Member Info for xxnjr

Based on production guidance you would anticipate at least 18,000 bopd to be hedged.

Ok I've looked it up. When the 1H 2025 report came out Tullow had hedged less than 3,500 bopd for 1H 2026 whereas in 2H 2025 they had acytually hedged 24,000 bopd. So you would expect another undeclared 10,000 to 15,000 bopd to have been hedges since then at ratios, levels, and pricing unknown.

"4. Tullow's policy was to have a very low percentage of trades in true collars (per H1 2025 projection 3,000 barrels)

5. The vast majority of the hedging was in three way collars where by you lost a maximum of $10 a barrel on an optimum upswing in price. If it hit foe the full $10 loss you would be at least $25-35 above your budgeted oil price."

Well I would advise everybody to ignore the above. It would be far better to wait for results and see what the actual percentage split is between collars and 3 ways. The numbers quoted above are taken from a time when Tullow hadn't even started to place most of their hedges for 1H 2026.

Thanks Flavius - I'm sure you know this. I was only vaguely aware as it's never really mattered before. There are two markets. The physical market (PCAAS00) and the financial futures market like the (ABUJ6) you quoted in your link. Physical cargos AIUI are based on (PCAASOO) which is updated daily by Platts, can only be accessed by Platts subscribers and is the official quote for Platts Dated Brent.

(ABUJ6) OTOH is a completely different animal, or instrument, as it reflects the value of financially settled derivatives (swaps) in the over-the-counter (OTC) markets for that specific future date - in this case April 2026. It too gets updated daily. However the price you saw for that contract at close last night reflected an average of (20 days of actual individual Platts Dated Brent April days to date + their assessment of what Platts Dated Brent will be for 10 days remaining in April).

In short they are two completely different things. The prices Gemini were giving you were probably correct whereas the (ABUJ6) quote is nothing to do with cargo pricing.

JMAX you are an expert in this area - can you confirm my understanding above is correct?.....

Tonyb33

Seems to me we are going round in circles here. The basic fact remains Platts dated Brent as of today is, or rather earlier today was c.$95 and not $115!

Tonyb33 - thats part of it. OK I'll do my own DYOR!

Sorry Tonyb33 I meant could you provide the actual calculation as it would illustrate how this all works!

Thx Tonyb33 - So we may understand. Could you kindly explain the maths of "Mar Cargo price (as at 02/04/26) $139 March hedge based on H1 2025 hedge values $2,679,013"

Thx - IanKellett. But as I explained in a post further below that price $114.90 AIUI is the price of a financial futures contract (AUBJ6) for the average price of Platts Dated Brent for the entire month of April. Not the Platts Dated Brent price on a particular day, past, present or future.

TDDW - "So Tony's post earlier is very pertinent." How so? Surely the only thing that matters is 5 day ave PDB$ on the date a cargo is shipped. The Platts AUBK6 futures contract is suggesting the average price in May will be $96, not $115. The other factor is that the other party in this Donald Trump would like to see the OP lower. But hey! the whole situation with the war is very unstable - it could go either way.

Thx Tman75 but is that contract relevant?...... as that is a "paper" price for a financial bet on the April AVERAGE, not the actual price of a barrel leaving today. A cargo shipping today goes for $20 less than that financial quote as Spot Price is about $95 afaics. This is the value for Brent crude oil for immediate delivery. The "AUBJ6" contract is a cash-settled derivative. It tracks the average price of physical oil for the entire month of April. Because oil prices were much higher earlier this month the monthly average is pulled up to that $115 level.

Or have I got that wrong?

Tonyb33

"Actually Spot Brent now $114.90 this morning"

where are you seeing that as my friend at Gemini seems to think Platts Dated Brent is currently $94.77 and Brent Crude (ICE Futures): Trading around $94.50 for June 2026 delivery.

Tonyb33 - Feel you may have been getting a bit over excited about that $100m. After a few previous q&as which I won't copy here for brevity my Gemini friend and I arrived here

Q) ok but are they now making 2 payments of $100m (1 payment on the existing bonds, then another $100m on the extended bonds?

A) No, there are not two separate payments of $100 million. There is only one $100 million cash payment occurring this week to reduce the principal balance of the debt.

The confusion stems from how the legal documentation describes the "before" and "after" of the refinancing:

One Payment, Two Names: The $100 million is being paid to holders of the Existing Notes (the 10.25% 2026 bonds) to "release" them. Because this happens as part of the swap, the company also refers to it as a redemption of the Extended Notes (the new 2028 bonds) since the new balance is immediately lower by that same $100 million.

The Effective Result: Tullow's total bond debt was $1,285,245,000. After this single $100 million cash payment on 23 April 2026, the remaining principal balance will be $1,185,245,000. This remaining balance is what carries the new 10.25% cash + 3.00% PIK + 1.75% PIYC interest terms.

No Double-Dip: You will not receive $100 million for your "old" bonds and then another $100 million for your "new" ones. The payment on 23 April is the "admission price" Tullow is paying to get bondholders to agree to push the rest of the debt to 2028.

Summary of the Transaction Flow

21 April 2026: Consent Solicitation expires.

23 April 2026: Tullow pays $100 million cash plus accrued interest to all current bondholders on a pro rata basis.

24 April 2026: The remaining balance (~$1.185 billion) is officially converted into the new Extended Notes due November 2028.

Why? Maybe cos under the original agreement TLW have been "redeeming" if that's the right word $100m of bonds on the 15th May reach year. Maybe that would have happened this final year as well + the rest of the debt paid off under the original plan? The refinancing should be tied up around the 24th?

So maybe not anything new, or noteworthy.

I'll take a stab at $103.

JMAX will give his guess after the tanker has sailed :)

Tonyb33 - I used to follow TEN cargos for quite a few years but when the intervals between cargos became extended due to steeply falling production and it appeared to me they were storing oil as ullage from time to time the intervals became a less reliable indicator of current production. The purpose of the exercise being to gain insight into production (not revenue).

Most on here seem to think JMAX is a "troll" whatever that is! Quite why they (JMAX) do what they do remains unknown. Not that anybody really cares.

The next tanker (assuming it doesn't get reassigned) "Yuan Hua Yang" has been making good progress but is now drifting aimlessly about 600kms off the coast of Southern Angola. Probably sent the Chef down to remove some barnacles and seaweed.

But just to be clear we should anticipate roughly 60% of 2026 1H production guidance has been hedged leaving 40% unhedged as that is basically Rule No 1 of the hedging policy. What we don't know is how much of that hedged 60% is collars and how much is 3 ways giving access to pricing upside.