Member Info for PUTUP

And a double-down around 40p

Don't know and don't care. Will have sold before then. The trade was for 3x from below 50p per share.

More green lines from the muppet crew today. Are they saying anything useful or constructive? Anything analytical or useful? I don't know as they're filtered but I very much doubt it. Contribution zero.

Everyone else, carry on. As I said, January was great. And eyes on 2027.

Yes of course. I understand there's still discussion around the cost of transportation (which is deducted before one gets to realised sale pice). And no idea yet regarding whether the CRP with the costs-in-the-old-arrears included or excluded will be used, ie whether costs in those receivables can be recovered via SOMO in current and future billings. This has to be the biggest 'reconciliation' issue to be dealt with. Provisional payments are rather close to actual if receivables recovery will be dealt with separately. I'm still assuming that April is billed 'normally' - ie without the provisional payment process and the reconciliation process having been concluded. Maybe this slips, maybe not (and likely dependent on agreement regarding the 'old' receivables). With still no news regarding the receivables the clock is certainly ticking...

There will, of course, be current receivables associated with the move to two-month payment terms. These will be shown separately from the delinquent ones in the company's accounts. Here the company's mention of two liftings per month is interesting. Does that mean we might get, for example, the first lifting for January in mid March rather than early April? Dunno. We simply have to wait to see how all this pans out. Again, things normalise out quickly.

Separately, there's just three more days left in the VWAP window that determines the price of the Oslo retail offer.... Let's see what Monday has to offer.

"As I said, think difference is realised oil prices?"

🤷 We will have to wait for Wmsjames to respond

I was going to comment that I wouldn't use the term "accrual".

Is the difference the 10% royalty? At any rate, the figures I quoted were calculated according to the terms of the PSC ignoring any recovery of the 'old' arrears. It's pretty simple stuff.

Year 2026

Month Jan

Brent average for month 66.60

Discount 20

Days in month 31

Production bopd 40,600

Gross Field Sales 58.7

Royalty 5.9

Net Sales 52.8

Total Profit Oil 41.2

Contractor CRP beg bal + month's costs 11.6

Contractor cost recovery 11.6

(1) GKP Cost Recovery 9.3

KRG Profit Oil pre WI share 30.4 KRG also has % share of WI Profit Oil

Working Interest Profit Oil 10.8 Total KRG PO 32.6

Contractor profit oil 8.7

(2) GKP Profit Oil 6.7

(3) GKP CBC 1.3

Contractor receipt 18.9 Net of the CBC withheld

GKP Net receipt 14.6 (1)+(2)-(3)

% Cost Recovery 63.5%

% of Gross Field Sales 24.8%

What recession?

"an accrual of roughly $5.4m, which is the figure I’m carrying"

Yes this is the same amount as my GKP Profit Oil - Capacity Building Charge according to PSC terms without recovery of any of the old costs-in-arrears (aka arrears recovery). Divide by production to get the cash flow per barrel generated by GKP (gross of unrecoverable corporate overhead). Anything above $4 is awesome.

I model the PSC, CRP and R Factor. I focus on cash generation. I'm also focused on recovery of the 'old' arrears. I know there's a lag due to payment terms which creates a 'new' receivable balance.

"Where I think it potentially understates the accrual is if “full entitlement” genuinely means a return to PSC economics rather than just a post-cost cash adjustment."

What I provided is the PSC economics. Ex the old arrears. It's important to understand what the company would get were it not for the costs-in-arrears and recognise that the extra is arrears recovery which is a one-off. 'Full entitlement' of 35.8% is a misnomer - entitlement is only 35.8% if we include arrears recovery. Without arrears recovery the 'full entitlement' for January is circa 24.8% of gross field sales.

Correction: $4.23 a barrel

What a great month. I have production pencilled in at 40,600 bopd. Maybe it comes in a little bit higher. Brent averaged $66.60. With a $20 discount to Brent for Shaikan crude we get a provisional payment of about $13.6 million. The top up to PSC rates would be another $1 million.

So that's about $4.26 a barrel after direct recoverable costs! +/- Awesome. (Deduct whatever additional you want for cash corporate overhead.)

If we can re-bill costs in arrears we will recover about another $7.4 million of the old arrears bringing them below $130 million.

Yes production - the title was drilling

"So, gkp is a dead duck Putup for at least 18 months ."

2027 isn't 18 months away. Water handling comes on stream late '26 early '27. Perhaps the first well. '26 is a dud - just look at guidance. Eyes on '27.

"I’m assuming the capex for the new wells are included in the $60m ."

No it's not. But the company already has the equipment needed for the first well and most of what is needed for the first three.

That guidance re being able to manage 3-4 new wells per year was made after the FY '24 results. So less than a year ago. It might have changed but I suspect not much, if at all.

Also, with a typical well expected to yield on average 3-5k bopd of production, at current levels they have to drill a well a year just to offset the field's 4-10% per annum natural production decline. Let's see when they have actually secured a rig - and whether one or two. I understand the lead time from securing a rig to drilling is about 9 months or so. If they are to drill this year we will have to have an announcement rather soon. Even the first well is really only going to add to '27 production.

Nothing new. Steady as she goes.

They've previously indicated that they can manage drilling 3-4 wells a year. So 16-18 will be spread out over 4-5 years presumably.

As I have said often, eyes on 2027 for some growth back to 50k and beyond.

Starsalign, while the CRP balance will build it only does so because of payment terms. They can't bill the costs twice though. Where they can be cute is with the R Factor. So, as an example, as of the end of the year the CRP balance will be the costs invoiced but not yet paid for, say, November and December (plus the balance of unrecovered costs in the arrears). When they figure out the invoice for January they can't though invoice January as if to recover the November and December costs (in addition to January's) again just because they haven't yet been received. Those costs have already been invoiced. But the R Factor can be computed on a cash basis and will lag in their favour. So excess costs in January - in excess of those incurred in January, to the extent there are any - are still a recovery of the old unpaid arrears.

Yes, it builds to the tune of payment terms # of months' costs. Which is why I caveat "investing in the CRP" with "beyond that associated with payment terms". Quite a few things need to normalise out post the interim period. Maybe there's some games to be played here but they don't run for long.

One other thought. " IR have also confirmed that the accrued element under interim pricing is expected to be paid in H2, which fits the timeline you’re suggesting." This hinges on the company recouping the costs-in-the-arrears by invoicing SOMO their so-called (and misnamed) "full entitlement". For example, just using my current assumptions and looking at the first quarter of this year, the difference between the provisional payments and billings excluding the costs-in-arrears (because, say, they come under separate arrangement) would be a 'top-up' of a mere $280k. Hardly riveting. If the company is allowed to r-bill the costs-in-arrears (ie recover the arrears by billing SOMO their 'full-entitlement) the top-up would be about $17.5 million. The difference is arrears recovery and we only get it once.