Member Info for Looed

Oopsi - Thanks a lot for checking.

Thats the "detailed debunk article" I mention in the second link ! I will check it out thanks.

MadP - I was discussing barcodes a few weeks ago with a friend and he forwarded me these links which give a different take -
1st -
Recently, I’ve received a lot of e-mails and comments regarding how to decipher a products country of origin via the barcode. While the first three digits do not signify what country the product was manufactured in, they do indicate the country in which the company is based. This means, the company is headquartered, or has an office in that location, but the product could have been made in another country. Since a company has to apply for a GS1 prefix, they simply state where they are located to receive their prefix, and can choose to manufacture their product anywhere in the world.

Source - https://www.barcoding.com/blog/barcode-prefixes-and-product-country-of-origin/

2nd -
Many people mistakenly believe that the first few digits of the barcode numbers show the country of origin of the product. However, the barcode number says NOTHING accurate about the country of origin of the product. The only thing that these first few digits show is the country of origin of the barcode number itself. So, in reality, products that come from any specific country can have any barcode number on them.

If you want to demonstrate that your product is made in your own country, e.g., New Zealand, then the best way to do this is to print “Made in New Zealand” or similar on the product. This is an advertising claim and must be provable if challenged. (Some manufacturers also print “Made in New Zealand” directly above the barcode to help customers).

Source - https://internationalbarcodes.com/country-code-prefix/ (this site links to a "detailed debunk article" but I haven't checked that out)

PS - I used to be involved in import / export business and it was perfectly legal to make clothing in China, ship it into HKG for labelling and packing and claim "Made in Hong Kong", as 'production' was determined by place of final packing

Keysersoze - Thanks. I just looked through Oopsi's posts and couldn't find the reference. Hopefully Oopsi or the original poster can clarify.

I don't recall who posted about this, or where they found the information about the new company set-up - but if that poster is still around would you be able to check if there has been any update or activity regarding these entities? Thanks in advance.

Erazzel - did you see my earlier post where FRR even got a name check on the floor of the Moldovan parliament yesterday. More twists and turns than an episode of Dallas!

MadP - I had the same thought. Why does everything with FRR involve a conspiracy theory! Or is my suggesting a conspiracy theory in itself a conspiracy! Time for glass of the red stuff !! The silence surrounding our "defeat" really is deafening.

Contra - understood, thanks for the follow-up

Contra just a word of caution - US senators will not communicate nor represent anyone outside their congressional district. Also, they are being paid to lobby for FRR. I think its fine to post on their twitter feeds etc so others can see and hopefully react, but I doubt the senators themselves will get involved or reply. The Embassy might reply so could be worth a shot.

Having said that its surprising there hasn't been any comment from the senators etc so far.

Thanks for updating us and lets hope you recent attempt meets with some success. I want to thank you and your team mates for the time, effort and energy FSHG must have taken. Collating data, email servers, reaching out to FRR and everything else you did was a great effort on our collective behalf. Regardless of the outcome - much appreciated.

FRR gets a mention at the start of a somewhat rambling speech - I am still reading the rest of it - but here is the opening bit:-

"Speech from April 23, in the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova, by the deputy from the PSRM faction Bogdan ?îrdea, during the discussion on the Credit Agreement with the Russian Federation)

Dear fellow citizens!

No credit and treaty has been studied as intensively as the credit in Russia. Neither the association agreement, nor the cession of 40% of the territory to Frontera Resources, nor the agreements with the World Bank about the optimization of schools and hospitals!

Let's face it - The only downside to this Russian loan is that it's Russian! If we change the name to German, see how all the questions disappear!

That's why you invaded the pubic space with all kinds of aberrations!"

And on it goes - https://a-tv.md/md/index.php?newsid=80218

ODR - I also asked for FSHG to clarify if they would now make contact or are waiting for all legal cases to cease. We are sadly used to Zaza "self-isolating" from us, but I hope FSHG are able to shout something from a near by balcony or doorstep soon.

The GOGC site has the statement available in Georgian. With the proviso that I used Google Translate and it might be pointless nit-picking, the statement is below. This version claims the GOGC won the "absolute majority of their claims" and "The Arbitration Tribunal also upheld the claims of Frontera Riverside Georgia Corporation and Frontera USA and demanded that the proceedings be adjourned" The demand that proceedings be adjourned isn't in the english version. Who demanded the adjournment - FRR?

Here is the statement -

On April 17, 2020, the International Arbitration Tribunal, on the one hand, on the final disputes between JSC Georgian Oil and Gas Corporation and the State Oil and Gas Agency, and on the other hand between Frontera Risorz Georgia Corporation and Frontera USA. A decision was made to share the products of June 25, 1997 I. The distribution and study of the processing plant is based on the contract.

The Arbitration Tribunal supported the interpretation of the norms of the contract by JSC Georgian Oil and Gas Corporation and the State Agency for Oil and Gas LEPL and satisfied the absolute majority of their claims.

Among other things, the Arbitration Tribunal ruled that the Frontera Risorz Georgia Corporation had substantially violated the contract, which was a refusal to return the search area (99% of the entire licensed area) to the state.

According to the decision, Frontera was instructed to reimburse the fee paid by the JSC Georgian Oil and Gas Corporation for the use of natural resources and also to reimburse the plaintiffs for the costs of arbitration proceedings. The Arbitration Tribunal also upheld the claims of Frontera Riverside Georgia Corporation and Frontera USA and demanded that the proceedings be adjourned. According to the contract, the decision of the arbitral tribunal is final.

Currently, JSC Georgian Oil and Gas Corporation and LEPL State Oil and Gas Agency are considering further steps to implement the decision taken by the Arbitration Tribunal and the implementation of other rights granted by the contract.

Source -https://www.gogc.ge/ka/article/frontera-gogc-the-international-arbitration-tribunal-rendered-its-final-award-/479

Basically a rehash of the GOGC statement -

"Georgia wins arbitration dispute with US company Frontera

Georgia’s Oil and Gas Corporation and the State Oil and Gas Agency won a lawsuit against Frontera.

According to the corporation, on April 17, 2020, the International Arbitration Court made a final decision on controversial issues between, on the one hand, Georgian Oil and Gas Corporation JSC and the State Oil and Gas Agency, and on the other hand, Frontera Riverside Georgia Corporation and Frontera USA ”, which is based on the contract of June 25, 1997 on the partial distribution of products and the study of the processing plant.

The Arbitration Court upheld the interpretation of the contractual norms of JSC "Oil and Gas Corporation of Georgia" and the State Oil and Gas Agency, and satisfied the vast majority of their claims.

Along with other issues, the arbitral tribunal ruled that the Frontera risorize Georgia corporation substantially violated the contract, which was reflected in the refusal to return to the state the search area (99% of the entire licensed area) of gas deposits.

According to the decision, Frontera was instructed to reimburse the payment paid by JSC "Georgian Oil and Gas Corporation" for the use of natural resources, as well as to reimburse the costs incurred by the plaintiffs during the arbitration. The arbitral tribunal also satisfied the mediation of Frontera Resources Georgia Corporation and Frontera USA regarding the enforcement of claims and, due to these claims, ceased production. According to the agreement, the decision of the arbitral tribunal is final.

Currently, the Georgian Oil and Gas Corporation and the state oil and gas agency are discussing further steps to implement the decision made by the arbitration tribunal and to implement other rights granted by the agreement."

Source - http://bizzone.info/energy/2020/1587605429.php

There is a second one that is very similar to this article here - https://rossaprimavera.ru/news/3cf0987d

The last update from FSHG stated -
"We also take the view that – whilst legal process is being pursued – any action that is perhaps deemed or interpreted to be adversarial may in fact be counter productive and further damage or risk the company’s chances of success. That does of course not stop us pressing the company to uphold the requirements of the "Articles" - as Mole stated yesterday on LSE. In our view this should be our chosen route."
I read this to mean they won't push for contact until all legal cases have run their course(s). Perhaps FSHG can clarify that is still the case given latest developments?

Mijas - I think an excellent cut & paster is a more accurate description of me! My opinion is "bewitched, bothered and bewildered, am I" I think we all realistically expected this might not go our way, so - sadly - no surprise there. But even now, things are far from clear cut. The GOGC statement isn't bragging about vindication etc but states "The Arbitration Tribunal has upheld the Claimants’ interpretation of the contract and satisfied a vast majority of the claims raised by JSC Georgian Oil and Gas Corporation and LEPL State Agency of Oil and Gas of Georgia. Among the issues decided by the Arbitration Tribunal, it ruled that the Respondent - Frontera Resources Georgia Corporation committed material breach of the contract by refusal to relinquish and return to the State the exploration area, which represents almost 99% of the entire contract area." So not a total slam dunk for the GOGC?. Part of me thinks FRR might have been happy to give up the 99%, the arbitration was to decide on what terms. Neither FRR nor GOGC have explicitly detailed the in and outs of the arbitration case. There is no mention of sunk costs. We have talked endlessly about the movement of the asset - seems no specific mention here.

Did FRR withdraw the counterclaims either because they had no likelihood of success, or are Ok to accept the terms of the arbitration so no need to proceed (though GOGC claim these where thrown out anyway)

The last sentence ends with "(GOGC) are considering further steps aimed at enforcement of the award and implementation of the rights and remedies granted under the contract.

As always with FRR - more questions than answers. One big door seems to have been shut in our faces - we wait to see if other doors will open for us.

If I have just clogged up the board with meaningless reposts from the archive. Hopefully others can pick out more relevant pieces and help our understanding.

The article on the GOGC site in part states - "The Arbitration Tribunal has upheld the Claimants’ interpretation of the contract and satisfied a vast majority of the claims raised by JSC Georgian Oil and Gas Corporation and LEPL State Agency of Oil and Gas of Georgia. Among the issues decided by the Arbitration Tribunal, it ruled that the Respondent - Frontera Resources Georgia Corporation committed material breach of the contract by refusal to relinquish and return to the State the exploration area, which represents almost 99% of the entire contract area."

As others have said - is it possible GOGC have won - but FRR kept what is wanted all along? I couldn't find any rejection by FRR about the 99% grab, their focus is more on payment issues.

Part of Posted by Looed on the 3rd Mar :-

Zaza speaks to Georgian press

One of the main causes of the dispute is the licensing area - the state says Frontera should give up 99 percent of its contract, and the US company insists the government is depriving it of resource-rich territory.

According to Frontera, the amount of investment made in Georgia since 1997 has reached $ 580 million, with the state claiming to be several hundred million less."

And another Zaza interview of 5th March

-What about the dispute between
Frontera on international arbitration, at what stage is this dispute? Do you think you can continue negotiations with the government?

- We very much hope that the arbitration will make a fair decision and it will be so. We also believe in our position to be true. We have been working in Georgia for almost 24 years and have never violated any of our contract terms. It was a great surprise to us the government's decision to sue arbitration for the largest private American investor in the country. We hope that everything ends up being the result we want.

As for the negotiations, we were constantly referring to the government before and during the arbitration. No country is favorable when the largest energy investor is sued, especially if they had no solid fodder to do so.
We have always wanted to come to an agreement, as this would prevent all parties from spending a great deal of money during the arbitration process. It would have made the country better and more attractive for different companies in terms of investment. Unfortunately, the process that we thought was going to reach an agreement did not end in a meaningful way. There is no negotiation on the agreement at this stage. Extensive negotiations with the government have been going on for about six months, and we have agreed on the issues to be discussed. The state expressed a desire to have a greater economic interest in this agreement, and we were ready to do so.
Finally, whatever issues arose in the light of the existing agreement, I am sure It seems that their actions were not sincere. There were issues that were not on the agenda. They sought to amend the various clauses in the contract so that it radically changed the economic interest of the company in the contract. When you invest more than half a billion and then fundamentally want the state to change the economic terms of this contract, it is very difficult and virtually impossible to work in such a situation.
However, we are ready to continue the negotiations, but I do not hope that there is such interest on the other side that this dispute is resolved.

Posted by Looed on the 29th Feb :-

From 18/4/18 -

"LONDON (Alliance News) - Europe-focused oil and gas company Frontera Resources Corp on Monday said it has received a request for arbitration from Georgian Oil & Gas Corp and State Agency of Oil & Gas.
Shares in Frontera Resources were down 8.4% at 0.52 pence on Monday. Frontera said it was confirming recent press reports about the arbitration and potential territory relinquishment.
The request is related to certain terms of Frontera's production sharing contract in Georgia, the compay said; however it said the full statement of the case has not been submitted, and the times for any hearing are currently unknown.
In respect of potential territory relinquishment, Frontera said it has started a program to study the commerciality of block 12 to reach a conclusion regarding the sustainability of commercial production. The program has a five-year term and delineates block 12 as the study area, and pending completion, no relinquishment of any part of the block is due for the program's duration.
Frontera said it considers the arbitration request to be without merit and has started engagements of legal counsel to protect its rights."

Posted by Ivyspivey on the 29th Feb :-

Morning Looed.
A very good point and whether any “ new evidence” is admissible would be a moot point.
It appears the “ contract breach” does reflect around the definition of declaration of commerciality and the Exploratory vs production stage and timeline if the PSA.
That also explains FRR not making it a major issue at the time but also the huge need to raise money and really start developing the field.This of course being significantly hampered by Hope and the court cases.
Part of a “ co ordinated” campaign well certainly FRR seem to indicate as part of a geo political play.
Still unsure as to how this will pan out but if judgement is based mainly on pre 2018 then as you say a lot of recent stuff is irrelevant and the argument revolves around whether FRR or the Georgian govt were right over the size of the box.
As the GG are still fighting hard then I think we know the answer to that one.Actually that fact gives me more confidence as FRR held the PM meeting in 2016 during the KK spat so their positions were divided then and relevant to the arbitration.
So if FRR argue the GG was restrictive then and stopped them from carrying out the necessary development of the field and here the evidence of GK could be important then I think they would have a good case for at least a split of the spoils.