Member Info for Blue-Eyes

The OGA considers that, if the identity of the Company was to be disclosed along with the company it recommended, the commercial interests of those companies would likely be prejudiced. �Redacted is a Redacted firm that was established in the Redacted. They currently invest in Redacted in Redacted and Redacted; they have investment in Redacted in the UK; and they own the Redacted associated with the Redacted in Redacted. There is no debt or fees associated with their investment and their business model is to work with high quality firms. As there is no debt, there is no default risk. They look to work with an investment grade company for the coupon and for Xcite they have selected Redacted to manage this. They explained that they provide prefunding to try to mitigate any call on the guarantor. They seek to have a fast and efficient process to enable completion.� The above just leaves open more and more questions the main one being why there is a risk to anyone's reputation - who decided that that risk existed and why That OGA letter is bizarre

To my mind and judging by the instantaneous falling apart of the deal it reads to me more as if the phantom investor was deemed unsuitable by someone at the meeting - why else would the phantom investor's reputation or investor confidence in the phantom company be undermined?

15. The purpose of that meeting was to allow Xcite to introduce the Company, who was a prospective investor in Xcite�s Bentley Field. The Companies� participation in the meeting was on the understanding that such participation would remain confidential and would not be disclosed to third parties or to the public at large. 16. The information contained in the Note, if released, along with other information in the public domain, is likely to result in the identity of the Company becoming known along with the company it recommended. The funny thing is that there was clearly a leak prior to the meeting and another post the meeting- that resulted in the company having to disclose the true position with that RNS a day or so later So they went into the meeting with a potential partner but it fell apart either that same day or the day after - what was said I wonder at that meeting that put them off. Or did OGA reject them as potential partners? 22. As mentioned, the said meeting was held to discuss the possibility of the Company investing in Xcite�s Bentley field. The OGA considers that should the fact that such an investment was considered, this could damage the reputation of the Company. 23. In addition, disclosure of the Company�s identity may weaken its position in a competitive environment by releasing market sensitive information, information which would be useful to its competitors and which could be used by its competitors to undermine investor confidence in the Company. How does it potentially damage a company's reputation if they consider an investment? It doesn't unless something happened like a rejection of their suitability by OGA.

I think it likely they will do what they said they would in the event of a win and pay a special dividend to shareholders

Drawn to this one too:)

Funnily enough I seem to recall Fidelity selling out of SQZ...................at the wrong time. SQZ drove me mad at times but eventually they delivered and then some. They proved that there are decent deals out there to be done

Just look at the price the placing was done at anything this bloke is involved in is a joke

The company only need a consolidation because of the sheer number of shares issued in previous placings and none would be carried out pre consolidation. You need to be careful that this consolidation doesn't merely allow them scope to continue with the placings. It doesn't work simply by smoking screening the past for new unwary investors - not if they have done their homework. This matter is due to be raised at the AGM and voted hopefully someone will seek cast iron assurances from the company about the issue. especially in the light of the comments raised by outfits such as SP stating that it is a likely event and sooner rather than later. Ask the question on the floor during the meeting though as if you ask it in the coffee and chat later then they can say anything (that comment comes from past experience with XEL).

It also casts the last three ramptastic RNSs in a less than dignified light, as an attempt to suck in new buyers and get the share price up. With all the shenanigans going on with Conroy, how easy will it be to raise perhaps EUR 200,000 for Karelian � especially with a market capitalisation of only �2 million? You have been warned�.

Seems like someone else thinks so too. We all owe it to ourselves to beware the lifestyle shysters of AIM listed Karelian Diamonds (KDR), like fellow AIM-listed Conroy Gold and Natural Resources (CGNR), is run by the good Professor Richard Conroy. Tom Winnifrith has exposed a pretty gruesome histoire at Conroy, but what about its little brother? I note also that Karelian � just like Conroy � is being delisted in Ireland. I wonder why� Last year Karelia released its full year results (to May) on 17 November, so I reckon the numbers are due this week. In any case, they have to be released by the end of this month or it will be suspension time. Incidentally, last year�s results came with the announcement of a capital reorganisation � for that read a split of the shares into one ordinary of a reduced nominal price and one deferred: the price had slipped below nominal so the company couldn�t get a placing away. In the run up to this year�s results we have had three ramptastic RNSs in the last four weeks: Promising New Exploration Data (which seemed to indicate they might be getting close to the diamond source), Exploration Permit Granted (woohoo�.) and Kuhmo Diamond Discovery Update (which identified a work programme to find the diamond source for a diamond they found way back in January). All in four weeks. Before that there were just a handful of RNS going back to March. So is the company on a propaganda-fest? With audited annual results coming up and associated Going Concern issues? Surely not! At the half year, Karelian reported a loss of only EUR 117,056. But the cashflow showed an outflow of EUR 292,513 to leave just EUR 49,224 of cash in the bank. That�s a bit tight�especially when the balance sheet shows EUR 210,727 of current assets somewhat dwarfed by current labilities of EUR 545,233 (all trade and other payables). The company did do a placing in April which brought in EUR 914,500 and a further EUR 505,000 the previous December so perhaps EUR 1.35 million after expenses came in. But those interims were to November and we know that the company ploughed through EUR 292,513 in the six months to then. It is now almost a year on from there, so might we assume a further, say, EUR 600,000 out of the door? Knock off the net current assets of MINUS EUR 334,506 and we are looking at a black hole of EUR 934,000 or so. Taking the placings into account, and the pocket change left in the bank at the last half year and you might have total cash of EUR 465,224. The problem is that for an unqualified Going Concern signoff the company needs twelve months funding and at the last count that looks more like an annualised rate of around EUR 600,000. In other words Karelian needs a placing. AIM With its annual results due in about two weeks maximum, that suggests there is a discounted bucket-shop fundraising heading this way and very soon. It also casts the last three

Hmm just sounds like he is doing the usual to try and get another placing away I bet he is more excited about how well he has done out of his AIM lifestyle companies and how he has feathered his cronies nests Never mind at his age it should see him out

Won case I beleive

If I was planning on this I'd be keeping quiet about it and buying away quietly - I certainly wouldn't share it on a BB. Why take the risk?

Yes to action by 89.1%

I can't get my head around the supposed number of people alledgedly making a move on the company over the years - now an ex BoD member (smiffy I guess) backed by African money!!! If you knew all those things about Cole's incompetence I can't understand you (legends) holding let alone suggesting it as a good buy for others What kind of person would do that knowing full well they would be likely to lose every penny? Can you back any of your comments up with anything at all? I could come up with plenty of stories, one of which involves a creature that you must be familiar with .......a unicorn. I would happily apologise for my terse comments if you could

Cuchulainn's link went just then but in case it doesn't re appear https://www.stamdata.com/documents/NO0010713779_SB_20170626.PDF My question would be how they have demonstrated they fit the requirements to hold that licence. Would they be awarded that licence if they applied for it with the structure they have as Newco in an ordinary licencing round???? Why haven't OGA revoked it?

ture, 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

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 Oil and Gas Authority is a limited company registered in England and Wales with registered number 09666504 and VAT registered number 249433979. Our registered office is at 21 Bloomsbury Street, London, United Kingdom, WC1B 3HF. For information about how we process data and monitor communications please see our Data Protection Statement and for terms of use please see our Terms and Conditions, both available on our website. 4 | P a g e 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 fu

If any of that is true then give us the evidence maybe someone can do something with it As for the other thing this is what OGA had to say about the short extension In regard to your question about Statoil’s 3 year extension to the Bressay licence, in comparison to Xcite’s 9 month extension to the Bentley field and any discussions with Xcite pertaining to this extension, the OGA does not prescribe a particular time period for the length of licence extensions. The duration of a Oil and Gas Authority is a limited company registered in England and Wales with registered number 09666504 and VAT registered number 249433979. Our registered office is at 21 Bloomsbury Street, London, United Kingdom, WC1B 3HF. For information about how we process data and monitor communications please see our Data Protection Statement and for terms of use please see our Terms and Conditions, both available on our website. 3 | P a g e licence extension will depend on such things as the specifics of the licence, the factual situation and will also give due consideration to the length of time requested by the company in question. 4. 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 inform

I hope Matt Bower doesn't as I would like to see him shifted from his comfortable seat - not for me but for someone else. People from the PBB would know what and who I am talking about but lets just say I have no time for him.. Sadly at the bottom of this there are real people for whom this has had a massive impact on their lives not all of them are still here, they had all that worry to deal with as well.. Oddly enough it was mainly the people that attended the AGM's and spoke to the directors, that really kept the faith.. I certainly had no idea when I invested in AIM quite what a dirty grubby minefield it is. I had no idea how many companies there are listed just using continual placing's as a way of funding their lifestyle whilst the company in question never really moves forward in terms of tangible revenue producing growth. Small miners in particular that just produce scoping study after scoping study each with yet another placing attached. The unwary punter hasn't realised that the book has been skewed on the run up to the announcement and is gleefully buying the forward sold shares I always wondered why people coming back from the AGM's were so positive until I found out all the little things that there whispered into people's ears at these events. Videos in place of RNS's why?. All the secret winks and comments about the next AGM being held in the BVI and even the smallest shareholder would be able to afford to attend! Even at the very last AGM some of the stuff coming back made me shake my head I have spoken to RC in the past - the last time I spoke to him I didn't feel that what he was saying matched the tone of his voice. Nothing I could put my finger just a feeling. I applaud those on II for trying to call people to account - my own view is that it's in no ones interest to blow the whistle on any one else and the oil price collapse was convenient - a phew moment if you like. It gave them something to blame. I don't expect them to get anywhere without some body letting in a chink of light but to castigate and criticise them for trying is unfair. Ultimately they all did well out it even if you forget the share sales (I know RC bought some back but I still believe that those purchases were more than balanced by the continuance of the salary and perks) I'd call more of a symbiotic necessity than an act of faith but maybe I'm just being cynical. Overall it's put them comfortably into retirement If everything was exactly as they said it was wouldn't you expect RC to be leading the crusade himself? I would The above is just my honest opinion. I appreciate many won't share it but sometimes you have to say what you really feel.