Register
Login:
Share:
Email Facebook Twitter


EXCLUSIVE: Aura Energy #Aura to IPO Swedish Vanadium prospect


Xcite Energy Share Chat (XEL)



There is currently no data for Xcite Energy.


Share Discussion for Xcite Energy


Thread View

Please login or register to post a message on Share Chat.

Posts per page:

 
highlandsbull
Posts: 5,643
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
SEC action against oilco finance
13 Jun '18
execs.. just wish, as per SEC action below, the HMG powers that be, nonentity no shows, in the UK had had the b**** to forensically examine and chase the actions of XEL finance execs, Bondholder and OGA execs, leading up to the company liquidation and assignation through this process of the Bentley lease with a four year extension now attached to a newco involving in part the good old boys from the oldco, with those not participating earning golden goodbyes. Jmho..

https://boereport.com/2018/06/12/judge-denies-attempt-by-former-penn-west-executives-to-dismiss-sec-charges/
highlandsbull
Posts: 5,643
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
Sembmarine buying Sevan..
8 Jun '18
academic interest in view of Sembmarine being quoted near the death of XEL as possible option supplier of an FSO to their design whereas Seven was the earlier favourite. Perhaps Fairclough under his new paymaster guise will be angling for further trips to Singapore.

https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companies-markets/sembmarine-to-buy-sevan-marines-intellectual-property-in-us28m-deal-to-end-legal
honestbob
Posts: 1,212
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
telboy
5 Jun '18
You could do with evidence of having had them if you are ever likley to have capital gains tax to pay on other shares or assets

You need do own detailed research but as i understand it you can register the loss with HMRC and then have it available to offset against any future capital gains - you only have few years to register but then it is carried forward indefinitely

This only applies to shares held outside an ISA or pension fund
telboy2712
Posts: 14
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
proof of shares
22 May '18
Hi guys I'm one of the losers here I first bought in at 1.23 and was still buying at the top price I even loaded my Isa with them, I was with HP Markets who sold out to Beaufort who has now gone into Administration. (not have a lot of luck as a PI) They have now sent me a list of all my trading and shares but Xcite shows nowhere do I contest this record and ask for proof of my original shares with Xcite
highlandsbull
Posts: 5,643
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
OGA, bumph producers par excellence
18 May '18
highlandsbull
Posts: 5,643
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
Singapore KFELS rig sales to Borr..
18 May '18
They started at six but ended up at the five Super 'B's. FEG's out of their Super 'B' at 20%, $40mil downpayment lost, but looks like COSL's hoped for Bentley/TS Offshore's N Plus did not make being part of the package. Still, means the rig's still there for any interested party re a Bentley plan Mk.2.. At $80/bbl oil now wonder what the three incompetents are thinking now.

http://ocsgroup.com/asia-pacific-oil-gas-update-asia-otc-2018/
https://www.offshoreenergytoday.com/borr-buying-5-newbuild-jack-up-rigs-from-keppel-for-745m/
ralph2010
Posts: 257
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
i was lucky
14 May '18
I got in here at 62p in 2010, missed the 350p spike , held on for a good while and sold at 120p.

My god what a disaster. Sorry to anyone who lost out.
highlandsbull
Posts: 5,643
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
To repeat one final time..
2 May '18
Did the responsible executives of XEL/XER ask of OGA for a four year Bentley field lease extension prior to participating in and actioning the XEL insolvency process that enabled the Bondholders to become the de facto owners of XER.

If not, why not, as the actuality was that with the effective connivance of OGA in dealing with the same individuals, and most likely the prospective new owners of XER, approval of the lease extension became a factual event. However this clearly only was allowed to happen after ownership of XER had been transferred, not while XEL might still have been in a position to use such news for it's benefit. By which time also terminal gratuities were paid and/or new employment contracts for the same executives had been executed, with the party that had become the new owner.

In view of the $450m+ investment by XEL in Bentley that had gone before v the $150m or thereabouts loan outstanding, is there not something criminal implied in this behaviour, to the detriment of shareholders in XEL. Executives that had both a clear conflict of interest, securing the present and future personal benefits they did in fact obtain either by negotiating amongst themselves or with an interested, related party, while also having this fiduciary duty to the shareholders and company that still was or had been who they were appointed to represent. What part also did the Bondholders play in this behaviour, to their particular benefit.

Jmho, over and out.
highlandsbull
Posts: 5,643
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
Cringeworthy interview on BBC R4
1 May '18
this am. John Humphrys, Margaret Hodge, and some shrill nonentity from the BVI promoting the corporate 'transparency' of the septic isle.
highlandsbull
Posts: 5,643
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
Interesting comment on II..
28 Apr '18
imo apart from the completely absent fiduciary duties of the old XEL/XER BoD's to their shareholders, particularly Cole and the useless to XEL cfo, sure pursuing them through the BVI courts would be expensive and possibly non productive, but perhaps not so to shake them up in the UK.

Ditto for the OGA to be pursued under foi as to why they allowed, as mentioned in 5,635 via a complete conflict of interest situation, a four year lease extension to new XER and the same execs without first offering this, as was clearly available, first to old XER who held the lease. Could have been a game changer re funding and ability to secure same. Just what was said by who and when, and how was Cole allowed to be given any sort of payoff as part of a deal that OGA participated in.
highlandsbull
Posts: 5,643
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: enjoying the monologue highlandBull
11 Apr '18
Sadly none of the large investors who have had substantial losses here appear to have the b**** to use any legal fund reserve which such companies normally have, to at least under foi take:

1) OGA/DECC to task for not in the first instance giving a 4 year Bentley field lease extension to XER when funded by owner XEL, yet seemingly were prepared to negotiate same for XER under new ownership which would have to have been declared to OGA, and with XEL/XER management while said individuals were clearly still execs of what was to be their former company. Why was said preference not seen as a clear conflict of interest by OGA in which they should have not been complicit, when it certainly was for the XEL/XER execs with the lease expiring. Why alternatively was the lease not put out as a re-tender to all parties.

2) BoD of XEL/XER abrogation of fiduciary duties while still employees of XEL/XER negotiating a four year lease extension for Bentley with OGA while they were still had to be on the payroll of XEL/XER, particularly in the case of the useless cfo. Acting in effect for themselves and the bondholders in securing both their future employment as was clearly the case, they jumped ship which had to be by prior agreement, and the liquidation of XEL without due consideration first being given to the lifeline that a lease extension to XER, while still under the ownership of XEL, would have been to the parent company and it's ability under competent management to source funding against said lease extension. Jmo.

Imo all parties deserve to be brought to book and sued, at least to disclose the facts during the timeline that led to the lease extension being granted by clear partiality. OGA as a public body should not be allowed to hide behind supposed confidentiality issues that directly by their action blighted the investment of thousands of shareholders in XEL, who with their participation and despite unnecessary costs imposed by DECC, had brought Bentley close to development status with large and now proven field reserves.
toxicnerve
Posts: 2,643
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: enjoying the monologue highlandBull
22 Mar '18
How's the ATC (Flyer your words) going ???
Casshy
Posts: 403
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
enjoying the monologue highlandBull
22 Mar '18
??,....I think its over...
highlandsbull
Posts: 5,643
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
Interesting article on Kraken..
22 Mar '18
highlandsbull
Posts: 5,643
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
BVI laundromat in action again..
17 Mar '18
shades of what OGI allowed XEL/R execs unchallenged to wash through in respect of XEL shareholders. jmo..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-5511423/The-hunt-Toys-R-missing-millions.html
westsider
Posts: 192
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
Hypocrites
13 Mar '18
PMQ's last week

� Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
Q12. Will the Prime Minister support the work that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Oil and Gas Authority are doing to facilitate the production of �1 trillion of oil and gas revenue from the continental shelf, supporting 300,000 jobs? Will she also join me in paying tribute to the men and women who work offshore to ensure that our homes stay warm? [904232]
� The Prime Minister
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those who work in our offshore oil and gas industry, and thanking them for the work that they do. Last week�s weather highlighted just how important that work is to us all. We remain committed to supporting the industry, building on the �2.3 billion package announced in recent Budgets. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the oil and gas sector recently committed themselves to working together to ensure that the UK continues to enjoy the benefits of a world-leading offshore oil and gas industry.
highlandsbull
Posts: 5,643
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: beltron
10 Mar '18
It increasingly looks like the XEL/XER execs that parachuted into newco XER had via the bondholders found a party to both develop Bentley eventually and retain their services away from XEL and old XER. From the OGA comment there's no reason old XER when still owned by XEL should not have been awarded a four year lease extension of Bentley, they were fully compliant with the technical requirements for lease extension, funding only had to be demonstrated at application time for FDP. Lease extension therefore should have been granted without question. Wheat clearly seems to have been lacking was the XEL/XER execs ever making this four year lease extension application while XEL was still the owner company for XER.

Imo the facts in relation to this needs to be ascertained. Plus on this basis why when being appraised for said extension did OGA show delay and partiality in allocating same to a company that was effectively a newco without going out to re-tender.
highlandsbull
Posts: 5,643
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: beltron
10 Mar '18
Yes, OGA and the fiduciary duty absentees from XEL and XER pre liquidation should be brought to book. I seem to recall as part of their package the company was paying for executive iiability insurance. Two avenues for XEL shareholder redress imo.
Blue-Eyes
Posts: 5,590
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: beltron
10 Mar '18
Interestingly Statoil got their extension without having to complete any of the technical work on their licence yet Xcite were stating to anyone who would listen that they were doing all these evaluations to keep OGA happy.

9. It may be helpful at this point if I set out some general background to how the OGA considers Licensing applications. The consideration by the OGA of the technical and financial competence of a potential licensee/operator when considering whether to issue a licence is for the OGA to consider the Licensee�s ability to carry out the proposed work programme which would have been outlined in the licence application. Such work programmes normally involve drilling an exploration well and any relevant appraisal activities which might be required prior to the formulation of a development plan.
10. However, where a licence extension is sought, such as in this case to extend the relevant Bentley field, this would be considered on a case by case basis. In such circumstances, while the technical capability of such an extension is considered, the financial competence would not usually be a factor in making any decision to extend.
11. Within the Licence lifecycle, the OGA carries out its formal assessment of a company�s commercial, financial and governance structure before it agrees a Field Development Plan (�FDP�) � it is then that the Licensee has to demonstrate, in the OGA�s view, access to sufficient funds to meet its share of the actual FDP costs.
12. Therefore, no financial assessments were before the OGA when undertaking the technical review for the licence extension request: such finance assessments being for example a detailed review of cash flows, income, expenditure (both capital and operating), borrowings, equity funding and other facts of this type. As such, no financial review as described

So why only 9 months?
highlandsbull
Posts: 5,643
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: beltron
9 Mar '18
There clearly was an extension available on the table, it happened. OGA were well aware of poor market conditions in 2016 and the possible parlous state of XEL as a result despite what they had spent with DECC insistence on the EWT in 2012. As you mention Statoil got three years for Bressay and magically when XEL is successfully euthanised it's former subsidiary under the same management and phantom supporter is allowed a four year extension. An absolute crock in many ways imo.
beltron
Posts: 51
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
Keep Pluggin Away
9 Mar '18
If all else fails you can go here :- https://ico.org.uk/ then back to my MP if that fails.
highlandsbull
Posts: 5,643
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: beltron
8 Mar '18
OGA's attempt at confidentiality makes no sense. Don't they realise the conflict of interest situation and death of XEL they allowed themselves to be drawn into re the action they allowed to happen eventually. They knew XEL was being taken to the cleaners by the Bondholders, yet the same XEL/XER executives are in front of them requesting a four year lease extension on behalf of this new investor that has shown up, clearly with commitments made for Bentley FDP, or if not why would OGA ever grant this extension. Why did OGA not in good faith first offer as it was on the table this lease extension to old XER. What might have positive news on that that have done to the XEL sp, extended borrowing capacity, and revived interest of partners. Pretty clear if the Bondholders and whoever was fronting up the future performance guarantees to OGA were doing all they could to ensure the liquidation of XEL.

We don't know whether the fiduciary duty failures/conflicted interests parties we know about ever made a request to OGA for XEL/XER for four year lease extension while XEL was the owner in control of XER, that clearly in fact was available and given to XER in it's new shareholder/same old staff guise after the XEL involvement in backing XER had been booted out of the way. Then if XEL/XER could not have performed the lease with the data on the field gained should have gone out to open re-tender not to this unknown entity that backed itself into XER.

Jmo.
Blue-Eyes
Posts: 5,590
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
beltron
8 Mar '18
Below is the question I asked.

I understand that Statoil recently had a 3 year extension to the Bressay licence granted can you
explain why it was that when Xcite applied they were given only 9 months? Were Xcite content to only
obtain 9 months/ Had there been any discussion prior to the application about the length of extension
they could expect?
Also, at any point since that extension was granted did Xcite query, formally or informally whether a
further extension would be granted if they applied? In short was there any further dialogue with OGA
over the matter of the remaining length of the licence?�
Blue-Eyes
Posts: 5,590
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
beltron
8 Mar '18
I went to internal review on it with OGA

With regard to your additional requests, while the OGA strives to be as
transparent as possible, and our general approach to requests for information is
to adopt a default position of looking to release information, there are
circumstances where certain types of information cannot be released. Having
assessed the information relating to those requests (focusing on discussions
between the OGA and Xcite over the extension to the Bentley licence), it
consists of sensitive commercial information that could harm the Xcite�s
commercial position if it were to be released into the public domain.
5. Therefore, the OGA considers that those requests fall under the exemption in
section 43(2) FOIA, on the grounds that disclosure of such information would,
or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person, and also
Regulation 12(5)(e) of EIRs, on the grounds that that its disclosure would
adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where
such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest.
6. Furthermore, the OGA considers that the exemption under section 41(1) FOIA
(information provided in confidence) applies, as does Regulation 12(5)(d) of the
EIRs (interests of the person providing the information).




Share Price, Share Chat, Stock Market news at lse.co.uk
FREE Member Services
- Setup a personalised Watchlist and Virtual Portfolio.
- Gain access to LIVE real-time Regulatory News (RNS).
- View more Trades, Directors' Deals, and Broker Ratings.
Share Price, Share Chat, Stock Market news at lse.co.uk






Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look. While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.