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.
Ziggy, firstly, thanks for your posts. Is clear, like a few others, you put a pile of work in! Your post 13:42 was extremely helpful and your most recent one helps to contextualise it further for me.
I see what you mean now, that there is a time line/ protocol and that an Oct 2019 hearing falls outside. And I guess that is what I picked and was trying to then work out how it fit together (given we meant to be having a hearing this month) -- but as we see, it sort of doesn't. It does also bring into view Madp's comments that arbitration. So what is this date for? What is it about? Some sort of smokescreen (someone else used that word)?
Some other poster suggested we will likely only find out when the deal is completed -- this may turn out to be the case...
It has already been said, but you put in a tremendous amount of work into trying to make some sense out of what is/ has happened.
So keep up the great work & I am still thinking that something good will come out of this over coming months.
Re my post , I had in my mind the reference by auditor to more than one hearing which I referred to the other day , which did not fit into how I thought Arbi process worked . So to help me get a handle looked at SCC rules again which led me to lay out some timeline as per my post today .
No idea if Arbi has concluded but it clearly goes against the normal procedure re time if not . However as stated in article 43 extensions can be granted and if the wording of Auditor report is correct then maybe one had been granted. Another more negative thought ...has time limit been extended because the Liquidator has become involved.
Having said the above Mads posts portray a good theory re Arbi being abandoned / concluded without any negative impact on us.
Really helpful Madp!
If the initial arbitration was because the GG thought that FRR hadn't proved up the Basin Edge, Shallow Fields and only part of the other fields. Then with the money situation in Q1 2018, the GG probably thought that there was little scope of FRR drilling more wells than those planned in Taribani. FRR would have requested they have until June 2020 (if my memory is correct) under the PSA. The GG could then have countered that any drilling would require a 180 day EWT, plus time to analyse and obtain independent verification. Thus any initial flow rates warranting the full allotted time would be known b y mid October 2019 and if promising would grant FRR an extension to use the full time frame allowed under the PSA. The significant flow from T39's Eldari B, plus the computer modelling of BP, when coupled with a 5% RA could then have rendered the arbitration null and void.
Appreciating you getting with helpful response. Starting make more sense. There's still a question when we might finally come to hear something. But as another trusted poster suggested, we may not until the deal is finally done. Also, if it plays out like is being said, then Hope could in serious trouble!
Don't think there's ever been anything this complicated on AIM.
CF - No problem mate. I'm only concerned with credit where credit is due and criticism where warranted, which can only occur with proper references and links. As for the 19th October hearing, IMHO it's either erroneous with the intent of influencing the Ukraine bid, or there was an extension given to allow FRR to meet it's obligations regarding Block 12 (see the post by Jeremiah99 @ 14:00 which suggests this reason for an extension). If it was the latter, then IMHO the Ukraine interview highlighted that FRR had met those obligations by announcing reserves of 14 billion barrels of oil and 30 TCF of gas. IMHO those reserve figures don't just come from Taribani, but from the Eldari B throughout Block 12, proved up and verified by BP's computer modelling. However, I still believe that a deal with the 5% RA resolved this situation long before now, hence no reference in the link posted by Syric. IMHO the Ukraine interview was to negate the old news about the arbitration, which no longer applied, but was being used to influence the Dolphin bid.
Apologies Madp regarding the mistaken identity thing
What I'm still trying to get my head around following ZiggyZag's post is where or how the Oct 2019 hearing fits into the scheme of things,,at least in terms of what Ziggy had carefully laid out. A great deal of effete had gone into it and am appreciative but was unable to work out what it might tell us about the hearing that is to happen/than may have happened this October e.g. does the October 2019 fit into the sequence of events laid our by Ziggy in any way? Was it possible to tell if the Oct 2019 hearing was some sort natural conclusion to what can be gleaned from Ziggy's findings? Certainly, there was no mention of our Oct hearing and so wasn't sure what to think.
Suggestions and thoughts welcome
What I posted initially on the 12th September (I only wrote the last sentence) :-
Posted by bugsy-b @ 20:03 :-
FRONTERA IS SUING GEORGIA
"29.AUGUST .2019 21:37 ECONOMIC
FRONTERA IS SUING GEORGIA AND SEEKING $ 3.5 BILLION IN COMPENSATION
Posted by Sycric @ 22:55 :-
Any suing of countries normally is on this. Cannot see if so seems like fake news.
The two posts copied above were posted on the 29th August and copied from the second and fifth posts down of the link below :-
IMHO the timing of the 'old news' posted in the link by bugsy-b and the fact that there's no listing in the link posted by Sycric points to someone trying to influence the case in the Ukraine.
CF - I didn't post the article, bugsy-b posted it and I re-posted it, along with a post by Sycric, which showed no case between FRR and the Republic of Georgia. My post was 'IMHO the timing of the 'old news' posted in the link by bugsy-b and the fact that there's no listing in the link posted by Sycric points to someone trying to influence the case in the Ukraine.' Add to this the time limits overshoot highlighted by ZiggyZag and a 5% RA which reverts to the GG, when FRCC is liquidated, which IMHO suggests that the arbitration is over. what's the point of this RA if it's left in a company that's being liquidated, other than to suffice an agreement where the GG was after a larger share? On current production it would not be enough to satisfy the DoS, plus with monies left from production in FEGL, it would not be required. Therefore, if you still think that the 5% RA is nothing to do with the initial arbitration request, please explain the purpose of the 5% RA?
"The Board may extend this time limit upon a reaso- ned request from the Arbitral Tribunal or if otherwise deemed necessary." I guess this clause may have come into play, but for which reason/s? Was the original arbitration request brought about because of FRR's failure to exploit the asset within a reasonable time frame? If so, one would dearly like to think they have bought time while a very big partner is currently busy helping to prove up the assets.
Thanks for that ZiggyZag,
In your mind, how does that tally with the date/ timeline from the recent article Madp posted (one of the earleir threads)?
"A further hearing on the Frontera arbitration lawsuit will take place in October 2019, according to the Gas and Oil Corporation audit report."
Been looking again at SCC rules and timescales re Arbitration .
Article 8 Commencement of arbitration
Arbitration shall be deemed to commence on the date the SCC receives the Request for Arbitration......we know that happened early 18.....
Article 22 Referral to the Arbitral Tribunal
When the Arbitral Tribunal has been appointed and the Advance on Costs has been paid, the Secretariat shall refer the case to the Arbitral Tribunal.
Article 29 Written submissions
(1) Within the period determined by the Arbitral Tribunal, the Claimant shall submit a Statement of Claim which shall include, unless previously submitted etc etc .............Auditors report says that was July 18.....
(2) Within the period determined by the Arbitral Tribunal, the
Respondent shall submit a Statement of Defence which shall include, unless previously submitted etc etc .........Auditors report says that was Sept 18
Article 43 Time limit for final award
The final award shall be made no later than six months from the date the case was referred to the Arbitral Tribunal pursuant to Article 22. The Board may extend this time limit upon a reaso- ned request from the Arbitral Tribunal or if otherwise deemed necessary.
Seems that sometime between early 18 and July 18 after various prelims that have to take place within the process the SCC Board referred case to tribunal as in Article 22 which is governed by Article 43 re timelines.
So Assuming July 18 we are nearly 14 months from when the actual Arbitration part started and 7 months over the normal time limit for final decision as in Article 43 .
Out of Arbitration and ADR, the most important is the former. Not sure as to all the intricacies (know there are a few ideas and theories out there), but positive resolution there of some kind should allow us to move forward with Block 12 (perhaps even relist, if that is to happen - otherwise we continue to wait for news/ info to surface as to what is going on or ntended).
Arbitration this month some time, indeed, could've happend already.
Also, I did wonder if in November, given the Oct 2019 date for the hearing, if FSHG could attempt to contact FRR for news as to outcome?? Seems only reasonable...
Could be here soon....