Member Info for DevonianExile

Thanks Lubumbashi - just to say that's the direction of travel we are taking

Pyro - all here

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-rH3igCelEB-w19mKy4upsPg3pbEz6yF/view?usp=sharing

Just to say we were going to send out an email to FSG members at the weekend – but the admin in doing this, and being 100% certain of protecting BCC email addresses, has proved more onerous than we thought. Will take a while longer, and we all have other things going on. Also access to the main boards (apart from mobile LSE) seems to be ongoing so we might as well keep using them.

For the record we are now around 400 members holding around 3.6 billion shares. Again a special thanks to brgmg69 (mg70 on ii) who has done most of the hard graft.

Once we have got on top of the admin we aim to make initial contact with key company advisers, and the company itself, in order to try and help shape future communication plans – given the private company constraints. As previously stated we are not here to interfere with the running of the business.

We also stress again that we have been very careful regards data protection – only member names, email and holding numbers are retained on the database. And if members wish to be removed from the database simply email us.

Obviously we all await communication from the company anyway – but our view is that the issues around the court case and related matters will of course determine timing whatever we might prefer.

Hopefully this helps – and please bear with us whilst we get things sorted

C5 - just to reiterate what Regdik has said - none of the FoF or FSG group have ever sought or received privileged information. Plus I personally absolutely loathe those who pretend to be something they are not - and unfortunately within the original FoF membership we had one or two who who clearly were out to engineer mischievous intent. The validation process is an attempt to avoid this happening again.

Given that we now have new communication risks - plus a largely illiquid investment - some of us think it is important to seek an understanding (and hopefully help shape) how the company intends to communicate going forward. Hopefully Zaza will prefer this rather than a scatter gun approach - once the time is right.

Like Regdik I want to see the company get through this latest challenge - and to see all concerned benefit from the value creation that is possible - BoD, management, staff and of course shareholders. Particularly those who have stuck with it through thick and thin

Nothing more, nothing less

I think if you hear from us it is because we need more info.

brgmg69 is handling this bit and is a bit snowed under - so individual responses are a challenge (we are well into the hundreds now)

At some point we will do a blanket email (suitably set up to protect addresses) - but such correspondence will also appear on the boards. No secret squirrel stuff

A quick update

Very busy day yesterday – particularly for brgmg69/mg70! Many thanks to him. To remind - if you want to register the new contact details plus information are in:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-rH3igCelEB-w19mKy4upsPg3pbEz6yF/view?usp=sharing

Key points thus far:

- Please, please, please………..use the new FSG email address (provided in the link above). The admin here is significant and we do need to validate numbers afresh. We will also be closing off the old FoF address. Thanks

- As of last night over 1.4 billion shares registered – almost all properly validated. Please note that once registered all validation documents are deleted.

- Many thanks to BigDouble. He has emailed all on his list and recommended they register for FSG. Very well done sir.

- To reiterate our view is that Zaza has a small team and a very big agenda. The most important thing we can do is let him get on with the court case and financing task. We will start to make tentative first contacts with the company and advisers once we have our structure sorted, and at this point we are only in day 3.

Hope everyone is ok with that

Here we go - rebranded for those interested

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-rH3igCelEB-w19mKy4upsPg3pbEz6yF/view?usp=sharing

Please note that it will take time to get the mechanics sorted - all via volunteer effort. And communications will be via the main boards as before - assuming they remain active

Just seen the C5 comment - and I thought a brief response was in order.

First we are not going to rush into this - and we will try to do it properly. Whether people wish to join up will be their choice - and we will be crystal clear that we aim to work constructively with the company - and in the interests of all shareholders. Given the current situation there may be initial challenges regarding communication, and we would like to think that we can help (eg this may be particularly important where the company wish to engage for any voting purposes).

Second - regarding the issue of "vetting" entries - there are a few issues here.

Last time around we clearly had one or two "members" who had joined for other purposes - and we received quite a number of repetitive and highly abusive communications. Given the degree of attempted interference in the Company's progress by one cabal or another I personally would not wish to make it easy for potential members to pretend that they are genuine shareholders. Whilst we can't entirely block that out we can at least try.

We also ended up sharing all communications on the boards. However when we try to engage with the company we do believe that it is important to be able to say that we have xx number of genuinely held shares represented in the group.

I should also add that - being realistic - Zaza will want to get the court case out of the way before engaging in some way (assuming of course that he does!). So we have a bit of time to tr to organise this properly - assuming that the main chat boards remain in place. And anyway I would imagine that there will be a pretty serious lock down within the Company until the legal issues are sorted one way or another

JMO

First LSE post from me on LSE this year. As just posted on ii....................

Right - we are where we are and time to do something constructive. I see a few posts have suggested reinventing FoF - and trying to establish a communication link to the Company/YJ. I will check with the original team - but I suspect they would be positive - and the advantage is that the team have all met with Zaza, Lev and TT (YJ) quite a few times over the years. (For info the original team was TOT, Coggy and myself - with Mole joining shortly after. Admin support was given by Regdik and Brbmg69). Those who signed up with Bigdouble could of course sign up for both set ups

If there is a bit of support here I would also suggest we look at linking with the site that EyesonHawk2 has set up via Tapatalk - and this can then be moderated to keep out the trolls (and encourage proper, constructive argument). For those that joined in the past I would hope that they accept that we a) acted professionally, b) endeavoured to act constructively with the company and c) were very strong on protecting personal data.

If I was to be involved here I need to stress that my personal approach would be to seek to work constructively with the company - if I felt differently I would seek other options to protect my investment.

Initial views please!

Just to add that quite a number of people - myself included - have made very detailed complaints to the Market Abuse team at the FCA about the actions of TW, EasyBrent (could be Darren Atwater) and Tim Kempster (could be Crude Trader, is Loglorry1 on ADVFN).

My complaint for one has been acknowledged, and I am in the process of providing further information

We also know that a number of complaints to the FCA were made after the Q&A from people who claimed to be there (some admitted this on the various blogs). I suspect that whether or not they were actually at the meeting is suspect , or indeed whether or not they used their own real identities.

I also know that shareholders in a number of other AIM companies have also made very recent and detailed complaints to the FCA regarding similar concerns

If I can add my voice here I fully echo the comments by Regdik and Mole. I have spoken to the Nomad quite a few times and also believe him to be very principled. I can also say that he has actively encouraged the company to be more open on communications and believe he has been important in encouraging the F2F contact we have seen over the last 15 months.

I spoke to him at length after the UD2 announcement, and indeed posted about the conversation. He was insistent that FRR had spent considerable time trying different approaches – at different points in the test interval. Test started on April 21st and my understanding is that entries were made at a series of points in the interval (which was around 75 metres). The outcome was of course that gas escaped into both sides of the cement wall, and eventually they took the decision to plug the well (as Zaza explained at the following shareholder update).

When the company informed the Nomad I cannot say – but I am pretty sure most investors would accept that in the real world things can go wrong, and decisions on timing of bad news are rarely as clear cut as we might imagine.
In retrospect I would also add that a budget of $750,000 for this work was in reality always going to be a punt, but I am equally sure that the lack of a technical production outcome would have been offset by the learning experience.

The fact that the first 47 page WHI report contained just 3 lines on UD2 says a lot about the reality here. The other 46 plus pages were all about Tarabani oil.

To avoid any doubt I remained convinced that the real value in block 12 will be getting Tarabani moving and then outsourcing the gas opportunity in MK and elsewhere. But at least one new gas well will be needed to kick this off – and I guess around $5 to $7 million will be required to do this.

All just IMHO

Have to say this is a ludicrous suggestion. Apart from the huge distraction, the fact that insurance liabilities will be capped, and the wholly perverse nature of the thinking - there are other realities.

FRR are trying to finesse one or more contracts, and the financing linked to it. The launch of a class action would immediately act as block here under due diligence. .

As others have stated lets let Zaza and his team get on with it. Better we turn any anger at TW, SP and that nasty little gang of manipulators.

I should also add that FRR first informed the market about Hope on the 12th October, having secured the first court action on 11th October.

On the 18th October FRR secured agreement with YA, announcing on the 19th October.

So within a week of the Hope announcement agreement was reached with YA. Whateve evidence FRR had was clearly conclusive, and more to the point FRR were very happy to use that evidence to secure early and highly advantageous settlement

The YA default letter has been withdrawn - and by implication should never have been issued in the first place.

From the Oct 19th RNS "As part of the settlement, (i) the Company withdrew its claims against YA as announced on 17 September 2018 and 19 September 2018, (ii) YA cancelled its 30 August 2018 and 3 September 2018 conversion notices and withdrew its 12 September 2018 notice of default...……."

Given the incredibly advantageous terms that FRR secured you can assume 100% that YA were in the wrong on both the conversion and the default notices. My very strong view is that without settlement YA would have been referred to the SEC - which would have been disastrous for them

I would also suggest that Outrider will have a similar dilemma. The court action is one thing, and I take Mole's point that guessing at the evidence is a bit pointless (although I confess I plead guilty here sir!). However behind the scenes if FRR believe Outrider have acted unlawfully, or even unethically, the threat is again to refer to the SEC. (Outrider is registered with the SEC). Court cases can usually be settled - but SEC sanctions are usually terminal.

I am pretty sure that this will be settled out of court, unless FRR decide to go all the way. The intriguing piece regards the evidence - they clearly possessed the "irrefutable evidence" that Zaza claimed on the video - and that persuaded YA wave a white flag at a very early stage. Given previous form you have to assume that FRR are acting with a fully loaded pistol.

Just happened to look in and saw my ii post was copied over here - appreciate the comments

Worth adding that Exxon have had a pretty difficult time dealing with the Romanian Government - there was a lot of doubt regarding approvals and I am not 100% certain it has been fully sorted even now. However they have invited tenders for the pipeline so must see an end in sight. I dare say it is a pretty dodgy environment re ethics as well

My point is that - whilst few places are squeaky clean - Georgia has to be an oasis of virtue compared to Romania. Whether it is Exxon or someone else this does matter - and in the last few years we have seen the build up to this better position regarding both the politics and the business environment. The links to the AC, politicians etc are all part of this process IMHO.

Well at one level this is messy, but given the actions by some shareholders regarding headroom last time around (in my view wholly misguided) the company was left with very few options for future funding. Shareholders will now have no option whatsoever but to approve this very expensive funding.

On the plus side these guys have decided to offer the loan facility, so they must have seen enough to suggest that production plans offer enough promise to service the debt. Also EDL do carry virtually no other significant debt, and at least this deal is in two distinct parts. We have to hope that the production plans and the increase in capacity allows sufficient incremental production to a) be able to service the first part of the deal, and b) avoid accessing the second part.

We really do need a production update very soon plus a forecast regarding the future capacity after the investments have been made.

Pyro, Mole et al

I think Mole's list suggests a good number of realistic options - but I would really discount the directors. Apart from the Nomad relationship, and the clarity of the PDMR/MAR rules, the website now contains a very clear governance section:

https://fronteraresources.com/corporate-governance/

If you read through it you will see that this was updated as recently as September 28th - less than 6 weeks ago - and is signed off by SN himself as Chair of the BoD. It will have involved Nomad advice/recommendations. This may be routine, but I would suggest it may also be a part of the tidy up regarding any due diligence for a formal partnership agreement. Auditors and negotiators would not only expect this but would want it evidenced.

The AIM rules are absolutely clear for anyone covered by PDMR - and the market must be informed within3 days.

Plenty of other viable choices on Moles list - but I would say this process seems remarkably controlled. There is in my view a structure and purpose behind it - but we can only speculate as to what.

Hi Mole - re the lobbyists same again for Q3. Feels like a quarterly retainer for both Akun and Cornerstone

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/client_reports.php?id=D000071040&year=2018

Certainly maintaining the focus here!

Hi Shatner. My view is that after the submission of the Field Development Feasibility plan to GOGC in April 2017 we saw the GOGC web update a month or so later regarding FRR saying they needed to seek a partner (s) to take to the next stage.

Hence FRR started this process as SN covered in his first Q&A

They probably received quite a bit of interest in the following months, including I suspect the interest of the majors currently in the frame. NDAs will have been signed that typically have a 12 month timeline before either renewal or termination. It is my long held view that potential partners said that further proving was required - hence the need to undertake the three well programme plus UD2 (which at $750,000 was with hindsight always a long shot and opportunist).

Come July 2018, and no doubt before July, the results started to validate FRR claims, and a joint decision was made to go down to Z19. The NDAs were probably due for renewal anyway, and the rest is as communicated.

In my view all a logical process - and these wells were always about two things - revenue and proving (to other parties plus GOGC).

JMHO - but I have long assumed this as I posted on ii a number of times.

Ah ha - obviously no golf today! But what about Regdik1. Not sure really - so would prefer to make you a split personality.

Reg1 works - nice and steady. Less sure about Dik1 - could go wrong - so we'll rename it as Diko1. So from now on you become Regdiko

Off out - can't take any more of this!