The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
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. 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.
if it can be believed, how many of the old XER band abandoned ship when the Whalsay lifeboat showed up after contributing to the foundering of the SS XER. Bower and Brennan for starters, though Bower resigned his directorship mid 2017 listed as coo and Brennan as director subsea, sure there must be more. If they are in fact no longer there they've been very slow to amend their profiles.
Whalsay seem to be very coy on their webpage just who is who. with the ownership.
Their filed accounts for y/e 2017 make interesting reading, back to the West Indies, Caymans this time. seems there was a recognised debt noted to the parent XEL/R of $330m, generously waived by same, how was that possible for $1?!
Debt was reclassified from $157m to $147m and they also got their $10m w/capital. Staff reduced from 16 to 6. Interesting also that this company has enacted liability insurance cover for their directors and officers against claims reflecting the execution of their jobs. I'm fairly sure but can't place it that XEL and old XER had same, could the old BoD/execs fall within this if so..
The company reports that funds are in place to support activities until end 2018. On this basis how did they get OGA support for a four your licence extension, as their Auditors report is also qualified to reflect same uncertainty. Interesting also the carrying cost of oilfield equipment in 2016 was listed as $8.5m, disposed of in that year at a loss on disposal of $6.11m. Gensets? Another successful investment. Decommission cost for old wells 5 and 6 estimated to be $1.67m expected to be completed by 5/18. Seems low. Deferred tax asset balance $215m.. Cole received $74k in 3/17 for loss of office..
Apologies for the quality of the link to this.
http://whalsayenergy.com/
https://document-api-images-prod.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/docs/BkyXk5iO-T_hywG68_dsLuYKCBXA95V4t6fkZdFgJlI/application-pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAWRGBDBV3GHMVJT52%2F20180824%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20180824T233019Z&X-Amz-Expires=60&X-Amz-Security-Token=FQoGZXIvYXdzEE8aDM9dL%2BaDrRUP95NVvCK3A71DEooCACkkxNNnKJOiWVo38Tkxe4wwYw0u7VVjDnUb0kDFo6F6%2BNGJWtLsrqBaW5qqeRkU7NWBEd9LxyIUChMOlef8srefoQLbAyz97%2FRK0VcMMIYKkTVYqoaC5fyS8NumapkFA6gRqAiYdG3Lo8hiGoRlzMUST%2BaQOG7Zy5R5VdF7%2BT02gDrBmXF***Sx79EaSlry1BKcZtG4OCnBSoeXt%2FWnQC%2Fx8%2F9mcD5XsEhIPUN2TyhLXzYxfZV8g7Gi9hoklR406C%2BSp1LXeLeXzZN38XnOLtS7%2BzUVaqxPWAAQD7VlmXTql8wlSwVWLLSWgmY0qqrIyRHxFY0mkJcciOzIFJWgxpA3zjRVNdooSzGfLAiU6pmA6aAuGwhWU157Iusdw8xbjRuX9koIIYP%2BSMf3uym1cUifJBj%2BQXnItOkSLK3ReHED1ZBQwcwxHddhTU8I0yuXYYF%2BH5mRSSN8mhlmF9Q9j33GuY5NShHHgALafxCgx2d0b88VgIOauKqXOGT8fNRG6NaKbKkH8O14v0M%2BYFwBaOp9AywooCt%2Bl8LxHhSyunsQv50B00wMIjOA6oYBhz8bKuYoteeB3AU%3D&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=3a243ddb1b0f4a76c0bc042193409bcf5b9ec89461e50581d43032e27e263bda
OGA seems to fail to realise in the case of XEL/XER they were dealing with a public company and their elected representatives whose activity process on the way to an approved DECC/OGA FDP was funded by their public, shareholders and debtors. In the case of XEL this was $450m+, of which $150m or thereabouts, 1/3rd, included these phantom Debtholders, unknown to XEL shareholders but known clearly to OGA. OGA have dealt privately on the other hand with said Debtholders who seem to be able to persuade all, including OGA, to protect their anonymity in this affair.
DECC/OGA in turn by bias and favouritism caused said public company both to expense an amount of $250m within that $450m on the word of one individual for an unnecessary EWT, and subsequently by 'confidential' partiality to the executives of said company both denied the company a reasonable lease extension during difficult trading circumstances for all. Yet concurrently OGA allowed the same executives to propose and negotiate a very favourable lease extension on behalf of a third party, who in turn essentially paid certain executives off for the favour, or took them into it's employ. Thereby apart from the harm done to old XER, imo giving a clear impression they participated, surely involuntarily, in the fiduciary malpractice by said individuals representing themselves or others, not the shareholders best interests they had been paid to represent.
Imo OGA failed to provide proper best assistance in the circumstances, showed partiality, allowed themselves to become involved in a conflict of interest situation, and did not follow proper procedure in that in not allowing or awarding old XER a reasonable, bankable lease extension at the end of the original agreed period, they should have stood back, opened out the availability of said lease to all interested parties on their bid list for North Sea concessions.
If this extension as clearly was available, it was awarded to newco XER, had been given to old XER what difference might that have made to XER's ability to bring in new partners, or funding, or alternatively improve XEL's sp so that a better sale price for the lease and the cost XEL had expensed on same might have been recovered, at least to a far better benefit to the company and it's shareholders than the derisory $1 sale of same. Also at an improved sp XEL might even as an option to shareholder funding, have accessed the unutilised borrowing balance that was still available to them by a fairer exchange of stock for same, as a further method to provide cash to extend the life of the company, and/or partial repayment or extension of the Bondholder debt.
Jmho..
FWIW I would love to know who was at that meeting with OGA on 8th Sept and what happened there.
My suspicions are that OGA blew them off.
Why would a potential co funder attend the meeting with OGA?
Again I suspect that it wasn't the normal type of co funder that OGA would automatically be happy with and again (just a hunch) I think it was all about trying to offer even more convoluted arrangements to prospective parties - but always maintaining control themselves - and this is the crux of it - refusal to accept that they were unfit to control the development of this company and refusal to act in the best interests of the company or it's shareholders by handing over control.
That was the question I asked reference the licence
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?
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).
7. The parties whom provided this information to the OGA did so on the implicit
understanding that this particular aspect of the information would remain
confidential and not be disclosed to a third party. To breach this confidence
would firstly be “actionable” – in that the parties concerned could bring a legal
case against the OGA for breach of contractual obligations and expect to win
such a case and also that to release this information would have a “chilling
effect” on the flow of information of this nature, in that companies would be less
willing to disclose such information to the OGA in the future.
8. In addition, the OGA’s qualified person under FOIA considers that, so far as the
information requested relates to the correspondence between the Licensee and
the OGA, the disclosure of such would likely inhibit the free and frank exchange
of views for the purposes of deliberation (section 36 (2) (b) (ii) FOIA) and/or
prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs (section 36 (2) (c) FOIA).
9. In summary, in his view, allowing for a regulatory environment in which the
Licensee, and Licensees, provide information to the OGA freely and openly is
to be encouraged because it provides the OGA with important regulatory
information (including views) on a live issue it would not have the legal power to
I asked that question and got stonewalled even after an internal review.
Apparently it's not in the "public interest"
require – the disclosure of the requested information is likely to have a chilling
effect on such information provision. Further, disclosure of the requested
information in this context would not provide a “safe space” for the OGA to
discuss options with the Licensee, and Licensees, around the development of
their licensed areas. Such safe space could not be obtained by the release of
information, including confidential information, that among other things opens
up debate outside the proper channels. In addition, in his view, non-disclosure
allows for the more effective use of the OGA’s limited resources, in that the
OGA is able to determine from such information what issues to target in
discussions with the Licensee, and Licensees.
10. In applying these exemptions, the OGA has considered whether the public
interest in withholding the information is outweighed by the public interest in
disclosing the information, as required by section 2(2) of the FOIA and
Regulation 12(1)(b) of the EIRs.
11. The OGA acknowledges that there is a general public interest in the information
you have requested, as disclosure leads to greater transparency, which
enhances public scrutiny and makes public authorities more accountable.
However, there are also public interest considerations in favour of withholding
such information in order to for example ensure that the commercial interests of
the companies are not prejudiced by disclosure of information that could
adversely impact on future business.
12. Generally the release of such information is likely to discourage companies in
the oil and gas sector from discussing similar issues with the OGA in the future,
which would negatively impact on the OGA’s ability to perform a core function
in relation to the development of the UK’s hydrocarbon resources, ultimately to
the detriment of the public interest. When applying this test, the OGA has
considered the impact on companies within the wider industry and not just
Xcite.
13. The OGA, therefore, considers that the public interest argument in favour of
withholding this information outweighs the public interest argument in favour of
its disclosure.
Done already beltron.
Thanks to all those who have responded, Highlands Bull and Beltron included.
Thanks Wetsider for getting in touch and informing me of what is happening in the background,It is good to know I am not the only shareholder trying to get answers to all the questions, the more that try, the greater the reward.
Highlandsbull it would be good if you would contact the group as you have a wealth of knowledge about what has happened here over the years, more than most imo
.
xciteaction at outlook dot com
Hello everyone,
Pleased to see this thread is still going. I cannot say too much on here but it is very important at this time to keep it running. If anyone, Highlands Bull and Beltron in particular would like to email me at xciteaction************ I will be pleased to let you know some more.
Imo not much point in this thread, frustrating though the situation has been for most.
What if possible needs chasing is DECC/OGA foi re 2011, and 2016/17 Quad 9 and the four year lease extension. On the company side the abrogation of fiduciary responsibilities, the absolute bs shareholders were fed for years on funders, partners, and eventually the Bondholders stitch up on control of the Bentley lease in toto instead of a portion of it's cost and value. Plus the movement of executives and staff between oldco XEL/XER and newco XER then Whalsay, and what was being said and when in the process leading up to and beyond the insolvency application and eventual liquidation of XEL.
Point of interest, seem to recall something in old accounts, but was the company/shareholders paying for any BoD liability cover, to minimise or protect these guys liability for fiduciary incompetence or fraud claims?
Not posted for a while but we have ben prodding too behind the scenes.
...to addd its only just dawned on me why he has that cricked twisted neck. Its from looking over his shoulder at all the previous bankrupt fiasco's he was involved in...You keep that pencil neck Twisted Cole or else someone may find you..
answering the title ...it would be Nice to See Cole hunted down & be categorised as in the same vein as low life
Conman that fleeces OAp from their life savings...to be despised & possibly set about as a Paedophile would be...Rough Justice is needed...VERY ROUGH!
Good on you for prodding, glad to see you will clearly be around longer than me to maintain same, as it will sure take a while to obtain any clarification and satisfaction on this issue. Such a shame re-reading the 11/15 Corporate Presentation, comparing then to now, this is a gifted project to someone at a fraction of it's cost. Of course harping on there about the wonderful $250m EWT, neglecting to mention what killed the goose, the investment in that as per DECC direction, w/o a partner or funder qualified and committed to join after the success of same.
One would particularly like to know just what OGA has on record concerning lease extension conversations through 2016, from the XEL RNS news of 18/2/16 and management discussions with OGA re agreement for extending P.1078 until 30/6/17. No way would the Bondholders have been prepared to push through the liquidation of XEL that followed mid 2016, acting tough on the refi and the restructuring if there had not been advance discussions by them or by their then frontmen, still under the employ of XEL/XER, with OGA re a further extension seemingly available of four years. Probably by way of a threat re closure of the vaunted Quad 9 project if failure to extend as desired happened. Without that comfort sure they would simply have sold out earlier to whoever would bail them out of even a portion of the debt. We have no idea what offers, if any were made prior to that and by whom, RC was on about. Plus what happened re the indication of Chinese interest in d/d and a jv.
Execs and Bondholders plan was put in place way back to when XER corporate structure was realigned at the time of taking on this Norwegian loan. What would be important to see clarified by OGA is just when during this constant dialogue XEL/R were stated as having with DECC/OGA prior to the EWT test and up to late 2016 and the liquidation of XEL, apart from the short lease extension granted, when was the subject of a four year lease extension brought up. Was that at any time proposed by XER execs up to the time off the liquidation of XEL and sale of XER, or by the Bondholders also during that time who clearly were in communication with OGA. If not XER execs, why when discussing and receiving the short extension did they or OGA reps not bring it up then. Or was it only a subject of conversation after the liquidation of XEL had been consummated by the BoD and the Bondholders, clearly working in collusion, as numerous staff deserted the sinking ship and decamped immediately thereafter to employ of Whalsey.
Who is this party that OGA are seemingly, as is the party concerned, so coy about revealing their presence. Yet it was sufficient influence for OGA staff to apparently be so smitten that they declined alternatively offering old XER a four year lease extension, and/or normal and fair practice in not opening the lease for re-bid on XER's failure to perform, to all, with the bid evaluation data contained therein.
Jmho..
Btw I've got years of prodding left in me.
Have sent a FOI request regarding new lease with the points that you have mentioned ,and as you say will probably come back with confidentiality clap trap, at which point I will again seek the help of my MP who has already said " she will dig deeper if I do not get a satisfactory reply" .If you keep prodding they might just make a mistake.
Good luck with that, nice to see not everybody's expired.
Of course there is always the foi route with OGA, against which they'll surely trot out the commercial confidentiality claptrap to try to hide behind. Although an MP might be of use, imo it would require a lawyer's letter and court as method of persuasion to obtain, against critical examination and full disclosure under oath, a claim for deception, incompetence, and lack of support of participants in their vaunted Quad 9 they were hawking the merits of as at the time by what turned turned out to be basically bureaucratic verbal diarrhea.
How did they expect XER with the short time remaining on the Bentley lease, into which the company had invested hundreds of millions of $$ at the earlier insistence of the brilliant DECC, to be able to move on that without said lease being extended in good time, also bearing in mind market conditions then. What difference could positive action then have made to oldco XER funding and the sp to support same, or partner options. Why was this not offered to old XER in the first instance.
What is the timeline sequence therefore and minutes of discussions between OGA, the company, and presumably also Bondholders representatives, on said lease extension, and who were the individuals involved on all sides. Were OGA aware of the plans in hand by the executives within XER they were in discussions with to liquidate the parent company of XER, then for same individuals and Bondholders to resurface immediately in the newco with an application to extend the Bentley lease held in the name of XER. Why, as it clearly was, was this course of action supported by OGA, which, by such actions of individuals who also held a fiduciary responsibilty to their employer, completely shafted as expected in the process the many thousands of small shareholders in old XER.
What if any critical comment was made within OGA as a supposedly responsible Authority, about the ethics of continuing to deal with such people, and assisting in the process said action. Clearly none, because the action happened and was pushed through with a four year lease extension award by OGA to newco after oldco had been successfully laundered by executives and Bondholders.
I wish also a way could be found to prosecute the old BoD of XEL/XER, particularly RC and AF, for the actuality of mismanagement and fiduciary irresponsibility that arose from the consequences of their actions on oldco XER, to their particular benefit. Sadly likely just too much to hope for. Jmho.
Still plugging away at MP and OGA ,might actually get some reward for my efforts one day. Nice to see not everyone has forgotten what happened here and are still asking questions .
Quite agree. Rather than all round KISS, management turned out to be a case study for a collective bunch of incompetents on the job, just about everything it was possible to stuff up they accomplished. Group of unwarranted inflated egos to boot. So many occasions one had to say wtf yet for a time at least with so much money available to tap into they were able to stagger on from crisis to crisis.
The 5 well, the 6 well, who can ever forget Betty and the panic situation then, contract terms for the RN and the fiasco surrounding DECC, no forward well approval yet a paid for, contracted rig with potentially no work, saved by a megabucks solution of a codged together unsupported EWT. No partners, data room joke, reputable RBL funding in place thrown out, big boy plan, phantom partners and funders, now 2 subsea wells in place for someone to tap into plus the huge reserves proven up, and prospects, some of which such as Camm came and went.
The sad thing is imo with all the investors sucked into this p.. there appears to be no-one, away from the impoverished pi's, prepared to at least take this BoD and OGA on to the extent of a Court case to highlight fiduciary responsibilities abrogated, clear conflicts of interest, and the deliberate sacrifice of old XER to provide a springboard for the stooges to parachute into newco. All this supported by a compliant OGA, seemingly incapable of recognising the conflict situation they precipitated by awarding a four year lease extension to the same individuals and Bondholders, without first awarding this extension which clearly was available, they awarded it, to oldco XER before the emasculation of the company was sanctioned and actioned by the contrived BoD reorganisation paid for in effect by shareholders being shafted in the process.
OGA failed to recognise the internal situation XER execs and the company were in, with the huge expense of the EWT. Much of this might have been alleviated by an early award of the Bentley lease extension if they were ever asked, that the oldco and shareholders in same had paid to bring to FDP status. OGA should be made to clarify just when the subject of the lease extension came up for review.
Imo the key item we should have paid more attention to was RR's departure, shortly before the 2013 AGM. An insider who really knew his associates capabilities and voted with his feet.
As far as the Yorkville goes they got upset at the 28Mbls when it was told by the XEL board that it was going to be nearer 114 mbls ...which then led to the Board (somehow) being invited to take up an offer from the WeiSS backed consortium made up (we were told) of private investors from Chicago ,who wished to remain anonymous ( I bet they did, just as the later bond holders = gone off fish ). The head of WeiSS has been to jail as I recall for fraud, surrounded by scumbag hedge funds ( the same that has backed this TORY gov have a look!) When you look back you almost have to laugh at the nonsense that went on...Ceiling Cat & myself did seem to cotton on around end of 2015 & we were both regularly attacked on this BB as boiler room gang aha aha I think the reverse may have bee true of the participants trying to smear us & our thoughts back then!
I forgot to add in the small boy/big boy issue, abandoning the plan, the financial support of the RBL in place and it's possible phased expansion, for unsupported dreamland concocted by who?
I quite agree and have commented on that issue before, the tone of the nonentity that issued the DECC end 2011 response to Xcite's draft FDP was quite uncompromising. Why, did he get out bed the wrong side that day, or were other 'issues' or outside pressures in play? One can think of one or two..
Totally unhelpful to instruct a small company such as XEL, that DECC were supposed to be helping introduce to diversify and expand the NS numbers of players, that they instead go away and first spend megabucks on an EWT. Of course it did not help that in agreeing to such a plan the idiots in XEL, as per the funding issue, did not first bring in major support at that time, other than the BP offtake agreement. Plus they had already contracted an expensive rig, again before said FDP was agreed and in place. And exactly as you comment, we were never given details as to just who in XEL/XER was talking to DECC in the intervals between the various wells being drilled, clearly working off verbal old boy assurances at best, which when push came to shove and action the discussed plan the DECC nonentity most likely became scared for his job and the risk in being supportive or inventive. Imo it had to have been Smith the 'ceo', and the reason for his subsequent departure.
Where was this DECC rep at the time of the 6 well and the ongoing work on the rig at the time, to advise whether or not work done then on the well test and oil flow provided adequate data to proceed on, which quite clearly on a non hpht well it would have. Or any additional data required, in view of the circumstances surrounding the truncating of that test, be obtained instead from subsequent FSP wells, which if that plan had been authorised also would have been helping prove up additional reserves and hoped for further financial assistance to SSP.
Sadly the blunders by this management go right back to the 5 well, if that well had not been damaged and properly tested much of the subsequent grief could have been avoided, to say nothing of subsequent screw ups re the partners, funding, yada yada. We can see now sadly how nearly everything these guys touched, they managed to turn a wonderful asset and it's development under their care, plus shareholders, to stone. Except of course for the ones that were allowed to bail, ignore their fiduciary responsibilities, negotiate with OGA/DECC a four year lease extension on a field paid for and developed by their employer oldco, and free of pursuit by the non functioning corporate law, jump to the 'newco', ready to start again.
Like the Banks with the non take up of the RBL, and the shareholders eventually, I'm sure Yorkville just became tired of being messed around. The plan they were working off, FSP/SSP, became a non starter. OGA need to be pursued imo also re when and how they agreed to the 4 year lease extension.
Actually in terms of Xcite RBS were on the good guys side at the time, fronting up XEL's RBL as lead bank lender.
It was our fearless dunderhead management with their big boy plans, money thrown away on critically unsupported vast expensive chemistry project, dubious loan sources and Bonds rollovers. Then allowing as a coup de gras the project to be donated to others for 1/3rd the development cost to FDP expensed, with a four year lease extension thrown in to 'newco' compliments of a compliant OGA to develop same, and to which they conveniently abandoned ship and parachuted into or took the golden parachute exit.
Of course as you post re FCA, useless ******s as per OGA, absolutely no action taken in support of shareholders re BoD ineptitude, conflict of interest and blatant fiduciary responsibility failures. Jmo.