Member Info for theoryman

I had a dream…

The KRG conceded their interpretation of the Constitution was wrong.

In return the ICG nullified all the contracts with the IOCs but replaced them as PSCs, this time with them as the government, under exactly the same T&Cs.

All revenues from the oil went through SOMO, invoices were paid in full within 30 days.

KRG got their share of the central budget every month without fail.

The Kurds and the two Muslim sects put aside all their differences and worked together for the benefit of the whole population.

Iraq then became THE place for foreign investment and GKP was bought out by a Dutch, Russian and Chinese consortium for £720.69 a share.

Don’t know about the trolls but I have received a fair amount of education re logic.

The ICG did try to get the then FSC to rule the contracts illegal a decade ago but the FSC refused to make a ruling.

Roll on to March 2021 and an amendment to an FSC Law allowed a change in membership to take place - see previous links.

It’s the new members of the FSC, and not the old guard, who ruled in Feb 2022 that the contracts were illegal.

Then of course there is the counter argument that the present FSC is itself illegal - see previous references to Article 92.2 of Constitution and Prof O’Leary.

This is getting weird even by ICG and KRG standards.

To get a new law through wrt FSC you need a 2/3 majority but if you want to amend an existing one, you only need a simple majority - leaves room for political games wrt quorum.

That’s what happened in March 2021, an attempt to introduce a new one was blocked by minorities not turning up but an amendment was passed when they did.

So what is so weird?

The Act which was amended was referred to as originating from 2005 in one article and 2015 in another - is the latter a typo?

https://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/180320211

https://dckurd.org/2021/03/23/kurdistans-weekly-brief-march-23-2021/

Prof O’Leary was adamant that Clause 92.2 in the 2005 Constitution has never been voted on and it’s about the FSC.

So how come there is a law related to the FSC from 2005 or later?

@SS

“The Shaikan PSC was investigated by Exxon Mobils Legal team over a decade ago and found to be legal.”

Just because in their OPINION it was legal doesn’t necessarily mean it was.

“…. be assured that IF this were NOT the case and the PSC was illegal then the ICG would have laid claim to it a long time ago.”

They couldn’t lay claim to it until now because the previous interim FSC refused to declare the contracts illegal.

What I missed was the Iraqi parliament passing a partially amended law in March 2021* that led to the replacement of the interim FSC by the present members.

It is the new group on the FSC that ruled the contracts were illegal in Feb 2022.

*I am trying to find unbiased details of the process that occurred in March 2021 and what its possible implications are.

All I can find at the moment are vague references to the fact that something did happen.

Which law was amended and under what circumstances?

Does its existence allow the creation of the new FSC and hence removes any leverage in the argument that the previous interim one was illegal?

@Forest34, they give the record date (R) because that is what matters to them, it decides who gets the dividend.

The ex-div date is the PREVIOUS trading day (R-1). They expect investors to be able to work that out for themselves :)

If you want to wait as long as possible but still be on the records and get the dividend, then you have to buy on (R-2), the day before it goes ex-div.

The usual pattern in the UK is record date Friday, so ex-div on Thursday, so last day to buy and get the dividend is the Wednesday.

In terms of logic it actually goes Friday fixes the Wednesday as being the last day to get on the records (resulting from T+2 trading update delay) and Thursday is the filling of the sandwich.

There’s a big difference between them ‘planning in the 3rd quarter to resume drilling’ versus them ‘planning to resume drilling in the 3rd quarter’.

Given the production figures from SH 12 to 15, is there now a need to rethink plans about WHERE to drill next? And if yes, how long will the re-evaluation of all data take?

So WHEN would it be reasonable for the next well to be spudded?

@Mormon, if the contracts are renewed, in what form will they be in your opinion? Production sharing, revenue sharing, service agreements… The formulation of the TSCs used in the rest of Iraq are very different to that of the PSCs used in Kurdistan.

During their last financial year the CGI only sent two full payments to the KRG instead of 12, there were other small irregular payments.

The money received was nowhere near enough to pay the KRG’s own citizens, never mind the IOCs.

The money used to pay GKP came from the KRG selling GKP’s share of the production at market and then subtracting fixed costs.

Can only assume that Opulentia is in a Wi-Fi dead area, most unusual for them to miss a positive day’s outcome.

In the context of PoO dropping and risk off in the general markets, GKP should have dropped between 9p and 10p in theory on going ex-div and then some more.

Only dropped 7.5p, now that is a positive outcome in the circumstances.

Pity the UT is an Auction and involves matching a buyer and a seller.

The other trade carries a NLIQ code, which is a negotiated trade between guess who? Correct, a buyer and a seller.

So neither should be reported as a buy or a sell, they are by definition both - the system producing that data is not fit for purpose, ignore it even if it tells you what you want to see!

The sellers got the latest dividend because they will still be on the Register tomorrow morning, direct consequence of T+2.

The buyers know they won’t get this latest dividend but are happy to buy at this level, with a view to what will happen before, on or after the next “special one”.

It takes two to tango.

“… that none of the oil companies working in the Kurdistan Region has left.“

My understanding is they have three months to leave the existing contracts but must must stop immediately looking at new contracts and immediately withdraw from any tendering they are involved in for new ones.

@opulentia, since my first degree is in Theoretical Physics I hope I understand the concept of acceleration :)

Interesting that you chose a reference from the RNS to support your post, whilst I was using the same reference to question your post.

Undoubtedly both of us are exhibiting bias, will be interesting to see which one of us was better in this case at fighting it.

@Opulemtia, I simply asked for where the information was in GKP DOCUMENTATION, I had looked in the RNS and Presentation and could not find it.

I also tried to find the webcast of the AGM to check for any specific wording used there but that doesn’t seem to be available yet.

Nothing wrong with posting either positive or negative information provided it can be independently verified.

Problems arise when personal views are morphed into information and strongly held beliefs magically become facts.

@ValueS, the 5% boundary refers to the total holding of the organisation but within it there are several funds that have different managers and aims.

The simplest solution IMO is those managers can act with total independence, on the same day one can buy and another sell - same info available but different interpretations wrt to what needs to be done given the components in the rest of their funds and their targets.

The managers get rated on their fund’s performance, not on how they do on just GKP.

Opulentia, where is the reference in GKP documentation to:-

1 “new drilling planned in the 3rd quarter” ?

2 “ the new De-Watering Facility to be commenced SHORTLY ” ? (My upper case)

From Ops Update RNS, “ While the industry is currently experiencing equipment lead time pressures in a supply constrained market, we are continuing to review options to accelerate installation of water handling facilities that would enable further production ramp up from existing wells. Progressing well workover and intervention programme to optimise near-term production”

Opulentia, or anyone else for that matter, do you know which Service companies we do use, as opposed to one that we don’t?

When the KRG refer to “through the Constitution”, they mean THEIR interpretation of it and not the CGI - hasn’t worked well so far.

Either the FSC is illegal and therefore all its rulings do not exist in law, or it is legal and its rulings cannot be suspended by political agreement.

The service companies that work in both Kurdistan and the rest of Iraq will have a different perspective on the threat of blacklisting compared to the IOCs who are “all in” wrt the KRG.

How much does a company like GKP rely on service companies and how likely are they to.exit stage left to preserve contracts in the rest of Iraq?

Jeez, you have completely misunderstood the point I was making.

I was referring to the clause as CONSTRUCTED and the consequences that follow if there is no supermajority or vote, not his interpretation of the clause.

@ukChri.s, was the clause the Prof refers to actually thought through?

What if a vote had taken place and no super majority achieved. Would there be no FSC until it was or would the “sensible” solution of the old one continuing until it was be used?

Can a democracy function without a FSC or equivalent?

There never was a vote, so again what happens, no FSC or old one carries on?

Since 2005, how many cases has the FSC ruled on and in how many of them was the illegality of its formation get raised?

So can custom and practice be applied to the present FSC now after 17 years?

Seriously, de facto versus de jure and it’s a Supreme Court!?

Just for a laugh, there are loads of Articles from previous constitutions that were never removed from the statute book, so there might be one lurking there that allows it to happen.

Wrong word used towards the end of last sentence, should read “ As for yesterday, why would the IOCs turn up at an Iraqi court, when their contracts are still actively with the KRG because they have not yet been formally rendered null and void? “

@ukChri.s, posted this early in April, “Was the original ruling by the FSC, that the contracts could be voided, actually legal? Argument exists that its present composition is unconstitutional.”

I was expecting the KRG to focus on that line but so far, in public anyway, they don’t seem to be.

As for yesterday, why would the IOCs turn up at an Iraqi court, when their contracts are still actively with the KRG because they have not yet been formally declared null and void?