Gulf Keystone Petroleum Share Discussion Threads

[nestoframpers] 18/8/2019 09:54

All Wells connected, as with Kirkuk Shaikan could drain out of one hole given enough time.

[nestoframpers] 18/8/2019 09:53

It's the VUGS , HS2 gas dissolves Limestone thus leaving Shaikan full of fractures and big holes , once it's empty you could ride a motorbike around down there.

[urals] 18/8/2019 09:35

SteephillWhat is the significance of mud losses on the scale you mention?Tia

[0ili0] 18/8/2019 09:31

100bn bbls anyone?

[beernut] 18/8/2019 09:09

From Friday on lse.

£1.4mSat 00:17
Nice £1.4m trade at 16.23 today.

The 1 day, 1 month and 3 month charts are looking pretty good.

We should be 300p+ by the end of the buyback.

[stockport loser] 18/8/2019 08:39

Another one of his avatars down the swanny!

[stockport loser] 18/8/2019 08:38

Paul's been warned about late drinking before.

[steephill cove] 18/8/2019 00:48

SH4 also flowed oil from the Chia Gara formation...

[steephill cove] 18/8/2019 00:23

450,000 barrels of drilling mud lost in SH1 told me everything I needed to know....

[steephill cove] 18/8/2019 00:20

Sensible PIs have waited for their day in the sunshine...That day is imminent.

[steephill cove] 18/8/2019 00:19

I am not any person or persons you have mentioned. I am not linked to anyone. I do my research & unlike yourselves I do not brag or force my opinion on others. I invest my own hard earned for the future benefit of my family.The claptrap that both of you spout brought me to this board. You both have hidden agendas that are not in the best interests of normal PIs.

[steephill cove] 18/8/2019 00:14

And I also know that the Permian was drilled into in the Chia Zairi Ber Bahr 1 well...

[steephill cove] 18/8/2019 00:06

Gelli Keer seeps led Adnan to Shaikan 1.

[steephill cove] 18/8/2019 00:00

I am well aware of the BG link to Ashti Hawrami & Adnan Samarrai....

[rodinswan2] 17/8/2019 23:53

Lord Spare of Parts.

Never changes.

[steephill cove] 17/8/2019 23:46

And I am well aware of the naming ceremony on SH1 where GKP struck a monster in the Cretaceous Sarmord, Jurassic Barsarin, Sargelu, Alan, Mus, Butmah, Baluti and Triasic Kurre Chine formations.

[steephill cove] 17/8/2019 23:44

Mutley & Marti, I was there from the days of the Hassi Ba Hamou Permit, in Algeria...

[habshan] 17/8/2019 22:09

"Remember no one wants heavy oil."

Of course it goes without saying that Bigdog doesn't know what he's talking about and just says the first ridiculous thing that comes into his head.

MOL have five of their own refineries in Hungary, Slovakia and Croatia.

They describe their Szazhalombatta and Bratislava refineries as complex, with "deep conversion units, allowing the high yield of motor fuels and other valuable products from heavy and sour crudes".

Those two facilities between them have a capacity of 300,000bpd.

It's self evident that MOL will always want more Shaikan crude.

[0ili0] 17/8/2019 21:59

200 quid a share. Marvelous.

[mcfly02] 17/8/2019 21:37

Steephill cove = Paul Carrol 🤡

[steephill cove] 17/8/2019 19:57

Night chaps & don't let the McFlys or Mutleys of this world into your head or talk you out of "The Prize"!

[steephill cove] 17/8/2019 19:56

Mutleys gone to bed stateside, which let's face it, is why the largest USA banks & hedgefunds based out of Manhattan are loaded up with GKP...It's going to the Far East, Mutley knows it, they know it & the only way they can financially benefit is piggybacking onto the final GKP share price at takeover.

[steephill cove] 17/8/2019 19:23

On second thoughts if we throw Mutley a Bonio, he will only get confused; tell us nothing World Class has ever come out of Ireland; they will never produce anything of substance & there will no no longevity in their field either.Felix Resources (FLX) Cairn Energy India (CNE)Go figure Mutley, I know why Im here.

[0ili0] 17/8/2019 19:10

Legal expert: The validity of Article 140 of the Constitution is valid and binding on all authorities  2019/08/17 06:53:37A legal expert confirmed the ruling of the Federal Supreme Court on the validity of Article (140) of the Constitution, pointing out that the time limits provided for in the Constitution include the obligation on the bodies responsible for the implementation of those articles, pointing out that the withdrawal of any text of the Constitution requires an amendment in accordance with mechanisms Official."The ruling issued by the Federal Supreme Court regarding the validity of Article (140) of the Constitution is true and binding on all authorities," said expert Mohammed Sharif, noting that "the abolition of any article of the Constitution requires an amendment in accordance with the mechanisms provided for in the Constitution itself."He pointed out that "a number of questions are being asked about the ruling of the Federal Supreme Court on this article and the first time of the issuance of this ruling, and why the judicial decision coincided with the political movement between the federal government and the Kurdistan region."Al-Sharif pointed out that the court did not issue its verdict on its own, but this came upon an explanatory request received from the House of Representatives dated (15/7/2019), and therefore became necessary for the judiciary to decide.He added that "the timing must be asked by the interpreter, although the right of access to justice is guaranteed to everyone in accordance with Article (19 / III) of the Constitution, at any time."Al-Sharif added that "the court issued its interpretative judgment a few days after receiving the request after it completed its study of all formal and substantive aspects in order to issue the verdict in it, on (28/7/2019)."He stressed that "when the court issued the verdict was in accordance with Article (92 / second) of the Constitution, in accordance with its interpretative jurisdiction, which ruled in several judgments, including on the (age of the electoral cycle and the largest parliamentary bloc and the opposition bloc and the unity of Iraq and territorial integrity)."Al-Sharif stated that "the explanatory request contained a clear inquiry which can be found in the form of provision numbered (71 / Federal / 2019), which is (kindly explain the text of article (140) of the Constitution as to whether it applies or not)."He stressed that "the explanatory request, the House of Representatives, limited his request to know whether this article is still in force or not ?, The court according to legal contexts are obliged to answer that question whenever the correct formal and substantive conditions for the request for interpretation and otherwise will put itself before the responsibility ( Refrain from fulfilling the right). "Sharif said that "the pretext mentioned by the objectors in their criticism of the ruling of the Federal Supreme Court is the existence of a time limit in Article (140) of the Constitution, is (31/12/2007) a maximum to implement."He added that "resolving the issue requires a return to the philosophy of the existence of time limits in the constitutional articles, is that exceeding them is the birthplace of those articles."Sharif pointed out that "the examination of article (140) of the Constitution paragraphs (first and second) shows that it begins with the words (the executive takes steps) ... and ends with the words (not later than the thirty-first of December in the year two thousand and seven)."He continued, "This period, as stated in the constitutional text, imposes an obligation on the executive authority to accomplish its task during that period and not to drop the article, that is, if the executive authority lags in the completion of this constitutional task will be subject to accountability in accordance with the mechanisms provided for in the Constitution."Sharif stressed that "dropping an article in the Constitution means that we are making an amendment to it, and this amendment can be obtained only through the mechanisms provided for in the Constitution itself."He pointed out that "the constitutional legislator, if he wanted to exclude Article (140) of the Constitution from the rules of amendment of the Constitution stipulated in its articles, to mention it explicitly, as his intention was clear that this period was designed to oblige the executive authority to a certain task, and that skipping it will make it accountable ".Al-Sharif stated that "the position of the Federal Supreme Court on this matter is not the first of its kind, but it went in the same position in the interpretation of Article (142) of the Constitution by virtue of the number (54 / Federal / 2017) issued on 21/5/2017 on the mechanisms to amend the Constitution ".He added that "Article (142), which was also included in the transitional provisions and provided for time limits to make amendments to it, but the Court said in its interpretative ruling that that article is still valid as well."Sharif added that "the same position with regard to Article (137) of the Constitution, which talked about the formation of the Council of the Union (the second wing of the legislative authority), after the end of the first electoral cycle for the years (2006-2010), but the Federal Supreme Court in many of its judgments on the formation of this Council even though we are in the fourth electoral cycle now. "He pointed out that "the summary of the above shows us that exceeding constitutional provisions is not intended to drop its articles as this requires an amendment in accordance with the mechanisms provided for in the Constitution itself, but to determine the responsibility of the body responsible for its implementation and if exceeded are heldaccountable in accordance with the constitutional contexts of