Member Info for highlandsbull

Did the responsible executives of XEL/XER ask of OGA for a four year Bentley field lease extension prior to participating in and actioning the XEL insolvency process that enabled the Bondholders to become the de facto owners of XER. If not, why not, as the actuality was that with the effective connivance of OGA in dealing with the same individuals, and most likely the prospective new owners of XER, approval of the lease extension became a factual event. However this clearly only was allowed to happen after ownership of XER had been transferred, not while XEL might still have been in a position to use such news for it's benefit. By which time also terminal gratuities were paid and/or new employment contracts for the same executives had been executed, with the party that had become the new owner. In view of the $450m+ investment by XEL in Bentley that had gone before v the $150m or thereabouts loan outstanding, is there not something criminal implied in this behaviour, to the detriment of shareholders in XEL. Executives that had both a clear conflict of interest, securing the present and future personal benefits they did in fact obtain either by negotiating amongst themselves or with an interested, related party, while also having this fiduciary duty to the shareholders and company that still was or had been who they were appointed to represent. What part also did the Bondholders play in this behaviour, to their particular benefit. Jmho, over and out.

this am. John Humphrys, Margaret Hodge, and some shrill nonentity from the BVI promoting the corporate 'transparency' of the septic isle.

imo apart from the completely absent fiduciary duties of the old XEL/XER BoD's to their shareholders, particularly Cole and the useless to XEL cfo, sure pursuing them through the BVI courts would be expensive and possibly non productive, but perhaps not so to shake them up in the UK. Ditto for the OGA to be pursued under foi as to why they allowed, as mentioned in 5,635 via a complete conflict of interest situation, a four year lease extension to new XER and the same execs without first offering this, as was clearly available, first to old XER who held the lease. Could have been a game changer re funding and ability to secure same. Just what was said by who and when, and how was Cole allowed to be given any sort of payoff as part of a deal that OGA participated in.

Sadly none of the large investors who have had substantial losses here appear to have the b**** to use any legal fund reserve which such companies normally have, to at least under foi take: 1) OGA/DECC to task for not in the first instance giving a 4 year Bentley field lease extension to XER when funded by owner XEL, yet seemingly were prepared to negotiate same for XER under new ownership which would have to have been declared to OGA, and with XEL/XER management while said individuals were clearly still execs of what was to be their former company. Why was said preference not seen as a clear conflict of interest by OGA in which they should have not been complicit, when it certainly was for the XEL/XER execs with the lease expiring. Why alternatively was the lease not put out as a re-tender to all parties. 2) BoD of XEL/XER abrogation of fiduciary duties while still employees of XEL/XER negotiating a four year lease extension for Bentley with OGA while they were still had to be on the payroll of XEL/XER, particularly in the case of the useless cfo. Acting in effect for themselves and the bondholders in securing both their future employment as was clearly the case, they jumped ship which had to be by prior agreement, and the liquidation of XEL without due consideration first being given to the lifeline that a lease extension to XER, while still under the ownership of XEL, would have been to the parent company and it's ability under competent management to source funding against said lease extension. Jmo. Imo all parties deserve to be brought to book and sued, at least to disclose the facts during the timeline that led to the lease extension being granted by clear partiality. OGA as a public body should not be allowed to hide behind supposed confidentiality issues that directly by their action blighted the investment of thousands of shareholders in XEL, who with their participation and despite unnecessary costs imposed by DECC, had brought Bentley close to development status with large and now proven field reserves.

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/166626/enquest-waiting-on-the-right-offer-for-kraken-sale/

shades of what OGI allowed XEL/R execs unchallenged to wash through in respect of XEL shareholders. jmo.. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-5511423/The-hunt-Toys-R-missing-millions.html

It increasingly looks like the XEL/XER execs that parachuted into newco XER had via the bondholders found a party to both develop Bentley eventually and retain their services away from XEL and old XER. From the OGA comment there's no reason old XER when still owned by XEL should not have been awarded a four year lease extension of Bentley, they were fully compliant with the technical requirements for lease extension, funding only had to be demonstrated at application time for FDP. Lease extension therefore should have been granted without question. Wheat clearly seems to have been lacking was the XEL/XER execs ever making this four year lease extension application while XEL was still the owner company for XER. Imo the facts in relation to this needs to be ascertained. Plus on this basis why when being appraised for said extension did OGA show delay and partiality in allocating same to a company that was effectively a newco without going out to re-tender.

Yes, OGA and the fiduciary duty absentees from XEL and XER pre liquidation should be brought to book. I seem to recall as part of their package the company was paying for executive iiability insurance. Two avenues for XEL shareholder redress imo.

There clearly was an extension available on the table, it happened. OGA were well aware of poor market conditions in 2016 and the possible parlous state of XEL as a result despite what they had spent with DECC insistence on the EWT in 2012. As you mention Statoil got three years for Bressay and magically when XEL is successfully euthanised it's former subsidiary under the same management and phantom supporter is allowed a four year extension. An absolute crock in many ways imo.

OGA's attempt at confidentiality makes no sense. Don't they realise the conflict of interest situation and death of XEL they allowed themselves to be drawn into re the action they allowed to happen eventually. They knew XEL was being taken to the cleaners by the Bondholders, yet the same XEL/XER executives are in front of them requesting a four year lease extension on behalf of this new investor that has shown up, clearly with commitments made for Bentley FDP, or if not why would OGA ever grant this extension. Why did OGA not in good faith first offer as it was on the table this lease extension to old XER. What might have positive news on that that have done to the XEL sp, extended borrowing capacity, and revived interest of partners. Pretty clear if the Bondholders and whoever was fronting up the future performance guarantees to OGA were doing all they could to ensure the liquidation of XEL. We don't know whether the fiduciary duty failures/conflicted interests parties we know about ever made a request to OGA for XEL/XER for four year lease extension while XEL was the owner in control of XER, that clearly in fact was available and given to XER in it's new shareholder/same old staff guise after the XEL involvement in backing XER had been booted out of the way. Then if XEL/XER could not have performed the lease with the data on the field gained should have gone out to open re-tender not to this unknown entity that backed itself into XER. Jmo.

with ref to Blue City email.. Imo while nice to hear about, attacking XEL BoD on the basis of bubble Nsea investment not the right tack. The asset is there and proven now to FDP status at XEL investors cost. The problem has been the totally inadequate operating/management expertise of XEL/XER BOD, leading imo to individual fiduciary failures. This was compounded by DECC/OGA, and the final Bondholder who managed to effect the liquidation of XEL and the extension thereafter via old XEL/XER staff of the Bentley lease under mysterious circumstances and a preferential four year renewal in favour of newco XER. The way events unfolded in actuality with the stock options they held, as for XEL shareholders the gtz of XEL resulted in a huge financial loss to key BoD members. The main issues imo that need investigation and clarification are DECC's 'actions' in 2011 re FSP/SSP and the EWT, why were they not on the ball to assist rather than hinder a small Sea oilco, the transfer of XER status for the benefit of the Bondholders, parachuting BoD and staff, and the final XER/Bondholders/OGA negotiations that led to a four year lease extension being awarded preferentially to newco XER. Jmo..

I agree but it's not recorded as being worded as such by OGA, rather the phantom is reportedly advised OGA considered this to be a bad investment decision for them to venture into! Phantom must have evaluated and gone in with acceptable funding and opco for approval, otherwise why bother, and just why would OGA implicitly reject this. Their stated reasoning is ludicrous and makes no sense. And if it was the case and presumably it had to be OGA that decided to put off the phantom in this sort of oblique way, how was it immediately thereafter the next option that came up was to award newco XER this four year extension. Or had this plan and participants already been agreed by connivance of OGA, the phantom was a late arrival embarrassment. it's clear the XER moonlighting staff had to have by that stage been working on an alternative proposal, together with the bondholders support, which immediately after this discouraging meeting, as the Bentley lease approached termination date, this proposal of theirs was all ready to go and accepted. It had to have been made against certain guarantees being tabled and accepted by OGA, about which XEL shareholders knew absolutely nothing, other than viewing the XEL and XER BoDs and staff participating in the liquidation of XEL, jumping ship and a four year lease extension appearing immediately thereafter. Where under foi are the details of discussions that put this four year plan together favouring newco XER and not this phantom, when did they commence, and with whom. 'Investor confidence' was never an issue except to OGA, this investor was never revealed to XEL shareholders, who up to that time were the investors/funders of Bentley. Jmo..

quite ambiguous really is it not. OGA does say parties. if the redacted phantoms here were not the Bondholders showing themselves and advising who they intended to bring in as operators, when did the discussion clearly that had to have been held between OGA with XER/the Bondholders re approval for the four year lease extension, conditions, and continuity they needed in connection with booting out XEL equity in XER by liquidation happen? Why was this not asked for by XEL/XER mid 2016 or presented as an option then by OGA to XER in good time for the upcoming expiry of the Bentley lease, yet seemingly was available later in 2016 to XER under new owners. And what on earth does OGA mean in clause 22 re the phantom investing in Bentley by saying they considered the phantom's reputation could be damaged by such an action?! This was not a beauty contest, but a proposed commercial investment on the part of that company it was prepared to fund and support. By their comment OGA is implying that if we were to assume the phantom was not the Bondholders the investment was bad for them, yet good still for XER in Bondholder owned guise for whom OGA were prepared to award a four year lease extension!

From the contents of this OGA message all the XEL/XER executives seem to have been doing in the latter part of 2016 apart from future feathering of their own nests, was facilitating promotion of a four year lease extension of Bentley as was apparently available from OGA, but achieved instead for the particular benefit of an individual or group (Statoil?) that were not known shareholders in XEL. At no time were shareholders in XEL advised of possible availability of said lease extension, such partial action, or open requests to inform status of and authorise same, yet clearly now being taken by their executives for the benefit of themselves and others. Their action, with the support it seems of OGA, directly led to the decimation of the company by asset transfer to others, with the eventual gtz stock situation and liquidation of the company that resulted from this jointly concocted event. Jmho.

Thanks beltron, absolute crock. Re meeting mentioned on 8/9/16 why are the execs of XER allowed to participate in such a meeting representing new investors with their own parachutes clearly strapped on, could not OGA see the clear conflict of interest in their position. Why did not OGA offer this 4 year extension to these same XER execs three months earlier, XER not this newco having already expensed $450m at the behest in the main of DECC to develop an FDP for Bentley. Was OGA ever asked, and why did OGA not alternatively as the lease was due to expire, in fairness to others put the lease out to open re-tender, as they had done with Blackbeard at the time of award to XER. Re item 18-25 it's quite clear by their own admission OGA were aware of the contentious nature of the XEL liquidation and effect of same on XER, and the risk to OGA of litigation from their actions. Imo that risk is considerably increased by the content of this letter, the partiality shown to one party by OGA and the detriment by their actions shown to shareholders in old XEL/XER. To he** with the risk to Company xxxx's reputation, the shareholders in XEL going back years, have been with OGA apparent complicity shafted by same. It's also petty clear imo that Cole and particularly the parachuting CFO Fairclough should also be sued for fiduciary duty failure to XEL shareholders and old XER for their actions in failure to promote earlier the precise thing they were clearly, by attending that 8/9/16 meeting, the Bentley lease extension to a.n. other yet still held by oldco XER. They should have recused themselves or have first resigned from XEL/old XER, and notified XEL shareholders of their action. Just who are the shareholders in this new BVI owner company so acceptable on the quiet to OGA. OGA's obligations for confidentiality are absolutely not as they should be and completely one sided. Jmho..

About par for the course for these idiots imo, either stupidity or over confidence to be charitable without having a guaranteed exit setup in place before ever agreeing these conditions.

Read the 12/2011 letter on the subject from the jobsworth at DECC at the time. XER were a contributory factor but they were basically shafted by this gent imo. XER should have at the time of the ON well or immediately thereafter got clarification and acceptance from DECC of that well results and their intended FSP/SSP plan going forward into 2011. Failing to get this in writing, or perhaps someone (Smith?) felt he had a 'gentleman's' agreement as to how to proceed and what would be accepted after the 6 well. Especially before committing $60m in advance of an approved plan for the RN, plus now a $250m EWT thrown in, was imo the reason for him quite justifiably falling on his sword in 2012. Whatever that allowed this DECC 'expert' into the driving seat when XER went in mid 2011 with their proposed FDP plan and suddenly found, as is clear from DECC's letter, FSP/SSP was not approved. So with a rig all ready to go, this EWT was concocted by XER and sold to shareholders and DECC as the bee's knees. Who knows, one can think of a few, what persuaded that guy to to fail to assist with a small company's woes in what in actuality was a perfectly acceptable plan, from which any additional data DECC supposedly required could have been obtained from the first well. If the reservoir particulars or further development were considered of concern from that, the work could equally well have been shut down at that time. In the meantime also concurrent with that work, the reservoir size could have been expanded, as it was with the EWT, to assist with further funding applications against enhanced reserves. So basically there was no positive guidance or help from DECC re their declared aim to assist small companies in developing North Sea fields, unless they thought loading an additional $250m expense to XER was that, in addition to what had already gone from XER into the 5 and 6 wells. Of course XER compounded the issue by developing this desperation EWT plan, it's cost, and not having any prior agreed support, other than the BP offtake agreement, from a major or funder if the EWT as it was, proved successful. Then this useless BoD dropped the company further in the hole by terminating, again without plan B fixed and in place, the RBL the company had. As a 'management' quite unbelievable, they gave away the farm to someone nameless, but imagine who with the name change, for 1/3rd the cost it was to develop and prove up. Jmho..

The problem is the 'new' staff were actually the old staff, let by the CFO who had proven to be incapable since appointment to line up funding for XEL. Complete conflict of interest that he then allowed himself to be rolled into the newco. Just saving his skin, completely unprincipled. Why was the old company not first awarded a four year lease extension, that was available to this effective newco, seemingly without quibble. OGA had to have been perfectly aware of the parlous state of the o&g market environment, why did they not offer old XER in mid 2016 this four year lease extension they were perfectly prepared to trot out for the effective newco just a few months later. Could have been game changer for XEL with regard to sp, and being able to negotiate refi or partnership agreements later in 2016. You are quite right, just where were these major shareholders in XEL from way back, as illusory as the phantom as it turned out financiers that persuaded the idiot XEL BoD to cancel the RBS led funding that was in place without an alternative backup first being set. Smith imo had to go as a result of the DECC and rig fiasco in 2011 where without a prior tied in FSP/SSP FDP agreement with DECC based on successful and approved ON 6 well results, led to the necessity for the wantonly expensive cover exercise called EWT. This again was approved, conducted/expensed without first having a prior agreed partner or funding against results in place.

Good post, but think you need to go further back under foi to the time OGA were harping on about the benefits of Quad 9 and participants in same. Just how did OGA thereafter from mid 2016 on clearly knowingly allow themselves to be negotiating with the same executives planning to jump ship as they did from old XER when owned by XEL, to XER under new 'owners' who had foreclosed on oldco, the old shareholders having been shafted by the inability of XER executives supposedly to seal the lease extension deal for old XER that seemingly magically materialised immediately 'new' XER surfaced. Could OGA not see the conflict of interest minefield XEL/XER executives were in, and they actively allowed themselves to be placed in, to the detriment of the shareholders that had funded and taken the risk on Bentley in the first place. Why did OGA not in good faith, if they decided as they did there would be no re-tender, not offer in the first instance in good time a four year lease extension to old XER. Did they not appreciate the potential value of such an award in relation to a proven by then field. Were they ever asked by said executives to agree this term extension, prior to XEL having to be put in liquidation, despite the debt that XER owed XEL. Or did this issue only arise after the bondholders had succeeded in persuading these same executives for future job security to promote and implement a plan that left XEL shareholders with no option but see XEL killed off, XER maintained in the process through this, and then have them step over to new owner XER, concurrent with OGA's magic award by that stage of this four year Bentley lease extension. The whole issue imo stinks of connivance on the part of all insider parties involved, in the case of XEL/R executives from the time of the arrival of the new bondholders and the revision of the legal status of XER at that time. But what left XEL with no chance of redemption was the failure of XER's executives at the time to promote, and/or OGA, to award XER in mid 2016, a four year lease extension that was available to the same company but by then under new manipulated ownership, later that same year still prior to expiry of the old lease. Jmo.

With respect to the approaching end of the XER Bentley lease end 2016 OGA failed imo to act impartially in the matter of negotiations with oldco XER staff, and showed partiality in awarding a four year lease extension without re-tender or first considering oldco XER under it's ownership by XEL, and for award of such extension by mid 2016. There was a clear conflict of interest that should have been evident to OGA by the fact they allowed the same oldco XER execs to negotiate a lease extension that was to be granted to an effective newco in which the old shareholders had been ejected, yet comprised the self same executives. Why was not the opportunity being given first by OGA in view of evident market conditions then, to oldco XER mid 2016, whose shareholders had paid for the cost, at the insistence of DECC, in determining to FDP state the size and prospects for Bentley. Alternatively, as the old lease extension was expiring, OGA should have demonstrated impartiality by way of an open re-tender, knowing that XER parent XEL was in danger of being placed under liquidation by one party within it's capital structure. Partiality was shown thereby to one group of lenders or investors in XEL. The conflict of interest is clear on the part of the XEL/XER executives who failed to best protect the interests of oldco XEL/R and it's shareholders they had a fiduciary duty to represent, as they had to have negotiated on behalf of then stepped over as they did to newco XER. Imagine what might have happened if OGA had been requested or persuaded in good time to offer XEL/R a four year lease extension, as they eventually did to this effective newco. Were they ever asked by old XEL/R, and if this had been available, what effect might that have had on the XEL sp. Could this have re-energised prospective partners. Might shareholders have been persuaded to participate in a rights issue thereafter, as opposed to the prospect of what transpired, gtz. At 50 cents this would have enabled the ejection of the Bondholders. In addition there still remained Stg31m ELF that could have been tapped on an sp bounce for ongoing w/c. Jmo, but imo OGA should be publicly dragged over the coals over how they allowed this XER crew to secure their futures v that of the shareholders in XEL/R who had paid for the Bentley field to be brought to the current state of development and prospect. By their action OGA allowed one group to sink and another to survive. If the generous lease extension had been agreed earlier all likely could have at worst taken a comparable hit, but the company as was remain afloat..