London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Goit - Paypal doesn't work for me. It won't accept my UK bank cards as the billing address is Taiwan - it must be a UK address for Paypal. It won't accept my Taiwan bank cards as it doesn't accept an English name with a local address. If I use my made up Chinese name (we need a made up Chinese name for our Health Insurance cards) it won't work as it doesn't match the name on my local bank cards. My local bank cards won't use my Chinese name as it doesn't match the name in my passport. And on and on it goes!
Bet you are sorry you asked :-)
Goit: thank you for the correction.
Rodney I emailed BH a while back and they said they don't publish data for Georgia, although the person I spoke to neither confirmed or denied there being any rigs in Georgia at the time, I think Ukraine went from 0 to like 80 odd rigs on the first month they published data for there (this is all from memory so might not be accurate)
ODR the BHRC doesnt take in Georgia
Zaza will be aware of everything Mole has mentioned today. He will know about all the debt that's outstanding, the political issues and the arbitration findings..
Zaza clearly thinks it's worth fighting on.
It took him 8 days to do a reply to the arbitrational findings in that time he would have taken legal advice of the highest order. They would have read the 152 pages and advised him we have a case !
We seem to have good political backing , most of which we wont be aware of atm . Domfolks post earlier shows how high the USAs interest goes in Georgia and it's not because they are producing a few bottles of wine.
As for the debt , yes the oil and gas price is low atm but it will rise. Our extraction costs are low with infustruture to supply not far away. We could have a resource to last many decades .
Zaza said a while back we had 30tcf that had been verified by 5 American companies over 18 months . The minimum price per TCF is $1 billion, up to $3 billion.
If we have a $100 million debt it's a drop in the ocean if we do have 30 TCF.
Like I said at the start of this post Zaza will know about everything Mole has mentioned and he fights on ...
Phil_2018: Just to add to Jonathan's valid point. I have been monitoring Baker Hughes' rig counts and they have had none in Georgia.
State agency would issue the license. So that is where I would expect to find a termination published. As it's legal I would expect it to be detailed as well and not open to interpretation.
Bugsy I thought has mailed the Georgians before. So there is the option of asking them!
Looed don't you have PayPal?
Phil. I don't think we've been getting much revenue from oil, as I seem to recall the GG in order to cripple the company, deemed the railtrack unfit to use.
The GOGC statements also refer to "LEPL “State Agency of Oil and Gas”" which I have also searched. The only reference I can find to FRR is statements from 2016-17 (but when you click on the link there is no statement to read)
http://energy.gov.ge/index.php?lang=eng and http://www.economy.ge/?page=home (Both show as being 'LEPL')
Looed cancelling 100% would be a political calculation. The cautious political move would be the 99% unless FRR have lost their political cover or really burnt all bridges. The main reason to cancel the PSA would be to wipe out the cost recovery pool.
I would have thought the termination would have to be published somewhere. But don't know which state agency site to search for that - it will be in Georgian.
The thing is, is that in the time since delisting and radio silence we don't know how much more of the oil field got developed. Last we heard Baker Hughes was working with FRR to finish off the research and then there was some agreement as to a split of the revenue for Baker Hughes drilling rigs I believe. Anyway, before delisting I believe we had pretty much just finished the last of the research needed to satisfy Baker Hughes/possible SM/Finance, etc. Presumably we were all set for a program of oil wells to be sunk.
Then the delisting/radio silence occurred and all we eventually got wind off were court shenanigans, manoeuvres, and some evidence to suggest that FRR were hard up, possibly from all the debt and court cases. Though we know that Lawyers went unpaid, apparently workers and debt put off as in the case of Hope. YA it seems were presumably paid.
So aside from that the big question remains of whether the oil field was actually development with more oil wells? A lot more wells perhaps?
The gas we don't know much about since that presumably would take deep pockets so unless someone came in to focus heavily on that since delisting then the gas might be less likely.
Now Zaza was forecasting a year or two back that by now we would be bringing in good money from the expected development of this oil field. Did all the court stuff get in the way of that? Who knows. My thought would be that Zaza would know that the salvation of FRR would lie in further developing the oil field from the three or whatever oil rigs we had on it at delisting. So I would imagine that he would press for the development of the oil field with whoever. Sitting with just the three oil wells churning out would leave the company as a sitting duck likely to eventually succumb to debt or whatever. Only if there was no avenue open to developing the field would nothing happen.
If we can find out whether the oil field was developed as intended that could tell us a lot about the state of FRR. I'm of course hoping that work has been done and that FRR are in not so bad a position as they were. If the situation is better than we think and if this matter with the GG can be alleviated then things might be better than they seem.
Mole - thanks for restating that - I am sure you must feel like you have done it 100 times already.
There was a GOGC statement that implied the termination covered the whole of the PSA. While that does seem to have been walked back - that is in large part an assumption. There was no mention of the asset move in the last statement and it wasn't mentioned when the GOGC first started making statements - which seems to be were we have found ourselves again. Hopefully an omission on purpose rather than a case of "we dealt with this in our previous statement"
The 'puzzling and surprising" bit is what allows us all to speculate Mole.
We all know under normal circumstances this should be dead in the water. The running of this company is obviously not modelled on 'normal'.
Because of that (and only that) I'm very very positive of a very profitable outcome for all...eventually. :-)
mole, the way you've put it
its impossible to continue and its hardly worth discussing now
we will just have to sit back and see if anything transpires between now and july but, looks pretty much to me like its a forlorn exercise by zaza trying to keep the embers burning
Looed I've previously posted on this.
I very much doubt there would be a new PSA for the 1% it's possible but I doubt it.
The original PSA covers this eventuality in the relinquishment clauses. The 99% will be put out for retender shortly in little sub blocks.
It's possible they have issued the termination on the 99% only that is what we all are counting on. But 100% can't be ruled out if material breach was not ruled out pretext to take 100% as part of the arbitration agreement.
The more pressing issue may be how to pay the $6m bill for arbitration. I suspect Zaza would like to offset the vat we are due.
That's the way out to leave us with 1%. But then we have $40m of loan notes and other debt on the books to deal with. So that requires a substantial injection of cash or capital or a capital restructure plus the funds to progress operations.
It's not impossible for FRR to survive this but I'm sure it requires goodwill from a number of stakeholders we have been fighting in courts round the world.
The real question if we survive the frying pan is can we escape the debt fire underneath and then get back to developing the asset? The way out with Outrider is either pay them off or let them take a very substantial equity stake in a debt for equity swap. That is what Steve/Zaza had been trying at all costs to avoid since 2016.
It's a very difficult situation we are in and the current oil price makes it much harder.
It's both puzzling and surprising how the company keeps going at the moment. Operations and company personal must have been hollowed out to virtually nothing.
To get an investor or borrow FRR need to retain the 1% and show you can generate a return. Clock is running on this how but knowing if they have terminated 99% or 100% on 27th July is indeed the key question.
Wazza10 - yes that's what I am noe trying to figure out - GOGC seem to say the developed land is not contested, they then issue termination which if what they say is right applies to the 99% (though it did for a while seem like it was for everything, and it still could be), so in that case the 1% can only be dealt with under a new deal. But we haven't seen any evidence of that or what GOGC cant just announce it.
Looed . I seem to remember something saying that both party’s had come to an agreement about what was to be arbitrated. So assuming the 1% was not involved in the arbitration. I’m thinking the psa Was for all the 100% and is now not fit for purpose . So a new psa for the 1% would be a new deal ? .
I hit post message too early. I meant to end by saying I am making the assumption that the arbitration wouldn't have reviewed or judged on the 1%, so is it a totally separate issue.
We are all focusing on the 1% while the GOGC are focusing on the 99%. If the 1% was never part of the arbitration (which assumes what GOGC are stating is correct), then does Zaza's ongoing war of words only apply to experiences of working with GOGC in the 99%, and costs associated with that. Or is the continued pressure about relations in the 1%. What is the relationship between the Award and the 1%?
On whether or not there is any truth on Frr re-dacting parts of the report & then agreeing on its release.
Is, as normal & that is we wait & see.
I personally am not giving much credit to Zaza's interpretation of the arbitration. How long could it possibly take to sift through a 152 page document with a black marker? Why would the Georgians want to give a joint statement as it implicitly implies their version of events, as described, are wrong. It seems like a play for time, to help pile on the pressure from the USA and or delay further for a change in government/court case. While I don't give much credence to the arbitration interpretation, I do think the GG have historically and presently been garbage, and do warrant the USA involvement anyway. This may be underhand strategy from Zaza but retrospectively morally justified.
Ideally, i'd like to be entirely wrong and see it written in capital letters that GG are telling porkies in the arbitration document.
Certainly think we have seen very few facts here - from both sides. Of 152 pages of the Arbitration document we have seen about 1 page worth of ‘facts’ from each side. Suspect they are both telling ‘the truth’ but it’s what they are not saying that is key to how things will progress. All in my humble opinion.
Looed , thanks for your well thought out response to me last night re my question to you of why you do not think a joint statement is necessary anymore.
I would imagine that immediately after the judgement or maybe even before , both sides lawyers would have discussed how to proceed in relaying the outcome to the world . So perhaps before the first release by Georgians they already knew Zaza’s desire not to publish whole document ( including his reasons )and that knowledge has driven their tactics .
Their public stance of lets publish all gives the impression that they have achieved all their aims in Arbi and have have nothing to fear from its release. If you know your opponent cannot allow full disclosure its a good tactic .
So Zaza responds publicly with ...joint statement.... ( thanks Arsenal )
Georgians have the upper hand here in that they claim victory , cite certain main points , backed up by Hogans and KPMG ( Hope’s auditors by the way ...I think ) but no one outside the circle is privy to details of their claims or the finer points of the judgement .
All this makes me believe we have had an acceptable outcome .
Zaza request for joint statement if released you would think would clarify the FACTS of who was awarded what , and an indication of the implication of those facts going forward for both sides .
Is subsequent termination letter a continuation of tactic in that they know its debatable but it backs up their version of facts of Arbi . At the end of they day they can rescind it if tactic fails or more likely force us into another court battle over it many months down the line in the hope that we may have folded as an entity before we enter the court or at least their action of termination is not ruled on in court before elections .
If Georgians are happy with full release ( really ? ) why are they not happy about re partial release , facts are facts after all and clearly no side would agree to incorrect facts appearing in statement . If facts are as stated already by Georgians what have they got to lose by agreed joint statement .