Member Info for highlandsbull

Forget that incompetent imo, he should have been taken care of by the useless FCA, example of their uselessness the recent RBS report. Concentrate alternatively on HMG/DECC/OGA and under foi just what was said, when, with and by who, leading up to the Bentley 4 year lease extension. Jmo..

Yep I was kinda wondering that, see how much 'action' came from the co-joined bleating hearts, not much it seems.

Plus lot of wailing and chest beating on II that also came to nothing.

Clearly absolute zero interest taken by UK.gov supposed protectors in various guises of legality and fair play.

True, but Bentley value is not in terms of personnel but represents a several billion $$ l/term oilfield in UK waters, funded in part by thousands of small UK investors based on the incompetent financial and operations management by the BoD of XEL/XER. But imo BoD incompetence aside, there have been clear failings on the part of DECC/OGA, where initially the 'advice' from DECC in 2011 to a small company such as XER they were supposed to be supporting, to spend hundreds of millions of $$ on an unnecessary EWT, where the data they supposedly required could equally well have been obtained during XER's proposed FSP. Secondly during early and mid 2016 when OGA were harping on about Quad 9, why was old XER not allowed a 4 year lease extension in view of difficult ongoing market conditions at the time, but seemingly given without quibble to newco. Did the XER management at the time ever ask for this, if not why not, as it was clearly available and given to the phantom Bondholders prior to the expiry of the old lease. There is a clear conflict of interest and fiduciary duty responsibility by XEL/XER BoD in the first instance by those that jumped ship to newco with this in hand. There is also a lack of impartiality by OGA in not considering the interests of XEL shareholders in negotiating with these people by what implies some form of under table arrangement. The fairest thing to have done would have been to have declared the lease expired and put out for re-render, or given old XER an opportunity to refinance field development on the basis of extending the lease in the first instance to oldco. OGA are hiding behind a figleaf of commercial confidentiality. Irrespective of 2011 events they should be sued under foi to release to XEL shareholders details of the discussions they held with XER management in 2016 re this lease extension, and why partiality was shown by them in negotiating with a group that was clearly represented by the self same XEL/XER executives, making sure a lifeboat was available to them for the future, while XEL shareholders were sunk by their incompetence and desertion. Old XEL/XER directors that decamped to newco should be sued for failing to perform their fiduciary responsibilities to old XEL and it's shareholders, clearly demonstrated by numbers of the self same individuals magically reappearing in XER newco. Unfortunately my shareholding in XEL very small in the end, and a pi to boot. But if I was a fund manager or investor with several hundred thousand plus shares in XEL that went gtz as many were, and had a budget appropriation for legal costs, then I would at least be prepared to invest in the expense related to foi and clear partial actions of a government institution in asking the above questions. Then sue the old executives that decamped for allowing this to happen in the way it did. Someone, still unknown to XEL shareholders, has appropriated for $150m an asset that has cost XEL shareholders $450m+ to develo

Yes was thinking the same, like stuck pigs as soon as exposure to their failings or interests is open to scrutiny as to complete incompetence or dishonesty, suddenly all the powers of government so absent with XER are being lined up to mitigate the damage.

All I am saying is it's very curious that the former big hitters in XEL or stated major pi investors failed at least to take up the cudgels with OGA under foi, shake the shady tree to determine what exactly had been requested or stated and by whom. Why the Bondholders, or no doubt their by then XER minions prior to the termination of the XER lease, clearly had to have had discussions and approval for a four year lease extension. Why was this concession not considered and given in good time to old XER.

despite your fully merited grief against the characters mentioned, your wish for all related to shut up shop and disappear is exactly what these people you despise, the XEL BOD, UK 'Institutions', whoever, would wish for, that the sooner we all forget the better. Any exposure imo that can be given to this management and investor disaster, even now, is worthwhile if even one action of consequence can yet be taken against the parties that led to this fiasco. Bregds..

Imho and wth the extended timeline being given, this will all come back, surprise surprise, to a joint development of Bentley/Bressay with the resurfacing of same prior no show characters involved there.

that time and prior 4Q '10. DECC must have known that XEL contracted the RN at $60m cost to go for FDP after the 6 well, but someone sat and gave clearly no support until the fiasco around 11/11 eventuated. There is no genuine reason imo that XER could not have gone out and done as they proposed, got cashflow going in the process while testing the wel(s) at the same time to obtain the data supposedly required by the jobsworths in DECC. In the process of course XER could have developed with TRACS the real size of the field, to merit further funding. Secondly to 2016 and events that led to OGA awarding exclusively, without first enabling XEL/XER, prior cancellation or re-tender, a four year extension of the Bentley lease to these unknowns to the public and even now, Bondholder characters. OGA by their non disclosed action effectively stuffed the investors and the company that had paid for and explored the field. Would you for example not like to know whether XEL/XER in it's original capacity, and prior to deliverance by same executives to the Bondholders, ever requested of OGA a four year extension on behalf of XEL/XER, prior to parachuting themselves with clear conflict of interest imo into the newco? Or did they say nothing, and just jump after their new setup was in place? I sure would, with it's terminal effect on XEL. If I was a substantial shareholder and had the financial capacity I would bring a lawsuit against OGA and the BOD of XEL for non-disclosure and mismanagement, in the case of OGA non disclosure, partiality to unknowns, exceeding their remit and allowed course of action. At the very least OGA should be made to disclose whether the extension request was ever put to them by the BOD of XEL/XER as it existed. Why was it not allowed for they and shareholders be given a chance with the known disastrous situation prevailing in o&g in the prior two years, to modify existing or seek new funding prior to the lease termination time, yet quite acceptable clearly by action taken by OGA to give partiality to unknowns. Imo completely smacks of back door underhand dealings supposedly in the name of confidentiality to undisclosed persons. OGA s a public appointed body and should be open to public scrutiny, particularly when matters of substantial seeming private financial interests and matters are the issue for a significant amount of UK investors interests in a formerly UK plc. I can only add as long as there is life and doubt there has to be hope someone remains in a position to act. As point of interest to support this contention I retain stock in an oilco that supposedly expired through suspected crooked action 10 years ago. Yet even now substantial original investors, if they have the capacity and b**** to not forget, have been prepared through ICSID now to continue to press for redress from the parties directly involved in their loss, that led to the company being sold off at huge profit by others. JMHO, and happy Xmas to y

Very sorry for you bodog to see you like many others still in visible pain over XEL. I still work on the premise that while there is life, or more particularly past substantive investors who have the financial ability to sustain legal queries of the parties involved in this eventual fiasco, if they retain an active interest and ability to to see justce prevail against the characters they and small investors have been pitted against by their eventual misguided investment in XEL. Some of these people were clearly in attendance at past XEL agms, even now the seemingly disappeared vocal crowd of punters on the XEL II board who seem to go through useless available HMG processes to no avail. While I as a small retired investor can do little, I can identify from my time as an XEL shareholder since 2010 and my past experience in the industry clear issues of considerablle gross naivety and stupidity on the part of XEL executives in the development of Bentley over that time, but particularly including the failed performance of DECC/OGA to properly assist this small startup north sea company in that regard. This was supposedy part of their remit at the time in agreeing to allocate new fields away from the majors clique to companies such as XEL/XER. So what I am saying is that if pressure can legally be put anywhere for disclosure of information, job and remit related non performance, that can allow review, cancellation, or financial redress to short changed investors, then that should be directed at the the government and DECC/OGA in particular. Notwithstanding the idiots in XEL, there has been a clear failing in HMG's actions with regard to Bentley and XEL/XER that seems to stink of non disclosure by being brushed under the table. Why for example were the jobsworths in DECC, if they were as transpired so critical of available data from the 6 well presented to them by this start up not on ON site at the time the well was drilled and tested to advise that data obtained then was insufficient to meet their purported requirements thereby still requiring a seeming further huge investment by XEL and shareholders in an EWT well. All this hooha about Macondo, the Bentley field was a totally different non hpht prospect, awarded by DECC to a known small company to attempt to develop. Subsequent to 6 and the presentation a year later by XER of application to proceed to FSP/SSP why was there clearly no action taken by DECC jobsworths in the interim to guide XER as to what would be deemed acceptable as an FDP until that time, and the submitted draft FDP thrown out? In the interim through such critical lack of action and support XEL were soliciting and receiving further funding, big and small, and from many UK punters, who now with the award to unknowns of a four year extenion of Bentley been completely shafted in the process. As I have proposed foi should be invoked into the both the earlier 2011 events under DECC, just what was said and when during

One has to ask why with the emphasis by OGA being put on Quad 9 and the key work done in that regard by XEL, knowing the parlous state of the UK o&g market through 2015/6 why did OGA not in late 2016 provide the option of a four year extension to the Bentley lease to XEL/R? Were they ever asked in the name of XEL/R? Alternatively with the failure of XEL/R to obtain FDP prior to the lease termination end 2016 why did not OGA put the lease out to open tender. Why was Whalsay and the ex XEL/R staff that parachuted seamlessly into Whalsay given a lease extension that was seemingy not on offer to XEL/R. These people clearly had to have been negotiating this lease extension while still servants of XEL/R therefore a clear conflict of interest appears evident, apart from the inexplicable apparently secret action of OGA in this matter. Jmo.

The name change at XER and the subsequest 'acquisition' by WEHL throws up languge that clearly indicates negotiations on this restructuring, with institutional funds available to someone, had to have been discussed by XER execs who transferred to Whalsay and it's successor, and OGA well before the end of the XER Bentley lease in 2016 otherwise OGA would have been in breach of it's remit re this seeming seamless extension of the Bentley lease to Whalsay in it's various entities. Befoe any lease extension could be conttemplated by OGA surely a not only t/o of XER debt but a funding package or guarantee had to have been proposed and accepted. Clearly as part of these negotiations this acceptable funding package seemingly was unavailable to XER. Why was a four year extension available to these people and not XER to enable them to at least solicit an extension of the Bonds expiry date. XER even still had Esousa funds availabe, it there had been notification of a 4 year extension on offer by OGA, the picture for XER shareholders and the sp could have been transformational, even to the extent of offer of a rights issue to enable XER to carry the project through 2018 at least. As mentioned many XER stockholders and those in ISA's would likely far preferred on a viable proposal to assist with further funds, rather that the gtz situation that XEL/R management engineered with their incompetence, being one way to describe it. Imo qestions need to be raised of both OGA and the XEL/R execs that parachuted into Whalsay re conflict of interest and disclosure ot the timing and discussions that led to this gift to Whalsay paid for by XEL shareholders with a double shafting from DECC/OGA. Jmo. Interesting Mr. Warwick aso has had past Sinopec connections, have to wonder if RR has been somewhere in the background.. Good for him if he was. http://whalsayenergy.com/ https://www.rms-recruitment.co.uk/2017/07/new-north-sea-firm-whalsay-to-develop-bentley-field/

Still believe apart from foi concerning events surrounding th DECC jobsworth in 2011 questions also need to be asked of OGA concerning whether XER execs ever approached OGA mid 2016 with request to extend the Bentley lease by 4 years as was seemingly given without question to Whalsay, and prior to their employment being funded by Whalsay. If this extension had been on offer to XER or asked for, what effect might that have had on XER being able to find a partner, refi the Bonds or even persuade shareholders by rights issue pump in money to clear off the Bonds. Shareholders in at the 1-4 level might have been amenable to this, as opposed to the actuality of the gtz situation that eventuated. Clear impression has been given that there had to have been collusion/conflict of interest on the part of OGA and management, as they proceed on with employment by Whalsay, with this 4 year extension awarded by OGA, while the XEL shareholders who paid for the pre development of Bentley effectively shafted. Jmo.

Under foi minutes and conversations DECC v XER late 2011 leading up to the 12/11 letter from DECC Aberdeen office. Who was this phantom jobsworth 'I this and myself that' that led to the cratering of XER's draft 2011 FDP despite data from wells drilled up to that time, and the substitution of FSP/SSP with the EWT and 1A and 1B plan. Even through 2012 the cocksure tone of the XEL 6/12 financial statement as to all being well, the 10/12 Edison XEL update then the 2013 change of plan to big boy. Who intitiated that, leading to the cancellation of RBL with no funding substitution in place. A catalogue as it's transpired of developing management incompetence imo that beggars belief, but goes back to events leading up to the involvement of DECC, or not, in economically assisting XER in the progressing of the proposed FDP at the time they were supposed to be helping small oilcos.

so say a lot of us. The word then fom the crew 'managing' the company was that they were merely recovering their investment cost up to that time and were still heavily in. Wish we all had had that option.

Or even, faced with losing all as the only final alternative offered up by the 'management', knowing there was a four year extension on the table from OGA shareholders be asked for a rights issue, combined even with the funds still available via Esousa, to pay off or extend date and cost of the Bonds.

Through 2010, the 6 well, and into 2011 XER were consistently promoting FSP/SSP for the Bentley field development. That was the gist of the 2011 draft FDP submitted to DECC late 2011. Unfortunately they clearly never brought DECC on board with this plan before going public on it, and for which on spec effectively they expensively had contracted the RN, a rig the size of which was to enable them to combine drilling and production at the same time of an initial number of wells. The jobsworth at DECC made ot clear in his 12/2011 letter that there were 'remaining uncertainties in future reservoir performance'. He did not sanction XER's draft FDP. Clearly this negated XER's planned FSP/SSP approach by which they intended to go straight into production. So faced with the necessity to provide data that if they had known about it could have come from extended time on the 6 well, and having a rig on the horizon with no approval for FSP, there was no face saving alternative to proposing and selling to DECC and shareholders the expensive 'benefit' of an EWT, against the success of which they had no prior partner lined up to at least part absorb the cost. Whalsay is XER with a changed name. I'd like to know under foi when OGA were approached to sanction a four year extension to the Bentley lease. This had to have been under negotiation for several months in advance of XER's demise With the same key management there was a clear conflict of interest, negotiating their future while still under the flag of XER. Why could not XER been given this extension months in advance of expiry of the Bonds. What effect might that have had on availability of new funding or partner.

Especially also it was at the instigation of DECC/OGA in the first instance that XEL were prevailed on to have to spend the fortune they did in 2011/12 on the unnecessary EWT.

With Brent oil at $61/bbl now the question might well be asked in the lead up to XEL management folding why was Whalsay able to get a four year lease extension and not XEL having spent all the exploration $$$. What difference to funding sourcing or prospective partners interest could that have made if it had been obtainable by XEL. Did XEL ever even put the question to OGA, and if not why not. Someone else clearly did. There is, except two, the same management incumbents at Whalsay as were in XEL, clear conflict of interest imo particualarly by the ex XEL CFO who must have known what was going on.