Member Info for theoryman

Following this morning’s RNS wrt share voting rites.

I was on the right lines with the effect of the block listing application.

If the next dividend of $25 million is delivered then it will be diluted BUT since none of the new shares are held in Treasury the whole $25 million will be distributed .

I don’t see why with modern technology the creation of a fourth blend to be sold through SOMO creates any problems - if there is a market for it then they will sell it as KBT.

IMO shifting to KBT with the typical extra discount to Brent as outlined by PUTUP is already built in for Shaikan’s current quality.

As for the PSCs the underlying question is whether under the Iraqi Constitution they were illegal at creation, have become illegal since creation, will become illegal at some future time or will always be legal?

The International Courts have ruled that the KRG can enter contracts with other countries and IOCs in their own right but the “quality” of the contract needs to be looked at each time.

The KRG are adamant that the PSCs they signed with with IOCs are constitutional but the FSC have SINCE ruled otherwise. The FSC gave the CGI the power to dismantle them but did not instruct them to do so.

The best outcome is that everyone backs off and lets the current PSCs run as written but all new contracts are as in the rest of Iraq. The worst would be a referral to International Law and the PSCs are declared illegal at creation.

@ukChri.s, never intended to make you think that I was playing you as opposed to the argument - apologies if my somewhat surreal suggestion came across that way.

Just to be clear, do you want someone to find an expert proposing the opposite view I.e. “ “The emergence of M&A activities in the region should come as a surprise." ?

Out of interest what deduction could be drawn if no one can?

I think we need to find an expert on “Expert Opinion” and ask for their opinion about how much credence we should give to the the opinions of experts.

If they agree with me I shall take ukChri.s’s advice and look no further, however if they don’t…

@ukChri.s, you wrote:-

“ Erm, actually theoryman, what is “interesting” is precisely what Al Hajji has stated within his brief comment, which can taken entirely at FACE VALUE, and doesn’t really require deconstruction and ‘reinterpretation’ by you or anyone else.

LoL - theoryman, you sound desperate.”

It’s because I am not desperate that I can apply critical analysis techniques to that article, which given your extract above seems to be what you don’t see as being important concept for anyone to use.

I think we both now realise that neither of us is going to shift how we approach things like this, no point in continuing the exchange.

@UKChri.s, off to watch Pep vs Big Sam but here’s my reply, won’t get back until tomorrow.

My reference to “hopefully” was a qualifier and not a negative. As in, hopefully what ended up being published as words were an accurate reflection of the ideas that started off in his head - there was no distortion during the process, either deliberate or accidental.

"As the suspension of around 450,000 b/d from northern Iraq drags on, this will give Baghdad more leverage over oil companies operating in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG).”

That’s an opinion, some might call it an expert opinion but it’s still just an opinion - court cases often have expert opinions that take the same information and interpret it in opposite ways.

Since he wrote it, is there any evidence that leverage has increased, has been applied and what were the consequences?

??“The emergence of M&A activities in the region should not come as a surprise."

Since M&A activities are always possible they should never come as a surprise - don’t see why he put that in.

What would have been much more interesting was if he took his leverage comment and LINKED it directly through reasoned argument to causing M&A.

Sorry about the hanging part sentence at the end. The connection was so flaky during a storm that I typed up the post in Notes and then copied and pasted it across. Picked up some remnants from something I had dumped previously - could have been very interesting/embarrassing :)

The whole summary was:-

“ EOA’s Main Takeaway:

This is one of the reasons why we have been skeptical about an immediate resumption of crude oil exports from northern Iraq. On April 4, we told readers in the Daily Energy Report that we believed the “temporary” agreement remains very fragile and is contingent on the outcome of the tough talks that need to be held in the next days or weeks over the technical and legal procedures. Based on Kpler’s data, tankers have yet to resume loading of Iraqi crude from the Turkish port of Ceyhan.

As the suspension of around 450,000 b/d from northern Iraq drags on, this will give Baghdad more leverage over oil companies operating in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). The emergence of M&A activities in the region should not come as a surprise.”

IMO by takeaway he meant opinion, it seems well written and therefore is hopefully an accurate description of his opinion, whether it turns out to be an accurate description of the final outcomes is another matter altogether.

If you think the second paragraph is

I don’t think being accurate when it matters is being pedantic.

There was so much misunderstanding on this thread it needed sorting and I was guilty of getting something wrong.

Hopefully what follows is a reasonable summary.

Vesting is when the ability to exercise the option becomes live.

Exercising is when they owner of the option activate the process to exercise the option and convert it into shares.

The shares are only created when the options are exercised, the block listing does not create them.

The number of shares to be used in calculations is still 216 million.

If every option gets vested, becomes live and get converted into shares then I’ll go for somewhere between 227 and 229 million shares. Which is good enough for me because if they all do I will not be remotely bothered about a less than 1% error :)

Hmmm, could be wrong about the dividend effect.

Depends on whether they are created by 10/05/23 and held in Treasury until awarded or they are only created immediately prior to being awarded.

Just noticed that the RNS did not give a new figure for the shares to be used in any calculations from that date on.

Increasingly convinced I was wrong but the negative effect I envisaged won’t be there, which is a good mistake to make if I was going to make one.

And yes I am aware I probably got a rule of the game wrong.:)

@C***eye, for one moment forget the situation we are in, did those shares have to be created whatever the current scenario?

It becomes a test of “reasonableness” that would stand up to external scrutiny - the timing of and the number of shares created based on the rules.

The one definite effect is if the dividend is awarded then then the cents per share every other share gets is lower than what it would have been. The nett effect is that $24.something million will be distributed to the current existing ones before the extras are created - those in Treasury are included in the divisor but cannot collect the dividend, it is withheld by the company.

If they had to do what they did, when they did then their action should play ZERO part in the information base used to derive the probabilities.

That’s how I am treating it until someone convinces me that the timing and number created was “unusual” :)

Then I will reconsider my position.

Everyone should already be using the FULLY diluted number of shares possible under the schemes, in anticipation of events like this.

PUTUP has repeatedly advised us to do so and has kindly given us the figure we should be using now - it’s even higher than the total that kicks in on 10/05/23.

Those LTH who aren’t doing so either have him on ignore, or don’t trust his analysis or don’t understand it or disagree with it.

I have no problem with any of that, just accept that maybe he was right and this was just something else that you should have been ready for.

If you don’t like or don’t understand the rules of the game, why bring money and sit down at the table?

IMO this is a trivial event compared to the potential upside versus downside that could be coming our way. I think we can all picture what they are, it’s the relative size of the probabilities where we probably differ :)

Questions for those who understand these things about the pipeline reopening.

1 Will the tanks be emptied first while the wells are brought back on line?

2 How long will it take to empty the tanks if the storage volume is reasonably well known?

3 If it is known in advance that the pipeline is almost certain to be open on a given date, can the wells be readied in advance or do you have to wait until the opening is confirmed?

4 What’s a ball park figure for how long it would take to get back to full production?

5 Can the emptying of tanks and restarting production overlap because there is slack in the volume of oil that the pipeline can carry ? ( Would lead to a boosted bopd “production” figure :) )

There will be some in the rest of Iraq who want the five IOCs that signed “illegal“ PSCs with the KRG given what they deserve I.e. booted out for fraternising with the enemy. A bit of collateral damage but clears the ground for all future developments.

Off to International Court we would go, result looks nailed on in favour of the IOCs but what would the compensation be and how long would it take?

When it comes to gas we need to be careful about the present mix of sweet and sour that is currently being produced versus what might be there awaiting discovery.

There were earlier Reports paid for by the company, now at least 10 years out of date, that referred to vast potential volumes.

The current share price reflects the market’s view that there is a very very low probability of that potential being realised within the timeframe it is using.

How many models of fair value has anyone seen that even includes the potential? Every one I have come across doesn’t, they ignore it, hence they are rating it as 0%.

So if they are correct there is no downside because no upside is built in :)

Now if they are wrong…

How are people interpreting that statement?

A The conclusion and examination have both happened and the the complete process of restarting is in progress.

B The process of restarting is in progress but only as much as they can while they wait for the conclusion and examination to finish.

It’s much easier to recognise that someone else doesn’t possess a workable blend of skills and psychological profile to be successful at something, than to apply the same process to oneself.

And then you get this headline but the contents of the piece don’t match headline unless I am missing something - reread it twice but might need to visit S*********.

https://www.iraqinews.com/iraq/iraq-suffers-losses-due-to-kurdistans-oil-exports-halt/

Anyone still think that the CGI is hurting as a result of the pipeline being closed?

“ The Iraqi oil ministry in its monthly report on Tuesday said that the country pocketed over $7.79 billion in oil sales in the month of April, a slight increase from March’s $7.5 billion.

The country exported 240 thousand barrels less in April but still saw a rise in the revenue due to the fact that the average price of one barrel was placed nearly five dollars higher than the average price for March.”

If anyone bothers to read the whole article, amazing that Rudaw keep referring to the offset award and one of the components as if they aren’t intertwined - maybe something to do with it he target audience? :)

KurdustanWatch does not provide a link to the original source of what the Professor is supposed to have said.

Just done a search of his name, recent quotes etc. and got no match.

The swap to KBT lowered projected receipts from what was expected.

The company can only refer to receipts which are known to be late, they cannot include those that will almost certainly join them.

In total there are 6 full months worth of receipts for invoiced production to be collected, Oct to Mar inclusive, Apr’s will probably be paid on time.

With inflation running at the level it is, the buying value of the debts when/if finally collected will be X% lower than what it should have been - different people will have wide ranging values for X :)