Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Gulf Keystone Petroleum Ltd LSE:GKP London Ordinary Share BMG4209G2077 COM SHS USD1.00 (DI)
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  6.20 9.39% 72.20 72.00 73.30 74.00 68.00 74.00 4,650,762 16:35:14
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Oil & Gas Producers 196.5 62.5 27.3 2.6 162

Gulf Keystone Petroleum Share Discussion Threads

Showing 664526 to 664544 of 694250 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  26582  26581  26580  26579  26578  26577  26576  26575  26574  26573  26572  26571  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
25/9/2018
10:40
I can’t comment much today due to the new student intake and I apologize for using my Stockport winner avatar this morning.
butchersboy
25/9/2018
10:27
Well I think its clear negotiating a psc amendment doesn't take 2.5 years😁ԅ13;😁😁; Negotiating and delivering a sale of such complexity and size does Ps gulf imo have bought in stock to retire it and concentrate equity So that when it's sold shareholder's profits maximised Fill boots Hold Sold before Christmas 🎅🎅🎅🎅 7876;🎄Ӿ76; Oh and laugh at the fraudsters☃5039;🎅ԍ34;⛄
therealminotaur
25/9/2018
10:27
yes yes medway and who were you before today? have you just created yourself for the occasion?
s0rayad
25/9/2018
10:23
I'm not making it up, I believe he has circulated his detailed account to other investors. Perhaps you'll see a copy one day with names not redacted.
medway3
25/9/2018
10:19
Not contradicting...just expanding. My view of "going for gold", aka the 75Mbopd target, remains unchanged.
broadford bay
25/9/2018
10:18
medway3 Member since: 25 Sep 2018 one of many avatars..... say it all really
s0rayad
25/9/2018
10:07
Broadford Bay: GKP have specifically told the market that they will not do that. And you appear to be contradicting what you said the other day, when you suggested that GKP might raise equity to fund the 75,000 bopd programme. btw there was yet another dry hole in the Namibian offshore exploration graveyard the other day. GKP have no experience of Africa, except for Algeria under the original management and that didn’t work out as expected.
oil_investor
25/9/2018
10:02
Re the latest NED: Perhaps, as some here are so intent on portraying, the company now has so much spare cash that they wish to diversify their activities? After all, they are a single-country, single-asset company - with many issues still to be resolved between the central government, the semi-autonomous region and the country thru which the pipeline runs. Africa calling? just a mull...
broadford bay
25/9/2018
09:50
Minotaur I agree highly likely With so much surplus cash and such a gaping imbalance in fundamental value and market value buying in equity cheaply is an obvious added value actionAccelerated Share Repurchase programs using investment banks to quietly act for public companies are increasingly used to increase earnings per share, and if a sale deal is coming maximise shareholder value on sale.
obesepaddington
25/9/2018
09:33
Well I think its clear negotiating a psc amendment doesn't take 2.5 years😁ԅ13;😁😁; Negotiating and delivering a sale of such complexity and size does Ps gulf imo have bought in stock to retire it and concentrate equity So that when it's sold shareholder's profits maximised Fill boots Hold Sold before Christmas 🎅🎅🎅🎅 7876;🎄Ӿ76;
therealminotaur
25/9/2018
09:30
A PERSONAL ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF THE 110,000 BOPD PROGRAMME GKP have provided information in their three current presentations, and in the CPR material, which allows some assessment to be made of what the uplift from 75,000 bopd to 110,000 bopd might potentially cost. The company say that they will give figures after they have submitted their new Field Development Plan (do they actually mean “after the Field Development Plan has been approved by the MNR?”) and it appears to me that the 35,000 bopd uplift is part, but not all, of the full development of Shaikan. That is evidenced by the GKP descriptions of the Triassic and Cretaceous work, within the 110,000 bopd programme, as the “Initial Development” of those two substantial reservoirs. Looking first at the Cretaceous, the current FDP describes only one well, in the low/best/high cases, being drilled. Clearly, one Cretaceous well cannot conceivably address the 56 million barrels of very heavy Cretaceous Proved and Probable Reserves and Resources, let alone the 179 million barrels of Proved, Probable and Possible Reserves and Resources. GKP have said nothing about plans for the Cretaceous, aside from drilling this one initial well. In my opinion, the Cretaceous requires expert development assessment taking into account sustained production data from (at least) that first well. So this single Cretaceous well is, in my opinion, essentially the first Cretaceous Production Appraisal well. The cost of the well is given in the CPR as $23 million (GKP pay only part of that). Quite what that spend is intended to cover, by way of any Secondary Recovery testing etc, is unknown. I would guesstimate the potential output as perhaps 1,000 bopd in an experimental/Appraisal context. Turning to the Triassic, this is much easier to assess. The CPR stated that 5 wells would be required to develop the reservoir. Those 5 wells address 150 million barrels of light oil Proved and Probable Reserves; the Proved, Probable and Possible figure is substantially higher at 410 million barrels. Yet those numbers do not include the very large volume of Condensate, which CEO Jon Ferrier has said were incorrectly assessed as (methane) gas. In my opinion, the situation rather resembles that of the Cretaceous - for whilst the Triassic has been intersected by several wells and flowtests have been conducted, GKP are essentially in a Production Appraisal situation because sustained production has yet to be conducted, and the potential volumes including the Condensate are very large indeed. Initial Development of the Triassic would, in my opinion, comprise one well at a CPR-quoted cost of $23 million. The target volume per Triassic well can be established from the CPR numbers as 4,000 bopd. Two such wells would give 8,000 bopd. Because of the different composition of the Triassic - and taking account of the Condensate - GKP have said in their current Presentations that they will require a separate “processing train” at surface. This might sound expensive, but an Early Production Facility can surely handle the job. EPFs are increasingly used - including in the Middle East - as modular, longer-term or even permanent production facilities. GKP got Shaikan production speedily underway using an EPF as the foundation. These modules can typically be 10,000 bopd, 25,000 bopd or 40,000 bopd capacity each. So one 10,000 bopd EPF for Initial Triassic production could handle the output from two Triassic production wells. Any number of suppliers would be delighted to sell, or to lease, such plant to GKP. Cost? I have the price which was paid for a broadly comparable onshore EPF, capacity 10,000 bopd, with storage capacity 30,000 barrels. Installed, a budget of $15 million ought to cover it. So one Triassic well, complete with a dedicated Triassic EPF, would cost $38 million. So we see that, assuming the “initial”; part of the full(er) Field Development Plan were to kick-off with one Cretaceous and one Triassic well (together with a Triassic EPF), the total cost would be some $65 million and would produce c. 5,000 bopd. We can therefore subtract that estimated production volume from the 35,000 bopd uplift programme figure, to assess what GKP might be expecting, from the Jurassic reservoir, from the “Jurassic infill drilling” which they describe in their current Presentations. So the inference is 30,000 bopd of incremental Jurassic production. GKP’s plan is to produce 75,000 bopd from 17 Jurassic production wells (the current 9, plus 4 to reach 55,000 bopd and a further 4 to reach 75,000 bopd). That represents an average of 4,400 bopd per well. Pro-rata, adding 30,000 bopd of Production would require a further 7.3 wells: round that up to a further 8 wells, averaging 3,750 bopd each. That would give a total of 25 Jurassic wells across a reservoir which was proved by GKP to have a footprint of 135 square kilometres, as stated in presentations. So that represents 5.4 km*2 per well. This represents low-density drilling, even for the Middle East where wells can fairly typically be 2 km apart with field production lives of 60 years not being unusual. Something which isn’t explained is the very long field life quoted by past and present GKP management for Shaikan (“80-100 years”, “beyond the lives of our grandchildren”, “over 100 years”) which simply does not fit the CPR Category 2 figures. Putting that aside, the number of wells which GKP may be planning to drill is surely a pointer to exceptional permeability, which is of course consistent with the 6-mile Radius of Investigation (Transient Drainage Radius) which GKP announced at the Geological Society, with the approval of the MNR and MOL, that they had established. So if it is the case that a further 8 Jurassic production wells would add the 30,000 bopd, the total cost of those are easy to estimate. It would be $23 million per well (from the current CPR) x 8 = $184 million. This then allows the uplift from 75,000 bopd to 110,000 bopd to be estimated: $23 million for the initial Cretaceous production, $38 million for the initial Triassic production, and $184 million for the Jurassic. The total is $245 million. Of course, GKP only pay part of the cost - this appears to be in the range 64% to 80% depending upon the terms of the renegotiated PSC. Such a 10-well drilling programme should be possible within an elapsed time of two years. On that basis, it would represent $122.5 million per annum, of which the GKP element appears to be in the range $78 million to $98 million depending upon the renegotiated PSC Terms. If these estimates are anywhere near correct, several key points would emerge: 1. the production raise to 110,000 bopd is not a Sword of Damocles which some investors might perhaps imagine is hanging over the company 2. achieving 110,000 bopd appears relatively straightforward from an operational perspective 3. the cost is a fraction of the $8 billion which GKP initially said it would cost to develop Shaikan involving “hundreds of wells” under a different geological model (aquifer drive, rather than gravity drainage) 4. funding the programme from income rather than from borrowings or from the issue of equity appears viable (GKP would have the income from 75,000 bopd of Production when starting this work) 5. under the PSC Terms, the investment is recovered anyway 6. the repositioning of Shaikan, as the key MNR oilfield alongside the depleting Tawke, appears possible if the MNR wish to do so. The current Chairman Jaap Huijskes and CEO Jon Ferrier signed-off the following two weeks ago: “We fully appreciate the continued support of all our stakeholders during what has been a very important period in the Company's history. Alongside our partner, MOL, and our hosts, the KRG and the MNR, we remain excited about the next 12 to 18 months, as we stand poised to realise Shaikan's full potential over the coming years”. and this morning Mr. Huijskes said the following: “We are pleased to welcome Kimberley [Wood] to the Board of Gulf Keystone Petroleum. She is a highly respected legal practitioner who has been counselling Boards for the past two decades. We very much look forward to Kimberly's contribution, in particular in this exciting phase of investment and of markedly increasing production from Shaikan." An exciting phase of investment and of markedly increasing production indeed. Explaining to the shareholders how they intend to fund the realisation of Shaikan’s full potential is, in my opinion, desirable. Doing so will remove shareholder uncertainty. Having an Operationsl Plan is only part of the job. That is why one has an Operational Plan and Budget. We shall see what GKP announce. And even if GKP is expected to be sold, one always plans things as if it won’t be sold. That maintains the strength of the negotiating position.
oil_investor
25/9/2018
09:30
Brent through $82. Currently $82.08.
habshan
25/9/2018
09:16
Good Morning 😃 I see nothing has changed here or in Kurdistan. I remember when we last had new Directors and how this blog predicted take over in days 😱 And here we still are 🤷‍a94;️
oilman63
25/9/2018
09:03
The only fraud here is the one that set up the GKP Shareholder Action Group.
stockport winner
25/9/2018
08:51
Oh dear. So an NED is supposedly to be paid “a few hundred thousand” for three months (equating to more than one million pounds per annum) as part of an alleged fraud (a “Pump”) supposedly being perpetrated by GKP Chairman Jaap Huijskes, CEO Jon Ferrier and their colleagues.
oil_investor
25/9/2018
08:46
Pensioner2: she’s a Non Executive Director. Standard NED Remuneration. Notice periods don’t come into such an appointment.
oil_investor
25/9/2018
08:38
Also interesting to note that she remains a senior consultant for her current law firm, so maybe she does not see this NED role at GKP as being a long term appointment...
2wakeywakey
25/9/2018
08:31
Commencing 1st October? A top lawyer on a week's notice? Either zero hours contracts have now spread to the elite or Gulf wanted her in a hurry. That won't have been cheap. Let's hope it's worth it.
pensioner2
25/9/2018
08:06
the real minotaur: it’s an interesting appointment. I think the Broadford Bay avatar is not correct in thinking that it’s a Corporate Governsnce-inspired, gender diversity box-ticking exercise. And as for the other avatar, Non Executive Directors are not covered by the 2014 Long Term Incentive Plan ("LTIP") Scheme. It only applies to managerial Executive staff. Many institutions will not invest in LSE Main Listed Companies where NEDs have share-based bonuses, because they consider it makes them less than independent. EDIT: btw are you familiar with events at gold miner Petropavlovsk? The following might perhaps suggest, to some, that a question might be asked about the independence of GKP NED Garrett Soden: “M&G and Sothic together have proposed Ian Ashby and Garrett Soden, citing corporate governance concerns as a reason for the planned shake-up”. Mr. Soden was appointed to the Petropavlovsk board, but he did not stay there long. From a couple of months ago: “Proposals to remove chairman Ian Ashby, chief executive Roman Deniskin, and directors Bruce Buck, Adrian Coates and Garrett Soden were tabled at last Friday’s (29 June) annual general meeting by investors CABS and Slevin, and backed by more than half of shareholders”.
oil_investor
Chat Pages: Latest  26582  26581  26580  26579  26578  26577  26576  26575  26574  26573  26572  26571  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20200403 05:42:54