London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

With the plethora of West Indian based companies involved in this, what also may lead away from major oilco involvement is the fact that Whalsay had to report on the situation they find themselves in now. If this exercise was backed by a significant oilco, why would Whalsay have any problems to bleat about. They'd be backed to just get on and quietly get the job done. Majors amongst themselves could find partners if they wanted to.

Perhaps it is either the Bondholders thinking themselves clever in ko'ing XEL after that company's failed attempt to find funding or partners, getting the company they thought on the cheap then moving to try to make a fast turn in selling or partnering on. This has still not worked, leaving Whalsay the way it currently is. Or as 5656 below, still a US connection lurking, also concerned by now seeing Whalsay has not yet performed as expected. It cannot be good to have to resort to concerns being made public, with respect to anyone significant coming in observing that.

Just where does this position OGA now with their commercially confidential bs, Quad 9 floundering once more. As XEL shareholders were let down, now OGA it seems by this gang of sweet talkers..

In reference to our old US friends, what's slightly curious about Whalsay's new BoD are the affiliations two members seem to have to parties active in various past doings.

Mattoni who is US, promotes in his bio a connection to Atalaya Capital Management, a US/NYC based privately held investment advisory firm 'focused on making opportunistic specialist situation investments'. Young Shah, appears to have a connection to the lawyers, Wikborg Rein LLC., who filed the 6/2014 charge on XER on behalf of Nordic Trust ASA representing the Bondholders. Apart from his Whalsay affiliation, he's also reportedly a director of Oslo based Offshore Holding AB, a Norway subsidiary of Wigborg Rein Svcs AS..

Perhaps another option a group such as Atalaya bought over the Nordic Trustee debt and that we're back to our old Socius/Esousa type friends, as opposed to thoughts on Statoil being the dark horse. It did seem curious that apart from pi's, none of the large shareholders in XEL seemed to bleat too much when the roof fell in, though that group could have shorted as they accumulated their stock holdings. Plus the XEL BVI liquidation, and removal of the XER debt problem to it's parent was well stitched up as a possible irritation factor. While RC was enjoying the good life in BVI, just who did he think he and his fellow directors were getting into bed with. He never disclosed, as per the data room no shows, who were the funders that mysteriously disappeared after the RBS RBL was conveniently cancelled.

As mentioned before it's curious as to quite how the new XER owners, once they had manipulated the liquidation of XEL in the BVI, managed to persuade OGA they were of sufficient substance to back the FDP for Bentley and ensure the 4 year extension was awarded to newco, not oldco who had paid for it to that date.

The company, set up by Cayman Island owners now of the same name, presumably the phantom Bondholders or successors, whereby the XEL Bond debt and interest due was forgiven, converted to a loan, and they were allocated a further loan of $15m, $10m of which appropriated to date, to progress lease extension then fund the UK company until such time as, exactly the same exercise we were told XEL were trying to consume, find a funder and partner(s), was completed. Yet Whalsay say now, and the old now newco's Auditors confirm, they'll be insolvent by end 2018 if new funds from whatever source are not found. Just what game was being played by someone that OGA accepted?

Jmo..

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..

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..

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.

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.

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.

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for highlandsbull

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)