"That's not how I see it with the information we have so far"
So how DO you see it.
What information do we have that leads you to believe that after the expiry of the current pipeline agreement Iraq will be able to dictate to Turkey how they use it. |
"It's VERY clear, in September the Turkish section becomes Turkish property, they paid for it and after September Iraq will have no say in how they can use it."
That's not how I see it with the information we have so far but I can see you're getting agitated so will leave it at that as don't intend having a long drawn out convoluted discussion on a simple matter. Others can make up their own minds on the subject. |
It is probable that shutting the pipeline is termination without notice. Given over a year has passed then it can be argued that the one year notice period has been served and therefore the agreement will lapse in September. |
 "Think the key point here is whether Turkey are free to do as they wish with their section of ITP pipeline after Sept and so far it's not clear either way."
It's VERY clear, in September the Turkish section becomes Turkish property, they paid for it and after September Iraq will have no say in how they can use it.
BOTAS, which is state owned, spent a great deal of money building that pipeline, loading terminal at Ceyhan, pumping stations and other associated infrastructure. And as is normal for such huge projects BOTAS will have borrowed the money from banks and so on.
The contract was structured so that the investment would be recovered under the contract by Iraq contracting to supply a minimum volume of oil per day for which Turkey would charge so much per barrel in transit fees.
Turkey would then be able to see exactly how long it would take to recover the investment how long it would take to start making a profit on that investment and how much profit they could expect to make.
So at the end of the contract BOTAS would have recovered their money the banks would have been repaid and the pipeline system would be theirs.
It didn't happen of course because Baghdad couldn't care less about Turkish investors, they didn't even care about recovering their own investment, all they cared about was stopping the Kurdish exports, and it was those Kurdish exports that kept the whole thing going because Kirkuk was only able to contribute 75k bpd which would barely cover the bottom of the pipe, and without Kurdish exports Iraq couldn't hope to even come close to meeting their contractual obligation of supplying minimum throughputs.
But by the time the contract expired the two sides should have recovered their investment. BOTAS would have bought and paid for the pipe and it would be theirs, and that's where we are.
After September there will be NO contract with Iraq, and the Turkish section which they have bought and paid for will belong to Turkey and as the CEO of DNO says, they can do what they like with it, it's Turkish property. |
https://x.com/john78846295/status/1884349682530619828 Deputy Minister of Natural Resources: We are ready to export oil if the parties agree. |
Confused Gerbill - thanks for that and as you say it's all very vague.
Think the key point here is whether Turkey are free to do as they wish with their section of ITP pipeline after Sept and so far it's not clear either way. |
Hangthedj = troll |
C_G - "I ask at every GKP investors presentation about it, but haven't had a clear answer."
There's no reason why GKP would know the answer C_G, Paul Weir the CEO of Genel was asked the same question at an investor's presentation and he didn't know the answer either.
Negotiation of a new pipeline agreement is not something that the IOCs would be involved in, and if someone in the KRG had said something about it in private then an IOC certainly wouldn't be relaying it in public. Negotiations of contracts are not something you want in the public domain. If an IOC did talk about it or repeat something said in confidence they would be in trouble and that's something they're at pains to avoid.
So best to just plead ignorance. |
Habshan, I remember a board member of DNO the ex diplomat I can't remember his name, saying in an interview that notice has to be given, but he would be amazed if it hadn't been. Since then there's been no official confirmation of if or not. I ask at every GKP investors presentation about it, but haven't had a clear answer. |
This Amendment shall enter into force on the date of the receipt of the last written notification
by which the Sides inform each other through diplomatic channels that the internal legal
procedures required for entry into force of the Amendment have been completed.
This Amendment shall be valid for 15 years as from entering into force. The Sides start
negotiating the contract conditions upon request of any of the Sides two years before its
termination date. In the case where there is no need for new amendment/agreement this
Amendment shall be considered as extended for an additional 5 years period of time, unless a
termination note is sent in writing by one of the two Sides to the other 1 (one) year before the
expiration date of this Amendment.
-------------
If notice of termination is not given by either party 1 year prior to expiry date the agreement shall continue for a further 5 years is my understanding but I could be wrong. |
Neither side is under any obligation to announce that they have sent or received a notice of termination.
And the contract doesn't need to be cancelled, it expires, and when it does there will be no contract, and that means that Turkey can do as they please.
And as I've just explained it won't be rolled over, and any new contract will not enable Baghdad to interfere with Kurdish exports without their own exports being stopped.
A rollover is not an option. |
Yes agree it is a total stalemate as things stand but that doesn't mean KRG and Turkey can do as they please come Sept unless the ITP agreement has been cancelled.
I'm happy if notice of termination has been given but as I said there doesn't seem to be anything supporting this apart from the DNO boss making a random statement a few months ago. |
"or it's a rollover agreement for another 5 years."
Absolutely no point whatsoever.
The Kurds started independent exports in 2014 and for the next 9 years while Baghdad yelled and stamped their feet it all ran smoothly, and that included exports from Kirkuk.
Turkey wanted Kirkuk oil in the pipe because it was earning them transit fees and with the Kurds exporting theirs the Kurds were happy and everybody was making money which is what's supposed to happen and is what the ITP was built for at huge expense.
In 2023 Baghdad managed to stop all that when the Paris ruling about the loading of ships caused the pipeline shutdown resulting in the loss of exports from both Kurdistan and Kirkuk.
The agreement cannot be rolled over with a clause that enables Baghdad to unilaterally stop Kurdish exports because if they were to use it the Kurds would simply stop the flow of oil from Kirkuk.
If we can't export you can't export.
So NOBODY'S oil would flow, the whole thing would stop again and Turkey wouldn't get their transit fees.
A rollover wouldn't be in the interests of either Turkey or the Kurds and neither of them would allow it, and BP would sure as hell have something to say about it.
And Turkey want to renegotiate commercial terms, minimum throughputs, consistency of quality and as Baghdad NEVER even attempted to honour their contractual obligations the Turks want to talk about them as well.
Trying to do business with Baghdad under that contract has cost Turkey an absolute fortune in fines lost transit fees and nine years worth of grief and legal costs. Simply for trying to recover their investment. |
I do not think contract renewal will matter when one of the parties is in breach! |
Very large U.T ! |
Looks like KRG and APIKUR have checkmate over the ICG.Despite what a couple of clowns on here have previously said. I think their avatars both began with a B lol. |
So either Iraq or Turkey has already given notice of termination of ITP agreement (by Sept 2024) or it's a rollover agreement for another 5 years.
I'm starting to question what the DNO director stated as there has been absolutely no indication of either Iraq or Turkey issuing notice of termination.
Would be good to know either way, perhaps a question for Genel investor meets presentation next week but don't think it'll get answered directly. |
£4.20 is the whisper |
British Petroleum’s (BP) Iraq branch chief on Tuesday said “We are continuing negotiations with the oil ministry regarding the agreement on Kirkuk's fields. He noted they might finalize the deal with Baghdad at the beginning of February, adding that the project could “stimulate the local economy."
Up until now BP and the ICG have been saying that the contract is expected to be signed by the beginning of February, now it's "might" and that the project "could" stimulate the local economy.
"Could" is an interesting choice of word, how can a $27+ billion investment into a place like Kirkuk not stimulate the local economy, or does he mean "could" as in, if we actually sign up and do it.
“We are continuing [negotiations] with the oil ministry regarding the agreement on Kirkuk's fields,” he said.
I bet they are.
Well there are one or two loose ends after all, such as being asked to sign an illegal contract with the possibility of being dragged through the courts for years, with no export route and being asked to increase output to a million bpd which will be sold into the local market where it apparently fetches $30-40 a barrel.
And all of that depends on the Kurds and APIKUR being happy enough to open the pipeline and that depends on the shenanigans of the boneheads in the Iraqi parliament, and that is why I suspect the wording of the contract signature in "early February" has gone from "expected" to "might". |
Expecting a further JH holding RNS. . He is in place for 12 months now , the buyers required this contractually in place.Likewise Resn that deferred the local workforce windfall for 3 years in arrears , all part of the post acquisition transition planning.Fill yer boots .The most flagged takeover in history |
"You agree with my view that it is perfectly feasible that discussions have already taken place about extending/renegotiating the ITP contract. Which would of course render yours and the rest of the gullible suckers here views that Kurdistan would be able to "go their own way" in September null and void!!!"
Three things there Sarah.
a) - The fact that discussions about a new ITP agreement were taking place as long ago as September 2023 is not "your view" it's a FACT and that fact has been known on this board since then as I posted it up at the time.
b) - You've been wittering on for two years or more about Turkey and Iraq being able to renegotiate the ITP agreement and export Kirkuk crude without Kurdish participation. The fact that the THREE way meetings to discuss commercial terms, minimum flowrates, exports from Ceyhan etc. took place in Erbil with the participation of the KRG makes your arguement look rather stupid doesn't it. As I've been CONSTANTLY telling you Kirkuk oil CANNOT be exported without the approval and participation of the Kurds and that's why any renegotiation of the contract needs the Kurds and is why those meetings took place in Erbil.
If Turkey and Baghdad were going to cut the Kurds out of any new pipeline agreement they wouldn't have chosen Erbil to renegotiate the agreement would they.
c) - If the Iraqi parliament are unwilling to meet the demands of APIKUR and the KRG why can't the Kurds and Turkey export Kurdish oil without Baghdad as they did fot NINE years. As there will be no contract between Turkey and Baghdad for the use of the pipeline after September what will Baghdad be able to do to stop it.
It took Baghdad NINE years to stop it when there WAS a contract, what can they do when there ISN'T one.
Do explain. |
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
Hot Features
Premium
