Derek Brower, LONDON: ExxonMobil is poised to walk away from its technical services agreement for southern Iraq’s West Qurna-1 oilfield. Well-placed sources familiar with the US supermajor’s Iraq operations told Petroleum Economist that the US supermajor was preparing to focus its efforts on upstream projects in Kurdistan instead.
A source said an exit could be announced as early as this month, although it is understood that the company’s departure from Iraq’s south could take six months to a year.
“The decision has been taken. It has been communicated to the Iraqi oil ministry,” said the source. It is understood that ExxonMobil and Shell, its partner in the West Qurna-1 technical service agreement, had a meeting at the Ministry of Oil in Baghdad today.
A second Baghdad-based source, close to the Iraqi government, said ExxonMobil, under pressure from the central government, had requested some time to find a buyer for its stake. The company hoped to make a profit on its share in West Qurna-1, he said. The US firm has opened negotiations with Asian and Russian firms.
The move will end a dispute that has been rumbling since news surfaced last year that the supermajor, defying the central government’s rules, had agreed to develop six blocks in Kurdistan.
The Iraqi central government considers Kurdistan’s production-sharing contracts, judged by investors to be more generous than the technical service contracts on offer in the south, to be illegitimate, and has banned companies operating in the region from participating in future upstream licensing rounds in Iraq. It previously threatened to strip ExxonMobil of its West Qurna-1 contract in response the supermajor’s decision to invest in Kurdistan.
The Baghdad source said ExxonMobil may be walking from its West Qurna-1 contract before it is pushed.
Pressure has been building on the central government to punish ExxonMobil for its investment in Kurdistan, he said. The government knows it could not win a court case if it stripped the US firm of its contract, he said, but could make operations intolerably difficult.
“The government can give them a nightmare,” he said. ExxonMobil’s response was “OK we will leave but give us time.”
ExxonMobil refused to comment when contacted by Petroleum Economist. The Iraqi oil ministry also refused any official comment.
But ExxonMobil’s withdrawal, if confirmed, will throw renewed doubt on Iraq’s ability to maintain upstream momentum.
It also suggests life is growing more difficult for Western international oil companies in the south. Earlier this week, the UK government closed down its Basra consulate. A UK government source told Petroleum Economist that the move was a cost-cutting exercise, saying maintaining three diplomats at a price of £6.5 million ($10.49 million) a year was too great. But sources in Baghdad said the move showed a retreat from the south, where BP and Shell, among other international oil companies (IOCs), have taken large stakes in the upstream.
Hussein Al-Shahristani, the country’s deputy prime minister with oversight of the energy sector, said earlier this week that output had reached 3.4 million barrels a day (b/d), setting another three-decade high.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has pinpointed Iraq’s four mega-projects – West Qurna is one of them – as critical to global production growth. Iraq will account for 45% of the rise in world output in the coming decades, the agency said.
The West Qurna oilfield, which with reserves of 43 billion barrels is the world’s second largest field, will be developed in two phases. The first phase, West Qurna-1, is operated by an ExxonMobil-Shell joint venture that is contracted to deliver output of 2.25 million b/d. West Qurna-2 is under development by Lukoil, with a 75% stake, and the Iraqi government. It will eventually deliver 1.8 million b/d.
In a briefing to diplomats and selected guests at the UK’s Foreign Office on 15 October, Fatih Birol, the IEA’s chief economist, reiterated that such production growth depended on “consensus” emerging between the Iraq central government and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG).
A recent agreement between the two, allowing for the central government to pay companies operating in Kurdistan for oil exports, were “encouraging signs” that agreement was possible, Birol said.
However, ExxonMobil’s withdrawal from southern Iraq may reignite the situation– raising questions about the central government’s willingness to compromise with the KRG and its ability to retain the blue-chip investors it needs to increase output significantly. The IEA predicts production will rise to more than 8 million b/d by 2035. By 2015, it will rise to 4.2 million b/d.
Earlier this week, a report in Nefte Compass, a Russia-focused oil-industry newsletter, said that Iraq was considering replacing ExxonMobil at the West Qurna-1 oilfield with Russian firms. Lukoil is already operating the West Qurna-2 project. It was unavailable for comment on 15 October, although a spokesman previously said the company had not been asked to take ExxonMobil’s stake in West Qurna-1.
Rosneft is also considered a potential buyer of ExxonMobil’s stake, according to sources. A deal in the works between BP and Rosneft could see the Russian firm buy all or part of TNK-BP, making it the world’s largest oil company.
Rumours of greater Russian oil involvement in Iraq’s south, home to the country’s largest oilfields, followed a trip to Moscow earlier this month by Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Al-Maliki. His trip sealed a $4.2 billion arms deal that will see Russia supply the country with attack helicopters and surface-to-air missile systems. Another agreement over the supply of MiG-29 is also in the works. GazpromNeft, another Russian company with a presence in Iraq, denied reports last week that it had frozen its assets in Kurdistan.
ExxonMobil’s departure from Iraq’s south, if confirmed, may also reinforce perceptions that Kurdistan is a more prospective play for IOCs, said the Baghdad source. Its six blocks in the autonomous region would likely be just the base for further expansion through takeovers of smaller operators in Kurdistan, he said.
The move will also have political ramifications, amid persistent divisions between independence-minded Kurds and the Iraqi central government.
A diplomatic source said ExxonMobil had sought to coordinate its departure from Iraq’s south with the US State Department. Last year, the company’s move into Kurdistan happened without such political due diligence, the source said. The US’ stance remains that it backs a united, federal Iraq. The State Department did not respond to questions from Petroleum Economist.
- This story was first published on 16 October and updated throughout on 18 October.
=============
Author
Mandelsputin View Profile Add to favourites Ignore
Date posted
Friday 22:44
Subject
Re: CJ the enigma.... View parent message
Votes for this Posting
Voted 29 times.
Message
It's way past my bedtime but, for one reason or another, my evening got extended and I thought I'd drop by here before I called it a day.
When one eyeballs one's own mortality it can have a profound effect. Most of us assume our three-score-years-and-ten and, until we get to the last lap, tend to believe that life stretches before us endlessly and barely give a second thought to the possibility that we could die tomorrow. We think linearly and project linearly and rarely do we prepare ourselves for the possibility of the non-linear event - such as an untimely death at 22 instead of 72.
CJ is a genuine and sincere man from what I have been able to discern. But he is also a man who, through sickness, has been forced to face his own mortality.
Who, but one who has been there, knows on which track that might put one? For instance, maybe one would be concerned to right some wrongs, either that one has committed or even that one becomes aware of in others; and this could be through offering warnings of dangers perceived, born of personal experience.
I am not inclined to dismiss anyone's contributions because on a BB no-one really knows what motivates the poster at the end of a keyboard.
Sure, some may have purely selfish motives or even malicious intent; but that doesn't mean all posters with a negative outlook should be tarred with the same brush.
Their intentions may be very honourable. I believe CJ's are.
My preference is to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and assume that everyone has the best intentions and motives - until proved otherwise.
===========
Iraq southern oil exports halted by bad weather - port sources
inShare0Share this
Email
Print
Related NewsExxon seeks to quit flagship Iraq oil project
Thu, Oct 18 2012Analysis & OpinionGolden Time for Turkey
Essential reading: Biden and Ryan dispute economic toll of raising the top tax rates, and more
Related TopicsIndustrials »
BAGHDAD | Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:10am EDT
BAGHDAD Oct 21 (Reuters) - Oil exports from Iraq's southern oilfields have been halted due to bad weather preventing tankers reaching port, and the stoppage may continue through Tuesday, Iraqi oil port sources said on Sunday.
"Because of bad weather oil exports have been completely stopped... Tankers cannot reach port because of rough seas and they are concerned about accidents," one Iraqi port official told Reuters.
Crude exports from the country's southern oilfields through Basra port were just over 2 million barrels per day before the stoppage, the officials said. (Reporting by Aref Mohammed; writing by Patrick Markey)
===========
Upstream Petroleum Contracts: Where the “Rubber Hits the Road” in a Petroleum Regime
Posted on October 20, 2012 by Guest Blog| Leave a comment
Blog contributed by Jay Park, a partner with Norton Rose, who will be one of the ‘sprinters’ in our booksprint initiative to write “How to Read and Understand Oil Contracts”.
Zara Rahman’s recent blog post described OpenOil’s initiative to do a ‘booksprint’ to write a book about “How to Read and Understand an Oil Contract”. I am pleased to be a part of this initiative. Let me explain why.
I have been a student of ‘petroleum regimes’ for over thirty years as I have worked on oil & gas projects in forty-five countries. A petroleum regime is the set of rules that govern how a state regulates and manages its petroleum assets. It is comprised of four components:
The detail tends to increase as you go from the constitution (which will set out a few simple principles regarding petroleum) through the petroleum law, regulations and the contract.
The differences that exist among different petroleum regimes are really quite remarkable. The rules for driving a car differ very little as you travel the world. But petroleum regimes vary widely from country to country. It’s a bit surprising how significant these differences are.
The booksprint will be an effort to help explain and describe the ‘host government contract’ component of a petroleum regime. This is the contract between the state and the investor. The other parts of a petroleum regime are important, but the host government contract is where the action happens: the investment will occur, the wells will be drilled, the oil will be produced. This is where the ‘rubber hits the road’, as it were.
The wide variation among global petroleum regimes is also reflected in the many different types of host government contracts. There are fundamentally four flavours of host government contract: concessions, joint ventures, production sharing contracts and risk service contracts. In order to distinguish between them, it is necessary to ask two questions: (i) who has the exclusive right to conduct petroleum operations in the contracted area, and (ii) who owns the oil & gas that results from successful operations. Contracts can then be categorized into the four main types as follows:
Some states will mix up the features of the four main types to create a ‘hybrid’ host government contract. Consequently, there are many different variations of contracts used around the world.
The challenge in writing a book about “How to Read and Understand an Oil Contract” will be to put all these different types of contracts into a context, and identify what is common and what differs among them. We are currently identifying suitable examples from different countries; personally, I like Brazil’s concession, Ghana’s joint venture, Indonesia’s production sharing contract, Iraq’s service contract and Libya’s hybrid production sharing contract as good cases for analysis.
I am passionate about petroleum regimes because of the significant impact they have on whether and how a country’s petroleum resources will be explored and developed, and how well the state administers and regulates petroleum activity. My view is that a well-designed, durable petroleum regime (and its host government contract) focuses on seven key factors for the state, three key factors for the investor, and implements an efficient regulatory design:
It is my hope that the book “How to Read and Understand an Oil Contract” will elaborate on each of these. Understanding the key components of petroleum contract is a critical step in designing a good and durable petroleum regime, so that exploration, development and production can occur for everyone’s optimal benefit.
To find out more about the booksprint, read this two page pdf document, and to pre order your free electronic copy go to http://openoil.net/contracts-booksprint and fill in your email address. Feedback on the project and suggestions for what you’d like to see included can be made by emailing zara.rahman@openoil.net; every useful contribution will be attributed in the printed book.
==============
Author sicilian_kan View Profile Add to favourites Ignore
Date posted Thursday 14:15
Subject Court Reports
Votes for this Posting Voted 81 times.
Message
Thanks for all the court reports. Very useful for those of us unable to attend. I was particularly interested in the following:
"As an observation, the judge questioned a number of SP's arguments in the previous days. Conversely he has agreed with points that MC has made."
This interested me because when judgment is passed, if the structure of the judgment follows a barrister's skeleton argument or submissions, the barrister knows that he or she has done a good job. A barrister will want the judge to agree with them throughout the hearing because it is a good indication (but no guarantee) as to what might follow.
That is not to say that the barrister has done a bad job if the judge rules against them or if the barrister loses the case.
A barrister's job is not to win but to "promote and protect fearlessly and by all proper and lawful means the lay client's best interests and do so without regard to his own interests or to any consequences to himself or to any other person".
In addition, it is very much the early stage of the case (no witness evidence yet).
But it is very promising to hear that "the judge questioned a number of SP's arguments in the previous days. Conversely he has agreed with points that MC has made".
I am relieved that MC is having an easier time (as reported) as I have seen difficult cases where a judge comes down hard on both sides.
Anyhow, suffice to say that I am now more optimistic than I was before this case started. Let's hope that my view remains that way once the evidence starts. I very, very much look forward to RW being grilled on the stand early on. It will be, I hope, quite a spectacle.
===============
* Exxon signed exploration deal with Kurdistan last October
* The US oil company wants to leave giant oilfield in south
* Iraq wants Exxon to stay in the south
WASHINGTON, Oct 22 (Reuters) - The Obama administration should pressure Exxon Mobil to slow down dealings with Iraqi Kurdistan as they could worsen disputes between Baghdad and the northern province, Iraq's ambassador to the United States said.
Exxon angered Baghdad a year ago by signing an exploration deal with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in the north. The KRG quickly struck similar deals with other global oil companies but the central government in Baghdad deemed all the deals null and void.
Disputed areas between partly autonomous Kurdistan and Baghdad are seen as a potential flashpoint as tensions between regions of Iraq rise.
"We need the American government to exert some pressure on this company," Jabir Habeb, Iraq's ambassador to the United States, told reporters about Exxon after a panel on Iraq's energy potential at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The ambassador said he met with a U.S. energy official recently who told him the U.S. government could not apply a lot of pressure on Exxon because the company makes decisions that benefit its shareholders. Habeb said he told the official the issue could cause political and social problems so it should not be seen as a shareholder issue.
Exxon did not immediately return a request for comment.
The energy company is hoping to exit its flagship West Qurna-1 oilfield project in southern Iraq, diplomatic sources said last week, as profits there are thin.
But analysts have said other oil companies from Russia and elsewhere may not have the know-how and resources to maximize production from the giant Qurna field.
Habeb said Iraq wants Exxon to stay in the south.
"We prefer them to be there and I think the potential of oil in the south of Iraq there's no comparison with the north of Iraq, so I think they understand this fact."
The Paris-based International Energy Agency released a report on Iraq this month that said oil production in the south could rise to 6.4 million barrels per day by 2035 in a mid-level scenario. Output could rise to 1.6 million bpd from the north by the same time period
========
Author
scaramouche: Eric works as an attorney for UBS. The upshot of the Jones Day US court hearings in June were that JD got all EWs work email. In one such email to Mr Patrick he signed it "Rex Wempen, DIrector UBS Bank", thereby falsely representing UBS.
Theses email only reached JD on Friday. They are currently still going through them; a few have been reported here.
EW was in court for every session last week. He missed today!
===============
Deep in the mire....
scaramouche
Thanks again to our various court reporters for some excellent contributions, which are helping us all to fill in some missing pieces of the puzzle.
But I wonder if one of them can help me with this query......
From Badeli’s post this evening – “Others will report the details but what struck me was the actual, rather than perceived, scale of the misrepresentation perpetrated by the Wempens as was laid bare in their own emails. The one which to me says it all was sent by Rex on 13 November 2007 claiming that UBS were on the point oh providing the finance Excalibur needed and signing it as though he was a senior UBS employee - all a blatant lie.”
That extract really fascinated me….
So, on 13 November 2007, Rex it seems was prepared to PRETEND that he had funding in place from UBS, who were also coincidentally Eric’s employer (he was a tax attorney there as I understand it). As Rex had no position at all at UBS, if his claim was completely untrue, that alone could surely land him (and Eric) in very deep water, not just with GKP… but from UBS too!
Strangely, only a few months later, on 10 April 2008, it seems that UBS was VERY interested. They had amassed a substantial holding in GKP of 19.5 million shares (or 7%) of GKP.
http://www.investegate.co.uk/Article.aspx?id=200804110908381463S
Although on 1 July 2008, an RNS confirmed that UBS had sold about 1 million shares taking them down to around 18.5 million shares or 6.6% of GKP, they were still then amongst the largest of GKP’s shareholders. http://www.investegate.co.uk/Article.aspx?id=200807021111521268Y
However, UBS subsequently disappeared off the radar entirely and I have not been able to find any details in RNS’s or presentations confirming if/when they sold out.
Curiously though, this might not be quite as strange as it seems. In July 2008, there were only about 275 million shares in issue. But, as the shares in issue have markedly increased since then, it is feasible that UBS passed through each lower percentage threshold without actually selling any shares, so would not have needed to inform anyone.
Indeed, when the 25 May 2010 placing had been completed, there were 672 million shares in issue, and 18.5 million shares would have been slightly less than 3%. So, no further disclosures would have been required anyway.
What is surely noteworthy however, is that, whether or not Eric and Rex were corresponding closely with UBS’s investments arm at the time of Rex’s email, UBS did establish a significant interest in GKP in the period between the signing of the Shaikan PSC on 6 November 2007 (without Excalibur) and Todd’s invitation to potential funders in the RNS of 15 October 2008.
TK: “The potential farm-out of some of GKP's interest in the Shaikan Block is prudent risk mitigation given our high percentage holding of 75% in this exciting exploration play. Farm outs are also an important tool in managing internal cash generation and future capital commitments, as such Gulf Keystone will continue to assess its wider portfolio, strategy and opportunities in these dynamic times.”'
In fact, UBS may have never disappeared entirely from the picture at all, albeit perhaps holding a waiting brief.
For example from having only a very small holding in GKP towards the end of 2011, I recall that they held just under 24 million shares by March 2012. I have no idea what they hold now.
Anyway, I’m not sure about you, but this all seems to get murkier by the day, and the Wimpey brothers do seem to have contributed rather heavily to the obfuscation. I sincerely hope that Justice Clarke will be able to find his way through the fog! Maybe, when they appear in the witness box, RW and PW will find themselves even deeper in the mire.
I assure that I am very far from "in the know" and do not have ANY theory...yet.
I am just getting the distinct impression that something in the story that the two Wempens are putting out does not hold together... and that this could be an integral part of GKP's defence.
It is looking, to me at least, as very important that,sooner rather than later, the details of ALL BACKERS, at every stage, are made public and queries like this one are swiftly ironed out.
Great to see you back BBBS, even if mainly just ‘lurking’ for now.
To add to your comments, on 15 October 2008 (the date of the RNS to which you refer) GKP had a share price of 16.25p, 368 million shares in issue, and so a market cap of less than £60 million.
If RW’s “heart sank” when he found out that Excalibur had not been included in the Shaikan PSC signed on 6 November 2007, it would not have cost very much to “fund” taking up quite a substantial share in GKP at the time. At least not very much to someone with access to appreciable funds, and well capable of meeting the terms of the PSC.
So, where exactly were Rex’s mystery ‘backers’ then? Gone underground perhaps… or presumably, still ‘hedging’ their bets.
And what was that figure again that Excalibur believe that their ‘contribution’ towards GKP's incredible progress was actually worth?
2012-09-14 16:13
More TKI court cases.....
From what I can see Texas Keystone have been busy in America lately in relation to their part in the Excalibur claim, filing several cases in recent months, presumably by way of some kind of evidence gathering/ fact finding mission.
http://dockets.justia.com/search?q=TEXAS+KEYSTONE+INC.
Cases listed include:
1) Texas Keystone Inc. v Robert Gordon -filed on 27 June 2012
2) Texas Keystone Inc. v Prime Natural Resources and Jan Weldwijk – filed on 8 June 2012.
3) Texas Keystone Inc. v UBS AG and Christopher Pinho -filed on 7 June 2012
As a layman, I do not feel qualified to try to put this rather complex jigsaw together, but hopefully some of our resident legal beagles (Sicilian_Kan, Elikkos and Dennis) will be able to offer their thoughts as to what is likely to be going on, and whether or not we can yet reasonably conclude who the Excalibur ‘backers’ might be.
Personally, I suspect that, while each of the above parties may have played a part, we might still be only scratching the surface here. Hence, perhaps the reason, that the Judge wanted ALL backers…. as well as those even approached by Excalibur for funding… to be revealed.
We seem to be entering a very interesting few weeks before the trial starts on Monday October 8 th and I think it worth reminding ourselves of what GKP said in the latest half-yearly report under the short-term outlook.
They intend to “Successfully remove the uncertainty caused by the claims asserted by Excalibur”.
I sincerely hope they meant it, and that we don’t have to endure several weeks of mindless speculation on these boards.
Incidentally, did everyone know that Rex’s birthday is on October 5th, the preceding Friday, when he will be 45 years old.
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/j/o/n/Jerry-W-Jones/ODT2-0039.html
I am sure we and the GKP Board of Directors will all be wishing him a very happy birthday, then!
GLA, scaramouche
AIMHO and please DYOR.
GLA, scaramouche
===
Kandymans1
This is what I found, might be Excal's backer? Not sure though, might be a different Robert Gordon?
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/features/litigation-funding-an-overview-of-a-contentious-area-of-growth
Bob Gordon is managing director of 1st Class Legal, which provides both ATE insurance and litigation funding. His firm has been testing the third-party market, lending £12m to fund 17 cases, and plans to announce a ‘dramatically higher’ position next month.
http://www.legalcasefunding.com/page12.html
=============
The fact that TKI filed for disclosure against Robert Gordon (sales manager at UBS) amongst others says alot for your theory Scara
'If Eric misrepresented himself as a Director of UBS, then I believe that would have been a criminal fraud. - And he was supposed to have worked for UBS as an attorney? What a revelation!
No wonder the judge is keen to read the email! You would have to see it to believe it (them).'
And no wonder EW was not in Court yesterday........fear of being arrested for fraud?
=========
Q&A: Iraq analyst Raad Alkadiri
Members of the Iraqi Parliament gather for the formation of a new government on December 21, 2010, in Baghdad. Since its formation, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has narrowly survived a series of political crises. (ALI AL-SAADI/AFP/Getty Images)
By Ben Lando of Iraq Oil Report
Published October 22, 2012
As Iraq's oil sector continues to grow, its biggest obstacle may be the country's political volatility, as legislative reforms are being held hostage amidst deeply entrenched battles over how to interpret the Constitution and the definition of federalism.
Nearly 10 years after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the country has lurched from one crisis to the next. Its path has been determined less by the careful policy planning of stable institutions, and far more by the raw dynamics of identity...
===============
RSS
Gulf Keystone Petrol (GKP)
Add to Alerts list
Print Mail a friend Annual reports
Friday 11 April, 2008
Gulf Keystone Petrol
Holding(s) in Company
Gulf Keystone Petroleum Ld
11 April 2008
Not for release, publication or distribution in or into jurisdictions other than
the United Kingdom and Bermuda where to do so would constitute a contravention
of the relevant laws of such jurisdiction
11 April 2008
GULF KEYSTONE PETROLEUM LIMITED
('Gulf Keystone' or 'the Company')
Holding(s) in Company
The Company was informed on 10th April 2008 that UBS AG London Branch is
interested in 19,530,605 ordinary shares in the Company, representing 7.01 per
cent. of the issued share capital of the Company.
Enquiries
Gulf Keystone Petroleum: +44 (0) 20 7514 1400
Todd Kozel, Executive Chairman
RBC Capital Markets +44 (0) 20 7653 4667
Sarah Wharry
Tristone: +44 (0) 207 399 2470
Simon Ashby-Rudd
Citigate Dewe Rogerson: +44 (0) 20 7638 9571
Media: Martin Jackson
Analysts: Kate Delahunty
or visit: www.gulfkeystone.com
This information is provided by RNS
The company news service from the London Stock Exchange
=============
Wednesday 02 July, 2008
Gulf Keystone Petrol
Holding in Company
RNS Number : 1268Y
Gulf Keystone Petroleum Ld
02 July 2008
Not for release, publication or distribution in or into jurisdictions other than the United Kingdom and Bermuda where to do so would constitute a contravention of the relevant laws of such jurisdiction
2 July 2008
GULF KEYSTONE PETROLEUM LIMITED
('Gulf Keystone' or 'the Company')
Notification of Major Interests in Shares
The Company was notified on 1 July 2008 by UBS Investment Bank ('UBS') that, following an acquisition of the Company's shares on 27 June 2008, UBS was interested in 18,473,486 shares representing 6.63% of the Company's issued share capital. UBS's shares in the Company are beneficially owned as follows:
Shareholder(s)
No of shares held
% of issued capital
UBS AG London Branch
18,473,486
6.63%
Enquiries
Gulf Keystone Petroleum: +44 (0) 20 7514 1400
Todd Kozel, Executive Chairman
Ewen Ainsworth, Chief Financial Officer
RBC Capital Markets: +44 (0) 20 7653 4667
Andrew Smith
Sarah Wharry
Tristone Capital Limited: +44 (0) 20 7355 5800
Simon Ashby-Rudd
Majid Shafiq
Citigate Dewe Rogerson: +44 (0) 20 7638 9571
Martin Jackson
George Cazenove
or visit: www.gulfkeystone.com
This information is provided by RNS
The company news service from the London Stock Exchange
=============
Discussion
VotesAll1+2+3+4+5+10+20+50+
18-10-12
Where's the prikk* when you need him?
* (sic):
AKA "A One Man Band, which is what RW is and was" (MC)
AKA "an instrument that might be used in the performance of both sharp practise - and hara-kiri" (BBBS)
From Gulf Keystones's RNS of 15 October 2008:
http://online.hemscottir.com/ir/gkp/ir.jsp?page=news-item&item=68242735375733
'Todd Kozel, Executive Chairman & Chief Executive Officer of Gulf Keystone said:
...
"The potential farm-out of some of GKP's interest in the Shaikan Block is prudent risk mitigation given our high percentage holding of 75% in this exciting exploration play. Farm outs are also an important tool in managing internal cash generation and future capital commitments, as such Gulf Keystone will continue to assess its wider portfolio, strategy and opportunities in these dynamic times."
Cake and eat it indeed Your Lordship.
GLA,
BBBS
P.S. Sorry, couldn't resist, my apologies to whom it may concern - back to lurk
======
Doctorh
Good to see BBBS reappearing, and it has caused a few ripples amongst the bashers!
I laughed out loud when Blue Horseshoe claims he has made 'a tenuous point at best' - on the contrary, the point made by BBBS this morning, in quoting the 2008 RNS, is in my view the crux of the matter, and central to the whole farce that is currently being played out in court 15.
It really is as simple as this - if Rex had seriously wanted to invest in Kurdistan assets, and had the financial capacity to do so, there were numerous opportunities for him to have been involved.
He can’t on the one hand pretend that ‘his heart sank’ in November 2007 when he was excluded from the contract, when on the other hand he could have taken a plethora of other opportunities to gain a significant financial interest on very favourable terms, well before the first oil discovery.
If, as he claims, his company was in a position to have taken 30% of the PSC, then he could certainly have invested via the 2008 farm in offer, various placings or even, quite simply, buying shares on the open market as so many fore-sighted private investors did.
The problem with the above, of course, is that it assumes two things. First, that he had the financial wherewithal(
The necessary means, especially financial means) to do so, and secondly that he had the appetite and capacity for risk. Clearly, 2007 Kurdistan was essentially wildcat territory - one had to accept the possibility that if the drill had been a duster that most if not all of that investment would have been lost.
The reality is that for the past 10 years Rex has run a company that has made no money (or at least, none that has been declared on a profit and loss account) and yet he is trying to convince the Court that he was in a position to raise the finance and risk in order to fund thirty per cent of GKP’s costs to date? It is worth remembering that during the period we are talking about, 2008-9, we pretty much endured global financial meltdown. Governments were bailing out banks and everyone involved in corporate finance was in a bit of a tailspin. They were hardly likely to be handing over tens of millions to Rex to help with his wildcat Iraq adventures!
He may have a modest claim for an introducer’s fee, but even that is fairly tenuous. He was hardly the first bloke on the planet to think there might be a bit of oil up for grabs in Kurdistan. Quite simply, he sat on the sidelines waiting to see if GKP discovered oil, and then launched his claim.
Unfortunately for Rex, I think he is about to discover that business doesn’t work like that – you can’t have all the upside with none of the risk. That would be like having your cake and eating it (where have I heard that recently?!)
By all accounts Mr Justice Clarke is clearly getting a little tetchy about the rather flimsy Excalibur argument - I would be very surprised if this wasn’t put to bed quite quickly, at which point I suspect it will be open season as far as GKP are concerned…..
I wouldn’t mind betting (in fact, I have, quite substantially - by virtue of my huge long position!) that there’s an awful lot of news due, and big players waiting in the wings ready to show their hand, pending completion of this court case.
===========
"Rex would not have secured 10 million backing if he had no case".
I disagree. The backers have had the opportunity to manipulate the market and therebye cash in on investors' concerns and fears. They could have already made a fortune out of this, regrdless of the outcome of this trial.
=
there is either a case to be heard.
or
Someone is making serious Money from the SP to more than cover the court costs.
or
RW is a backed by the big boys who want to supress the sp for as long as possible, what is 10m when you plan to spend billions buying gkp.
or
this is another attempt to keep the SP low untill true value of GKP can be realised e.g O&G Law. I mean 10 - 12 weeks for a case that seems to have very little substance???
nothing would suprise me.
===
ws
'I wonder whether the airline pilot that flew Toddy boy into Kurdistan is also seeking a share as without his services, Todd would never have arrived in Kurdistan.'
Now we know why RW walked to Kurdistan.........
===
I'll keep this short -
A one man band like Rex doe snot have personal worth to fund Shaikan in the early stages. And not surprisingly - does TK. Both men when taken on equal standing are just 'individuals'.
But hang on a mo - TK has a company called GKP which is listed on the stock market. He can present the deal to shareholders and see if they want to carry the risk and fund the ops. TK himself will just take bonus shares, large salary and contribute virtually no cash of his own in this matter.
And that's the difference between Rex and TK. One had a company with funding sources and the other had nothing. The KRG saw this and clearly said NO to any 3rd party association with a company "excalibur' which clearly had no major shareholders and no funding sources.
However - when you take this situation of opportunity at face value, Rex is no different to TK. Both had zero money to invest in kurdistan but one found a way to sell the opportunity to shareholders and by doing so got a free carry himself.
Rex may argue that had he been given the 30% interest in the psc or GKP, then he too would have had a free carry - just like TK.
Trouble for poor old Rex is that he did not formally farm into Shaikan, nor did become a director of GKP. In fact - as far as anyone can see - he's a no-body, with a business that has done nothing for the last ten years.
I wonder whether the Security detail/team that escorted Todd to his first meeting with the KRG in Erbil back in 2005 or 2006 etc are also seeking a share in shaikan? After all - Todd would never have made that meeting without them lol!
I wonder whether the airline pilot that flew Toddy boy into Kurdistan is also seeking a share as without his services, Todd would never have arrived in Kurdistan.
I wonder is the cheff at the local Kurd hotel is also seeking a share too - without his food, todd would have starved and been incapable of signing any deals.
I could go on and on...
Just because you had 'some' involvement in early dealings or services does not buy you 30% of a publically listed company in retrospect lol!
The case is a farqing joke. Gloster knew that and I suspect Clarke will not be far behind.
HUB
===
That's a good question actually.
The best thing to do is wait for the close of day. For example, I was expecting 185p to act as support. The fact that it's been down to 181p intraday doesn't mean that 185p failed. As long as it closes the day above 185p than that still counts as a support holding. However, if it ever comes back to this level ata later date then it'll be 181p which will be the support level.
Always wait for close of day.
The same with resistance - if it spikes up intraday and closes below then it's a failure to break out. If it closes above then it's a breakout (but these can still be false). The test to check if a close below support or above resistance is valid is to see what happens when the SP returns to the breakout level. If it bounces away from it again then the breakout is valid and the SP should continue in the direction of the break.
Example: Let's imagine that GKP SP closes below 185p support. We need to wait until the SP returns to 185p at a later date (could be a day or a few days or more). If it closes back above 185p then it was a false break. If it hits 185p and then drops back down then it's a valid break and 185p becomes resistance.
Hope that helps...(it's easier with pictures)
===================
British ExxonMobil oil chief 'assassinated' in Brussels street
Exclusive: Nicholas Mockford, a British executive for the oil company ExxonMobil has been shot dead in front of his wife in an assassination-style killing in Brussels.
Image 1 of 2
Nicholas Mockford
Image 1 of 2Nicholas Mockford, in the blue coat, with his successful ExxonMobil sailing team after claiming victory in a Channel race last year
By Duncan Gardham, Bruno Waterfield and Emily Gosden
8:11PM BST 25 Oct 2012
Belgian police have imposed a news blackout after Nicholas Mockford, 60, was shot as he left an Italian restaurant in Neder-over-Heembeek, a suburb of the capital.
The executive was shot three times, once as he lay on the ground, after leaving the Da Marcello restaurant in Rue de Beyseghem at around 10pm on Oct 14.
His wife, Mary, was left beaten and covered in blood. Mr Mockford died on the way to hospital.
Witnesses said they saw the couple walk across the street to their car, a silver Lexus 4x4, before shots were fired.
The attack was said to have happened very quickly and Mrs Mockford was left cradling her husband in the street, shouting for help. According to reports, two men were seen running away carrying a motorcycle helmet.
Related Articles
British ExxonMobil executive 'shot protecting wife after violent mugging'
26 Oct 2012
Police hunt two men after oil chief "assassinated" in Brussels street
26 Oct 2012
Oil chief murder 'may have been professional hit'
26 Oct 2012
Initially police said they were not excluding any possibilities, including a carjacking, but Mr Mockford's car was not stolen.
The Belgian prosecutor's office said last night that there was a "judicial instruction" from Martine Quintin, the investigating judge, that meant they could give no "explanation" and no detail about the killing.
"This is usual in such a serious murder investigation," a spokesman said.
Mr Mockford had worked for the company since the 1970s, and was a technical support manager in “intermediates technology” for ExxonMobil Chemicals, Europe.
He was a keen sailor and was the skipper of an Exxon team who won first prize in a race in the Channel last year aboard their yacht Musette.
He was also interested in motor cycling. Mr Mockford had been married to his second wife, who is Belgian, for 15 years, and
had three grown-up children from his first marriage, all of whom live in Britain.
He was brought up in Leicestershire and had last lived in this country in Chichester, but had been abroad for some years, mostly in Belgium and Singapore.
One family member told The Daily Telegraph he believed Mr Mockford had been killed in a professional hit.
The relation, who asked not to be named, said: "We are all confused about what has happened. Nick was a genuinely lovely, clean-cut, mild mannered, family man.
"I don't think he would put up a fight or argue with someone trying to steal his company car.
"He was shot so calmly and so quickly, it smacks horribly of a professional hit, but we can't fathom why. He isn't the type to cave in to blackmail and it just doesn't compute."
A spokesman for ExxonMobil said: "We are shocked by the tragic death of one of our employees on Sunday, October 14 in Brussels.
"Our thoughts are with his family, friends and colleagues and we are supporting them as best we can at this very difficult time."
The relation said Mrs Mockford was recovering from the ordeal and had not been badly hurt. "He was always very tight-lipped about what he did, even when sitting around with the family," the relation added.
=============
Bonobo77
Jeez, I'm fifth on the ranking list.
I was second at one point!
I have no financial qualifications ... no geological background (other than researching the glaciology of Iceland for a novel) ... and - other than reading 'The Prize' - I'm barely informed on the tussle for 'Big Oil'.
BBBS knows his oil. As does Ren. Oilman's smelt the smoke from a Kurdish well.
The 'rankings' are bhollocks* ... these boards are populated by confidence tricksters ... and the sooner you understand your own appetite for risk and gauge your own understanding of the companies in which you entrust your cash, the better. Never EVER EVER EVER invest on the spur of the moment and in reaction to ANYTHING posted on this board.
Take a big view. A dispassionate view.
And stick to it.
You'll probably do alright.
(*Oirish for clackers)
===============
Hi All,
I was lucky enough to get the chance to go to the court proceedings yesterday and would highly recommend it.
There have been lots of excellent reports from court yesterday that give a really good feel. I just intend to add one thing. All caveats apply, my interpretation, no legal training, may have misunderstood.
The first part, before Rex took the stand, concerned the ongoing attempts to access emails sent between Robert Gordon (go-between) and Prime in the US courts. It seems that documents has been ordered to be produced but there was delay over whether there would be a breach of priviledge between Excalibur and Cadwallader ( who had given them legal advice). There was argument over who should vet the documents and remove any as necessary, either Clifford Chance (for Excal) or DLA Piper (for Prime) and even whether it would be documents produced or a summary.
Upshot was, the judge wanted the original documents, vetted by Clifford Chance.
This shouldn't hold things up and could be done overnight, said Simon Picken.
So, hopefully the Prime/Robert Gordon emails will now be available. If they are anything like as insightful as the UBS emails, then they'll make more ammunition for Mr Gaisman.
=========
Mandelsputin
Prior to funding a case, it's almost certain that the third party funder would carry out their due diligence and consider very carefully the strengths and weaknesses of the claim. No matter what the likely returns (even 75%) they are unlikely to agree to fund a hopeless claim. I don't buy into all these conspiracy theories that the real intention of the backers might be to manipulate the market and the sp. I believe the backers to be legitimate providers of such services and therefore we have a real tough case ahead of us, however, I also believe, from what I've read and heard, Excalibur's case for both legal and evidential reasons, is not as strong as our case and that's why I'm still invested.
RS6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is important to remember that this case was originally brought with the intention of seeking arbitration in the US where there is a much lower burden of proof required, discovery is minimal, and losing plaintiffs do not have to pick up a defendant's costs - thus settlement is often the least expensive option whatever the merits of the case.
It was Excal's blunder that they overplayed their hand by seeking a freezing injunction in the UK courts which allowed Judge Gloster to rule that the UK courts were the natural forum for the main issues to be tried.
Whereas the merits (or lack thereof) of Excal's claim may have forced a pre-hearing settlement in the ICC in NY, the same was not true of litigation in the UK courts.
============
Jonnyroyale
for me anyway, I'm forced to sell more shares for personal reasons at this proxy price due to these effin chancers...
This case appears to be a farce and without merit and yet continues to drag on through the excruciatingly slow British legal system..
No doubt some hedge fund will be happy to pick up mine and others shares and sell them at multiples after this case is concluded succesfully...
I was hoping an early settlement for a few bob would have left me in a better position, unfortunately not. Maybe that was me "building castles in the sky"... A sincerely hope that the greedy soandso's behind this case get found out, but alas as is often the case the rich get richer and the poor just dream about it...
Good luck to all of those who actually manage to retain their holding of this stock when it finally makes it to a decent sp...
===
Dingle
Unfortunately I could only stay for an hour, but RW under heavy cross examination from JG.
JG quotes to RW "you're making this up aren't you?"
"That's not an answer"
"Untruthful"
"Empty boast"
RW in response saying it was "positive salesmanship"
And the judge at one point saying to RW
"You don't need to tell us the Republicans are a political party in the United States"
====
