Member Info for xxnjr

There aren't any credible takeover rumours are there?

They did. It's in the last TU.

Tonyb33 - thanks for the explanation.

Tonyb33 - That was fascinating although you've confirmed my suspicion that trying to understand IFRS 16 is harder than it would be for a Japanese native speaker to learn Swahili unless they received full cost recovery on tuition from the UN.

The annual FPSO lease is about $130m/yr. Or 15/12ths to go from year end 2025. Or say about $165m.

If you subtract the net lease buyout $126m and subtract the $165m remaining lease cost plus whatever interest is charged from whatever the right of use liability was recorded in the accounts then that possibly could be the "profit" (if I understood what you just wrote). Can you put a number on that? Maybe extrapolating from the 2024 accounts. And is "profit" actual cash or something more esoteric?

Scrodingerscat - The updated guidance at $100 OP suggested an extra $1m every 2 days? But anyway paying down the debt asap that the higher OP facilitates is definitely the way to go.

Majortom1,

it really depends on your risk exposure. TLW is still even today probably more of a gamble than a sensible mothers and orphan safe investment IMO. One can certainly make an investment case here (higher Jubilee production than guidance/higher OP/GRA pay back that $220m) but the most impactful the last two of those are out of TLW's control. If the war get messier then that should help. The likes of Shell/BP etc are more stable, pay a dividend but come with less excitement. Not much help I'm afraid.

IRAN are attempting to evict the US from the gulf. They are hitting the UAE as it's the poster child of western capitalism in the immediate area. The UAE is dependent on gas for AC in summer, gas to power water desalination plants all year and gas for power gen all year. UAE imports about 2 bn cfd of gas from Qatar by pipeline. UAE also have about 10 mtpa of LNG to regas import facilities mostly on the wrong side of Hormuz. So it looks like IRAN hitting Qatar LNG, UAE local gas production etc and that export pipeline route for oil that goes to Port of Fujairah (right side of the strait). Potentially this effectively strangles UAE's power production reducing it to city built on sand with no power or water.

Jmax - Oh do try to keep up!

"Are you sure ?

TLW owned circa 33% of the project and contingent payments of 2.5% kick in when the OP is above $62 a barrel. Nothing to get excited about."

Are YOU sure? No!!!! You've got it wrong!!!!

The Uganda deal RNS actually said

"Contingent annual payments to be paid on upstream revenues from the Uganda Interests (reduced to 28.3334% following exercise by Uganda National Oil Company (UNOC) of its back-in rights – see below) calculated as follows: (i) no payment if the average annual Brent price is less than or equal to US$62 per barrel, (ii) 1.25% (net of tax) if the average annual Brent price is greater than US$62 per barrel or (iii) 2.5% (net of tax) if the average annual Brent price is greater than US$70 per barrel."

"Shutting in" is probably more accurate description.

On a 5 yr chart UOG needs a gain of 1900% to recover it loss.

No self proclaimed "trader" would ask such a question.

No need to bare your soul!

If you say so!

Let's dissect that :)

"War in the ME will take oil above $100" 99.9% of people would agree with that at whatever point in time

"TLW just don't produce enough oil." 100% of stock investors would agree with that at whatever point in time

what exactly is so clever?

40034427

Won't bore you with the numbers but if "you do the maths" the Tullow statement you quoted suggests TLW have hedged about 52% of 2026 annual production guidance. This aligns with their past hedging policy (typically 50% to 60% hedged) which remains unchanged.

Well our self-annointed, self proclaimed expert apparently bought in around £2 to £2.50 if not higher :)

And then of course Kenya was further written down to about $110m. You make us laugh :)

Exactly it wasn't worth as much as they spent on exploration/drilling etc nor nearly as much as you thought someone would pay for it whether through cost recovery or not or however the deal was structured.

Jtroll,

"The Kenya agreement clearly stated that TLW could incrementally claim back their expenses once oil production began." Yes we all know that. Nothing new.

"All TLW had to do was sell the asset for a nominal amount on the proviso that TLW could claim these expenses back. I suggested this and it is in my posting history :) "

Mate! That IMO is one of the dumber things you've written. Something to hide, not shine a light on. The company needed cash ASAP. As in now, today. If the directors had followed your utterly reckless suggestion

(1) There wouldn't have been a deal in the first place! (As the extra $880m would have torpedoed the transaction)

(2) Meaning the company would still be spending $10m/yr to keep Kenya alive.

(3) And even if (for arguments sake) there was a deal structured the way you suggest, then the $76m wouldn't be in the bank now, meaning the company would be paying additional interest at 15% compounded twice annually on an extra $76m of gross debt.

(4) All of above would have made refinancing even harder.

Jtroll - Don't be silly! That would have involved the purchaser effectively paying 8X the price they paid.

I mean if you walked into a BMW dealership with your FRES winnings and fancied a new iX3 BEV at say £65K - would you be prepared to pay 8X £520K for the same car? Of course not!