Member Info for Nobull

"for a more probably outcome" should be "for a more probable outcome"

I never said a takeover won't happen; it's certain over a ten year period, but it has a low probabilty by time apportionment of occurring next week. Is it worth bothering to invest 10 years too early for a takeover? And if it's only got a 1 in 520 chance of happening next week, is it worth getting excited about it? A better reason to buy GKP is for a more probably outcome, the successful expansion of production to 55k bopd. JMV.

Continued… The strength of the ad hominem these fraudsters throw out at posters who call them out is, I wonder, directly proportional to the level of difficulty and frustration they have in executing their scams fruitfully. The greatest compliment I’ve had is to be called, by Bucephalus, a “mofo”. Yes, as a new investor here, I was taken in at first by how learned some of these posters seemed to be. Not anymore.

Broadford Bay, hi
Thanks for all that interesting info. The mid 2043 date for expiry I got from an email from the company, the text of which is below:

Apologies for the delay in coming back to you. Please see attached the byelaws pre the 2019 amendment. As per the 2019 AGM notice of meeting (see pg.5, special resolution 13), the amendment was a technical matter regarding treasury shares.

The PSC expires mid-2043.

Best

Yes, the above text doesn't explain where the 2043 date comes from, so I'll have to ask more questions about it at the next AGM, if I am still a shareholder then. Yes, I can see that the date has to correspond with the terms of the PSC - I'll just have to check if the date is plausible or not. It sounds possible if the PSC started in August 2013.

Yes, I agree there are some disputes outstanding (sales of oil before the PSC started - e.gl who gets the revenue?). On the matter of what our %age WI is of Shaikan, I am satisfied it doesn't matter for two reasons:

First, the invoices are prepared on one WI basis and are paid on a different WI basis and, this is the crucial part, a higher deductions regime for the higher WI method.
Second, I recall doing the calculations both ways, one with the lower WI, and the other with the higher WI, and I got the same entitlement, probably because the higher WI method comes with deductions that bring the entitlement figure into line with the low WI method.
Third, my calculations seemed to correspond with JF's statement that any change to the PSC would be "value-neutral", something he stated in an RNS, so that would mean jail-time if it was incorrect.
Fourth, my layman understanding of law and contracts is that they can't be changed unilaterally,as a rule, as if they could there wouldn't be any point in entering into a contract. There are some exceptions e.g. by 'custom' and by 'usage': if you are told to accept a lower payment, and you accept it without protest, then that can become the new 'contracted' remuneration - the purpose is maybe to stop new contracts having to be typed up and signed the whole time so a contract can be changed just by acquiescing in some disadvantageous new terms, I wonder, without actually signing a new written contract. Then there is the situation where one party can repudiate a contract by declaring force majeure. Check out "by custom" in a legal dictionary.
It's interesting how we are exposed to such variety in the MOs used to execute competent frauds: the 2 guys on Twitter change the conspiracy theory every other week to support a higher share price, using plausible corporate finance and law lingo; the multi-avatar guy just changes his avatar three or four times a week to pump out the share price lifting nonsense, while Surreyscot changes low probability share price boosting events into high ones, deleting the associated trail of failed predictions under his ADVFN highlander7 moniker. Continued...

"55k bbls a day for 334days a year for 80 years." It's only worth (to a logical investor) the present value of the cash flows from the oil that can be got out before the PSC expires. It expires in mid 2043. Because of the risk of the PSC being repudiated (we are operating in one of the most corrupt countries in the world), the risk of the oil price crashing, the risk of payment defaults, etc. a very high discount rate needs to be applied to those cash flows, and that's probably why the share price is what it is today, what with the shares trading on an earnings yield of nearly 20%.

A lawful unilateral contract annulment (e.g. if the PSC was found to have been improperly obtained in the first place) could send the share price down to half net cash per share. Maybe that's why our chairman won't invest his own money?

I recognise your modus operandi, Surryscot, namely, the reason to buy this share is because there's always going to be another fool who will pay more, and you are particularly well qualified to supply plausible (to fools) reasons to buy while you trade against them.

Rational, risk-averse investors look at the cash flows and discount them appropriately, and they also look at the risk rating, which is SPECULATIVE. Got it? The best reason to buy these shares is for a production increase to 55k bopd and for reasonable analysts' eps forecasts to be achieved in the short term, recognising, something you don't do (like most bigots, fraudsters and, sadly, some deluded people) that events can occur that upset even the most well reasoned analysts' forecasts.

Calling your fellow longs "trolls" is maybe a sign of your frustration at making your scam successful, I wonder? You need to be more polite to people with differing views otherwise you self-identify as a bigot and a fraudster. JMV.

"This company report contains some beta features." LOL. " A perceptive remark. I agree with Putup's assessment, and most of his posts, except about buybacks before a slow down in the the growth rate is priced in or a change from profit maker to loss maker is priced in.

Shortsqueezer, even I agree that were a takeover to happen that we could be taken out for £4, assuming the bidder wanted 90% control to do a squeeze out on the dissenters. Why would they offer that much? Perhaps to get the exploration upside for nothing. There are many share price outcomes possible here from an Iran backed Shia militia group rocketing our oil deposit, a PSC repudiation, a successful increase in production to 55 bopd, another oil price crash, etc. I am not clever enough to know which event will happen, but I am here for the most probable event, a successful implementation of the production expansion programme.

I don't think it is good to get excessively focused on analysts' forecasts. They are less likely to correctly forecast future share prices, the riskier a stock is. We have a speculative risk rating. Fingers crossed for good news on the production increase soon.

"No bull and Ccc what do you think the share price of GKP should be?" I think the shares are fairly valued on the basis of the info that is in the public domain (oil price, US$/£ rate, Shaikan development progress, etc.). I would expect the shares to move up when the RNS comes out confirming they are now producing 55k bopd. Because i expect the shares to go up on good news, that doesn't make them 'cheap' now: it just makes them fair value for what is known now, not next week, or next month. I'd expect them to fall to half net cash if the PSC were repudiated: that doesn't make the shares overvalued now. They are fair value for what is known in the public domain NOW. Got it?

Surreyscot, I am long as you know perfectly well from when I first started to post here. I was disturbed at our Chairman's and then CEO's failure to buy when the oil price curve was in contango and that's why I asked the Chairman about it at the first agm I atttended online with this company (June 2020? I posted my agm questions here). I took no notice of the bearish posts from bigdog and mcfly because they could be expressed succinctly as "exploration risk, dilution risk, production risk and oil price gearing risk, problems which all oil companies have, although GKP had those risks more than most at the time I bought for my relative, and I wondered why the bears weren't posting about these risks on other oil company chat threads, as I would have expected if they were trying to save people from losing their money.

You owe me an apology for calling me a liar about the risk rating this company has. I posted the proof, showing this company has had a speculative risk rating since I bought, and that the risk rating is unchanged. You have been in denial about the low probability of takeover in the short term e.g. next week: it is 0.002 if it is certain to happen in the next 10 years, and your refusal to disassociate yourself from your multi-avatar mate pumping out tosh about the company being worth £25 a share in a takeover situation (changing his avatar several times a week but pumping out the same propositional content), and your otherwise informative posts under the highlander7 moniker on ADVFN showing oil field development knowledge, make you a competent fraudster. JMV. I am not surprised you resort to ad hominem when confronted with reasoned argument that challenges your fraudulent posts. There are many other things you owe me apology for, but I'll spare this blog the details, and I can see your modus operandi at work with other posters e.g. Broadford Bay - you don't deal with his arguments but just label him instead with a derogatory moniker. I expect CCC has suffered too in the same way.

Very well said CCC. Thanks. Yes, it's clear there is a small group of boiler room scammers who do not want investors here to have a nuanced understanding of the risks or to have the opportunity to read well reasoned posts, like Putup's, describing the value here in great detail: it's difficult for the fraudsters to justify the "£25 a share takeover tomorrow" twaddle when you get people posting excellent stuff that shows a detailed understanding of the PSC e.g. some of Putup's posts. Even he has been attacked by the multiavatar poster on ADVFN for posting 'negative' things. The attackers self-identify as investment bigots. It's remarkable how some people, yourself and sbb1x for exampe, just happily trade this stock without trying to defraud others, and yet with others it's a whole different story.

"I find it quite bizarre that you have chosen to comment on users..." I bought shares in this company despite their comments, and they haven't called me a liar for stating that the risk rating has not changed since I bought. I posted the screen shots to prove what I was saying was true, and PhuketScot just brushes it under the carpet: he doesn't answer. Competent fraudsters need to be investment bigots: they need to attack posters personally rather than deal with poster's well reasoned arguments and they need to deny basic maths reasoning. PhuketScot does that, and I am not the only person he has verbally abused. Reasoned debate is the last thing these people want, and ideally they need posters to be full of misconceptions.

I agree with you, CCC. Look at PhuketScot's (Surrey is last place I'd expect to find him :-) change of Jeff Currie's statement about the POTENTIAL for oil prices to explode to the upside to be given the title "Oil prices to explode". The posts of Highlander7 on ADVFN superficially have the same layout pattern as Surreyscot's here, and some of those are written by someone who is not a novice oil investor: they are genuinely informative. He is not delusional, but to be a competent fraudster, some posts need to earn respect; others need to contain the untruths. Today's one here has the untruth/exaggeration. JMV.

JL, hi. Yes, I get that about Malaysia. I've been there too, but not worked there and not been there since the 1980s. I hope you WA gold explorer comes right. I think it's safer to go for low cost producers and just play the commodity price cycle there. The games that are played when an explorer tries to transition to a producer are simply diabolical - its seems to be always the case that someone with more money will come along and try to dilute one out when there is an opportunity to extract a huge profit from the change from cash guzzler to cash gusher. JMV. Good luck.

"Carry on bickering", yes, I've ticked up your post. It's okay to be delusional but its not okay to be a fraudster. By failing to answer reasoned arguments, and by resorting to swift ad hominem instead, they self-identify as fraudsters. JMV. Agree with everything else in your post.

Wigwammer, thanks. No, I don't think it was covid that caused the share price to crash, although that was probably the cause of other oil palm stocks crashing. I think it might have been anticipation that the accounts were going to be qualified with a "material uncertainty as to going concern" or words to that effect (the time when directors bought some ords). Naively, I thought if the next set of accounts weren't going to be qualified (as indeed they weren't) that the share price would just bounce back, but it didn't!

It didn't dawn on me that the company would have to have +ve eps before the market would allow the shares to rise. I've got a small profit here, but on a risk adjusted basis it is really a loss as a company like this ought to return 12% a year (either in gains or divs or both) in my view. Fingers crossed for the coal mine sale soon and for the balance sheet to strengthen.

JL, hi, sorry to be slow replying.

Agree it isn't necessarily going to be one way, up-only share price rises here from now on : Finncap came out yesterday with a lower eps forecast for MPE for FY2022 than for FY2021, implying the uplift from the volume gearing effect of MPE's, rising production profile won't be strong enough to counter the downward price gearing effect from an anticipated easing of palm oil prices next year. REA being more leveraged and not having a growing production profile, like MPE has, is maybe more exposed to any cpo price downturn, so plenty of scope for share price falls here too.

I hope something good happens e.g. sale of the coal interests or a new revenue stream is developed from the coal and stone interests. Coal was $177.5 today, which is way past coal's previous cyclical peaks in the last 12 years or so. The directors own more ords than prefs, so I don't think they are going to dilute the ords out at this low share price. We'll see. All the best. P.S. REA has the best cpo yields per mature hectare, I wonder, so it isn't all bad even if the net debt level is a horror story.

"34adsddsa, Surreyscot and his..." should have been "34adsdda, hi, Surreyscot and his..."
also
"the cost recovery pool is maybe being used up quite quickly so people may aren't prepared to " should have been
"the cost recovery pool is maybe being used up quite quickly so people maybe aren't prepared to"

34adsddsa, Surreyscot and his multiavatar mate on ADVFN have posted at very early hours in the morning. An ideal place for running a boiler room scam is Thailand: 5 a.m. (the time of their posts) here is 11 a.m. there. Thailand is a low cost country, and the police there have far more important priorities than protecting UK citizens in the UK from UK boiler room scammers operating there. The MO of these people is to make low probability events sound highly probable and to make the risk rating of a stock like GKP sound like that of Unilever or Colgate Palmolive. GKP is attractive to them because there is no stamp duty on purchases, and the trading volumes are good enough to be able lever up and use spread bets. Like you I am long and have been verbally attacked by them for just saying what I think about this stock, and the more your views, mine and those of other realists here post their honest views, the more ad hominem Surreyscot and his multiavatar mate throw at us. Don't take any notice and keep posting! I think Putup gives the best explanation of why the 12 month rolling forward earnings yield is so good: it's because the cost recovery pool is maybe being used up quite quickly so people may aren't prepared to push up the share price without help from the oil price or from an RNS delivering good news on a production increase. Yes, it's nice that the div yield and earnings yield are so good, but there are no free lunches in this world, I wonder, so there is a reason for it, I presume. All the best.

Well Dirk_Diggle, the high (forecast) earnings yield and the historic dividend yield on these ought to tell you to be cautious. The probability of a takeover in the short term is very low (0.002 next week, and the same again the week after), but not if you are considering holding your shares for 10 years. Do you take an umbrella with you if there is 0.002 probability of rain?

Bucephalus, Invstrat is entitled to put his views. Who are you to tell him otherwise? Title risk (legal right to extract oil) and permitting risk (FDP approval risk) go with the very nice dividend and earnings yield, wouldn't you say?

Wigwammer, sorry I didn't say that right. When I said you were right about everything else I didn't mean you were naive; I meant about the quality institutional shareholders and the director share purchases.

JL, hi. Yes, in selling up you can maybe sleep better. The risk rating here isn't pleasant, but if they do manage to get on top of the debt problem, the risk rating can fall from "speculative" to "adventurous", the same risk rating that MPE has, and if that happens, the share price won't be 61p or whatever: it'll be a lot higher. The reduction in the interest rate on the new debt is great news. There are a few things in the full year 2020 accounts that bother me: why do they have to separate out distribution costs from head office and admin costs or from cost of sales: the other companies don't have distribution costs. Are they concealing bloated head office costs? Anyway, if they don't make a small profit this year in these times of high palm oil prices, particularly when they have fairly good cpo yields per mature hectare, then there is something wrong, and doubtless there will be a lot of questions at the next AGM. I am more optimistic now that they are going to do the right things. I am an insignificant investor here, but other more experienced, more significant investors e.g. JB can probably cope better with the sight of so much net debt. No, I don't think they are going to dilute the hell out of the ords now, which was my fear when you sold out. All the best.