Member Info for PUTUP

"the large holdings held by certain unnamed persons / groups"

This I think is total cr*p

That said, if you are going to sue for penalties/interest you have to believe you will achieve a better result than working with those that owe you to recover as much as you can. IMHO the board simply felt that recovering the amounts owed and not receiving any penalties/interest was the best they could achieve considering the future of the company. And, I suspect, the same view holds today. The "leverage" is simply the dependency on continued operations in the region.

You have to love how this stock trades from a technical perspective. The recent giddiness-backed rally that peaked on 7 and 9 July closed a gap between 186.60 and 182.80 and then subsided. Two gaps remain. An iddy biddy one up at 198.8-200 and another down at 154.67-157.39. Which one will close first?

Now breaking out... Could easily reach 115p in very near term.

Why not look at management's press release regarding dividends? And the statements in the last operations update regarding dividends?

But no upside in price which would currently be available and ever declining production capacity as no new wells are drilled and water handling becomes a bigger and bigger issue. Management deferred the PF2 shutdown yet didn't raise production guidance even though there's no three week shutdown. That suggests water and well production is ever more an issue. I think they have to take a decision on water handling equipment imminently and had to push the PF2 work into next year to better align with the introduction of necessary water handling equipment. My first half production assumptions matched the disclosure of YTD production until June 18 perfectly. In the second half of '25, I have production continuing to fall (whether under local sales or exports) by 250k bopd per month (with December 42k bopd). Those assumptions yield an average for the year of 43.8k bopd versus guidance of 40-45k bopd - so in upper half of guidance.

Make no mistake. We need exports to restart and investment in the field to justify current valuations.

You're nuts if you think Kurdistan can operate independently from September. Our best outcome remains a solution reached through cooperation and compromise between the KRG and ICG.

Keep it up HGNAHMED.

(Know is not the same as no.)

Doesn't sound like there was any substance backing Chelmochaser's views

Stock still consolidating at these levels. RSI slowly easing. Volumes anaemic. Will the upcoming court case result be a catalyst for further gains?

Clear as mud

At any rate, we are already recovering the arrears via local sales by billing at 36% of gross sales rather than 28% as would otherwise be the case. The potential upside (over local sales) is only the price the oil is sold at and on that we have no information yet. It's reasonable to assume prior discounts ($23.20 plus something for the KBT discount) but that's only a straw man to be updated when we get further information. Also, it's worth noting that 120/400 is only 30%... We need a lot more information...and from much more reliable sources.

Note I fat finger inverted the 8 and 4 below.

584,000 barrel quota increase announced

Bloomberg reporting that, according to delegates, OPEC is considering lifting production quotas by more than the expected 411,000 bpd at tomorrow's meeting.

"Looking good but remember GKP was 205p pre trump's tariff"

But has paid a dividend since then and the dollar has fallen about 10% versus the Pound. Oh and Brent was higher. Hmmm.

Come on fellas. Bid it up.

Nah, arguing with a complete idiot just isn't worth the energy. Your analysis wouldn't even pass muster with a fresh uni graduate. But good luck to you. I suggest you start with a clean sheet of paper, read management's guidance again, try to understand cash flows and how to model them, and stop spouting rubbish until you're at least halfway competent.

"Maybe GKP are not re-invoicing on these outstanding receivables, might account for slightly low cash level recently stated?"

No. They are. The difference in cash is expenditures largely related to management compensation i.e. real cash consumption.

"I'll go for doubling putup's and halving nasa1's figures - $64m or $68.5m, think that's nearer the mark even on local sales"

The change in cash (=FCF generation) for the first 6 months is clear/known/understood (except for adding a little for the last 11 days of the half). For the second half, currently I expect the following on a local sales basis:

Receipts 2H 2025 $60.7

less GKP capex/opex 2H '25 incl direct G&A $(42.4)

less GKP G&A 2H 2025 $(2.5)

2H '25 net receipts (continuing ops) $15.8

Add to this $16.5 million for arrears recovery.

A return to exports would raise that a bit depending on timing, prices achieved etc etc.

Whatever you do Starsalign DON'T put a multiple on non-recurring cash flow (e.g. areas recovery). That is a novice error.

(There's so much BS in Nasa1's posts they're not even worth replying to.)

Good luck to all those that listen to management, read their disclosure and can actually do math.

I'm not going to argue further with an idiot

Just a quick example (it could be one of many) of just how preposterous NASA1's figure are...

"2025E: ~£100 million (annualized based on H1 figures)"

So that's $137 million based on annualising, multiplying by 2, the first half figures. NASA1 thinks, therefore, that the company generated 137/2= $68.5 million in cash in 1H 2025.

Let's look, however, at what actually happened to cash. Cash as of 31 December 2024: $102 million. Cash as of 19 June 2025 (close enough to end 1H for these purposes): $100 million. $25 million dividend paid in 1H. Cash generation from operations, ie adjusting for the dividend, $23 million. That's a long way from $68.5 million.

What's more, the $23 million included c$10 million of one-off CRP balance ex receivables. (80% of the 2024 YE CRP adjusted for the CRP in the receivables.) There's also about $9m of receivables recovery in 1H 2025. Subtract both of these off. Then you need to (potentially) add back the cash outflows that took place in Q2, largely associated with management compensation, that reduced the expected cash balance by about $12 million. Let's use 23-10-9+12=$16m as a far more realistic number. With declining production it would be a mistake to just multiply this by two as an estimate for the year but what the heck: $32 million versus NASA1's $137 million.

I'm all for being bullish but I will call BS when I see it.

Because (amongst other things) your cash flow expectations are not even close to realistic. But good luck!! Perhaps, so as to not be so disingenuous to less sophisticated readers who might actually be inclined to believe your nonsense, your might actually want to post how your derive your figures as per the PSC (or perhaps you assume a much better contract). The assumptions and arithmetic will no doubt be incredulous.

PS: If you defer a 3 week shut down from 2025 to 2026 you'd expect, ceteris paribus, for 2025 guidance to be raised. It wasn't.

PPS: Time for more school. You need to look at Enterprise Value as a multiple of cash flow (not Equity Value). Back out the cash and receivables. Use a fully diluted share count. And don't place a multiple on one-off cash flow - back it out first.

Bid it up and you'll find out :)