Exclaibur vs GKP: Exxon vs Gazprom Takeover & Legal Battle & Stampede

Hello AUDIRS6, The RNS is fairly is pretty much self-explanatory (IMO): - "Provisional results indicate the oil gravity is similar to that found in the same formations in the Shaikan Block namely 15-18 API." Just join up the dots .... - "In line with the Sheikh Adi PSC, following the notification of discovery, the Operator will submit a Discovery Report ...". Oh dear, not another DISCOVERY. - "Gulf Keystone is the Operator of the Sheikh Adi Block with an 80 per cent working interest, while the Kurdistan Regional Government has a 20% ...". Oh dear again, only 80% - "Todd F. Kozel, Gulf Keystone's Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer commented ...."We are very pleased with the outcome of the second exploration well on the Sheikh Adi Block, which is in on trend with Shaikan, our major commercial discovery declared earlier this year. This most recent exploration success points to the significant potential for further growth and future synergies across our world-class acreage in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.". Will you guys please just LISTEN to Todd?: . ON TREND WITH SHAIKAN. (also review the SH-4 results on this side of that fault ..) . SYNERGIES ACROSS OUR WORLD-CLASS ACREAGE. (check the meaning of 'synergy') If Todd's shouting, then maybe it's ok for me to pipe up again too. GLA, BBBS P.S. I entirely agree with your stance on the court reporting AUDIRS6 - good man. ===== From advfn - pimpi 8 Nov'12 - 12:02 - 236899 of 236922 http://ftalphaville.ft.com/marketslive/2012-11-08/ PM Has the time arrived PM To discuss today's good news? BE Which is? PM That GKP has discovered even more oil of course! PM http://www.investegate.co.uk/gulf-keystone-petrol-(gkp)rns/sheikh-adi2-exploration-well-discovery/201211080700206097Q PM Terrific news PM This chap will be happy PM - The SA-2 well is an appraisal of the Sheikh Adi field which is next to GKP's much larger Shaikan field - Headline flow rate only is given: 4,235 bopd over four reservoir zones - The company had stated that it would be testing seven zones, so there appears to be some mismatch between that and the announced 4 zones - The headline flow rate should not be considered to be too signficant, but Kurdistan wells are often reported to have combined rates well in excess of 10,000 bopd - The field is complex, and fracturing of the reservoir is key to unlocking good quality flow rates; the SA-2 well was drilled on 3D seismic and the location was chosen to have a better chance of finding those fractures - The reality is that: the flow rate looks OK, it might be possible to achieve better rates (typical production wells in these formations are expected to start at c.10,000 bopd), and it is still early in the appraisal, but we think that this figure is likely to be taken as -ve in the market - The story is not helped by the ongoing legal case (vs. Excalibur), which continues to grind on, with judgement not expected until late Q1 2013 BE (We repeat, we do not endorse. Direct your ire to your favoured bulletin board and call us clowns there, so we don't have to read it. Thanks.) Business as usual. Except, our business - as evidenced by our multi-billion barrel onshore discoveries (plural) - is anything but usual in the oil world. Certainly in the 21st Century world of frontier exploration. The world's majors are moving in on our contiguous sea of oil like the flag-branded arrows in the opening credits of 'Dad's Army'. And yet we still get distracted by the minute of a changing order book and a few anonymous nobodies on an internet bulletin board who, perhaps understandably given the scale of our finds, do not have your best investment interests at heart. The court case is a regrettable distraction that, mercifully, seems to be showing itself for the (albeit expensive) charade that it undoubtedly is. GKP's message today is that the company is not letting the case constipate operations or progress. We keep adding massive value in the ground ... value that is clearly not reflected in the SP. Value that 99% of all other E&P prospectors would kill for. I continue to buy and hold. ======= Court impressions After having attended the court a few times over the last two weeks, just wanted to post some of my impressions of the characters involved. I cannot add to any of the brilliant posts that have summarised the proceedings so well, I have no idea how you manage to do that. Rex- Ah Rex, , so many times I have sat there thinking, when he has been caught out telling porkies, how human, how flawed, oh dear how like me. He comes over as a charming chancer, someone who makes friends easily, never forgets a friend, especially when they may come in useful , keeping their names tucked away in his Rollerdex, never too shy to ask a favour of them. An Arthur Daley type character moving from one scheme to another, too impatient to allow one to be a success before moving on to the next.. Never reading the small print of any document, barely even reading the large print of same document. Deluding himself that he is the greatest entrepreneur in the world, convincing himself that it is only a matter of time before he is richer than Warren Buffet and Bill Gate combined. In court he seems genuinely shocked at the forensic detail that JG is looking into and examining what to Rex, were just innocuous 'stream of consciousness emails'. A man several Mariana trenches out of his depth. Simon Picken - he has not said much on the days I have attended, but when he has spoken it reminds me of the scene in Oliver Twist in the workhouse, when he says 'Please sir, can I have some more?' He comes over as weak , obsequious almost to the point of being needful. JG dismisses his points with irritation and derision. But SP is a highly paid QC, so I tell myself this must be some sort of strategy, perhaps to endear himself to the judge, or to mislead the GKP witnesses into over confidence. Not sure, very baffling this one, will just have to wait until we hear more from him. JG- so impressive, he has complete mastery of this huge case, frequently remembering the shortest sentence in one of Rex's witnesses statements that has been contradicted by something Rex has said in court. JG often looks irritated by Rex giving evasive answers to his questions. JG reminds me of an old fashioned public school master admonishing one of his dimmest pupils over his appalling Latin homework. What makes me laugh is how often JG says Mr, then pauses as if trying to remember which one of the brats he is speaking to now before saying, Wempen. This contrasts to the times when he is accusing Rex of something, then the Mr and the Wempen, come out one after the other like high velocity bullets. The Judge - so calm, so serene, sitting above the fray. Sometimes he often looks bored, on one occasion taking out his wallet and counting the notes he had in there. But he is clearly on the ball, able to clarify in a few pithy sentences something that has become very complicated. As to how its going? I am a GKP shareholder so try not to get carried away with how well things seem to be going, but Rex is such a terrible advocate for his case, it is very difficult to not get carried away. So when this happens I think of a cricketing analogy; at the moment one team is batting, they are struggling, and look as though they are going to be bowled out for a very low score, it looks like the team batting second will win easily. However, it will not be until we see the other team bat that we are able to judge whether it was the conditions or the quality of the team batting first that led to their low score. ======= Is Turkey a new major in kurdistan By Patrick Osgood of Iraq Oil Report Published November 8, 2012 ERBIL - A new Turkish state oil and gas company is negotiating with Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdistan region to take stakes in several exploration blocks – a development that would signal dramatic headway for the Kurds in their quest for oil sector autonomy. No contracts have been signed, but four officials familiar with the talks confirmed that negotiations have reached an advanced stage. The new Turkish company is looking to enter at least five Kurdish exploration blocks, according to the officials, and the negotiations include some of the blocks being developed by ExxonMobil. As of publication time, Iraq Oil Report could not confirm the name of the new company or the details of the prospective deals, such as which blocks are under negotiation or what percentage stakes the Turkish company might take. The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) could not be reached for comment. If the deals go through, they will all but consummate a strategic reversal in Turkey's posture toward Iraq and its energy sector - away from Baghdad and toward the Kurdish capital of Erbil. Such a shift would represent a major victory for Kurdistan in its long-standing battles with Baghdad over oil and the balance of state power. Turkey has typically cultivated smooth relations with Baghdad under a foreign policy that has sought to minimize tensions with its neighbors. It has also historically discouraged Kurdistan's rising autonomy within Iraq, for fear of emboldening its own Kurdish minority to expect similar levels of independence. But Turkey's priorities appear to be changing. The uprising in Syria has further destabilized its southern border, and Turkey has anxiously watched as Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki – who has a famously antagonistic relationship with Erdogan – has cultivated close ties with Iran. Meanwhile, the country's burgeoning energy demand has pushed Ankara to look to diversify its supply mix away from reliance on Russia and Iran. In light of those developments, the KRG and its president, Massoud Barzani, have emerged as attractive allies. Turkey's role in Iraq's power politics Iraq's central government claims primary authority over oil policy, while the KRG has argued for greater autonomy. Both sides have signed dozens of oil and gas contracts under diverging interpretations of Iraqi law. The balance of power has traditionally favored Baghdad, since the central government has larger reserves, produces far more oil, and controls the network of strategic pipelines that are needed for large-scale exports, as well as the flow of revenues from international sales. Kurdistan's producers, on the other hand, have sold much of their oil to the Kurdish domestic market at about half the international price. They have also intermittently exported through Baghdad's pipelines under stop-gap agreements, but those have proven problematic, since the central government has been slow and reluctant to make payments to the KRG's contractors. In the face of Baghdad's opposition, the KRG has looked to Turkey as an alternative partner. In May, Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yildiz shared the stage as KRG Minister of Natural Resources Ashti Hawrami announced a series of pipeline plans that could link Kurdistan directly to Turkey, bypassing Baghdad's controls. Soon after, Turkey began accepting truck shipments of Kurdish oil products in a small-scale bilateral trade that Baghdad has deemed illegal. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has sanctioned the fuel trade, but his administration has not given the final approvals required for a large-scale KRG pipeline deal. Such plans would cross a red line for Baghdad, which claims sole authority to sell Iraqi oil and contends that any other trade is tantamount to smuggling. Indeed, Iraq's State Oil Marketing Organization (SOMO) is the only entity authorized by law to sell the country's crude, though Hawrami has recently begun to claim the KRG can legally do so, too. So far, Turkey has stopped short of taking the kind of large step – such as formally endorsing bilateral Kurdistan pipelines – that would inaugurate its economic patronage of the KRG and severely harm relations with Baghdad. A new era? If the current contract negotiations keep moving forward, the entry of a new Turkish state company into the KRG oil sector could be the leading indicator of a sea change in Turkey-Iraq relations. According to an oil industry executive from a company active in Kurdistan, the new Turkish company has already been registered outside of Turkey. Although it is separate from the existing Turkish state firm TPAO and its sister companies TPIC and BOTAS, the new company will have "the forces of government utilized in it" with staff drawn from the other state firms, according to another oil industry official with knowledge of the negotiations. The new Turkish company is also in the process of signing for offices in Erbil, according to three industry officials familiar with the company's preparations. The prospect of new Turkish oil deals with the KRG may already be harming Turkey's relations with Baghdad. On Wednesday the Iraqi Cabinet decided to exclude TPAO from an exploration contract it was awarded during the Oil Ministry's fourth contract licensing round, in May. Abdul Mahdi al-Ameedi, the director general of the ministry's Petroleum Contracts and Licensing Directorate (PCLD), said there were "no technical problems" with TPAO, but did not explain why the company had been removed. ============ Re: ‘[TK] also made an offer of 500k + a further 500K if oil was found which RW rejected … ------------- According to RW’s statement, the Excalibur team did not reject such an offer (assuming it was made) – 24.3 On January 22, 2008 Todd telephoned David to say that his previous offer of US$500,000/US$500,000 was Gulf Keystone's bottom line. The following day, David told Todd that Excalibur WOULD ACCEPT those financial terms subject to working out the terms of a written agreement. And of course, we know from the UBS emails that the brothers showed some excitement at the prospect of receiving $1m and an awareness that their position was ‘precarious’ to say the least – An email from EW to RW said "$1M is one hell of a good payday considering you could not get funding". I’m looking forward to next week and especially more revelations from the ‘UBS files’ that have appeared so late in the day. Do not be fooled by the current dip. I maintain that there is a small and ever-diminishing window of opportunity for Shaikan/GKP to be bought and operatorship transferred to develop the asset in a timeline that is necessary and critical for the KRG. That window begins with the removal of Excalibur and ends with the publication of Shaikan’s FDP and the booking of reserves. I will be holding when both boxes are ticked. 12 weeks might do it. The court case is something of a sideshow and the forces that be know that the uncertainty it precipitates will likely have presented them with this one final chance to prise out the weak, nervous, ill-informed and over-leveraged. Remember, there is great uncertainty too for those going short or selling to buy lower: how long will this case be upheld? And unless you know what’s in those court documents – or the UBS files – trying to grab 10 or 15p at this stage could be viewed as a heck of a gamble. ====== UPDATE 2-Abu Dhabi's TAQA in talks for Iraqi Kurdistan oil stake inShare0Share this Email Print Related NewsUPDATE 1-TAQA in talks over Iraqi Kurdistan oil stake - sources 5:08am EST Iraq says Exxon to quit oilfield, ends Turkey TPAO deal Wed, Nov 7 2012 Exxon seeks to quit flagship Iraq oil project Thu, Oct 18 2012 Iraqi Shi'ite militants fight for Syria's Assad Tue, Oct 16 2012Analysis & OpinionAs cold snap looms, Sandy sets NY up for a new fuel crisis Related TopicsEnergy » Industrials » Utilities » Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:15am EST (Adds quote from TAQA CEO) By Isabel Coles ARBIL, Iraq Nov 12 (Reuters) - Abu Dhabi National Energy Co (TAQA) is in advanced talks to buy a stake in an oil block in Iraqi Kurdistan by taking a majority interest in General Exploration Partners (GEP), industry sources said. GEP is a joint venture between privately-held Aspect Energy, which owns a 66.5 percent interest, with the remainder held by a subsidiary of Canadian group ShaMaran Petroleum. Industry sources said TAQA was close to purchasing Aspect's share of GEP, but it was not clear whether ShaMaran would sell its interest in the company. "I do not know that the deal is done yet, but it is all but done," one industry source said on Monday. An autonomous region since 1991, Iraqi Kurdistan is often touted as one of the final frontiers for onshore oil exploration and has signed deals with foreign majors such as Exxon Mobil , Chevron and Total. But those deals have angered the federal capital Baghdad, which rejects oil contracts offered by the Kurdistan region's government as illegal, and has blacklisted some firms that ventured north. TAQA CEO Carl Sheldon declined to comment on the GEP deal, but said Kurdistan was attractive: "We like Iraq, there's a range of opportunities in the Kurdish region," he told Reuters in an interview in Abu Dhabi on Monday. Earlier this year, TAQA bought a 50 percent stake in Kurdish power plant Chamchamal, having previously invested $46.6 mln in WesternZagros Resources to acquire 19.9 percent of the company, which has contracts for two blocks in the Iraqi Kurdish region. GEP was not available to comment. An Abu Dhabi source said the deal was "imminent", but gave no further details. GEP, which has an 80 percent stake in the Atrush block in Kurdistan, said in September it had found a combined flow rate of 42,200 barrels of oil per day. The other 20 percent of the block is held by Marathon Oil Corp. (Additional reporting by Stanley Carvalho and Amena Bakr in Abu Dhabi; Editing by Patrick Markey and Mark Potter) ============== INPEX, LUKOIL sign service contract for oil exploration in Iraq EBR Staff Writer Published 09 November 2012 Japan-based oil company International Petroleum Exploration (INPEX) along with Lukoil has signed a service agreement with the Iraqi State Oil Company for the onshore Exploration Block 10. Under the 30 years contract, which includes five years exploration period, the companies will carry out onshore exploration oil and gas activities including 2D seismic survey of 1,375km and drilling of an exploratory well on the block in Iraq. The service contracts were awarded to Lukoil and INPEX after the fourth Petroleum Licensing Round was conducted on 31 May 2012. The companies will recover their investment for petroleum activities when the commercial oil and gas production on the block begins. INPEX and Lukoil will receive $5.99 in return for each barrel of oil equivalent. Lukoil with 60% interest in the block will be the operator, while INPEX will own the remaining 40% interest. ============ Analysis: Oil service titans gaining power vs Big Oil Tue, Nov 13 04:21 AM EST By Braden Reddall (Reuters) - Albert Einstein once wrote that he would rather have been a plumber than a physicist because of the independence it would allow him. Faced with the growing power of big oilfield service firms - playfully derided as "plumbers" by some in the industry - many oil men might now feel the same way. Breakneck expansion across the energy business in the past decade has seriously leveled the global playing field, leaving the oil "majors" exposed to competition in areas where they once reigned supreme. One factor behind the shift is the emergence of the plumbers as guns for hire by anyone who needs their world-beating skills. The client lists of Schlumberger Ltd, Halliburton Co and Baker Hughes Inc increasingly bulge with state-backed national oil companies (NOCs) and ambitious "independents" - as oil companies without refineries are known. In the past, NOCs such as Brazil's Petrobras or Petronas of Malaysia may have relied more on one of the majors for their engineering expertise when developing an oil field. Now, they can go straight to a services company without having to offer equity in oil developments to outsiders. Schlumberger, the clear global leader in services, says national oil companies and independents account for three-quarters of the industry's capital spending. Among Schlumberger's top 30 clients, the share of 2010 revenue from majors was down to about 20 percent from 33 percent in 2002, while the NOC share had doubled to 32 percent. The reversal of fortune is clear even in deepwater drilling, or wells in 4,000 feet of water or more. A review of data on discoveries worldwide shows that, so far this year, only six of the 38 finds were made by the likes of BP, Shell or Eni, whereas majors made more than half the 26 discoveries in 2006, when deepwater drilling first took off. The wider oil game has changed so much that even Exxon Mobil Corp is left to sign simple fee-per-barrel deals, as it did in Iraq, with no provision for payouts to rise in tandem with oil prices, according to a report on the oil business from London think-tank Chatham House.

"Companies may think such deals give them a ‘foot in the door'," the report said. "But the handle remains on the inside."

Exxon is now exiting its $50 billion Iraq project in favor of a deal in autonomous Kurdistan to the north. Seasoned oil executives are certainly quick to caution against overstating the relative decline of traditional Big Oil.

Robert Herlin, the chief executive of Evolution Petroleum Corp who was a board member at services company Boots and Coots before it was bought by Halliburton, said services firms had to tread carefully when stepping into the shoes of the majors. "You don't want to be competing with your customers," Herlin said, adding that keeping up with new technologies took a lot of time and capital. "The services business is a tough business, because you're always at the tail end of the cycle." Still, the shifting balance of power is significant. Andrew Gould, who was Schlumberger's CEO for a decade before leaving this year, sees risks for Western oil majors if their drilling prowess is matched by the countries that have much of the oil. Having crossed the services divide to be chairman of oil and gas firm BG Group Plc, Gould warns that NOCs are ambitious and quick to learn. He said some boast a technical depth on par with the majors, which could even threaten Western energy security. "Unless we refocus, we're in danger of handing our technology lead irrevocably to the emerging petroleum nations," the UK-born executive said at the Chatham House report's launch last month. "And given our continued reliance on fossil fuels ... I'm not sure that this is very wise." In Brazil's case, Petrobras has built up so much experience in its ranks that it is even trying to build a services industry at home. "They see the size of their reserves and say 'We have lots of time in front of us, we can do it'," Gould said.

ARABIAN MIGHT For decades, anyone with oil ambitions felt they had little choice but to court a major, going all the way back to the firm that became Chevron Corp setting up the Arabian American Oil Company: Saudi Aramco, now the world's top energy producer. Would-be Aramcos today, or even those with less lofty goals, can buy much of the technology directly from services companies.

Alan Kleier, a Chevron executive who spent seven years in Angola, saw a dramatic change in how that country pushed for local hiring as it built up expertise, and said many of his staff gravitated to the NOC, Sonangol. But he believes majors still bring a lot to table in terms of technological expertise. "Do I think there's a day when they do it all themselves?" he said of Sonangol. "They may work toward that, and the day may come. But they're still probably years away."

So service firms fall over themselves to get close to NOCs. Near Aramco headquarters in Dhahran, Baker Hughes just opened a research center, while Schlumberger has been there since 2006. Schlumberger towers over others in its geographic reach and scale. After tripling in value in the past decade, it would rank among the top 10 market-traded oil companies by value; Schlumberger's market capitalization of $90 billion puts it within range of BP and Total. By comparison, Exxon grew by 162 percent in value in that time, and Shell 59 percent. The share of the top three services companies in the S&P energy index is now a tenth, up from 8.5 percent 10 years ago. Many national oil companies have clear advantages, not least the deep pockets of their state backers and an implicit home oilfield advantage.

In February, Petronas had Halliburton put a technical center in Kuala Lumpur focused on shale gas and oil, indicating its own ambitions in unconventional drilling. Petronas is also trying to buy Canada's Progress Energy Resources. Eric Gordon of Brown Advisory in Baltimore, which has about one-eighth of its $29 billion in assets in energy, said all this new competition for access to oil means contracts between oil-rich countries and the majors will grow less favorable still. "It's a concerning trend for anyone investing in the oil majors," he said, noting they already have to spend far more to get less because the "easy oil" is gone. "The capital intensity continues to rise, yet their ability to generate profitability relative to oil price movements has become less impressive."

TECHNOLOGY FOR ALL Independents, in a further blow to big oil's dominance, have led the way into crucial new developments such as North American shale gas. One such company is Ultra Petroleum Corp, whose CEO, Mike Watford, began his career with Shell. Watford said the rebalancing of research and development (R&D) spending over the years to the services companies had been a clear benefit for smaller players who could suddenly afford the latest technology. "Now I've got access to it," he said at a recent conference. "The service companies want less of a premium for it." Ranking industry R&D as a share of sales, Chatham House put service firms in the top six, then Petrobras and PetroChina, and two independents: Anadarko and Noble Energy. The cyclical churning faced by technology innovators has been made clear for Halliburton and Baker Hughes this year. Having spent heavily to build up hydraulic fracturing capacity, a collapse in natural gas prices left the industry oversupplied. For Schlumberger the relative impact of the gas glut was far less given its greater global reach. glut=• To flood (a market) with an excess of goods so that supply exceeds demand. The power to maintain steady prices is vital for the services companies, as Gould made clear at an industry conference in Houston back in 2009. Schlumberger's customers were grappling then with a dramatic drop in oil prices, and calling for service rate cuts to help out, to which he quipped: "When did the bill from your plumber last go down?" quip=A clever, often sarcastic remark (Reporting by Braden Reddall in San Francisco, Peg Mackey in London, and David Gaffen in New York; Editing by Patricia Kranz and Tim Dobbyn) ============== Iran oil liability fears grow as insurance ban bites Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:36 GMT Source: reuters // Reuters * Asian countries still importing Iranian oil * Legal suits in event of spill seen taking years By Jonathan Saul and Myles Neligan LONDON, Nov 14 (Reuters) - A ban on European Union insurers covering Iranian oil exports has forced shipowners to fall back on new, untested insurance providers, raising fears that governments may have to pay in the event of an oil spill. The July ban, part of a range of Western sanctions aimed at forcing Iran to scrap its disputed nuclear programme, has cut off the Iranian oil trade from Europe's so-called Protection and Indemnity (P&I) clubs, which account for the majority of cover for the tanker market. These specialist insurers dominate the market for insuring ocean going ships against pollution and injury claims, the biggest costs when a tanker sinks, leaving vessels transporting Iranian crude with limited alternative options. "The unavailability of reliable insurance is a risk for states, and particularly littoral states whose waters ships like this could be passing through," said Nigel Carden, deputy chairman of the UK P&I club. "If you have a spill off Singapore or Malaysia, we know those are extremely expensive, it is a significant risk." Europe and the United States are off-limits to Iranian exporters because of the sanctions regime, but Asian countries continue to buy its oil. Most ships serving this export trade have turned to Iranian insurer Kish, a newly created player modelled on the P&I clubs, or to state-backed insurance schemes set up by importing countries. The biggest potential drawback for vessels insured by Kish is that it may struggle to pay claims outside Iran because the sanctions prevent banks from channelling cash out of the country. "While we only speculate on the outcome, I would anticipate it to be problematic," said Samuel Ciszuk, analyst with British-based consultancy KBC Energy Economics. "Money transfers in and out of Iran are tough. There is a big question about their ability to stump up the money." Others doubt whether Kish, founded last year and dependent on reinsurance from a state-run body to cover the bulk of its liabilities, can provide the same degree of protection as western P&I clubs. Those P&I clubs use the world's top re-insurance companies to boost their capacity to pay claims. "The biggest question that Kish P&I poses ... is whether this newly established club is credible, financially reliable, and truly independent as it purports itself to be," said Emanuele Ottolenghi of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a Washington-based think-tank which has advised the U.S. government on sanctions against Iran. Tehran-based Kish did not respond to requests for comment. The insurer told Reuters in March it was confident it would be able to find a legal way around the ban on banks transferring money out of Iran. Kish says it can pay claims of up to $1 billion, matching the protection available from European P&I clubs, with all liabilities above $500,000 reinsured with state-run Central Insurance of Iran. SAFETY CONCERNS In the event of an uninsured spill, a maximum of about $800 million could be covered by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, a safety net funded by companies that receive shipments of imported oil in participating countries. Anything above that would likely be borne by taxpayers in the affected country. The costliest oil spill involving a tanker to date was the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska in 1989, which industry groups estimate has cost as much as $7 billion in clean-up expenses, fines, and penalties. "There could be major oil pollution involving a collision with a passenger ship as well, and then you'd have a nightmare scenario with a lot of loss of life, a lot of oil pollution, possibly a wreck removal," said Andrew Bardot, executive officer of the International Group of P&I clubs, whose members provide liability cover to 95 percent of the world's tanker fleet. "All of those liabilities would stack up to a very, very large sum of money and the bill would have to be picked up by the impacted states, and they certainly wouldn't be able to compensate victims to the level that we would," said Bardot. A state-backed insurance programme for Iranian oil shipments set up by key importer India covers third-party claims to a maximum of just $50 million, a fraction of the limit of up to $1 billion offered by P&I clubs. Industry sources say claims brought against the Iranian government through the courts will be lengthy and complex. "The problem is going to be collecting the money if there is a big spill," said Clay Maitland, managing partner with the Marshall Islands Registry, the world's third largest open ship registry. "It may take years, many years to collect. It might very well take 20 or 30 years of lawsuits or more to collect this money." Shipping officials say none of the alternative arrangements that have sprung up to fill the gap left by western P&I clubs offers a the same level of financial security. "It is apparent that ships can get insurance cover from some governments and some insurers," said Peter Hinchliffe, secretary general of the International Chamber of Shipping, which represents more than 80 per cent of the world's merchant fleet. "Unfortunately neither of these options offers the financial security provided by the International Group Clubs and this means that if there is an unfortunate incident the security of payment against claims may not be secure." The withdrawal from Iran of the world's top ship classification societies, tasked with verifying vessel safety and environmental standards, has raised other concerns over insurance cover. The companies, which exited due to sanctions pressure and fearing the loss of U.S. business, provided vital certification to secure insurance cover and ports access. Their departure has raised questions over whether Iran can keep up the previous top class maintenance of its oil tanker fleet. "Without any of the elite classification societies or insurance cover offering technical and financial services to those still moving Iranian crude, you have wonder what will happen should anything go wrong," said a senior ship industry executive. "The risks of an incident rise every time technical support is withdrawn from those who continue to ply this trade." =========== Maliki knows he is losing control of the KRG, Exxon voting with their feet and the Russian arms deal "cancelled" because Gazprom are not budging from their deal........sabre rattling IMO Time Price Volume Value Buy/Sell Type (key) 11:13 178.00p 115,000 £204,700 Buy O ========================================================================== Some ones not scared...... ===== Geo-dude I must admit I wonder who exactly is selling right now and why are they doing so? For all long term investors, we've faced two choices over the last few months. For any who thought that Excalibur had a strong case before the trial, they would surely have sold up at £2.40 or whatever it was a month ago. If you, like me and by far the majority of pi's, think, however, that Excalibur have a very weak case which will, hopefully, and rightly, get thrown out, then we do, as you say, nothing but sit patiently. We do so because we believe in the very high likelihood of a rapid price correction on the day this happens. There was talk before the case of a 30% collapse in the sp if Exc were to win....well, the sp has fallen pretty much that already over this time. I know markets don't like uncertainty but these trials take time and I just can't understand why anyone would bail out now if they hadn't already done so before the trial started. From what I've read on here (thanks to some amazing posters from the court room), things are not exactly looking too positive for RW and his (hopefully soon to be ex) mates. I realise not everyone can simply hang on to shares ad infinitum, but most buyers of GKP over the last few years have presumably bought for the potential it has offered, possibly over a very short time frame. Many of us have seen such huge daily gains (and susequent falls too) and I'm sure we all hope and expect to see them again.(the gains, that is) So, who are these sellers right now and why is the sp being continually drained away? Not me for sure. I'm sitting patiently. ============ wktfuture Hi Ren, it maybe that you are right about who to berate. The issue now though is who to support to protect your and my investment. I know who I am backing and it is not charlaton Rex the con man who is a tool in more than one sense, or his brother who appears to have use UBS to make possibly 25% of 'x' billion for his own personal gain. Neither Wempen has risked their life on the ground as Rex claims to have done. He seems to think Kurdistan was a war zone since the first gulf war. At least Todd Kozel has actually done some work. Noone here knows the whole story. That will be revealed. At this point I blame Rex and his brother and the backers. Paying them 1 cent would be a crime. == RW Cornered 111notout this is just my view from today in court. Rex is a former special forces soldier. He is tough and aggressive. He defers enormously when the judge intervenes. However he clearly has to restrain his temperament under grilling from JG . He was very keen to keep referring 'Prime' and JG equally seems ready later to come to this With enough bait I think JG could make him reveal himself as an aggressive operator - he was described as such today in his past business dealings. Day after day will take its toll IMO He is a trained fighter who can't match the mental fight he gets from JG hence the frustration shows So he could crack decisively Hope so ============= Last nights close......180.25p Opened at ..................180p Trade high..................192.12p ???....thats whats showing, delayed reported trade perhaps ?? Trade Low ..................174p Spread just before the Auction was 181.5----182.5 LSE, 4,587,084 AT's, 2,432,014 UT, 49,672 SP, 186.25p........... in a rising Auction Mikey ============ Obfuscation=Mental confusion. ====== BiggerPicture Court notes – Tue- 13/11/2012 – MORNING SESSION Usual caveats apply: Everything I report on below is subject to my own fallibility. Taking notes, whilst listening and not being legally trained could lead to any number of mistakes in my account below both in the essence and my understanding of the events in court today. Where it’s my own opinion I’ve mentioned, usually in brackets. I’ve also tried to include some exchanges word for word verbatim to give you a flavour of proceedings – again these may not be exactly correct, only the court transcript could be used for that purpose. Finally, a lot of it I have documented ‘as it happened’ rather than my reflections from the day – hopefully some rich material to pick over. Please read together with other attendees accounts to fill in gaps or add more meat to the bone. Please double check and cross reference names, dates etc. Sorry for any spelling/grammar mistakes. I hope that the notes are helpful for the majority of shareholders who can't attend these proceedings. I plan to attend the majority of court sessions where possible and will supply my notes in good faith. If anyone feels they want to chip in to help cover travel costs drop me an email at madiba201@gmail.com. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Email Eric to Rex – one option....Gulf prevents you to invest in SPV....Exc to invest in Gulf SPV deal ((SPV= Subsequently, the SPV will receive and transfer to noteholders the principal and interest accrued on the loan. Lancashire, a member of the Lloyd's of London insurance market, said it would raise the fresh funds through a special purpose vehicle (SPV), a tried and tested method which gives outside investors exposure to potentially lucrative business lines without diluting a company's existing shareholders. Lancashire said it would raise the cash through a Bermuda-based SPV - also known as a "sidecar" - allowing it to share the risks of certain policies with investors who in turn receive a portion of the premiums. The SPV, called Saltire Re, will underwrite a range of reinsurance products specifically for the January renewals - when it renews billions of pounds worth of contracts with its insurance company clients at the start of 2013. DAD SPV Company Limited's (DAD SPV) bonds at 'AAAsf(tha)' with Stable Outlook. )) JG – first sign, first mention Rex – no, Eric out of touch JG – when was previous discussion? With whom? Rex – Todd, Erbil Summer, can't recall using specific words JG – don't accept, purpose to buy time Rex – after disturbing email throwing out ideas. Yes, motivation JG – that was a carry Rex – would not characterize that way JG – wanted to renegotiate payment obligation, had no right Rex – no, did not attempt to JG – reassured by Todd that evening. Rex – yes Ref to Mr Patrick email JG – NDA emailed for signature to UBS as third party Rex – Exc have right to info, have to guard, UBS don't need to sign NDA, up to Exc to satisfy Ref to Rex transcript (Rex agrees, said before, but different context) Rex email to JP Jabalana – please execute NDA so we can get info to you Rex email to Tallal – I need you to sign agreement before handing out info JG – agreed to sign NDA? Rex – no, above sent at different times (long answer) JG – don't accept. Rex email to Pinho (14 Nov) – sign and return NDA so can forward to Gulf JG – no problem with this Rex – did have problem, did not want to slow down process Eric email to Pinho – need to send NDA to someone in legal JG – shows not much experience in process. You did not have any problem until realised how long would take Rex – other things also involved 1. NDA gave Gulf veto rights 2. language saying we are not included 3. Gulf putting themselves in way JG – Gulf had to get same from you. Rex email to Eric – somebody had to sign NDA JG – no problem with concept Rex – same answer UBS disclosure email – Sara McCloud (Pinho assistant) – Rex calling persistently Pinho reply – please ignore him....tell him he needs to speak to me JG – you putting pressure on here Rex – wanted to know nature of interest JG – no issue about title here (16 Nov) Rex – not at this point Email Pinho to Eric, copy Rex – already past to bankers, Rex should resist from calling everyone in department Rex – I was being a pest JG – because you knew signature bonus due Rex – trying to keep up with obligations Rex email to Pinho – thanks, will do, oil company has started breathing down my neck JG – another one of your 'motivational' emails. True? Rex – certainly Mr Patrick wanted to get moving. Ref to disturbing Mr Patrick email Rex – does not say need to move quickly, based on discussions on brother JG – Patrick made clear to Eric bonus paid, you said didn't know. Did you know or not? Rex – terms of PSC there in black and white, soft deadline, Patrick putting up roadblocks Email Pinho to Rex – this is not going to be a short process JG – optimism altered when you realised UBS will not come to party in time Rex – not right Email Rex to Eric – ask for number in Morocco JG – so you spoke on phone? Rex – cant recall Email Rex to Eric (forwards Pinho exchange) Eric email (14 Nov) – sounds silly, why need NDA when permitted to sell something you own by contract JG – delay causing problem. Rex – don't believe NDA needed Email Rex to Eric (enclosing draft to send to Todd) – asked for NDA for all investors, advised by council can take up to month JG – which outside council? Eric? Rex – don't know who said it, could have been Eric Ref to PSC – NDA obligation (explains) – states: not to be made unless third party entered into NDA JG – info owned by parties to PSC, not Exc Rex – Exc entitled to info under CA JG – recognise UBS had to sign NDA with Exc, so agree concept Rex – yes JG – you resisting idea when realise how long its going to take Rex – not happy yes, one of many reasons J – looking for excuses and short cuts, down to your own making, only started looking for finance too late Rex – disagree Patrick email to Rex – NDA to be completed by Exc (NDA industry standard) Todd witness statement – NDA industry standard Rex – wrong Mr Wilkinson (uncontested evidence) – appear to be standard NDA with no surprise Rex – don't believe proper in this case JG – revealing your ignorance, on what basis disagree? Rex – unnecessary language denying Exc's interest. NDA not necessary under CA JG – third person who disagrees with you Kinear, says standard and you should sign Email Kinear to Rex - ….standard practise JG – not standard procedure? Rex – Ian confused here, does not understand CA Patrick email – add NDA, please also send info on Exc as discussed Email Rex to Todd – belief all NDA identity issues with Exc settled two years ago, need info for our investors JG – misleading about funding here again Rex – Todd understands JG – you stone wall identity issues Rex – my rights under CA confused why Patrick asks for this after two years JG – you knew had to provide for MOL Rex – up to Gulf to inform MOL, willing to do what is necessary JG – if willing, why resist Rex – believe already provided all info JG – accounts, share holders info etc., provided any? Rex – no, small company, Gulf understood, providing valuable service JG – answer question, why not act on request for info Judge – what is being asked for? Rex – did not have much info, small company Email Eric to Rex – get stuff from Exc to Todd, avoid Ian. Need to get delay from Todd on funding for bonus. No way funding in two weeks JG – knew obligation to pay signature bonus Rex – reacting to Patrick email, Eric does not understand full situation JG – he knew exactly position Rex – would have been fine if had docs required JG – no difficulty going to Lazard and UBS without docs Rex – no, initial discussions Mr Codd expert witness statement – party to bid, expected to pay share of signature bonus, failure matter of fundamental concern, expected party to have committed funding for signature bonus JG – disagree? Rex – no JG – different to Exc? Rex – no, willing to pay our way Eric witness statement - ….unrealistic... JG – disagree with Mr Codd expert evidence? Rex – agree same timetable as partners, not two months earlier JG – saying your business plan misconceived (raise money afterwards) Rex – have letter from Credit Swiss now JG – date? Rex – relatively recent JG – should have played open cards, told Todd raising funding with investors, decided not to. Rex- would have, Todd fully understand our situation Email John Cooper (FD GKP) to Patrick (14 Nov), copy Macatish and Todd – looked up Eric, strange heading up financing for UBS, need to confirm in what capacity acting for Exc JG – beginning to sell a rat (after Eric email from UBS) Rex – confused, doesn't understand relationship JG – under impression UBS debt financing or giving bridging loan on asset Rex ...(missed answer) JG – Eric abused position. Gulf led to believe Eric sent in official capacity Email Eric prepping Rex for call with UBS – not appropriate for me to be there, UBS not supposed to be involved yet MORNING BREAK Email Rex to Eric – we will sue them....needs to understand which way legal momentum is... JG - week since PSC signed, convinced in middle of legal drama, focus on litigation Rex, no, hoping not the case JG - “legal momentum” - what did you mean? Rex – hope not trying to breach agreement Email Eric to Rex - draft of email to Todd, get email receipt when you send it JG – Eric creating paper trail Rex – don't believe Judge – says need to document everything Rex – yes, agree if suggesting JG – for purpose of future litigation if happens? Rex – yes JG - “their delays may save us” - from what? Rex – Eric still under misimpression to pay signature bonus JG - “ are themselves open to suit, never kept you in the loop” - your understanding? Rex – not providing info needed to get started, Gulf not adhering to same time line JG – pure advocacy, moving on Reference to email – (long email, Judge and Rex asked to read in own time) JG - “delays in proving basic deal info preventing me from raising capital near time” - with which specific sources? Which banks? Rex – all in general JG – suggest not impeded by any banks. “letter of acknowledgement....can not operate without” - which institution asked for this? Rex – not any, request by UBS on 15th, Gulf Finance house, JP Jabalana JG – don't accept. “easy fix Gulf to execute DOA” what required fixing? Rex – relationship with Gulf JG – so Gulf excluded if not signed Rex – disagree, will sign to get moving, to get job done JG - “don't understand need for geological data to be confidential” - unrealistic? Rex – don't think, entitled under CA JG – agreed NDA had to be signed by UBS. What is “confidentiality waiver”? Rex – agree not to disclose between us and UBS JG – “UBS estimated 3 – 4 weeks before approval” - basis for statement? Rex – standard practise, don't recall, general knowledge, must have heard from somewhere. JG – “preventing me from fundraising, can't even address basic business issues” - grounds for making statement? Rex – would need proof of 30% in oil field JG - “would have to validate everything on initial discussion” - surely initial meeting, then NDA, then send info? Rex – disagree (long answer) JG – Exc signed NDA Rex – under protest JG – would have signed anyway. “issue with NDA has foreclosed discussions with primary sponsor for time being” - how? Rex – delay may have caused, intended to get process moving JG – why 'primary sponsor'? Rex – only one interested JG – another misleading statement Rex – energy department requested info. Primary possibility at that time JG – using NDA issue as pretext to not paying signature bonus Rex – No JG – suppose you had acknowledgement letter at time, what would have been different? With who would you have moved forward? Rex – could have contacted multiple institutions JG - “can't be made to pay bonus until meeting with our joint operating committee under CA” - no obligation on Exc until meeting, right? Rex – yes, certainly always intending to get on with process JG – not aware any documents prior to this where structure discussed Rex – no, up to bankers JG – calling for “adjustment”, what is this? Judge – suggests alteration to something, what is it? Rex – speaking about structuring Exc investment to whatever is convenient for Gulf JG – paper trail attempt Email Eric to Rex – only waiting game now, need to wait....can't speak to UBS JG – blatant attempt to create paper trail. Could speak to UBS Rex – not attempt to create legal record. Incorrect assertions here 15 Nov Chris Pinho call with Rex tomorrow – UBS will not sign unless trade to be done....future opportunities.... Rex reply – will be there JG – why say “don't be overly aggressive”? Rex – paternalistic, friend of ours, referring to me calling over and over JG – you aggressive Rex – why successful Email Eric to Rex – your aggressive approach got you in trouble in past.... Rex – mischaracterisation, also says approach successful in Iraq Email Eric prepping Rex for call to UBS energy Department – (JG ask Judge & Rex to read) JG - “suggest provide Todd with all info on Exc” - 2nd time asked, you resistant Rex - thought unnecessary JG - “everything in Todd's court as far as disclosure” - preparing for litigation? Rex – can't say JG - “since there's no way to provide funds by Dec 6” - Eric clearly under impression Rex – commenting on Patrick's request JG - “if they (UBS) don;t go for it, you have additional back-up for legal case since you have nothing to show” - so if Exc can't get funding, blame Keystone Rex – mischaracterisation, taken out of context JG – contemplating legal case Exc would have found backing but didn't have docs Rex – saying Gulf breached CA JG - “may be hard without info, but that is what NDA is for” Rex – not sure needed, brother may be wrong JG - “if they ask for info...investment will be through new Exc company” - new company with equity? Rex – what is suggested LUNCH -------------------------------------------------------------------- 13th Nov/ 2012, Tuesday 21:59 Court Notes - Tue 13 Nov - Afternoon session Court notes – Tue- 13/11/2012 – AFTERNOON SESSION Usual caveats apply: Everything I report on below is subject to my own fallibility((1. Capable of making an error: Humans are only fallible)). Taking notes, whilst listening and not being legally trained could lead to any number of mistakes in my account below both in the essence and my understanding of the events in court today. Where it’s my own opinion I’ve mentioned, usually in brackets. I’ve also tried to include some exchanges word for word verbatim to give you a flavour of proceedings – again these may not be exactly correct, only the court transcript could be used for that purpose. Finally, a lot of it I have documented ‘as it happened’ rather than my reflections from the day – hopefully some rich material to pick over. Please read together with other attendees accounts to fill in gaps or add more meat to the bone. Please double check and cross reference names, dates etc. Sorry for any spelling/grammar mistakes. I hope that the notes are helpful for the majority of shareholders who can't attend these proceedings. I plan to attend the majority of court sessions where possible and will supply my notes in good faith. If anyone feels they want to chip in to help cover travel costs drop me an email at madiba201@gmail.com. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric email prepping Rex - ...do not discuss idea of fund, unless that is what they want....will look like you want to be more than you are... JG – did you follow advice? Rex – yes JG – did you follow advice in telephone conversation with Latimer? Rex – yes JG - “if they ask for documents today....send copy of our joint bid agreement” - clear UBS not previously asked for documents Rex – disagree JG – what docs did UBS ask for in telephone conversation on 16th? Rex – acknowledgement docs, work plan, signed PSC, standard things JG – In telephone call?, same docs? Rex – yes Email Rex to Eric (debrief after phone call) – small deal size, pass to other parts of bank Rex – wanted to pass off to other parts of bank Judge – where were they based Rex – Houston JG – so others may be interested? Rex – IPO, private placing (( NDA=Non-Disclosure Agreement - NDA UBS is one of the world's largest private banks with operations in more than 50 countries. UBS also provides asset management and investment banking, as well as traditional banking services in its home country of Switzerland. Nordea (NDA.ST), a Nordic bank, and DBS Group Holdings (DBSM.SI), southeast Asia's largest bank by assets, have already said they do not want to become a U.S.-regulated dealer. UBS Global Asset Management (Singapore) Ltd 9/25/2006 250 49 qualified foreign institutional investors (QFIIs) and their quotas. )) JG – Rex evidence day 7 “NDA denied equity interest, banks saying buying into lawsuit” Reference to email NDA to UBS – language unacceptable JG – language positive, not negative, shows possible acquisition of Exc into PSC. Any funder would accept if Exc have no funding, no interest Rex – disagree, not dependant on funding, stems from CA JG – could say interest depend on ability to pay, what's wrong with saying that? Rex – agree in principle JG – idea put off by language wrong Rex – disagree, denies interest Email Rex to Eric (16 Nov) – spoke to Todd, not going to screw out of deal, need to sign NDA, every analyst looking for detail of deal, do we need to alter NDA at all? JG – 2 NDA's, 1 for UBS & 1 for Exc Eric reply – last thing they need is lawsuit....OK with NDA with UBS. Yours still needs to be changed JG – no changes needed to UBS NDA Rex – appears to be saying this JG – idea of how parties would react to NDA eluded Eric at this time Rex – disagree JG – false belief Gulf would rely on language of Exc NDA. Your fantastical concern Rex – agree, had other concerns JG – perception if signed, sets precedent to kick out of deal Rex – situation forced upon us JG – when did Gulf rely on NDA to kick you out of deal? Rex – not relied on it until this case JG – don't rely on it in this case Rex email to request change to language in 3rd party NDA=Non-Disclosure Agreement - NDA (20 Nov) – we had own outside council.... JG – Eric? Rex – don't think so JG – if was, misleading? Rex – would be mistake JG - “with respect to NDA for sponsors....improper reference to Exc” possible acquisition to interest vs acquisition in interest... (sorry, missed this bit) Rex witness statement – I explained passed to council by which I meant Eric... Rex – Eric talking to other people JG – what interest would you say you had? What form has it taken if asked? Rex – under CA JG – why did you never show anyone CA? Rex – didn't have doc to link to PSC JG – could be recognised by simple press release if as clear as you say. Had materials in hand, never tried Rex – disagree JG – no record of Exc ever saying to anyone that any fundraising ever been hampered by language of NDA Rex – don;t see how that follows JG – no record of Exc ever saying to anyone that any fundraising ever been hampered by letter of acknowledgement – inexplicable Rex – rights denied JG – no record of Exc ever saying to anyone that any fundraising ever been hampered by absence of evidence of title. Why no record? Rex – mischaracterisation of record in extreme. Screaming at them to give us docs JG – never said one thing held us back, no record JG – 3 Dec meeting with Todd, asking for more time to come up with money, you didn't say to Todd in this meeting lack of title preventing fundraising Rex – basic case is Gulf ignoring interest JG – that's preventing you from raising money Judge – what are you saying? Rex – being led down garden path Judge – so saying fact wasn't title prevented from raising money Rex – yes JG – so why not mention in 3 Dec meeting? Rex ...(missed answer)... JG – no record of any 3rd party ever raising concern or reservation on Exc's lack of title Rex – efforts stone walled, same concern in Prime experience JG – your choice not to be on PSC, Prime wanted you on PSC, who's fault was that? Rex – didn't see as issue at time, left to Todd Email Rex to Kinear (16 Nov) – they need to send me DOA=Delegation Of Authority from Gulf....we have to agree... JG – why desperate to get? Rex – Patrick requested JG - “time-line” - you dictate? Rex – always intended to pay Email Todd to Kinear (copy Rex & Patrick) 2 days later – ball in your court, waiting for your response Rex forwards to Eric Eric reply - you must execute agreement, so no one can blame you, provide info on Exc JG – so Eric's advice to sign, didn't provide info Rex – signed NDA under protest, didnt provide further info, Gulf already had Email Rex to Kinear - ….need them to sign DOA... JG – anxious to get signed. Knew without it you had no contract with Gulf Rex – anxious to keep up with fundraising obligations. Todd & Patrick saying different things JG - “he has delayed fundraising by month already” - true? Rex – see that was an exaggeration Email Kinear to Todd/Kabindi (16 Nov) – sad email....thought we crossed bridge...serious issues...Rex built strong alliance with bank...need Rex to hold DOA from Gulf....call Rex so you can have money and deal tied up... JG – you told him strong alliance with bank? Rex – Kinear confused here JG – misrepresents position (effect of email) on Exc funding to receiptians Rex – agree JG – important Gulf sign DOA, you told Kinear that MID AFTERNOON BREAK Email Kinear to Rex (16 Nov) - ….lack of communication....need NDA.....in Gulf's interest for Exc to come up with money, not trying to squeeze out.... JG - “in Gulf's interest for Exc to come up with money, not trying to squeeze out” - correct? Rex – no, in Gulf's interest to have larger equity share JG – how is Kinear misreading this? Rex – doesn't understand intend of Gulf Email Eric to Rex - ...Todd seems to be on your side again....more time to raise money... JG – jumping to conclusion before “squeezing out of deal”, melodramatic Judge – Mr Patrick's position, not clear who he spoke to regarding DOA and what was said Rex – spoke to Eric on 13th, Eric pass on info to UBS energy group. Eric emailed summary, signed DOA issue cropped up. We don't think necessary. Gulf had leverage on us, so just asked for acknowledgement and we'll sign DOA for partial transfer Judge – puzzled. Say didn't think DOA necessary. Were you aware of provision in CA “no transfer without DOA”? Rex – yes, aware of this. No intention to withhold. Gulf to send to us if wanted....we signed. Attempting to rectify situation Judge – point Patrick making Gulf not party because not signed Rex – don;t believe he thought that, said simple notification would be fine. I can only block 100% transfer Judge – 2 questions. Can Texas make assignment (less than 100%)? When becomes effective (when deed executed) Rex – don't dispute, in power of Texas to transfer when wanted Judge ...(sorry, missed what he said here) Rex – don't make sense to us at time JG - “Todd knows you can bring heat with big boys which you certainly can” - what you mean? Rex – bringing large institutions to table JG – litigation in mind...”put in a good legal position” - how do you understand? Rex – idea brother has JG – reference to Plan B to sue, because couldn't raise money because of Keystone Rex - disagree JG - “got some extra time to raise funding” - meaning? Rex – don't know at time Kinear to Todd (copy Ali) - ….seems communication issue....NDA right and proper. UBS have agreed in principle to lend funds.....lending tightening up... JG – under impression UBS will be lending funds. Where did you get from? Misleading Rex – was incorrect. Kinear confused here, not on purpose JG – consistent misrepresentation by you to Gulf. Constant pattern of exaggeration on fundrasining process Email Rex to Kinear (18 Nov) – find requested docs: NDA (amended, info requested on Exc....provide it to sponsors JG – how many NDA's provided at this stage? Rex – can't recall JG – acknowledge MOL concern here? Rex – no JG – if you & MOL to be parties to JOA=Joint Ownership Agreement (various companies), they would want to know more about you, JOA with Exc, not Exc's sponsors Email Patrick to (?) - not in agreement...would allow data to be passed without our control....info sent on Exc very brief Rex – Patrick has known us for many years, find confusing JG – what's wrong with asking for info from Exc? (not Exc sponsors) Rex – up to Gulf to explain our position JG – MOL wanted to know more about you, what's wrong with asking info? Rex – dealing through Patrick. Not acknowledging interest JG – putting up smokescreen of bogus reasons. If MOL future partner, what's wrong with asking info? Say in witness statement email was outrageous Judge – which was amended NDA that was sent from Wempen to Patrick? JG – will provide Email Rex to Kinear (19 Nov) – what happens if we have 150 potential investors? Not about to give them my bank details, neither would you.... JG – not providing any more info Rex reply to Patrick (discuss NDA) - ...as for other info you seek regarding Exc....changes to structure of investment....many of our sponsors are seeking passive investment.... JG - “changes”? Rex – mistake in my use of word “change” JG – seeking to make changes Rex – seeking to cooperate JG – Exc funding vehicle in Gulf vehicle, so Exc investors. “many of our sponsors”? Rex – zero, only potential JG – how many seeking passive investment? Rex – by definition, passive through vehicle JG – not Prime, said they wanted member on operator committee. How many seeking passive investment? Rex – zero JG – so double untruthful Rex – language not best, trying to fundraise at this point JG – assuming you're in relationship with MOL, how would info about Gulf help MOL in relation to Exc? Rex -If we're in agreement with Gulf OK Email Patrick to Rex – NDA acceptable....sign and return, will send info on Shaikan JG – engaged in plan to steal deal? Rex – follow instructions from Todd, or done on own, don;t know JG – when signed, Patrick sent you info Rex forward email to Eric – No go.....easier way to do this, give me 20 mins JG – what did you mean? Rex – don''t know JG – my lord, progress not as fast as expected, doing my best END OF DAY ============================== Nov 26th/ 2012 Divevally The viewpoint from the train home........ Having taken time to occasionally attend proceedings in court 15 and witness first hand an aspect of the GKP story we all could have done without it struck me that today's body language appeared somewhat altered from initial commencement of a taking of the witness stand by RW (I welcome others thoughts) and it seemed evident that JG's careful structuring of questions and systematic backing into a corner approach were perhaps now taking their toll? Less swagger and self confidence as it appeared to those regularly seated perhaps ...from the earlier days when Eric Wempen received a hearty and hefty slap on the back from his brother Rex as he went to first take the stand (such a strange thing to do I thought myself?). Careful probing and well thought out questioning were followed up by the usual revealing email that often got to the heart of the matter of JG's thrust of argument and it seemed evident to those in attendance that a simple yes or no would have sufficed..but as usual no such quick and easy reply was to be forthcoming. Rather the careful drawn out water sipping "round the houses" reflective answer often to JG's angst. Nevertheless a little more probing (and occasionally interjection by the judge) brought forth an eventual response of clarification. The matter/timing of the MOL (possible) approach made (in such a roundabout way) was touched on at some length today, I'm sure those who took notes will elaborate more fully here later but the (not intended?) manner in which they were approached was gone into in some depth (the approach itself was perceived in a less than welcome light by either MOL ..or by TK suffice to say). Email here was very telling and JG seized the opportunity to refer to it to good effect (as always!) So a slight mood change perhaps ...or as has been commented on ..a bit of an in depth grilling. A combination of both perhaps? Job well done JG. During the lunchtime recess a casual chat by one of the many private investors (I've had the pleasure of meeting) revealed he was rather frail and in his seventies and was greatly worried over his somewhat significant investment... pondering the wisdom now of this case coming to court but like him and many others we have formed our own opinions and greatly benefitted from attending and seeing for ourselves the sharper end of the unfolding GKP story. It's a trip worth doing if you can to see reaction and body language that reporting cannot truly reflect! Usual caveats apply/a perceived view by casual observer only and no reliance/inference intended.DYOR. GLA. DW. =========== Seebeeargh Any week day from now till 20th dec except 14th Rolls building fetter lane London 9.30 for 10am We're obvious in pret from 8.45, not that we're cool. Maybe daft Today I got the feeling of de ja vu only EW was waffling like RW used to. Ps Drank loadsa beer, good times with the crew, nice Thai with Tony, Sarah and Stef Sleep this one off, tomorrow is another day. Pops Wed is day when disclosed 'stuff' is discussed in public. Regards from the yha Nige =========== Lots of Choice andrewsr 26 Nov'12 - 22:00 - 241237 of 241245 4 0 I’m afraid I didn’t take verbatim notes and it was quite difficult to follow today as Eric seems to be harder to pin down than Rex, but just a few recollections from today: 1. E-mails presented where Eric was signing himself off as ‘Director and Counsel’ and so was probably mis-representing his true position as a junior tax lawyer (my interpretation). 2. It was suggested that Excalibur had left it very late to raise finance in spite of knowing earlier in the year (2007) that funds would be needed. 3. Excalibur was aware that $25m was required as a start-up (bonus) fee, but gave conflicting evidence about whether they were paying the full amount or 25% (£7.5m). Eric claimed if he had known it was only $7.5m, it wouldn’t have been a problem to raise that amount. 4. There was discussion about the need for a Joint Operating Agreement and the complication of having MOL involved in the PSC. 5. There were e-mails around 14-15th November where Exc were claiming that GKP were causing delays even though it was only 1 week after the PSC had been awarded and 3 weeks still remained to pay the bonus sign-on fee. Exc appeared to be already preparing for litigation and the supposed delays would ‘save’ them. 6. The judge intervened to ask what was meant by ‘save’ them, i.e. saved them from what? I think the implication was that it saved them from having to pay anything before 6 Dec and provide grounds for their planned litigation (my interpretation). The usual caveats apply regarding legal advice, as I’m not qualified to give it or any interpretation of events. ========== Hi CJ, "Yes but the KRG keep removing the PSC.s on blocks like one you were talking about previously, but i wonder who has the all the details that have been removed since the trail was picked up." You could try http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://krg.org This has 536 instances of http://krg.org website going all the way back to January 25th 1999. It is not only e-mails that leave a trail GLA BF =============== Doctorh Just landed back at Dr H Towers after an amusing day’s excursion to Old London town. I had to do my ‘proper’ job between the hours of 12 and 3pm, but was lucky enough to able to attend court for the morning and later afternoon sessions. I have a few more detailed notes from those sessions, which I will hopefully get chance to post some time tomorrow, but in essence there was nothing startling today IMO. It involved the TKI lawyer demonstrating that, time and time again, the Wempens were, at best, naïve and optimistic. In reality, they were perhaps rather deceitful in their dealings and statements when it became clear they would not be in a position to fund their share of the PSC….indeed, one could almost deduce that they were acting with, let’s just say, ‘litigation aforethought’. Surprisingly enough, EW strenuously denied such allegations. Even when cornered by MC – as he was on numerous occasions – he would find a suitably vague answer such as ‘I’m not sure I agree with that characterisation…’etc etc. If you’ve been following the case, you’ll get the picture- the family seem to have accumulated a good stock of stock non-committal one-liners! Anything of relevance I will post in more detail tomorrow, although frankly there is nothing to get particularly excited about. By far the best part of the day was scurrying off to the Cheshire Cheese at close of play to have a few drinks with, amongst others, Oilman & Sarah, A4tlo, Seebeearrgh, 111NotOut, Zoso75 and SimonFishybits (of Twitter fame). I would reiterate that the best thing about being invested in this stock at the moment is that I have managed to meet so many really good people as a result…. all of whom, to the best of my knowledge, are hanging onto their GKP shares come hell or, - rather topically in view of current weather conditions - high water.... ==== Author scaramouche Monday 18:33 Subject When two become one.... Amongst the ‘pointless speculation’ which seems to have captivated everyone this afternoon, I notice that there was a reference made to FIVE backers of Excalibur, so I thought I would add some 'spice' of my own. Maybe I have missed one, but my understanding was that there were only FOUR backers reported to date, namely: 1. N.S. Lemos & Co. (a Greek shipping company) 2. BlackRobe Capital (a specialist litigation fund from New York) 3. Platinum Partners (a multi-strategy hedgefund /litigation funder from New York) 4. ‘Hamilton’ from Delaware (I’m still unclear who this is, so if anyone knows perhaps they could post a link). So, the following extract from one of bobobob’ excellent posts from court bobobob5 - 25 Nov 2012 - 19:59:38 - 240979 of 241207, caught my eye... >>>From page 2 of my notes from Wednesday: GKP barrister: "Platinum and Back Robe. Where did you meet them?" Rex Wempen: "Their representative sat in Court in the audience" (he then confirmed the person's name as "Harvey") Rex Wempen: "I saw him here, I can't recall meeting him in the US"<<< What I found particularly interesting was that Rex clearly inferred then that there was only ONE person (‘Harvey’) representing TWO theoretically entirely distinct firms whose only apparent link was that they both hailed from New York. The research on this board appears to have shown that our Jewish friend from court who has been following the trial very closely is Harvey Werblowsky and that he is representing the interests of Platinum Partners a firm run by Mark Nordlicht and Uri Landesman http://www.platinumlp.com/ (Note: as an aside all 3 of these people went to Yeshiva University in New York, so maybe it was a bit like the ‘old school tie’ connections we often see in the UK from ex-colleagues who first met at Oxford or Cambridge.) Anyway, it seems very obvious that ‘Harvey’ is taking a theoretically 'legitimate' interest in following the progress of Platinum’s interest in the case, whatever percentage that might be. But what of BlackRobe? According to their website, http://www.blackrobecapital.com/ the principals involved there are Timothy Scranton, Sean Coffey and Michael Chepiga. As previously documented, they do also use “several retired former litigators” but I have found nothing to connect Harvey with them. So, on that basis, Rex’s statement seems very puzzling to me! All I have managed to come up with to potentially ‘connect’ BlackRobe and Platinum is a conference in March 2012 at which several representatives of Blackrobe ( including Messrs. Scrantom and Coffey) were present along with Harvey (representing Platinum). http://www.infocastinc.com/downloads_pdf/lit12_agenda.pdf It proves nothing of course but the document is quite interesting in itself as it shows quite a bit about how these companies ‘think’. These two discussion topics in particular sounded quite revealing…. 1. Perspectives on Ethical, Social, and Moral Issues in Financing Litigation >>>This panel of legal experts and scholars will examine the use of litigation finance in the US legal system, weighing its benefits such as increased access to justice and risk-sharing, against perceived risks of violating principles of champerty and maintenance, introducing conflicts of interest and confidentiality in the lawyerclient relationship and its potential to encourage/discourage settlements.<<< 2. Are Additional Protections and Policy Changes Needed—And Likely? >>>Litigation finance has generated criticism from business groups and consumer advocates who have called for policy changes that might have a chilling effect on investment. What functions might require additional regulation? Should such regulation be provided through financial services regulation, legal services regulation, consumer protection regulation or a combination thereof? If regulation is increased in commercial, consumer litigation finance or both, how can it be designed so that it accomplishes its specific purpose without engendering unanticipated consequences? <<< Hopefully, Judge Clarke will also be considering how similar issues are impacting many of us on this side of the pond and why Rex says that Harvey is in court to represent the interests of TWO of the funders. And hopefully too His Lordship will be very happy to deliver a few UNANTICIPATED consequences of his own! GLA, scaramouche ===============