Excalibur vs GKP Litigation-III:Takeover & Legal Battle to control Kurdistan Resources

duffs55 today 08:17 bobobob5 23:11 - 238215 of 238244 bobobob5 14 Nov'12 - 23:11 - 238215 of 238244 (moving ahead to page 11) GKP barrister: "8874 Rex Wempen - Eric Wempen emails. 'The fact that the K RG won't approve is an excellent point to include in your submission to counsel'" Rex Wempen: "Eric believes that the other party has breached their agreement with us, he believed that we were facing a hostile party" GKP barrister: "Please don't make a speech. You are seeing the K RG opposition as not an obstacle to overcome, but something to use with counsel" Rex Wempen: "I agree in part" GKP barrister: "You and Eric are on the same page. Your only aim was to collect information for a Court case" Rex Wempen: "I disagree" GKP barrister: "It was no harder to get KRG approval to Excalibur at a later time than at the ground floor" Rex Wempen: "I disagree" GKP barrister: "It is a standard oil exploration principle, on ground floor terms you pay your share of past costs" Rex Wempen: "Yes" GKP barrister: "And you have to pay your share of the signature bonus by 6 December. What was objectionable about saying you had to pay your share of the signature bonus by 6 December?" Rex Wempen: "I disagree, nobody else was paying by 6 December" GKP barrister: "The signature bonus at that time, as at 23 November. The expectation was that it would be paid by 6 December" Rex Wempen: "Not unreasonable, but nobody else was being asked to pay, all of a sudden we were faced with our worst fears being met" GKP barrister: You were consistently told by everyone at Gulf that you had to pay by 6 December. H31 8587" Rex Wempen: "They are not recognising our interest" GKP barrister: "What is objectionable about the offer of a potential 24% assignment to Excalibur?" Rex Wempen: "Overall it's objectionable. Should have we were entitled to a 30% share of GKP" GKP barrister: "You had some intrinsic objection to Excalibur being on the PSC" Rex Wempen: "That is mischaracterising the point I was making, we wanted to be part of the consortium" GKP barrister: "What was the problem with Excalibur being part of the PSC. Assume no problem with rejection. Then: what is the problem with Excalibur being part of the PSC after the fact?" Rex Wempen: "We have existing title" GKP barrister: "The objective was to get you on the PSC, what could be better than that? Would Excalibur have wanted to be on the PSC or not?" Rex Wempen: "If we thought...(something)...agreed" GKP barrister: "Your last answer is: Excalibur agreed to be on the PSC" Rex Wempen: "We had to have our existing rights recognised" GKP barrister: "But your indirect rights..." Rex Wempen: "I fundamentally disagree" Judge: "I don't understand this. These were proposals to be on the PSC. You say a contradiction in terms. On the PSC = direct rights. And also at the same time you cannot also have an indirect right" REx Wempen: "We have part of the consortium, our partners recognise that, taking away an asset of great value 24% of the block. This is not at all the same thing. If our indirect rights were recognised, and invested to turn them into direct rights, then I don't think we would have had a problem" (usual caveats apply) (page 14) GKP barrister: "Mr Kozel was acting perfectly reasonably and in good faith" Rex Wempen: "I disagree. It doesn't mean that war hasn't been declared" GKP barrister: "Declaration of war, is it? Todd had put the data ready to send to you" Rex Wempen: "It is a declaration of war because he is supporting a denial of our interest" GKP barrister: "Todd Kozel never repudiated Mr. Patrick's...(bob: I think gathering of the materials for Excalibur). Why is it a declaration of war?" and then to: Repudiate=To reject emphatically as unfounded, untrue, or unjust: GKP barrister: "H32 8787. 'M afia-like behaviour': Timelines (etc). Fraud risk US and UK law, Criminal n the US. Give Kurds and Hungarians to veto our participation. We didn't even want our participation to be mentioned'. You were acting in an uncontrolled, aggressive and unbusinesslike manner" Rex Wempen: "Mr Kinnear was my friend and colleague who brought me into the deal with Gulf, showing that I am irate, asking for his help" GKP barrister: "You hear what you want to hear, and you ignore what you don't want to hear. Mr Kinnear said 'I believe that this email is 90% correct'" Rex Wempen: "He didn't understand" GKP barrister: "The timescale is placed out of frustration and is unreal. Then Mr Kozel offered you until the end of January for you to find the money. 'The deal is standard industry practice. I checked this with a senior friend at Shell'. 'Sign the NDA and get a stay for fund raising'. 'Shell man said that people like us usually only get a finder's fee and not equity" Rex Wempen: "It's a simple insult" GKP barrister: "It's an insult? The man at Shell was insulting you?" Rex Wempen: "Misunderstanding, thinks we are brokers" GKP barrister: "You still didn't have a cent. You would have been better off with a finder's fee" Rex Wempen: "He didn't understand" GKP barrister: "Objects to 'people like us'. You weren't seriously suggesting that Mr Patrick was suggesting that if you paid the money into escrow you would lose it?" Rex Wempen: "No. The issue was that we wanted to raise money on an asset" GKP barrister: "Look at Mr. Codd's evidence (bob: independent expert). You should have got funding for the signature bonus" Rex Wempen: "Right" ------------------ page 16) GKP barrister: "8784a. Long email (Rex Wempen reads it). November 2007. Part of it is redacted, it goes on for 4 pages. It is headed: 'Re: Injunction'. It suggests that you were both thinking about legal proceedings. Eric says at point 1: 'They probably won't find oil'" Rex Wempen: "Exploration is a risky proposition. Eric doesn't accept it's low risk" Judge: "What does low risk mean?" Rex Wempen: "That the KRG think that it's a structure that more likely than not contains oil" Judge: "But if they probably wouldn't find oil, it's not low risk at all?" Rex Wempen: "My brother thought it was riskier than I did" GKP barrister: "You want a letter from Texas confirming that you are the originator. 'Since will help us and hurt them in litigation' they might not provide'. Clearly a letter of origination would help in a finder's fee" Rex Wempen: I don't agree" GKP barrister: "Then: #6. 'Figure out how much a finder's fee would be. Ask Franchi. Eric was seeking a finder's fee" Rex Wempen: "I disagree" GKP barrister: "8784b 'Who knows? Who knows that the payoff to the...." (Rex Wempen says something) GKP barrister: "A ludicrous suggestion" Rex Wempen: "I believe that Eric doesn't appreciate the significance of what he says, he is angry here" (usual caveats apply) (page 17) GKP barrister: "If you're good for the money, you can participate. That's Mr. Kozel's position. What on earth is wrong with that? You have got rather hooked-up on your existing right rather than trying to find a way forward. Spending time on litigation attorneys rather than on fundraising. The substance of your complaint is: 'If you've got the money you can pay'" Rex Wempen: "I thought Todd completely understood, don't understand him" GKP barrister: "'My guess is that you would have a very good claim for not negotiating in good faith. I think we've papered it just right'. Nonsense, isn't it? You'd known for months that the signature bonus was due on 6 December" Rex Wempen: "No, it was imposed as a unilateral deadline" GKP barrister: "8784.c 'To do list'. You hadn't heard back from Lazard and UBS. Eric says 'See if you can get a letter saying that they are interested'. What you're doing is not approaching banks to get funding, but in connection with litigation" Rex Wempen: "I disagree. We tried to raise money, always tried to get back in the deal. Further on we got the other fundraising event (bob: this was unexplained...I wrote '???' in my notes)" GKP barrister: "papering - legal (something)" Rex Wempen: "No. If we were trying..." GKP barrister: "'Think of your future first'" Rex Wempen: "With all hope of Gulf lost, falling back on trying to get something" GKP barrister: "'Do what you can to hurt Todd personally and professionally'. These are Excaibur's tactics in this litigation, aren't they?" Rex Wempen: "I disagree. Believe cut out of the deal. I have had nothing but respect for the lovely and well-educated Mrs. Kozel and het two lovely daughters" (Rex then tries to show that Eric is quoting lines from films in an email) GKP barrister: "Are you suggesting that '**** him' is a quote from a film?" Rex Wempen: "Robert deNiro in The Un touchables" GKP barrister: "Excalibur should maximise the embarrassment of Mr Kozel irrespective of the facts" Rex Wempen: "I believe Mr..." GKP barrister: "YOUR INTENTIONS in this litigation. You want want your claim to succeed, but you also want embarrassment to Mr. Kozel" Rex Wempen: "Eric is..." Judge: "You are being asked about YOUR attitude" Rex Wempen: "We wanted our interest recognised" (and then it was lunch) (page 18) GKP barrister: "H32 8784.1 Saturday 24th. 'Do not send NDA!!!!'. Eric has changed his mind again. Can I suggest that 'You're better off with no information and a lawsuit than if you had the documents, because you knew you couldn't raise the money anyway'?" Rex Wempen: "I'm not sure that... I sign the NDA under protest, try to raise the money under very adverse circumstances, do the best we can" GKP barrister: "'Have you read the NDA Todd - 2 changes to kick us out of the deal'" Rex Wempen: "I'm not sure what this says, we were concerned that the NDA terms would be used as a pretext by Gulf" GKP barrister: "8845.1 You sign the NDA later that day. 'Dear Todd, Subject to my earlier objections. ...Timeline is unreasonable" and then to: GKP barrister: "In point 3 you say 'Investing through Texas or Gulf via preferred stock convertible note etc'" Rex Wempen: "Different thing" GKP barrister: "What's a convertible note? Did you know?" Rex Wempen: "I'm not sure I knew what a convertible note was at the time and they can convert..." Judge: "Into what?" Rex Wempen: "Equity my Lord. Judge: "I want to know what you meant by convertible note" Rex Wempen: "Some sort of instrument" GKP barrister: "Converted from?" Rex Wempen: "I don't know" GKP barrister: "You were out of your depth. You didn't know what it meant. You are out of your depth, I am not trying to embarrass you" Rex Wempen: "Spoke to financiers" GKP barrister: "You wanted Texas and Gulf to take your proposition seriously if wou didn't know what it was?" Rex Wempen: "Would have followed up" GKP barrister: "GKP under no obligation to do any such thing" Rex Wempen: "Under no obigation to agree...structure, but under obligation to recognise our interest" GKP barrister: "This was just a pretext to buy yourself more time, wasn't it? Eric said 'would buy you more time'. You're trying to buy time" Eric Wempen: "I disagree. Eric was in Morocco, he was throwing out ideas" GKP barrister: "You email Mr. Kinnear. Giving them a reasonable way out. Solutions to our, specific solutions to our difficulties" Rex Wempen: "To our entitlement" GKP barrister: "You don't seem to be recognising it here" Rex Wempen: "If (so?) a wrong appearance" GKP barrister: "You sent the signed NDA and the confidential material then started to arrive in a relatively (timely?) fashion. You complained, didn't you? Your attitude was one of absolute entitlement, everyone had to jump to what you wanted" Rex Wempen: "That is mischaracterisation" GKP barrister: "Mr Patrick sent you the Technical Presentation, the Gulf:dabin agreement, the PSC, and the Budget. He had to split it because of the size. H34 8846 and 8847, H32 8849.1 Rex Wempen to Ian Patrick 'Thank you for swift response'. So on the face of it you were thanking him for his swift response. 8850 'Impatient' and Eric's word 'Paranoid'. You were being unduly impatient, it was a Saturday" Rex Wempen: "We had just had a breach, talking to Mr. Kinnear" GKP barrister: "8852. One hour later. You email Eric: 'No call, no action from Todd and they only sent half the data. Think Todd told them to stop. Off to work out and consider litigation. Supposed to be start of new job'. You were off to work out litigation" Rex Wempen: "Don't see how that follows...frustration...I agree" GKP barrister: "A misreading of the situation" Rex Wempen: "I agree but I disagree with the characterisation" GKP barrister: "From Eric: 'Your email didn't stop anything. As it is he's giving you more ammo like an i diot'" Rex Wempen: "Eric is making (something)" GKP barrister: "You are both working yourselves up to a fantastical theory" Rex Wempen: "No, I rather think counsel is mixing up points" GKP barrister: "Go down to 6th paragraph. Eric: 'Just another sign of bad faith'. 'Bad faith claim in a nutshell'. 'Boy, Ian is stupid, stupid, stupid'" (page 23) GKP barrister: "I will leave the MORE LURID DETAILS until later. Or for another witness. Email from Eric: 'You know what? I think we're being paranoid about their lack of information. More likely they're wanting to...(something). It doesn't take even an armchair lawyer to see that we have built a case. they won't want a lawsuit hitting the papers. Could be a $25 million case'. I suggest that you and Eric were becoming somewhat unbalanced in your attitudes, Mr Wempen" Eric Wempen: "November 24th. We're very angry, all kinds of ideas are being explored" GKP barrister: "Litigation is now Plan A" Rex Wempen: "No. Raising funds" GKp barrister: "According to you, must have been pretty hopeless without the (something). Therefore the approach to UBS and Deutsche was to BUILD A CASE. You can't have it both ways, Mr Wempen" Rex Wempen: "We knew our position was pretty hopeless" GKP barrister: "So what was UBS and Deutsche Bank for?" Rex Wempen: "All the way, where I come from, when things look hopeless you don't give up, go the extra mile" (usual caveats apply) bobobob5 15 Nov'12 - 01:18 - 238234 of 238244 This really must be the last one tonight! (page 27) following a short afternoon break: GKP barrister: "H 32 8887.1 Monday 26 November. Mr Patrick: 'I resent the second part...haven't sent you the financial model, I can send it to you under the terms of the Confidentiality Agreement'. Good faith or bad faith?" Rex Wempen: I see nothing wrong with this here" GKP barrister: "A cynical ploy by Gulf to paper the record? Good or bad faith? I'm testing your thesis in this case against some of the documents. Which is it? Or if it's a third thing, what is it?" Rex Wempen: "The third, we have now signed the NDA under protest. Acting as a professional. Not in bad faith" GKP barrister: "So was he in bad faith before you signed the NDA and then in good faith after, or was he in good faith all along? So now he was in good faith?" Rex Wempen: "Yes. Fair" GKP barrister: "So was Mr Kozel acting in bad faith?" Rex Wempen: "Yes" =============================== bobobob5 16 Nov'12 - 17:13 - 238754 of 238786 13 0 (page 17) GKP barrister: "The key demand on the Keystone side was that you needed to have the money available. How is UBS at your elbow going to change that?" Rex Wempen: "Perhaps it was a false hope. I hoped that Todd would relent" ((.intr. To become more lenient, compassionate, or forgiving. )) GKP barrister: "What you are overlooking is that you had told Gulf several times that UBS were your primary sponsor (13 November).... YOUR'RE MAKING THIS UP" Rex Wempen: "I don't believe so" Judge: "If UBS had agreed to be your Financial Adviser, te most you could say to Mr. Kozel is that they are helping us to structure the deal but they aren't going to pay any money. Therefore they are advisers in a deal that you couldn't finance" Rex Wempen: "Yes my Lord" Rex Wempen: "My network was small but the record shows that it was effective" bobobob5 16 Nov'12 - 17:49 - 238783 of 238785 2 0 Matinee performance of the pantomime. ((Communication by means of gesture and facial expression. Matinee=An entertainment, such as a dramatic performance or movie, presented in the daytime, usually in the afternoon. )) (page 1) GKP barrister: "G32 8970 28 November Eric Wempen to Rex Wempen: 'As far as Todd goes, this shows what an a s s he is...Thank you Rex and f--- of'. Todd will only honour the contract if you can get the money'. What's the bad faith element in that? Can't pay, can't play" Rex Wempen: We had the asset need (something)" GKP barrister: "'Todd is an a s s because'. Why is Todd an a s s?" Rex Wempen: "Todd has breached his contract with us. Eric is throwing out ideas" GKP barrister: "Not unreasonable: you can't play if you can't pay" Rex Wempen: "What's unreasonable is that attitude is applied to a situation it shouldn't be applied to. Weren't papering the record" Judge: "We all know what F means. What is the SENSE behind it?" Rex Wempen: That Todd had planned it" GKP barrister: "You suggest that the Participation Agreement entitled Excalibur to choose the timing of its payment" Rex Wempen: "I disagree with the characterisation" GKP barrister: "'Tell Mr. Kozel you can raise the money'" Rex Wempen: "That's what he appears to be saying. We were in pretty dire straits here" GKP barrister: "Why suggest it?" Rex Wempen: "A negotiating strategy. You'd have to ask Eric" GKP barrister: "An after the-event invention. 'Second: can you call Latimer back and ask them if they HAD invested what WOULD they...' He is asking you to get their position - UBS and JP - if they HAD been interested. You both know that UBS and JP were NOT interested. He knows that Mr. Latimer is not interested" Rex Wempen: "That seems to be the suggestion" and to: GKP barrister: "6 lines of text = Plan B. You are building a case for litigation. Otherwise what is the purpose?" Rex Wempen: "My brother is trying to work out what arrangement would work. I coud put it to the Gulf board" GKP barrister: "'Why don't you tell Kinnear that UBS is asking for an origination letter'. UBS was NOT asking for an origination letter" Rex Wempen: "He is confusing things" GKP barrister: "He is suggesting a LIE to pass to on to Gulf seeking to burnish credentials" ((Burnish=To make smooth or glossy by or as if by rubbing; polish.)) Rex Wempen: "I disagree. we wanted a JOA, we would accept an Acknowledgement letter or Origination Letter" GKP barrister: "Eric Wempen suggested Sharia-compliant funding structure. 8975 'We should really move on this...these guys do have money and are impulsive...get stupid and impulsive investors in...we have the clout, baby'. Your brother is getting carried away on holiday" ((Impulsive= 1. Inclined to act on impulse rather than thought. 2. Motivated by or resulting from impulse)) Rex Wempen: "It is a stream of consciousness" (usual caveats apply) ============= bobobob5 16 Nov'12 - 18:12 - 238789 of 238797 14 0 (matinee page 2) GKP barrister: "At 28 November did you not want a direct stake?" Rex Wempen: "We were going ahead with an indirect interest. We were comfortable with an indirect interest" GKP barrister: "Are you sure you weren't saying you didn't want to be on a PSC?" Judge: "What Mr. Patrick is dealing with is if Excalibur would take a DIRECT interest in the PSC. He is purporting to say that Excalibur is not seeking to be on the PSC. You are being asked if at 30 November you were content not to be on the PSC. You say you were not looking to be on the PSC for some time" Rex Wempen: "Yes my Lord" Judge: "You say you hadn't been looking for a direct stake for some time previously?" Rex Wempen: "Yes my Lord" Judge: "For how long?" Rex Wempen: "Some time in the late summer" GKP barrister: "Therefore any stake you had would have to be indirect" Rex Wempen: "Yes" (usual caveats apply) bobobob5 16 Nov'12 - 18:55 - 238797 of 238797 3 0 (matinee page 5) discussing the creation of a Special Purpose Vehicle by Excalibur GKP barrister: "Excalibur Newco. The investor who puts up the money gets all of the shares" Rex Wempen: "No. They get part of it" GKP barrister: "You had no assets. You had nothing" Rex Wempen: "We had an ownership interest" GKP barrister: "The Prime reference was to 50/50 or 60/40. With 17.5% or 15% financing could have earned you nothing" Rex Wempen: "It was low-risk, a home run" GKP barrister: "You and Eric thought the terms were outrageous" Rex Wempen: "They were good and (something)" GKP barrister: "Eric described it as 'ridiculous'. You and Eric said Prime's terms were as bad as Gulf. The record ran out in December 2008. 'These guys are not any better than Todd'. You used the word 'great' yesterday - we will come back to it. You said "ridiculous and extortionate". We will come back to Prime next week" Rex Wempen: "We accepted it" GKP barrister: "Is it your evidence that you accepted Prime's offer?" Rex Wempen: "We would take one or the other" GKP barrister: "Remember Eric Wempen (something). You are putting a lot of eggs into the Prime basket. Things look different after discovery and five years of oil exploration" Rex Wempen: "We were ready, willing and able to go with Prime's offer" GKP barrister: "To be clear: it was never Prime's requirement to be on the PSC - a preference, or as a strict condition?" Rex Wempen: "We were both going for the PSC in the Fall" GKP barrister: "Please answer the question. Was it a preference, or a strict condition? In the Fall of 2008?" Rex Wempen: "It may well have been a condition, but I agreed that we should...." Judge: "Why are you not in a position to say if it was a condition or not? Are you saying that (something)" Rex Wempen "I can't make legal statements. I will agree it was probably a condition. Gulf had gone to market publicly for farm-in partners and we were seeking to be part of that" ========== bobobob5 16 Nov'12 - 19:27 - 238801 of 238811 9 1 (pantomime matinee page 10) GKP barrister: "9331.2 Please direct his Lordship's attention to the lines where you say this was raised in your note" Rex Wempen: "The second paragraph 'We are going to be unable to provide the funding for the 30%" GKP barrister: "The evidence of Gulf preventing it" Rex Wempen: "The line where we say the Operating Committee had not been convened" GKP barrister: "The Operating Committee goes to the TIMELINE issue not to the title" Rex Wempen: "I think it's obvious" GKP barrister: "How can you blame Gulf for not convening the Operating Committee when the JOA had not been signed?" Rex Wempen: "We were supposed to agree a funding timeline because we had joint ownership of the Block" GKP barrister: "Where do you complain that Gulf is preventing Excalibur from raising money by not putting documents in your hands?" Judge: "I don't understand it. The timeline is the time at which you have to do something. Your point is that you couldn't provide funds at any time because Gulf hadn't given you title. It's different" Rex Wempen: "Yes my Lord, the Operating Committee consists of owners, people who have interests in something. I consider Excalibur as owners. Todd should have convened the Operating Committee. The ship has sailed, too late for us to be on the JOA" Judge: "But you say the Operating Commitee had never been convened" Rex Wempen: "I say we say that we are on the Operating Committee because we are owners" GKP barrister: "'I responded (to something that Todd said). I asked if we could extend the timeline to June. Todd said he couldn't carry Excalibur that long. It's about when Excalibur can make payment" Rex Wempen: "No, it's about negotiation" GKP barrister: "About what?" Rex Wempen: "Title. I'm making our (something)" Judge intervenes Rex Wempen: "I needed title, needed to convene the Operating Committee" Judge: "You said 'we were only asking for a few months'" GKP barrister: "D1 Tab 3 page 245. You said 'I did not say Excalibur would need 6 to 8 months to raise its share of the signature bonus. I couldn't do it by January'. It was about the signature bonus" Rex Wempen: "I was talking about the whole amount. The big issues. Our ownership" GKP barrister: "So if it's such a big topic, the issue of title, why didn't you set it out in black and white? Why oblique? Are you saying it is stated explicitly in this note?" Rex Wempen: "It's very clear" (usual caveats apply) bobobob5 16 Nov'12 - 19:46 - 238807 of 238811 10 1 pantomime matinee page 9 GKP barrister: "(...) What Mr. Talall would have had in front of him is your statement about ownership interest. You said to to Mr. Killerman that that you had 30%? H33 9191 'We originated the deal...we now own 30% of it'. Why wouldn't you have said that to Mr. Talall? You were soliciting his interest" Rex Wempen: "I don't believe it's untrue. We had 30%" GKP barrister: "H33 9222 You write to RP Capital Group on 12 December. 'At long last I'm pleased to confirm the deal closed. We have been awarded over 20%'. All the statements where you say you DO have ownership are in writing, and all where you say you do NOT are verbal. You never say in writing that you do not. Odd, isn't it?" Rex Wempen: "It's not odd" GKP barrister: "Another fundraising effort has been stymied by lack of title - why didn't you raise it at the 3rd December meeting? 'We raised the whole issue of title...'. 9331.2 Please direct his Lordship to the lines where you say this was raised in your note" Rex Wempen: "2nd paragraph, 'We are going to be unable to provide funding for the 30%" GKP barrister: "Evidence of Guf preventing it" (this then leads directly onto the above post about the Operating Committee) ========== bobobob5 17 Nov'12 - 10:14 - 238857 of 238861 4 0 (Thursday page 10) (following a break) GKP barrister: "H32 8956 You said that Thames Chesapeake was mentioned as an afterthought to Mr. Latimer. 'Emailed Steve, please find attached term sheet'. It's the Thames Chesapeake term sheet. That's the only document of substance that you sent to Mr. Latimer" Rex Wempen "I disagree. Mr. Latimer was an expert in Kurdistan, he (directed?) along the lines he wanted" GKP barrister: "Right...you must have been disappointed and slightly humiliated" Rex Wempen: "Yes" GKP barrister: "page 32 8941 email to Mr. Latimer after the call. 'Steve, thanks for call. Due to available structure, I see why you say refer back to the chap in Houston'. So no mention of title. Or of problems with Gulf's impossible conditions" Rex Wempen: "Right" GKP barrister: "So if there had been, there's no point in referring it back to the chap in Houston" Rex Wempen: "It's a small point, put it back to (something)" GKP barrister: "So why put it back to Houston and work from there if there were impossible conditions?" Rex Wempen: "I'm seeking to be as professional and positive as I can" GKP barrister: "I am suggesting that you gave dishonest evidence on Day 15 page 99 about this correspondence. 'When I began my ...'. It was a dishonest attempt in light of the email we've just seen. I will submit this to the Judge at the end of the Trial" Rex Wempen: "I don't see that" The cross examination then moved on, including the involvement of the Judge, onto discussion of structure and title. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- goulding1215 17 Nov'12 - 09:27 - 238849 of 238865 2 0 If RW wanted a free carry for the 30%, was he expecting TK to give him that free carry instead of a finder's fee which he turned down? It would appear to be the kind of stupid ploy that he would take. But then why go to so much trouble to raise the finance. Complete tozzer. bobobob5 17 Nov'12 - 11:04 - 238863 of 238863 0 0 goulding: to be fair to Rex Wempen (one has to be fair, that's why the Judge is there) he was almost totally inexperienced in Oil and Gas, so far as I can see from the evidence I have heard in Court. I could (but I won't) give you the name of a senior Oil and Gas professional, who was formerly employed by a household name supermajor, who did some "service company" work for an oil company, and who took a participation percentage in an exploration asset - instead of a fee. It seemed like a good idea...but the problem is paying one's way. It's all very well for AIM-listed Mary Bloggins Energy to take a stake in an asset, and then issue bits of paper to bloggers to raise money to pay for the G&G and drilling work. But it's very different when you're a small, private company without at least one multi-millionaire behind it. It is very hard to raise money...and when one has no track record... My guess fwiw is that Excalibur believed, at the time, that they would be able to raise the money. But for a *wildcat*? In *Kurdistan*? Where *seismic was known to be problematic*? By a company with *no exploration track record*? Which was *weak in terms of E&P human resources*? Which had *no money of its own to invest*? Which had *no track record of delivering shareholder value*? Which was *unlisted and apparently without a conventional share structure*? Whose principals also had *other jobs*? It looks to me, from the evidence, that Rex Wempen and Eric Wempen tred to raise money after going down the 30% path, but couldn't find the money. I'm not surprised...it was in my opinion an almost impossible ask. That's not to say it was *totally* hopeless...it's possible that someone at or associated with Excalibur might have found someone who would take a punt at it. It's all to do with probabilities. If the chances of getting funding were perhaps 50%, then going for a participation interest *might* be better than taking a standard natural resources sector Finder's Fee. I always think about the Banker on 'Deal or No Deal'. Even when the average (the 'weighted risk') is say £10,000 he wil typically only offer about 30% of that. On that basis...guesstimate the *profit* that one would get on a 30% (actually 24%) stake: Chance of wildcat commercial success 10%? (typical industry average) Upside in success case...Shaikan worth maybe $1000 million (pre-drill volumetrics, no O&G Law, no 'monster find' etc). Assume 30% of that is profit = $300m. Risk it at 10% Chance Of Success = $30m. So 24% stake of that = $7m profit 'risked' for the stake. Apply 'Deal or No Deal' 30% to that = $2m. Therefore, 'the DoND Banker' might offer $2m. Might. Look at the Finder's Fee. If it were say 3%, and that were applied to the Signature Bonus + G&G + 1 wildcat total of (say) %70m, that would about $2m. I do not know what terms were offered to Excalibur. So on this 'quick and dirty' guesstimate, the Finder's Fee and the participation interest are about the same. But where is the money going to come from, for the participation interest? Unless one has one's own money, whoever put in the cash is going to want most of the upside. Why would they act as a charity? They wouldn't. Of course, *if* the wildcat comes in and *if* it's a monster...and *if* one can find the money on the right terms...but then, look at Qara Dagh and Sangaw. Or suppose it found gas? Or suppose it found heavy oil that wouldn't flow without EOR? Or suppose the drill bit got stuck? Or suppose it needed multiple sidetracks and the costs went through the roof? Or suppose the testing was inconclusive? Or suppose the oil price collapsed? The list of possible bad things is as long as your arm... ...this is a *desperately difficult* sector. I do have some sympathy for Rex Wempen. He was involved in something that ended up being a great success. And he hasn't been paid. But...that's the problem with E&P. How many investors are showing a profit? The track record of the AIM sector is *all over the place*. There is red ink *almost everywhere* Rex has not made money...but neither have lots of others. Oil and Gas exploration is a very very difficult game, which *very few* people understand. Er...including quite a few Directors, in my personal opinion! but imho DYOR etc =============== bobobob5 - 19 Nov 2012 - 23:27 - 239263 of 239265 Monday My general observation is that the GKP barrister is turning up the heat on Excalibur, and I'm not at all sure that the cross examination of Rex Wempen can end tomorrow. In terms of the sequence of events we're not even past Christmas 2007 yet. And the barrister is getting increasingly irritated by Rex's responses. The barrister made some pretty strong comments today...from my notes: "You were jumping to conclusions" "You and Eric knew you couldn't raise the money" "What became apparent was that you had no funding, no prospect of funding, and that came as a shock" "In exclusively pursuing a buy-out route for 6 months you'd GIVEN UP in trying to raise funds for the Shaikan deal" "You had no basis for assigning ANY value to the Shaikan PSC" "What was your own oil experience? It was NIL" "What was your skill in valuing oil concessions?" "Oil exploration is the CERTAINTY of expenditure with the POSSIBILITY of profit" "You are resistant to stomach that the value of Shaikan was at or close to zero" "That's a serious accusation of unprofessional conduct by Baker Botts (MOL's lawyers)" "So why did you say in your witness statement the opposite?" "I suggest that Gulf had been sticking their necks out to help you, but you went behind their back to MOL" "The chronology is not as in your written evidence and in your evidence last Thursday" "I don't know if you are a serial liar, or if you delude yourself into believing something" "You were leading Mr. Kinnear up the garden path" "Why can't you admit once that you sent a lying email and you knew it and you're making it up?" "So it's all GULF'S fault, is it?" "It's always somebody else's fault isn't it Mr. Wempen?" "It's clear that MOL wanted nothing more to do with you" "If you're not sure of the facts you shouldn't make accusations, do you agree with that?" "A conspiracy?" "So it's not right to say that Gulf UNILATERALLY brought MOL in, is it?" "You're MISREPRESENTING the situation in this draft" "You are representing that you have done a deal in Kurdistan" "You were leading him up the garden path" "Words have a meaning, Mr. Wempen" "Why say you have an interest when you haven't?" "Your plan is to go on misrepresenting your pitch until you are found out" "I'm suggesting that what you put in this sales pitch was a complete fabrication" "Why can't you admit that you're making it up?" "Isn't it time to admit that the game's up, Mr. Wempen?" "Your two last answers are inconsistent" imho DYOR etc ======================= WS bobobob5 - 22 Nov 2012 - 16:23:17 - 240487 of 240490 nicebut: the unknown factor was the identity if the Funders. I know for a CERTAIN FACT that some large shareholders proposed, a year ago, settling the Claim themselves with their own money. This proposal did not move forward. At the time, they believed that $25m would pay off the Wempens...BUT they did NOT know who was funding them. A journalist (I could name him, but I shan't) told me the week before the case was due to start that GKP (to wh he speaks...) were going to settle it. bobobob5 - 22 Nov 2012 - 16:02:35 - 240477 of 240479 I gather that Todd has said that GKP is worth about 50 billion dollars...I have no reason to disbelieve the person who told me that. A director of GKP said earlier this week "GKP will not settle this case" and, again, I have no reason to disbelieve the person who told me. I think that Todd is aware that Excalibur's Funder(s) thought they had some 21 months, between Clifford Chance's failed Mareva application and the start of the Trial, to get a settlement from GKP. And I think Todd is also aware that they believed a new 'lease of life' for a settlement began when the trial started, because of Dr. Hawrami not wanting this challenge to title preventing "deals" potentially being done. My guess fwiw is that (a) a settlement was expected, and (b) the identity of the funders would not be revealed. I think the situation has been seriously destabilised. 'bobobob5 - 23 Nov 2012 - 10:46:39 - 240672 of 240732 GRH: suppose I agree to sell you my mighty Jensen C-V8 for �20k, provided that you come up with the money. You want me to give you the log book first, but I won't do that. And you haven't got �20k until you get the log book (your plan being to move the car on to your uncle for �25k, making you five grand). So we're stuck. And then you make such a nuisance of yourself that I agree to give you a cheque for �5 simply to make you go away, but I forget to sign it and you vanish to Australia. Some years later, I'm going out again with the lovely Laya Raki, and - having starred in the latest James Bond movie and being flush with cash - she agrees to buy my mighty Jensen C-V8 for �1 million, because we used to sh*g in the back of it and she has great memories of those days. And I need the cash, to commission urgent research at Oxford University on "Foot tunnels in the 22nd century and beyond". You return from Australia - because you've read in the paper that Laya Raki has bought my car for �1 million, which she will drive in the next 007 adventure. And you want compensation! Now - assuming that you ARE entitled to something - what is it? (a) the �1 million that Laya gave me? (b) the �20k pre-Raki value? (c) the �5k profit you would have made at the time? (d) a fiver? (e) royalties from the next James Bond film? This must - surely - be a very simple question for a lawyer who specialises in such litigation to answer. ' . IMHO DYOR etc ======= bobobob 22 Nov'12 - 21:47 - 240582 of 240582 0 0 I am still pondering yesterday's revelations. We seem to have the following parties: 1. Excalibur. Who owns Excalibur now? 2. Clifford Chance. Panayides seems to be the key player here. 3. the Lemos Brothers, one of whom appears to be a barrister 4. Credit Suisse 5. Black Robe 6. Hamilton Capital 7. the Special Purpose vehicle 8. potentially, other companies or individuals linked commercially with any of the above. This is clearly highly complex. On p.2 of my notes of yesterday, it was said that Hamilton is an LLC in the State of Delaware, which is prepared to make a facility up to a redacted amount. "It happened this year". This suggests that the ORIGINAL Funder is not identical to the CURRENT Funder...I have noted that possibility on here several times in recent months. Rex Wempen said that Black Robe are behind Hamilton Capital...but when the GKP barrister asked him about them, his reply was that he BELIEVED that the relationship is that Hamilton is acting on behalf of Black Rock. The GKP barrister asked Rex Wempen if he had ever met Hamilton, and he said "no". It was then said that there are parallel relationships, one between Excalibur and Black Robe, and one between Excalibur and Hamilton. Rex Wempen said that they "started" with Black Robe. The GKP barrister asked him what sort of entity Hamilton is, and he said he didn't know. In response to tue question "You must know something about them", he replied "I can't recall". Prima facie, someone other than Rex Wempen may have been making these funding arrangements...who is that? And what is their motive for doing so? It looks to me that the Judge must explain, in open Court, what on earth is going on. IMHO DYOR etc =================== Check the glaring disparity in the sponsors of these flagship events The 3rd Basra Intl O&G Conference and Exhibition will be held 6-9 Dec 12 at the Basra International Fairground. The conference will focus on the upstream sector services that are necessary to support increasing o&g production during the next few years. Contact: Nazli Candemir, email nazlicandemir@expotim.com , website http://www.basraoilgas.com/sponsors.html The Kurdistan-Iraq O&G Conference will be held on 3-5 Dec 12 in Erbil, Iraq. The conference is expecting a fair number of IOC reps. Contact Nawar Abdulhadi, email nabdulhadi@thecwcgroup.com , website: http://www.cwckiog.com/sponsors/ ================== Ren: “The buyer(s) ( CVX being an example... ) values the business - not the seller - and they are not going to pay a multiple of x5 or x10 or x15 'soon'. Name me a single commodity business ( even one precisely calibrated ) that has ever been bought at these multiples of market value. Delusional IMO." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scara: 23rd Nov/ 2012 Hmmm…. well, let me think for one moment! Oh yes. Remember SIBIR ENERGY, once the largest company on AIM with a market cap of about £2.5 billion, an E&P company operating in a corrupt region of the world. (sound familiar?). Sibir was also a company with a remarkably chequered history including a court case against Roman Abramovic’s company, some extremely serious Corporate Governance issues, and one that had sacked their CEO before he was sued and fined £350,000.... about a year after the company had been taken over for 500p per share by Gazpromneft. Sibir has been mentioned on this board quite a few times, but here is a quick reminder of some of the highlights: 3 Dec 2008: Sibir Energy share price collapsed to 40p, and a market cap of about £150 million. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-1091644/Sibir-shares-dive-500m-bailout-key-shareholders.html Indeed, my recollection is that the SP actually fell further to around 30p. 20 Feb 2009 – Sibir Energy shares SUSPENDED at 174.75p, plagued by further revelations of corporate governance failures. http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2009/02/20/sibir-shares-suspended-after-loan-admission/ 7 April 2009; Sibir Energy sacked CEO and started court proceedings against him. http://www.standard.co.uk/business/scandalhit-sibir-energy-sacks-and-sues-its-chief-6812854.html 26 May 2009 – Sibir Energy board of directors agreed to 500p per share TAKEOVER by Gazpromneft, valuing company at about £1.9 billion http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/may/26/gazprom-sibir-russia-oil-takeover So, from 30 or 40 pence in December 2008…. to a Takeover at 500p PER SHARE less than 6 months later - despite a series of confidence -sapping litigation issues that plagued the company until its dying day! How Gazprom managed to explain such a purchase to their shareholders, I have absolutely no idea……. Unless of course it was actually based on the QUALITY OF THE ASSETS it was buying, and nothing whatsoever to do with the share price! The market often gets ‘valuations’ completely wrong…. especially where COMPLEX LITIGATION is involved, the impact of which it struggles to assess - perhaps rather like Excalibur! Let us see where we are when that particular circus comes to an end, shall we. GLA, scaramouche ==================== Rudy09 Firstly Ren, did I address you, your posts, your opinion (previous or otherwise) within my post? Now just in case your sharing that same bottle of Whiskey as ILS, let me confirm I did not! Nor did I mention reserves, because like you, I don't know what they are or could be, because like you, I don't have official confirmation of what is down there. However, if Todd is inflating it (of course he is) then do you think that he would be foolish enough, and incompetant enough, and some how emotionally transfer those undesirable 'attributes' to the rest of out negotiating team, to inflate it to the extent that he walks away with £6.50 p/s? If you do, then its you that is dilusional. For all his shortcomings, thats not what Todd wants to be remembered for, I know you know that. So to address your points... "Such as; 'How do potential suitors explain to their governments / investors buying at £2 per share now and £10, £20, £30, or whatever soon ?". Well, without hitting the annals of M&A history, do you mean the tumultuous battle Sinopec had in paying x4 multiples for Addax? Seems like they were really reluctant to pay for that relatively small amount of oil, when compared to ours...Whatever that may be, eh? "The buyer(s) ( CVX being an example... ) values the business - not the seller - and they are not going to pay a multiple of x5 or x10 or x15 'soon'" Really? You mean to say, that the (by now) fully hypnotised Todd, BOD, and PW team have lost all ability to resist such advances, and walk away from those valuations and negotiations? Really? Bastarrrd! That explains it, I thought that guy who bought my car for a fiver last week looked like Paul McKenna! You have mentioned CVX a couple of times now, in a single aquirer context, but as was suggested to you earlier, and I will do so again, as it is my opinion, that such a huge sea of oil (if thats what we have of course) will be sold to a single entity but more likely a JV. This will of course reduce any competitive environment there may have been, which will of course make the $50 billion less likely as a result, but it would be poor 'diplomacy' not to start with such a valuation. Again I'm sure you would agree. Apologies Ren, I wasn't aware that it was YOUR figures that have been discussed at such great lengths by so many, but with such a defeatist mindset as yours and ILS, I must admit I'm relieved your both not representing us at the negotiating table with a suitor- we might end up oweing them money! @ILS, "Well, answer me this in return, why is it so important for you to convince others that this is the case?" LOL!, are you having a 'Steffi Graff'? The damn nerve! Didn't we count you posting over 30x in 24hrs, with your attempts to convince others? You'll be able to count on the one hand how many times I have brought up the value of the company, in my entire posting history, let alone 24hrs. Who's more likely to have the agenda, umm? Sorry Ren, I agree with alot of your standpoints, but like a punch drunk fighter, you flew out of the corner a bit quick there. Always leaves one prone to a 'straight arm' response. All with the greatest of respect. "Ren, chopper, hub; don't try using reason or rational thought. It has no place here. You must conform to 50bn takeover by Christmas." Ilovescotch, we have heard of Todd's $45/50 billion value of the business from two very credible sources now. They tie in with the values that CJ said he had heard the Chinese had been (on request) by independent analysts and of course as values, would have great synergy with the OIP estimates that BBBS has given us for greater Shaiken, which we as a company (at this stage) seem to have the best parts of. So, are you ILS saying that we should ignore the above people, i.e Todd, the Chinese, CJ, Bobobob and BBBS and concentrate on your valuations, which I believe was "be lucky to get £6.50" quite recently? Now, I know the above are credible, I think that goes without saying, there are board members who have met both CJ and Bobobob, who are VERY knowledgable people, by all accounts. Taking all that expertise into account, could you now relay to the BB why we should discount them and rather listen to you? Now that would justify, the sub title of this thread..."interesting". ================ tobytoby GKP state they have 2.5bbls of reserves in their presentation thus far (I assume that's just for Shaikan). If GKP's oil in the ground is worth say $4 pb (av $3-$5), add tangibles, cash and mean oil numbers from SA/AB and BB yet to be tested and I think when the reserves are booked (before the end of January) the value per share will be worth around 800p-1000p per share (Genel $5.80 pb offered over $7 pb when bid for). So I don't see why no one - ''theye are not going to pay a multiple x5 or x10 soon''' - would not pay for GKP in the coming months i.e. £15+ after reserves are booked which will be very soon. Anyway as I've said before if AB is sold then imo we will see SH-7 spud and will still be talking this talk late next year, imo. GKP get bewteen 8% - 16% in the PSC. What's the minimum profit on a barrel of oil at $150 per barrels half way through the 30 year PSC at 8%? It's $12 per barrel. 20/30 years from now $16/$20 profit per barrel? So why is $8 pb now unrealistic if a NOC wants to gurantee it's future reserves AND make a profit? Who said $50 billion was full value? 100bbls * 35% RF = 35bbls * approx. 40% WI = 14bbls to GKP * $8 pb = $112 billion !!!!!!!! Te te te te te te te te te te te SH/SA/BB = 60bbls OIP? 35% RF (TK) with an average 40% WI = 8.4bbls? $8 pb * 6bbls = $48 billion with plenty of oil and gas left for the next man (2.4bbls plus?). Seriously though who knows how much will be left for the next man or what premium a NOC/IOC will pay. One thing is for sure though GKP will be sold for tens of billions, even today. The main reason imo the share price is range bound at 170-240p is because no one can put a value on GKP until reserves are booked, which will be a start. =========== The value in the PSC just does not lend itself to selling for $8/bl......the majors haven't come north to make less money than they would in the south. It is very similar to the little farmer in Colombia, as you need muscle, networks, pipelines, political influence all to come into play here...of which GKP have very little. You think if the majors buy up the acreage in Kurdistan and GKP do not sell out that Shaikan will still be the jewel in the crown? Tony Haywood will make sure Genel are straight at the front of the line (why do you think he bought a Turkish oil company and not GKP!!!) you think the majors won't be next in line? If GKP go to production on Shaikan without an oil major on board they will struggle to get Shaikan to production peak plateau from a political stand point let alone a technical one. So they need to sell to a major...and those majors will want their slice of the pie.... TobyToby, And there lies the flaw in your argument...who knows how much oil is down there and perhaps your 100bn oip is not far from the mark. However there is no way GKP will be around the value you say for the same reason that you give for why the share price is so low in comparison. ------------------ The main reason imo the share price is range bound at 170-240p is because no one can put a value on GKP until reserves are booked, which will be a start. ------------------ Are you planning on sitting here waiting for GKP to discover, appraise and book reserves across all four blocks to reach your magic 35 bn reserves? You are welcome to sit and wait for your true value to be realised of tens of billions and sit and wait for the next 10-15 years. I'll take a tenner per share between now and Easter in a buy-out and be on my way...and wish the best of luck to which ever major gets their hands on it and makes a few quid for themselves. It's a bit like being a little farmer in the Columbian mountains producing cocaine and trying to sell it to the next man for western street prices. Get it sold, leave plenty of upside potential for the next man and let's all pat ourselves on the back for making a decent bit of coin out of the whole adventure. HWD Cheers, HWD ========= Backsah Chops knows what he's is talking about mate, I can see all sides of the debate re valuations and reserves, but the one thing I keep in mind is finds of this size onshore are as rare as rocking horse shet and no one can say for sure what value will be placed on a strategic asset the size of SH/SA (?) =========== C89X And its shareholders would say well why the fk haven't you been accumulating securities in the market, No LISTED company could justify paying these sort of prices given GKp's current market valuation, regardless of what it may bring to the table for them in terms of reserves replacement and production. I'm fairly confident our acquiree already has a decent sized holding one way or another , we just don't know it yet. ===== Stuv Hub, it is not the market who will buy GKP. It will be a major oil company. What the market pays is of no relevance. And the market IMHO is more bent than the contents of Uri Gellars spoon drawer. But what Chevron/Exxon/Sinopec or whoever might pay has every relevance. ======= $50billion seems perfectly ok and I can understand Todd having a number like that in mind. A good car sales man normally starts high and then sets the scene for a good deal / discussion that leaves the buyer feeling they have got a bargain. $50billion sounds like full value and the market rarely pays full value. So lets slice off 50% straight away simply because no-one will pay that amount while the O&G is absent and while the Kurds are still connected to Baghdad. Then there's the usual issues over recovery factors, pipelines and payment mechanisms etc etc Shaikan would need to be producing constant oil exports of circa 40k to 50k bopd range for at least a couple of years before a buyer would pay the premium price. Based on just a few months of EWT - and your are looking at further valuation reductions. Then there's BB, SA and AB. The latter is probably not far away from attaining a fair price tag but like Shaikan really needs some lengthy periods of proven sustained production. SA and BB are relatively in their infancy and would never at a full value unless they had several wells and a few on production for a few years. Don't get me wrong - I'm not disagreeing with Todd at all. But I think there's a big difference between what Bobobo5 is quoting and on what basis it is built upon. If it's based on an independent Kurdistan or a life with the O&G - and has years of exploration and production built in - then yes - $50billion is what it is worth. But $50billion tomorrow? Do me a favour! As I have said for a while now, if TK executes a defined plan on Shaikan and sells it for $xxbillion. Then it's living proof that the business model works. So why wouldn't you repeat the entire process with SA and then sell that for $xxbillion. Then the same for AB and finally BB. When you add the lot together - it's not hard to arrive at $50billion but that assumes quite a bucket load for SA and BB - both of which are a country mile away from being able to prove that to their full. So $50billion is fair and not out of this world - but it could take 5 years+ from where we are today to gain that number. If Todd or shareholders can't wait that long for their big pay day - then a discount will need to be sorted for the would be buyer. And that's simple business for you. Personally speaking - I think Todd and co will sell Shaikan soon - but I have a hunch that BB may need a new operator as GKP cannot afford to be hanging around for hayward and co to prove up the asset. That said - GKP could plough on with firming up SA and bide their time on BB. With Bonus awards and a large package worth near £6mln per year, why wouldn't Todd fancy a few years more at the helm? My guess is ... the $50billion value is based on the 'full potential' of the assets and certainly NOT the current company worth. HUB Author OLADAPO OGUN Tuesday 23:17 Subject GAISMAN IS THE REAL THINg! Folks at the court today , who hold shares in GKP must have been really really proud of the way Gaisman took EW apart today! He basically pointed out EW's lack of competence in the area of agency law where the issue of Undisclosed Principal is concerned, he was so good at doing it that I believe EW himself would have applauded him if it would not cause any kind of anger from their backers were he to so do! The guy simply proved that Excalibur has no case at all against GKP while the other guy, another QC I believe also did more than enough to prove that Excalibur's case against TKI could not be justified although EW kept on insisting on being unable to get funding because Todd refused to give him a letter which would ensure that he had a legal title to part of Shaikan. Getting Ex a document guaranteeing title in any way in order to raise funding was impossible for a variety of reasons ranging from non acceptance by the KRG to a myriad of other reasons which kept coming up during the case. The offer of a million to them , to get them off GKP's back was to be accepted by them before they spoke to a geologist who told them about the impressive seismic which came out of shaikan. This sawyed their head and they turned down a million dollars half of which was due immediately which could have got them shares in GKP itself which would be worth a lot today and a further half a million which they could have got later. They basically had offers from finance folks who were ready to fund them fully after the seismics came out . What these funders probably did not realize is that , the wempens paid nothing regarding the signature fee(which one of them thought was a kick back for barzani) and definitely contributed zilch towards the seismics for these funders it was an opportunity to get rich quick based on a letter that was full of untruths which was being circulated by the wempens. My understanding of the whole case is that the wempens were never in a position to raise the required money, Todd tried his best to make sure that Rex still got some money ie a decent amount but EW's greed got the better of the wempens and that is why everyone ended up in court. IMHO, I believe the wempens case against both Keystone companies should fail for the following reasons: 1) A lack of clear path to financing at the early stage when the risk rating attached to the project was high on the side of Excal! 2) The flurry of emails in the possession of the court which showed a lack of good faith (imo) as demonstrated by the Plaintiffs! 3)When shaikan suddenly spurted oil , all manner of financing schemes threw themselves at excal, including one which I believe was offering them $1.5m if they could get their names (ie excal's)on the Psc. Above is my recollection of the day's events at the court, as I remember them, I am not a lawyer or have any sort of legal background and this should just be taken as just the views of an observer! ================== It seems Baghdad derailed the announcement for the time being. IRAQ OIL REPORT have always been the best source of oil intelligence in the region. According to the statement on their website the deals are imminent: "Turkey, Kurdistan push toward massive deal In negotiations with the KRG and several companies, Turkish leaders have outlined a package of upstream investment and pipeline construction. A final decision is imminent." keep the faith people. It will happen. You are here: Home » Oil » Production & Exports » UPDATE: Turkey, Kurdistan push toward massive deal UPDATE: Turkey, Kurdistan push toward massive deal Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yildiz (L) and KRG Minister of Natural Resources Ashti Hawrami at a press conference in Erbil, May 21, 2012, after announcing joint cooperation on oil, gas and fuel exports. (AZAD LASHKARI/Reuters) By Ben Van Heuvelen and Staff of Iraq Oil Report Published December 4, 2012 ANKARA/ERBIL - Leaders in Turkey and Iraq's semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan are negotiating to finalize a massive deal for Turkish state-backed oil and gas development and the construction of pipelines. "We are having serious discussions with the company," said KRG Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani, referring to a new state-backed company that is being created to carry out the deal. "We hope they participate in the region." Such cooperation would greatly bolster the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)... = bobobob5 4 Dec'12 - 23:31 - 242985 of 242985 0 0 GRH: Excalibur signed the Collaboration Agreement ON THE BASIS OF LEGAL ADVICE. Whatever went on before they signed is IRRELEVANT. The contract is the contract, and that's the end of it. What Mr. Picken is arguing is illogical. For if Excalibur wanted GKP on the contract, they should have SAID SO. Where are the contemporaneous protests from Excalibur about the C.A. being "wrong"? And in any case, exercise of the facility TO WHICH EXCALIBUR AGREED IN SIGNING THE C.A. puts GKP onto it. What, exactly, is the problem? It's a complete farce. IMHO DYOR etc = oilysteve 43 I caught up with a friend of mine at the weekend. He is a postman and has done quite well with regards to some property sales prior to the crash. To cut long story short, we both have shares in various companies, and he was always more risk adverse than me with a young family etc etc. anyway this weekend we got together over a few beers and he asked about GKP and could not believe how long this whole charade has been going on for since the claims two years ago. In the meantime his investment in Kingston communications has been an eight bagger, with very nice dividends, no stress, and he does not even use the iii forums. When I think of the literally hundreds of hours probably spent on here, I am aware that a currency more valuable than cash is being denied us by this court case. TIME. Turn off folks and spend some time with your loved ones, don't let these fleecing bar stew ards deprive you of that. All the best, Steve. ================ "I am referring to JGs request for admission of new evidence from UBS/Pinho that apparently states that EW and possibly RW, too, have lied to the court. My question is: if this is proved to be the case, could it give grounds for -- a) dismissal of ALL the evidence of the witness found to be lying? b) dismissal of the whole case?" Mandelsputin. Hi again Mandelsputin, subject to my usual caveat (I am not civil law barrister) I am fairly confident that the the same rules apply since they are both based on sound (i.e. lawyers ) common sense. a) The short answer to your question is "No". All (proven) lies vary in importance / significance to the case and the judge (in his separate capacity as judge of facts) will have to assess the importance of the lie and the witnesses possible motive(s) for lying. e.g. It is quite possible for a judge to conclude that an otherwise truthful witness lied to bolster his (evidentially) weak case. However, generally a witness who is proved (and I mean proved) to be lying, will have in (the judges mind) tainted the rest of his evidence.i.e. if he has perjured himself on one point, he has demonstrated that he may well also have lied on others. If the lie is so crucial to the fundamental issue in the case ,then of course there is nothing left of any significance for a judge to attach any weight to. However, the witnesses evidence is not dismissed (as in American law drama films...."Yer onner I move to strike that out from the record). We are far more civilised than that. During his judgement, the judge will remark on the evidence and in particular, on whose evidence he was able to accept, or felt compelled to reject, quite possibly providing his reasons for so doing. In conclusion, a witness found to be lying can cause much damage to his case especially when witness credibility is (as it is in this case) of importance to the case. b) In a very hypothetical case (which does not apply to the facts of this one), which is unsupported by documentary or evidence from other witnesses where the outcome is dependant solely on the opposing evidence of the plaintiff and defendant, a significant lie (striking at the heart of the claim) could obviously lead to judgement against the party found to be lying, but I stress this cannot apply to this case. However, depending on the nature of the lie, the other issue(s) that it goes to and the obvious ramifications of that lie on other evidence given, it has the potential of causing enormous damage. One last important point. Just because a document has been discovered which contradicts evidence already given by a witness does not of itself prove that the witness deliberately lied about it. There maybe other reasons for the contradiction, and the witness may attempt to provide some. If and when the witness is recalled, counse l(JG) will have to probe the matter further during cross examination. Unless the witness is well and truly caught out (I've had a good few of them!!) and actually admits he is lying, the judge will have to weigh up his answers in cross examination, and arrive at his own conclusion as to whether he was lying. Hope that helps Mandels Kind Regards Elikkos =============== Who/ what really stands to gain Well, it is nearly 2 years now since that fateful Excalibur RNS dropped through my virtual letter-box and landed with a virtual thud in front of me. It has certainly been a hell of a roller-coaster ride since then for all long-term holders amongst us, hasn't it! And yes, like almost everyone else, I am beginning to lose patience with this infernal court case, and the fact that our Judicial system can be so flagrantly abused by a motley crew of what can now surely be regarded as nothing other than parasites - creatures that prey upon the weaknesses and insecurities of private investors that they have never met. So, who precisely are these perennial leeches that are clearly so intent on tainting our views towards GKP and sucking value out of our investments in this transformational oil company of ours? 1. Some ’Walter Mitty’ character with a vivid and far-reaching imagination, but a noticeable inclination towards severe and unexplained memory lapses. 2. An unemployed tax attorney with a clear penchant to fabricate, mislead and invent a paper trail for future litigation. 3. A mysterious apparently unconnected set of third party litigation vultures who stand to lose nothing but the funds of those investors that invest in them ... but who hope to gain many millions from settlement of a case in which they have no direct interest whatsoever apart from the pecuniary outcome. (( Pecuniary=(pĭ-kyū'nē-ĕr'ē) adj. 1. Of or relating to money: a pecuniary loss; pecuniary motives. 2. Requiring payment of money: a pecuniary offense. Latin pecūniārius, from pecūnia, property, wealth. )) I am not sure which of those parasites I dislike the most! But one of the questions that keeps cropping up is Who REALLY stands to gain from this 2-year travelling circus? Because something constantly tells us all that there is far more to this than currently meets the eye. Think about it. Surely, if you wanted a ‘team’ capable of proving their case for a 30% stake of ALL GKP’s assets in Kurdistan you wouldn’t choose this lot and a QC who seems by all accounts far from top-notch, ill-prepared, rather disjointed in his approach, would you? No. At least, not UNLESS the whole purpose is actually nothing to do with ‘winning’…. but aimed at dragging the case out for as long as possible, or until it has achieved its undeclared purpose. My attention has therefore been drawn not so much to the WHO but the WHY (rather like BBBS and his mega-post on ETAMIC last night). And I could not help noticing that it does appear to correlate quite closely with the other major limitation on GKP’s progress… Iraqi/Kurdish POLITICS. In essence, could the fact that the Court case and Politics seem so strangely intertwined perhaps explain a lot? Here are a few key dates.... 1. Lead up to 21/12/2010 – POLITICS. Maliki’s government finally formed after 9 months of seemingly endless argument, and only with the support of the Kurds. High expectation that OGL would come in within 12 months, Kurdish contracts would be recognised and that GKP would not last much longer. 29/12/2010 – LEGAL. ‘Rejection of Legal Claims’ RNS and Excalibur’s claim for up to 30% of GKP’s assets swiftly put paid to all thoughts of imminent takeover. 2. February to June 2011 – POLITICS. Everyone's favourite Iraqi politician , Shahristani, damaged all efforts to agree a political solution to Kurdish contracts, initially contradicting Maliki’s comments on 7/2/2011, then repeatedly signalling his unwillingness to accept the designated oil committee’s version of the draft OGL. 28/6/2011 – LEGAL. Justice Gloster REJECTED Excalibur’s request for their claim to be held in two jurisdictions, and put a dampener on any thoughts they might have had that they might win under arbitration, or probably here in London. An early end to the GKP story seemed very possible... But Excalibur refused to go away. 3. 8/10/2012 – POLITICAL. First payment received from ICG for oil exports following 13 September agreement between Kurds and ICG and KRG for Kurds to resume exports targeting 200,000 bpd by end of 2012. Speculation then increased that a permanent payment mechanism may soon be agreed, and that the unified Iraqi OGL would follow naturally from this. With 13.7 billion barrels of oil now proved at Shaikan, speculation was also mounting that GKP would soon be the target for a bid. 15/10/2012 –LEGAL. The pre-trial ‘Settlement’ that many had predicted failed to materialise, and the trial started in earnest. Within a fortnight, what had promised to be an 11-week trial showed every sign of extending far longer than originally scheduled, and speculation mounted that Judge Clarke was unlikely to deliver a verdict until March 2013. No takeover for a while then. 4. 3-5 December 2012 – POLITICAL. Erbil conference takes place, with heightened expectations that Kurds will announce big news on pipelines to Turkey, Turkish oil companies increasing exploration and production activity in Kurdistan, and further majors (possibly Shell) taking up residence in Kurdistan very shortly. Baghdad swiftly demonstrates its annoyance, preventing Turkish Energy minister from landing in Erbil to grab centre stage at the Erbil Oil & Gas conference. 3/12/2012 – LEGAL. Todd commences his spell in witness box, after nearly 7 weeks in which Excalibur’s case has been shown to be extremely weak if not non-existent. Confidence that the case might conclude early recedes as TK faces much circuitous questioning from Excal barrister, who even asks for court timetable to be revised to extend into March 2013. Once more, T/O speculation recedes. Looking into the Future, it is also possible to foresee a chain of events rather like those shown below... 5. Q1 2013 – LEGAL. Excalibur Court case concludes giving GKP clean title to Shaikan and its other 3 licences. Long-awaited OPERATIONAL information is revealed by GKP --- relating to Shaikan reserves’ figures, revised OIP figures for Sheikh Adi, proven connectivity between SH, SA and BB; confirmation of BBBS’s full to spill hypothesis, and results from various Akri-Bijeel wells. *** Unofficial ‘GKP FOR SALE’ sign goes up with accent on development by a consortium of super-majors agreeable to meeting the long-term needs of Kurdistan ****. H1 2013 - POLITICAL. Kurds confirm more contracts signed with super-majors, completion of first pipeline to Turkey, and exports reach 250,000 bpd. *** Kurds then enjoy enough international allies (USA, China, UK, France, Russia) through the presence of their oil companies in Kurdistan, to get unanimous U.N support for INDEPENDENCE, have enough military fire-power to be able to easily repel Iraqi forces, and have sufficient financial strength to make themselves financially independent based on a growing revenue stream from oil sales **** H2 2013 – POLITICAL. Continued anti-Kurdish rhetoric emanates from M&S. Kurdistan then issues Declaration of Independence from Iraq, with the ‘Jewel of Kurdistan’ (a.k.a “Kirkuk’s big brother”) central to its oil policy, and sets an overall production target of 1 million bpd by 2017 (about half of which will come from SHAIKAN). *** And the GKP story then comes to an abrupt end ***. Of course, this is only ONE of many possible interpretations as to what might be going on….. but I do feel that the POLITICS is definitely lurking in the background somewhere. Maybe it is why no-one apart from the shareholders seems the least bit bothered about the time all this seems to be taking. And maybe, instead of concentrating on every little snippet from court, that is the view that we ought to be taking, although I agree it is very hard to do! Who knows, we COULD be witnessing the birth of a new nation, a new KURDISTAN... and IMHO there REALLY cannot be anything much more exciting than that!!! AIMHO and please DYOR. GLA, scaramouche. ========================= Simon Fisher ‏@simonfishybits Great post about #GKP by sheikhydave on KP as a spread bet removal, is this true? $GKP http://uk.advfn.com/common/tweeted/bb/29119?xref=ADVFNPostTweet … SheikhyDave Thursday 6 December 2012 It appears that Capital Spreads have removed GKP as a trade option. Though my position is still open I can no longer make any new trades, and GKP does not feature in the UK shares list anymore. This could be a technical error and I will check, but if not, then the only reason they would do this would be to limit losses. I doubt that there are a large amount of P.I short trades active, so any removal of GKP would be the result of concern over potential large payout's from long trades.... Tweeted By fishybits This message contains graphics. If you do not see the graphics, click here to view. Dear Sir/Madam We have had to review the way we offer UK ex-350 shares. Unfortunately going forward, we can only offer these markets on a subscription basis. Should you wish to trade these markets, please contact Customer Support on +44 (0)20 7456 7020 and they will enable your account for these markets. This pricing data will remain free to view. If you have existing open UK ex-350 positions you will still be able to see these position and close them from the ‘Open Positions’ tab. To open any new positions you will need to call us to subscribe. The ability to subscribe or unsubscribe to these markets directly on the platform itself is also available under the ‘Data Feeds’ tab. Best regards Customer Support ================= dizzyalan 6 Dec'12 - 19:17 - 243437 of 243445 0 0 9 darter, yes it is. see link below for court listings http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court-lists/list-commercial Networker 6 Dec'12 - 19:30 - 243438 of 243445 5 0 GKP High Court 15 – Thurs 6 Dec 2012 – 2pm Todd Kozel (TK) being cross examined by Simon Picken (SP) c 15/20 people in the (?expensive?) shareholder public seats. No RW/EW and SP + 5 Lawyers for Excal and c7 for GKP. [ My overall view. Another quite tedious afternoon. It’s hard to avoid the view that SP has only a little ammunition with which to work, and is therefore repeating questions and appears to be spinning things out. The Judge again shows signs of exasperation at some of the lines of questioning. TK at times answers confidently and at others is quite diffident.] H15 [4016] 12/1/07 Ian Patrick to TK re Gulf setting up office in Erbil. TK “ I didn’t personally want it, but the Gulf board did”. SP “Gulf opened office before getting a PSC?” TK “Not inconsistent, but not fiscally prudent”. H15 [4096] 22/1/07 RW to TK H15 [????] 25/1/07 RW email mentioning a Mr Moreau, a solicitor for the KRG. H15 [4021][4026][3914][3915][3922] Initially 15/1/07 Email TK to RW and Goda forwarding 24/11/06 email. TK “Any discussion of this would have been done on the phone”. [4113]24/1/07 [4142] 26/1/07 Patrick to RW copied to TK Gulf Board meeting in Sharja 3/2/07. Minutes re opening of Erbil office and for TK to try and expedite the transfer of interest to Gulf from Texas. H15 [4560.1 and [4572][4573][4580.5][4580.11][4580.12] Patrick to TK enclosing draft minutes for approval. SP “ TK didn’t then express any views or amendments on this ‘expedite’ aspect but did correct Section 4 on management changes.” SP “ TK evidence is inconsistent with material in 2 sets of board minutes”. TK “I don’t believe so”. H16 [ 4243] 9/2/07 SP “ No problem in RW going to Erbil?” TK “ No”. SP “ No problem in RW meeting Dr Hawrami?”. TK “ Big problem!”. [4370][4380][4383] 28/2/07 Fax memo from TK to RK, with no covering comments. Contained wording of proposed draft assignment with manuscript revisions by TK. [4412][4394] 1/3/07 H16 [4421] 1/3/07 Patrick emailing Roger Parsons ( Non Exec Chairman of Gulf) TK “ Ongoing due diligence for some 6 months as RAK wanted Algerian assets and anything else. ‘Jewel’ was the codename for RAK in their Takeover Bid discussions with Gulf. Goldman Sachs were advising RAK. Sheikh Sultan and his brothers were the RAK owners, who wanted the T/O to go ahead. Judge “ Who were RAK’s lawyers?” TK “ I don’t remember”. Then TK to SP “Were they your firm?” SP “Certainly not mine!” [ Cue laughter in court]. TK apologising “ Don’t know but they were a top firm”. [ Break 3.15-3.25pm] [4421] SP “ Parsons seems to imply there was an impediment that needed to be sorted out?” TK “ Gulf was aware it did not have any PSC interest”. H17 [4551][4529.3][[4546][4532][[4555][4546][4555][4559][4561] c?7/3/07? TK email to RK. In response to various SP questions and comments about the ?sending of re-signed original document or the proposed transfer document? TK “ I don’t tell my older brother what to do!” SP “ Excal consent was required for 100% transfer, so why not transfer 99.9% which could have gone through without Excal’s permission?” TK “Gulf wanted it all. Texas wouldn’t have wanted to be left with an uneconomic miniscule minority percentage.” SP then reduced this percentage to say 90-95%. TK “ It needed a US Company. It needed a US Flag”. SP “ TK playing people ( Gulf board, Excal etc) along against each other to enhance TKs personal position? TK “ Not so”. [4494] H17[4514] H16 [44944/3/07 Izzat ( or Azzat) of Dabin Group. SP “ Azzat trying to regularise the situation? TK “ Don’t see that”. ] H17 [4571.3] TK email to Patrick, Guest etc. SP “ Meeting 23/3/07 was between Ali Al Qabandi and Iain Kinnear only?” TK “ I may have briefly shaken hands with him (Kinnear)”. [4949]18/4/07 TK email to Kinnear. [4948][[4657]21/3/07 H17 [4657.1][4674][[4683] Email Kinnear to ????. TK” I never had a 6 hour meeting with Kinnear.” Judge “ What’s this all leading up to?”. SP “A meeting on 19/4/07 at JFK airport between TK and RW, where they have given conflicting evidence about its contents.” Close 4.20pm. Start again Friday 7 Dec at 10am ROLLS BUILDING COURT 15 Before MR JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE Friday 07 December 2012 At 10:30 For Trial Part Heard 2010-1517 Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc (also known as "Texas Keystone Inc") == [ Coming into court after the lunch break I happened to have Mr ‘Harvey’ following me in. I asked him how long he was going to be here and he said ‘for the duration’. I then asked if he was happy with SPs handling. He gave a non-committal shrug. I then asked if he was previously aware of all the contents of the email exchanges between RW and EW. He said he didn’t want to discuss the case, so I did not pursue further. Incidentally, Mr Harvey left part way through the afternoon. ] ================== GKP Technical Analysis Created By SheikhyDave | Read the whole conversation Mr Roper Wednesday 5 December 2012 Jb..I wouldn't think the court case is really a barrier to takeover..it's a bleedin farce... I'd happily flog GKP to Exxon and watch Rex and Eric getting royally fcked over by the Exxon legal eagles...In fact, it would be a real fckin pleasure... Tweet wally27 Wednesday 5 December 2012 Johnbuy, you honestly think the case will last till Feb? SP is struggling to keep TK in the box after only 2 days!! sheikh, in your opinion where are the support levels from here and are you still expecting break out by Monday? See Chevron haven today (I believe) stated they are looking to buy big into Kurdistan. I wonder where they could look that would satisfy them? Lol Got a feeling Chevron will make a move in the very short term. Tweet johnbuy Wednesday 5 December 2012 lol, cheers Mr Roper/wally. You're right of course, this case is a load of old pish. I can wait until February, but would rather it was all over sooner.......i.e the court case and GKP as a company. ;D Tweet SheikhyDave Thursday 6 December 2012 It appears that Capital Spreads have removed GKP as a trade option. Though my position is still open I can no longer make any new trades, and GKP does not feature in the UK shares list anymore. This could be a technical error and I will check, but if not, then the only reason they would do this would be to limit losses. I doubt that there are a large amount of P.I short trades active, so any removal of GKP would be the result of concern over potential large payout's from long trades.... Tweeted By fishybits | Retweet Ford Play Thursday 6 December 2012 Most S/Bet company's lay off the risk by CFD's as they make their money on the spread. Tweet highlander7 Thursday 6 December 2012 Sheikhy could be that a single SB company doesnt like the risks on GKP but FP is correct every SB is hedged and they only make money on the spread. Tweet johnc13 Thursday 6 December 2012 Fascinating. Once they have made a mind, the goal is to value the company and sell for as high a price as possible. MBA Guest Presenter � Mr. David Horgan, MD of Petrel Resources Thu Dec 6 http://sharecrazy.com/beta/ Most S/Bet company's lay off the risk by CFD's as they make their money on the spread. Sheikhy could be that a single SB company doesnt like the risks on GKP but FP is correct every SB is hedged and they only make money on the spread. As I understand it if you open or close a spread bet the sb company may or may not cover your bet with a corresponding equity trade. Or they may offset your bet against a pool of opposing bets or use equity they are holding in that company as is quite active. So the trades you see that add up to 250,000 might be sales corresponding to your close. And if they are they need not be at the exact price you closed at. I believe if you were trading CFDs then all trades are covered by an exact equity trade. ====================== Definition of 'Spread Betting' A type of speculation that involves taking a bet on the price movement of a security. A spread betting company quotes two prices, the bid and offer price (also called the spread), and investors bet whether the price of the underlying stock will be lower than the bid or higher than the offer. The investor does not own the underlying stock in spread betting, they simply speculate on the price movement of the stock. Investopedia explains 'Spread Betting' For example, assume that a spread-betting company quotes a bid of $200 and an offer of $203 for ABC stock and you believe that the price for ABC will be lower than $200. Since you believe that the price of the stock would be go below $200, you could "bet" $2 for every dollar that ABC falls below $200. Therefore, if the stock price after a week came to $190 you would receive $20, but if the price was $215 you would end up losing $30. Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/spreadbetting.asp#ixzz2EKKKWoL8 =============== The difference between where a trade is entered and exited is the contract for difference (CFD). A CFD is a tradable instrument that mirrors the movements of the asset underlying it. It allows for profits or losses to be realized when the underlying asset moves in relation to the position taken, but the actual underlying asset is never owned. Essentially, it is a contract between the client and the broker. There are several major advantages to trading CFDs, and these have increased the popularity of the instruments over the last several years. How a CFD Works If a stock has an ask price of $25.26 and 100 shares are bought at this price, the cost of the transaction is $2,526. With a traditional broker, using a 50% margin, the trade would require at least a $1,263 cash outlay from the trader. With a CFD broker, often only 5% margin is required so this trade can be entered for a cash outlay of only $126.30. It should be noted that when a CFD trade is entered, the position will show a loss equal to the size of the spread. So if the spread is five cents with the CFD broker, the stock will need to appreciate five cents in order for the position to be at a breakeven price. If you owned the stock outright, you would be seeing a five cent gain, yet you would have paid a commission and have a larger capital outlay. Herein lies the trade off. If the underlying stock were to continue to appreciate and the stock reached a bid price of $25.76, the owned stock can be sold for a $50 gain or $50/$1263=3.95% profit. At the point the underlying stock is at $25.76 the CFD bid price may only be $25.74. Since the trader must exit the CFD trade at the bid price, and the spread in the CFD is likely larger than it is in the actual stock market, a few cents in profit are likely to be given up. Therefore, the CFD gain is an estimated $48 or $48/$126.30=38% return on investment. The CFD may also require the trader to buy at a higher initial price, $25.28 for example. Even so, the $46 - $48 is a real profit from the CFD, where as the $50 profit from owning the stock does not account for commissions or other fees. In this case, it is likely the CFD put more money in the trader's pocket. Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/09/trade-a-cfd.asp#ixzz2EKPrwFYV ==============