Member Info for PUTUP

Starsalign, at least those amounts are tiny (if anything)

(green lines, green lines - no doubt the filtered muppets are in a flap as people actually talk about the company rather than spewing abuse)

A very good question. Ask the company and report back!

BB, the current $50-62.5 million of gross capex is basically maintenance capex - the amount required to keep field production broadly flat. Maybe that figure is a little on the low side.

Water handling equipment is being leased to spread the cost - and management have guided as to the results they expect from its implementation and cost thereof. That's all we need to know. Who cares about how many gallons of water there is? Costs and results are all I care about. It's clear that soon drilling will be needed even to keep production flat as other strategies (well workovers, water handling, PF optimisations etc) are being exhausted.

I don't expect the PSC to change any dramatic way except to formally document already agreed changes (eg the trade of a 20% share in Profit Oil for a reduced CBC) and other items listed in company documents. I certainly don't expect the basic PSC formula to change. The KRG is still in charge of developing the industry in Kurdistan.

At a realised sale price of $40 (say, $60 Brent and a $20 discount), about $176 million of gross capex ($263 million of gross cost recovery) can be incurred in a year and recovered in a year without building the CRP (beyond the investment needed because of two month payment terms). That leaves a good deal of room for growth investment (beyond the capex required just to stay flat).

I think I did already below. Yes, when the CRP balance is zero, recovered costs for a period are the lesser of incurred costs or 40% of realised sales less the 10% levy. The upper bound is the 'envelope' I refer to - the amount of recoverable costs, comprising opex and capex - that can be recovered without building the CRP again (beyond the accumulation that will happen due to lagged payment terms). I think they're simply making the point that (now that historical costs have been recovered) the potential for investment grows if realised prices rise (either because of lower discounts to Brent from SOMO-led exports or via higher Brent) and the production base grows. I do not think they're talking about the arrears.

I'm with bdgm on this one. I don't think the statement is about the arrears. Lower discounts, better prices and a bigger production base allow for greater current cost (open and capex) recovery and hence more investment. (They probably should have dropped the word 'past' but if investment surges beyond current cost recovery then 'past' costs build in the CRP.)

I think it's the simple 'self-funding' point I had to bang into the head of muppet Straycat (he then became a disciple of 'self funding' not realising most got it way earlier and had moved on to figuring out how MUCH could be invested and when). Now that all past costs have been recovered (except those in the arrears which will likely come under separate arrangement) we have a good base - one that improves with better volumes and pricing (higher oil prices or even just lower discounts) - to invest in growth.

I still don't think they should imprudently build the CRP (beyond that resulting from agreed payment terms) but there's a pretty good envelope to work with already. They can continue to pay out underperforming capital tied up in the arrears (when recovered) thereby reducing capital deployed and, at the same time, invest. One can easily work out for a given realised price and volume assumption how much recoverable costs can be incurred and recovered in one billing period (albeit with the payment terms delay) and subtract out the opex component to get to the capex component... We have the base, we need to come through the transition period favourably and order a rig. 2026 guidance is below 2021 production. We won't have had any growth for 5 years. But eyes on 2027...

22p per FD share @ 50k bopd for each $5 change

The impact is the 'value beyond 2026'. I (very simply) model the upcoming year in detail and then use a set of 'steady state' assumptions in perpetuity thereafter (eg 50k production, $60 Brent, discount of x, etc etc). Bumping the realised price up because of a lower discount (or bumping up Brent) has a relatively big impact on the 'terminal value' (roughly 22p per FD share @ 50k bopd). The good news with this simple model is that it is very easy to run sensitivities. What if oil falls (permanently) by $5? What if production were to rise x% or even 2x in light speed? Helps 'keep things real' when there's uncertainty. Like any other plan it is meant to be adjusted to actual events and used as a tool to judge impacts of changes in environment. It sure beats sticking a finger in the air. It has served me very, very well.

(FWIW my current monthly assumptions for 2026 amount to 39.5k bopd for the year with December recouping 44k.)

Ha. You are probably right. I was too optimistic. I will adjust. Transportation costs likely to go up significantly when current ITP contract expires?

(Management definitely more bullish now on discounts. Have lowered assumption to $20. Offsets crap production for 2026 and then some.)

I had $14.7 million as the interim receipt for October (alone). That assumed $2 per barrel for transportation. So transportation > $2.

It was probably itsaponzi

Not that that sort of size would rock my boat - as I said, accumulate on weakness.

Dealing with reality isn't price suppression. Good luck!

A better day!

Or.... the blend has been sold and there could easily be a bunfight over who gets what given the different grades going/blended into the same pipeline. Dunno. Lots of unknowns. 🤷🏽

"Put up - • pricing looks to be still politically sensitive"

Possibly

"• it is tied to the consultant review

• it is linked to reconciliation mechanics"

No, it's not. SOMO have sold and been paid for GKP's oil. The price they achieved will be well known.

"Does that mean GKP/MOL pay for transportation costs out of the $16pb?"

Starsalign, during the interim period, yes. Post the interim period exact transportation costs to be deducted from/included in the realised price / discount as was the case before.

I think lots of rounding is being used and assumptions of 'full entitlement' (a misnomer) plus we don't know what's being deducted for the cost of transportation (I wish the company would be more explicit but perhaps this is still being negotiated). 🤷 We wait.

"and natural field declines in the absence of drilling"

Remember the 5-10% per annum natural decline in the absence of new drilling... Management's internal forecasts are likely in the mid of the upper half of guidance.

There's no such thing as IFRS (UK) versus IFRS (Europe). IFRS is IFRS. Note the company is targeting Euronext Oslo Growth which has lesser listing requirements. You can research these. Also, the company won't be raising capital. There are other requirements - not just paperwork - for a secondary listing to be successful. I'm not going to comment further but anyone with a modest understanding of equity capital markets will understand what these are. I have my own expectations and we shall see if these end up being right.

Well, well, well... 3 holes in the ground

No real surprises.

End of year cash $78 million. My model for 2025 had $77 million. Close enough for me. Current cash levels reflect receipt of the provisional payment for November production.

2025 production 41,560. My model had 41,599.

January production of 40,600 to date is disappointingly low. I guess that's the well that had to be stopped for a new jet pump.

Production outlook for 2026 not surprising given the deferred PF2 work-over. They don't yet have the confidence to order a rig for new drilling but more positive that this will occur in 2026. 2027 production should be better. Sticking with pricing in 50k production by end 2026/early 2027. All those harping on about 85-100k production will be waiting a long while yet. (Oh and it doesn't matter how much reserves you have if you can't extract them and sell them.)

Capex guidance remains constrained at 'maintenance' levels - that required to maintain broadly constant production - rather than pushing for growth. Expect capex guidance to be lifted if the green light is given to drilling.

Operating costs guidance raised a bit.

I still expect a $25 million dividend with the YE results with management keeping a minimum cash in the $70-80 million range.

No update regarding arrears recovery/negotiations is disappointing. Management appear a little more confident on realised sales prices versus Brent but still aren't providing any actual numbers which is, again, very disappointing. Surely they know the realised sales price for October and November production... All they have done is point to blue sky potential which we understand - we need actual data to gain confidence.

Oslo listing will happen when the market (and price) is right. Management don't control this.

Stock back to more reasonable levels. Accumulate on weakness. (Beware the tap tap tap of repeated small trades and a rising price on anaemic volume.)

" That's going to hurt, don't think anyone was expecting guidance that low?"

I'm not surprised. People here forgot about the PF2 work-over deferred from 2025 to align with the installation of water handling equipment which doesn't benefit until 2027 and beyond. New drilling doesn't land results soon enough either. As I've said before, I don't think we get back to 50k production until end 2026 (if not early '27). Growth, if there is any, is 2027 and beyond. One needs to look beyond 2026 (especially if oil weakens).

Bdgm, management don't control the timing of the Oslo listing and what it needs to be successful...

You observed the pump. And now the dump.