Member Info for starsalign

With a final vote planned next week, coinciding with the conclusion of the parliamentary session.

Is it just me or is it a virtually guaranteed rollover....to be decided at the next session sometime in the new year?

Slight glimmer of hope is share price increase of late.

Nobody knows how it'll all pan out but as I said earlier the $16 pb figure is a gov to gov transaction according to Genel presentation.Think we'd only be getting about $14 pb if we were exporting now and max cost receivables in calculation so there's no way we can expect more as I understand it.

According to the Acting Minister, Erbil and Baghdad have now reached an agreement to amend the budget law, increasing oil extraction and transportation costs to approximately $20.6 per barrel. "In the initial phase, companies will receive around $16 per barrel," he stated.

That doesn't make any sense?

It has been clearly stated by Genel recently that the $16 being mentioned is an ICG to KRG transaction.

Yes, throw cable into the mix, why not, no point keeping it simple.

Only recovering losses from earlier in the week but I'm going to laugh if GKP have been buying shares today.

I know what you mean Unwin but problem being they are due us $151m and I can't see anyone else being willing to pay this. Think APIKUR mentioned $1 billion overall is outstanding.

Think I've mentioned this before but repeating myself is acceptable, the KRG would receive $192m monthly from ICG plus the agreed monthly budget. The IOC's are then back to relying on these payment s being made on a regular monthly basis by both parties.

Thanks for that link JAB, think I got a mention but straycat is the star of the show.

My suggestion is that offsetting any amount currently due to KRG is better than actually paying them if allowable.

We retain an overdue receivables balance of nominal $107 million owed by the KRG. Although there has been discussion on the mechanism for recovery of this balance, there is not yet a formal payment plan in place. We expect any resolution to include offsetting balances owed to the KRG, which at the end of October amounted to around $50 million.

The above is from Genl update today, just wondering if GKP will also have an offsetting amount to be deducted from receivables??

"Much better to get "36% of gross sales paid upfront (as long as CRP allows)" off a higher price via export."

Assuming 48kbpd and $72 Brent

If we were exporting instead of local sales today we'd be invoicing for about $5m more per month and HOPING to get paid 3 months in arrears at the earliest. $5m per month not an insignificant amount but not a huge difference and money paid up front.

What cannot be accepted will be directed by SOMO to local consumers (refineries, power stations) whose buying prices are determined centrally.

Sounds ok to me, 36% of gross sales paid upfront (as long as CRP allows) and very little ongoing political issues, perfect.

I would be guessing at local sales are ongoing, given that the current SP is effectively above the price anyone who sold into the previous buyback at around 141/142p achieved.

Can all change pretty quickly though, that's for sure.

Putup - Jumping the gun I know but it's only a bit of idle speculation.

Assuming the KRG are to receive $16 per barrel from ICG to cover cover production and transport costs that brings us back full circle to getting paid via KRG despite supplying oil to SOMO.

Assume 400kbpd x $16 x 30days = $192m per month (and I know this amount isn't set in stone )

Seems to me we're almost back to where we started with KRG relying on monthly budget payments from ICG plus the $192m to be transferred in order for IOC's to be paid.

KRG are possibly in a better position with local sales......and so it goes on......

Finding it hard to get my head round how a fixed (but variable by field) rate per barrel slows down the speed of cost recovery. Suppose it will all become apparent in the future but that's why I was asking how the new contracts offered down south compare to our existing PSC's? ie - is cost recovery slower in the latest contracts offered by ICG ?

Is the inference here that the costs are being exaggerated by the IOC's and they're claiming more than they've actually spent? There's no profit /margin on existing PSC's with regard to cost recovery and can't see how a fixed amount does anything to improve the arrangement for either party.

The allowable costs incurred by IOC's are entitled to be recovered, no more, no less.

Anyone able to explain the difference between ICG contracts that may be coming our way and the current PSC?

I know originally that ICG paid upfront development costs down south and the IOC's received their share from production or revenue. don't think the newer contracts on offer operate in this manner and are now fairly similar to our PSC's?

I've scoured internet and can't find any detailed info on the current terms on offer via Iraq Revenue Sharing contracts.

Far too many variables and unknowns in the latest news updates to come up with any credible financial vision for GKP.

We do know that 48k x $27 x 30 days x 36% = $14m per month, so any new proposal would have to TRUMP that :-)

I knew I'd get that joke in somehow today.

Also I reinvested my dividend today, so if it's good enough for me.........

Seems slightly strange to me announcing a buyback on the 8th Oct of up to $10m with the price around 134p and having an intended price cap on purchases slightly below this figure (accounting for dividend).

See how it pans out but if there is a lower limit they run risk of buybacks not being implemented and then it looks a bit messy imo.