longer routes (around Africa or to Asia) due to sanctions and geopolitical tensions.

Chinese Demand: The narrative that China is "full" and stopped buying is unsupported by physical flows. China continues to import roughly 11M bpd to support its 5.3% GDP growth and expanding petrochemical sector.

4. Underestimated Demand Drivers

The market is ignoring two critical factors:

The AI Effect: Data center expansion is driving a massive, "invisible" increase in energy demand, often supported by diesel/gas backup power.

Emerging Markets: Population growth and urbanization in India, Africa, and Southeast Asia are more than offsetting any efficiency gains in the West.

5. The "Paper Market" Manipulation

The current price stagnation appears to be a result of a confluence of interests:

Political Interest: The U.S. administration aims to keep prices low to suppress inflationary pressures.

Financial Tactics: Algorithmic funds (CTAs) are defending massive short positions. By feeding a bearish narrative, they trigger automated selling that keeps prices artificially low despite tightening physical supplies.

Conclusion:

We are witnessing a "paper market" (futures and algorithms) actively suppressing the "physical market." This artificial suppression ignores the reality of shrinking inventories and rising demand, creating a high risk of a violent price correction once the physical deficit can no longer be hidden by the narrative.

Today's volumes were the equivalent of a couple of Jaguar F-type. We're just talking about nothing. As long as commodity trading funds short oil to please the White House, TLW will be a very bad place to stay. As simple as that.

Also this is today's "news"

Global oil demand will rise by about 1.4 million barrels per day (bpd) next year, supported by solid economic growth, OPEC said in its monthly report on Thursday, keeping its demand forecasts unchanged from last month. Unlike other forecasters, investment banks, and analysts, OPEC continues to expect robust demand growth in 2026 that will be higher than the estimated increase for 2025 of about 1.3 million bpd, forecasts in the cartel’s Monthly Oil Market Report (MOMR) showed on Thursday. Figures about the balance of supply and demand in OPEC’s report also suggest that the cartel expects a balanced market next year.

Summarising: the guys who produce and sell oil have increased their production because demand is increasing steadily and stubbornly. Government-linked agencies and subservient newspapers claim there is an oversupply which... inexplicably translates into storage levels at "decades low".

Connect the dots.

This is... fresh, today's "news" actually: "The IEA noted in its report the apparent disconnect between the current global oil surplus and inventories near decade lows at key pricing hubs".

"Apparent disconnect". Clowns.

Fog I'm happy your view is the same as 99% of the media: it must have cost you a long and painful personal effort to get to their same conclusions. Let's see in one year time where we are. As a top expert in the oil and gas business for sure you know that assessing oil and gas demand is an extremely complicated exercise. In fact, the same ones who talk about imaginary drops in demand are those who talk about likewise imaginary secret Chinese purchasers or shadow fleets wandering the oceans like ghost ships desperately looking for buyers.

There's a narrative for dummies (Too much oil! Russia bad! Oil for free soon! Chinese fooling the experts!) and then there's facts: have a look at the share price of oil mega-caps: they're not reflecting such a terrible glut, are they? And why? It's the Chinese buying Exxon and Chevron? Or is it just reality vs. garbage-narrative? Anyways, good luck to you as well. Wish everyone the best.

25 years into the oil and gas business, most of which spent on managerial positions, I've never seen a narrative so blatantly false about the OP as in the last one year, never. Underinvestment in the industry has become the norm: for the last 15 years at least, with only the exception of post-covid period, investment in exploration and development has collapsed. On the other hand, demand for energy has kept increasing. Development of AI is just accelerating the quest for energy. Developing countries are growing up quickly: India first of all, but also the rest of Asia and Africa: most of African producers are not even able to fulfill their own needs of energy through their oil and gas production.

And what do we read on the newspapers today? Oil glut! Oil glut! After one year such screaming, though, all physical indicators show there is no any glut in place, but rather shortage (have a look at the storages levels in the US in the last one year). After realizing their forecast did not materialize the same newspapers (fed by Russia-phobic oil perma-bears like Oilprice.com or by investment banks geopolitically motivated) now are feeding the latest clownish "explanation": the glut is there, but China is purchasing so much oil that we can't yet see it! So we have a glut that is not a glut because a mysterious purchaser is daring to contradict the truths of Oilprice & friends.

Truth is, the market is asking for more energy. And OPEC is trying to fill the gap that this extra-demand is creating. Russia, Iran and Venezuela are selling oil at discount which obviously affects the OP on a global scale. On the other end, OPEC is running out of spare capacity, "marginal producers" like the US have leveled off and demand for energy is exploding due to AI development and growth of developing countries (where by the way most of world population is concentrated).

All of this cries an OP explosion which is waiting just for a detonator. I would be really surprised if the oil price was not in the three-digit in the next 12 to 18 months, and I've not missed much such forecasts in the past. If this will be enough for TLW to resuscitate, this is obviously another story, and considering my past records I would never suggest anyone to follow "my advise". DYOR and GLA.

There is no "truth" here but just blind speculation about TLW fundamentals as communication from the CEO/CFO has been deliberately confusing and contradicting in the last...many months. Only "truth" here is that OP is kept depressed via a concerted media "glut narrative" in spite of physical indicators that cry shortage, not oversupply. As long as geopolitical needs dictate the agenda of commodity trading funds, OP will remain depressed, just like Gold has been depressed before physical market constraints finally prevailed over manipulation. This is the biggest problem TLW is facing (and not only TLW): as a producer of a commodity which is shorted for political needs, any other issue (production, debt, bad payers etc.) is amplified accordingly. The SP of big oil companies with large enough shoulders to bear this temporary price crisis is reflective of the underpinning market awareness that such manipulated OP weakness cannot last for too long. Trouble is: how long? If it's not an issue for Exxon for sure it is for TLW, KOS or many other small companies swimming in the same waters.

Regarding the SP... 3, 4, 6 or 8 pc doesn't actually change anything for already-bleeding LTH: it's an issue for bottom fishermen only, or for rats rushing to leave the boat at the first decent bounce. Anyways such SP is reflecting an insolvency which has not actually materialized, nor will it probably do even in the future. All the rest is just "entertainment" and uneducated guesses. Unfortunately.

There's actually nothing to talk about here. Daily SP swings (including SL-chasing by algos) are an issue for bottom fishermen, and only for them. When your average is 16p as in my case, actually nothing changes whether the SP is 3, 5 or 10: I'll keep my shares anyways. Good luck to bottom fishermen, algos and shorters. I'll be just waiting for news about debt refinancing, drilling and OP. All the rest is just background noise.

I had a look at Mahogany Deep wells exploration campaign (dating back to some 15 yrs ago) which led to the identification of deeper plays with up to 20-meter of oil bearing sandstones. Those levels were no further explored as upper levels were in any case much more relevant and profitable accordingly. I wonder if the ongoing exploration campaigns are also aimed at better assessing those deeper levels. Several generic references to exploration have been made recently by TLW top management. It would obviously be a game changer if significant additional reserves were untapped after OBN and drilling deeper formations. It would be interesting if such deeper levels were further addressed in the ongoing infilling campaign. Who knows...

reading this forum is becoming increasingly useless. 90% of the posts is just ****fighting. from some point of view this is normal, considering there's not much to talk about: we simply do not know anything about too many subjects: operational issues on jubilee, outcomes from 4d and obn seismic, negotiations with bondholders and lenders. add tlw' communication management sounding increasingly deliberately mischievous.

what is more, too many of us are assuming they know better than the others. and too many are guesstimating tlw value from a snapshot.

in fact, op at 60-65$ is just a snapshot of the current situation, but as long as tlw is an ongoing concern the external environment is to be addressed in the next 10-15 years at least. does anybody really think that op is going to stay so low for so long? in this chronically underinvested industry, with no spare capacity left anywhere (opec members included), with developing countries craving for energy, with ai devouring incredible quantities of energy and with us oil storage permanently at the lowest statistic levels for at least the last one year? if you really think the op will stay at these levels forever, well, you're righteously shorting or selling this share. otherwise, you'd better buy, increase, or just keep what you have, and hope that debt issue is sorted. should this be the case, the multibagger case will materialize accordingly.

I'm actually puzzled by the recent RNS about appointment of RG as President. I have of course no idea why he was appointed and why right now. One of my uneducated guesses is related with a possibly related share incentive scheme: that could allow RG to accumulate additional share in a time frame where he would be not allowed to for insider trading (supposedly ongoing negotiations on debt refinancing nearing completion). Or maybe as President he will be allowed to take some extra-profits when the Company is saved "from the waters". Whatever... I like to think that this is a good omen about an imminent refinancing announcement. Just a shard of hope, in all this darkness.

I think GOR in itself will always be a big question mark as long as nobody of us is well informed about the gas lift production enhancement that has been recently introduced on the facility. Gas lift is beneficial in two ways actually: enables a higher oil production rate (as long as the facility allows it), and through a finally agreed gas sales agreement allows to monetize the gas produced (including the additional gas used for production enhancement purposes): a win-win. Only Operations personnel really knows what is happening there, and we can just try to guess.

Wipeout has already happened, what are we talking about: this share is worth 70 million, nothing. Big question here is whether the residual negligible capitalization will be dried up to plain zero, or refinancing will lead to significant turnaround. For LTH like me it's not a big deal keeping the residual peanuts after losing some 70%. For hopeful bottom fishermen it's obviously different: they play another game. Only time will tell.

Bottom-fishing is clearly the driver of SP fluctuations these days. You can guess it just from the number of new visitors flocking around this chat. The same who buy trying to catch the bottom, then rush away like mice at the first signs of another SP drop. Volatility is extremely high accordingly. As capitalization is annihilated, even a 10M fluctuation accounts for a 15% SP move. In the absence of RNS from the BoD nothing is going to change significantly, and pretending to manage SP moves through technical analysis is just an illusion.

PS: any notification of insider buying would be in contradiction with the assumption that negotiations with bond-holders are coming to an end, as this would amount to insider trading. From this standpoint, lack of such insider buying notifications is a good news in itself rather than the opposite.

4 Is the new 40, apparently

JMAX I did not attack you that much because in spite of our disagreements, your point of view, like xx's and others, was at least as valuable than mine. You overindulged in your trolling attitude which somewhat discredited you here, but at the end of the day I have no problem to acknowledge that you (and others) were right, while I was wrong.

Too many people were caught off-guard here, even much more knowledgeable people than us (knowledgeable in theory). It is not the first and it won't be the last time this happens. But it will be a lesson for many of us I'm sure. These are probably the last days I'm spending here on this chat, I realize that in the overall (criminally?) dishonest communication from the BoD of this CPY it is actually totally useless to comment anything. It was a gamble and it remains a gamble. As for other same-sade stories (Petrofac, WG) I see new gamblers popping up on this space hoping in the multi-bagger of one's life. Another will bite the dust, or maybe be successful. Who knows, and who cares.

Tullow management deliberately chose to throw the shareholders under the bus, this is clear. And this did not start on last Friday, but well before then. All the "very knowledgeable" comments from analysts about shareholders that "will be swept away" by bondholders are hilarious as it was Ian Perks in person to do that, happily and decisively. Why did he do it, it remains to be seen. Maybe behind the curtains the struggle between shareholders and debt holders is already ongoing for quite some time, and this move is to be framed in this scenario.

Whatever, losses are so massive that capital invested here is mostly gone. The dynamics of the SP (including routine stuff like US bots destroying the SP by the opening) are honestly irrelevant if we look behind at the losses already incurred: only peanuts remain, and also small fish like us have to accept that our investment in this cesshole of mismanagement and gross negligence is just a write off.

Do we have to keep these peanuts in the cesshole hoping they will somewhat multiply in some sort of a bounce? Or just surrender, take them back and invest them in GILTS at 4% IR? That's it, and no more than that.

Recapitalisation cannot actually be ruled out at this stage, at least as part of a holistic solution including amend/extend and additional (revolving?) credit facilities. Some 300 MGBP can be raised relatively easily with issuance of additional shares. It would obviously be very dilutive at this stage, but on the other hand, repricing would be very quick and very strong and accordingly it could be attractive to current or new shareholders. The fact that ownership is mostly institutional definitely reinforces this case: better participating in a holistic refinancing including issuance of new shares (at discount for current shareholders) rather than purchasing 2M shares here and there, RG-style (and lose millions, by the way).

It goes without saying, you can talk about amend-extend and other amenities, but issuance of shares for the amount of 300 million GBP cannot be announced but at the very last minute, for obvious reasons.

Vallourec: smells like consequential damages, I wouldn't expect too much from that ruling

Helicon: it's a new short position

Maybe more important, already 20M shares exchanged today, with SP almost unchanged...

An oversimplified summary of the situation by year end:

- Net debt: 1.2 b

- 2026 note: 1.3 b

- Glencore 2028: 400M

- Cash: 500M

In case Tullow manages to recover outstanding cash calls for 200M from Ghana and 40M from Kenya then as per subject FT article, it would have some 650-700M cash out of the 1.3b needed in May 2026. This means that it would be sufficient to add *just* about 600M.

From this perspective the situation is not at all desperate as quite a few options are still on the table. For example increasing Glencore up to 1b. Or the extend and amend, or a combination of both.