Gulf Keystone Petroleum Share Discussion Threads

[nestoframpers] 22/10/2016 19:23

Cheers Bob , I mentioned quite a while back that surely there is a formula for working out volume - if you know the viscosity of the fluid and the gravity forces on it and you can measure the pressure of the tidal effect as is the case here then why not be very positive about the figures that you can derive from all this info?

Bob posted about the Arctic drill , forget the Co but from one drill they knew everything even down to CAPEX required for full development . OK they were talking about one band of net pay and we have 7 but we have now had 7 years at this now FFS.

[joseki] 22/10/2016 19:07

The answers were in the Muppets Munch

[oil_investor] 22/10/2016 19:02

nestoframpers: I just happen to have this thread still "on" on my iPad lol.

Stafford told the PESGB that the Connected Volume (in the Jurassic) was c. 13 billion barrels.

Connected Volume is derived from pressure testing and is *not* the same as the Oil In Place, as any reservoir engineer would confirm.

[nestoframpers] 22/10/2016 18:58

Bob can you tell me what Stafford said was the connected Vol is please.

[oil_investor] 22/10/2016 18:53

Just before I go, I see that Joseki is posting nonsense about Sheikh Adi being a "bad block". What on earth brought that on? This allegation, which has no foundation in reality, only appeared when the Crestal Energy issue arose.

[oil_investor] 22/10/2016 18:45

Nicebut asks why Todd Kozel (GKP) did not tell Ryder Scott about the Shaikan-6 tests.

That's very easy to answer. The Ryder Scott Report was signed-off on 30 November 2010. Shaikan-6 was a long way in the future at that point.

Oil In Place is *nothing to do* with flow rates. As I have explained before. You can have a reservoir with a lot of OIP but none of it will flow. Again, as I have explained before.

How many times do we have to keep going over this? It's ridiculous.

The dates also require close comparison regarding DGA; I've done this before and I cannot be bothered to do it again. If Nicebut wants answers, why not call Stafford and ask him? Why am I supposed to give answers on behalf of Stafford? What has he got to do with me?

As for Todd Kozel: how am I "defending" him? Or how am I "appearing" to defend him? It makes no sense. What on earth has discussing Fracture Porosity, the concealment of webcasts, and so on and so forth got to do with defending Todd Kozel?

And Nicebut will *still not* discuss the fact that Stafford said in the now-concealed CRP webcast that he *disagreed* with what his former employer ERC had suggested as a *hypothesis* (nothing more) about Shaikan-6. That webcast is accessible through the "willoicc" hyperlink.

I shall leave those who wish to consider these matters to watch that CPR webcast. I shall now be back on the "Last Days" thread.

[lardner23] 22/10/2016 18:28

"It has, in the Second PSC Amendment, been reduced to 30%."

Probably better not to talk about this in the past tense.

HY16 report:

Key risk factor - The Group may be unable to secure the Second Shaikan Amendment on the terms set out in the Bilateral MNR Agreement.

Potential impact - Until the Second Shaikan Amendment is executed there can be no assurance that the terms of the Bilateral MNR Agreement will be formally implemented or the MNR will continue to address monthly revenue payments in line with the Bilateral MNR Agreement.

[nicebut] 22/10/2016 18:21

O_I,

Do you still think SH-6 was: Quote `just a storm in a tea cup`- In hindsight?

[nicebut] 22/10/2016 18:20

O_I,

Why do think TK (GKP) didn`t tell RS or DGA about the failed SH-6 tests?

He was quite happy for them to up the OIP figs....but they didn`t know that SH-6 was basically a failure. IE needed a sidetrack and didn`t flow oil.

Why do you defend TK...You certainly appear to defend TK.

[oil_investor] 22/10/2016 18:04

Oh, and there is of course my "Top Twenty" list of concealed items etc.

Why not discuss those?

[oil_investor] 22/10/2016 17:24

SURFER2: John Gerstenlauer told the Natural Resources Forum audience (Jeremy Asher in the front row) in early 2013 during the Q&A that the post-tax profit per barrel of Shaiksn crude was $9 on a long-run oil price assumption of about $80. This issue was then raised at the July 2013 Investor Day with Ewen Ainsworth, who confirmed it. Those figures, as EA explained at the Investor Day, are the underlying profit figures and they do not include the PSC Cost Recovery payment for capital costs. At an oil price of some $80, that Cost Recovery payment lifts the short-term figure per barrel to maybe $23 to $25 a barrel, something of that order. But the underlying profit figure was given as $9 a barrel.

That $9 figure was based upon a Kurdistan tax rate of 40%. It has, in the Second PSC Amendment, been reduced to 30%. On a simple interpretation of what this means, the GKP "net" rises from 60% to 70%, and that implies $10.50 a barrel. I'm rounding that down to $10 a barrel for convenience.

[surfer2] 22/10/2016 17:23

A poster on III named Mugwump12 has ‘appeared̵7; and is claiming to be 'new to the investing game’. He then proceeds to post a well written and quite detailed and persuasive argument for the Bondholder restructuring. Reasons that its a much better deal for shareholders than nothing at all. about 1p better. definitely impartial

[oil_investor] 22/10/2016 17:14

Mr Roper: with respect, I don't think you have looked into the Ricahardson issue in enough detail. Take a look at what BBBS wrote about it. In any case, the logs are not the OIP.

[mr roper] 22/10/2016 16:49

BD, I'm not having an argument.

[bigdog5] 22/10/2016 16:44

Hey nb, how come the village idiot allows you to post but not me, is it something I've said?

Mr R surely your argument is flawed?

[mr roper] 22/10/2016 16:34

"Now Mr Roper claims that the DGA and Ryder Scott "Oil In Place" numbers for Shaikan came from the same guy.

Er...no they didn't."

Er..Yes they did. Take a guess where this comes from...

----
"The primary log analysis was performed by Rick Richardson for Gulf Keystone Petroleum. Mr Richardson also is employed by Ryder Scott Company as a petrophysicist and we relied on his log evaluation with some minor modifications. "

[surfer2] 22/10/2016 16:14

Oliver666 , im also trying to be polite here but Post no. 524650 is difficult to understand - some incoherent points , grammatically etc . would you mind rephrasing some of it so as to make it clearer ?

[bigdog5] 22/10/2016 15:36

"With cash needed just to stand still at 40k barrels per day from wells".

Tess, the 40k a day isn't factual and is misleading simply because it doesn't take account of "down time". Its correct to look to the average number over a given period. Also to be considered is the amount of time the pipe in Turkey is down. Also to consider and is usually overlooked is that the "40k" a day is gross rather than net to GKP. 55k a day anytime soon, na. And neither is the "new well".

With only one export route out there's always going to be issues.

Mr Roper, yes the Align research note. It would appear that I have been ramping with my view of the asset being worth 3p:-)

oliver, yes a deal of around that number would have obviously been much better for shareholders (over the past 18 or so months there have been a few like that) as I mentioned yesterday. Does it suggest that the BoD wasn't working for all stakeholders? So why and who was really in control?