Member Info for Madpunter

Tsbs - No, the GG were to get 51% due to the PSA when it was FRCC. If FRWG is a 50/50 licence split the GG get 50% instead of 51%, but not under the PSA. In other words they get 50% ownership instead of 51% of the hydrocarbon production. Therefore, the GG would get half of the money if Block 12 is sold to the SM's under a 50/50 licence split. However, under the previous PSA split of 51/49, the GG would have to wait for years for the infrastructure and revenue under the PSA to get that amount. In other words the GG get the money sooner under a 50/50 licence split, rather than later under a 51/49 PSA split. The GG will still get a royalty for oil and gas transported through the international pipelines, plus a possible 5% royalty depending upon the 5% RA from FRCC. FRR will have only lost the 5% RA (due to having to transfer the licence because of SH/O) and the Eastern parts of the Shallow Fields and Basin Edge, assuming that B-2-0 is correct (due to the arbitration). Also, as there's decades of extraction, these lost fields may never be produced by the SM's due to the move towards renewable energy. However, if they were owned by the GG (Eastern SF + BE), they could still bring in revenue from interested smaller O+G companies.

Tsbs - Read it again, I've copied the relevant section below :-

Recent media and licensing suggest that FRWG has a 50/50 split of the licence, whereas when the licence was in FRCC it was 100% owned by FRCC, with the 51/49 split under the PSA after recovered sunk costs.

FRWG - 50/50 licence split. FRCC - 100% licence owned by FRR.

I stated quite a while ago that I thought the removal of SH/O's debt and the return of the 5% RA were both key the SM's signing a deal. Recent media and licensing suggest that FRWG has a 50/50 split of the licence, whereas when the licence was in FRCC it was 100% owned by FRCC, with the 51/49 split under the PSA after recovered sunk costs. B-2-0 also suggests that the Eastern portion of the Basin Edge and Shallow Fields have been lost to the GG in the compromise, hence the new Frontera Resources Western Georgia holding the 50/50 licence. If this is all true then when the 5% RA returns to the GG their 50/50 split of the 95% effectively increases to 52.45% of the 100% ( they will get 50% of Block 12 and an additional 5% after the sunk costs are recovered). Therefore, the arbitration could be over whether the 5% RA results in a royalty after a deal with the SM's or it just returns to the 50/50 mix after the liquidation of FRCC, as FRR has already given up the Eastern part of the Shallow Fields and Basin Edge, resulting in the GG refusing to increase the licence length. If this is now what is happening, it is last chance saloon for the Russian leaning Dream Party, hence the propaganda and the retaliatory political threats from over the pond. The Dream Party also have possible demonstrations by the Georgian people starting early next month if the political reforms aren't implemented in time for the spring elections. I think it was B-2-0 who posted 'cool heads will see sense'.

Gipps - IMHO without FRR I doubt the deal could be done with the SM's, as there could be US sanctions. Where would that leave the GG, who without a deal may not have enough to pay the $3.5bn? IMHO the deal is already agreed and it's just political posturing while waiting for the court cases.

sonny - IMHO this is interesting timing. Uncle Sam will have troops on the ground in Georgia at a time when the NY case looks to remove one of the obstacles to signing a deal with the SM's. Namely , that the debts owed to SH/O may well be settled from oil and gas revenues in FRCC or it's subsidiaries. This should then result in the Texas case becoming null and void, plus the return of the 5% RA. Factor in the political posturing and it looks like a deal with the FRR, the GG and the SM's isn't far away.

IMHO it is because the court cases in NY and Texas are very close to a favourable conclusion and the arbitration just needs the change from a 5 year to a 50 year licence extension. This was reliant on the return of the 5% RA, but due to the wait the pro-Russia Dream Party has been posturing, plus there was even a cyber attack on Georgia. Now that everything is coming to a head the US is strongly advising Georgia to stick with the original agreement.

PJOHN - You did help me notice BP's reserves while sleuthing the reply to your mistake lol.

In the Ukraine interview Zaza stated reserves of 30 TCF and in excess of 14 billion barrels of oil, which is 19.1+ billion barrels of oil equivalent. IMHO as stated previously, Zaza is stating reserves due to independent verification by BP. If these figures are correct, another way to place them in context is to compare with BP's current reserves = 19.9 billion barrels. Therefore, if BP on it's own was to buyout Block 12, it would double it's reserves, yet some poster's on here think my valuations are fantasy.

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/what-we-do/bp-at-a-glance.html

PJOHN - No BP has spent $4bn in Georgia (see text below copied from the first link below). BP has spent $100bn on community initiative projects and social development projects, since it arrived in Georgia (see text copied below from the first link below). BP is operating in 78 countries (see second link below), therefore IMHO the $100bn spent since the time BP arrived in Georgia over 20 years ago (see text copied below from the first link below), is the total spent in those countries on those types of projects.

'To date, BP has invested $4 billion in Georgia'
'“BP came to Georgia over 20 years ago'
'“BP has spent $100 billion since it arrived in Georgia on community initiative projects and social development projects'

http://georgiatoday.ge/news/12725/British-Petroleum-in-Georgia%3A-Ongoing-Achievements
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/what-we-do/bp-at-a-glance.html

Interesting discovery from oopsi - perhaps another small flicker of sign of life but what’s driving this activity and why now? Probably more importantly, if there was/is intention to shaft the shareholders, surely it would have been smarter for Zaza to use another company name than ‘Frontera’ (given all the eye balls on us at the moment not to mention our own super sleuthers looking for any scrap of info). Having said that, the shareholder is Zaza’s son and not any one from FRR, so legally separate entities but related parties?

Anyway, still no update from Texas. Still no news on the Arbitration. But some traction in New York on the liquidation of FRCC, which continues to go through the process (and it appears Hope is continuing to put up a good fight despite racking up legal costs). But he will have a long fight on his hands if he tries to reverse the farmout from FEGL to FRUS (could take years especially if the Georgian Govt ratified the farmout deal). For now, I think the Texas hearing may provide a good idea where the whole legal thing is heading. Maybe the reason for having this hearing behind closed doors was to reveal to the Judge certain malpractices by OMF and also share this evidence with Hope without jeopardising SEC investigation. I speculate of course.

Finally for the record, our CLNs are fixed income bonds (@12%) bought by institutional investors (not banks) and fully repayable as ‘bullet’ on maturity. Bank loans are not arranged in this structure. The Original Bonds, which were restructured in 2011, were held by DDJ and Plainfield, both asset managers.

While the fight continues, we mushrooms should try to stay away from the dark side. If it does go very bad, there will be plenty of time to feel cheated and bitter.

Tsbs - Nikoloz will have access to more than 5 years experience of the local geology via his father. Furthermore, even though the two new companies are 100% owned by Nikoloz, if they're under the Frontera umbrella, they could argue to more than 5 years of exploration experience. However, IMHO Aurora1's theory of locals required to front companies involved as agents and links with the SM's who will develop Block 12 is also very plausible.

If my theories are correct, then fairly soon FRR and it's subsidiaries will have been bought out by the SM's and will cease to exist. Zaza's son may then be successful in obtaining one or more of the new offshore blocks put up for tender by the GG. If this occurs and we all get a favourable outcome from the sale of FRR, then Zaza's son gets the goodwill associated with the Frontera name for nothing. IMHO it would be relatively easy if this scenario of events occurs for Zaza's son to float on a stock exchange and carry on where his father left off.

I should have added 'IMHO' as I mustn't offend ODR and SR, who will know doubt point out that FTI already had control over FRCC and it's subsidiaries under Caymen's law. However, if the bank accounts of the said companies are in the US, I would expect some sort of protection under US law. Hence the requirement of Chapter 15 to assist with the liquidation process, when foreign companies with links to the US are involved.

Ziggy - FTI had all those powers mentioned in the Caymens, but did not have :-
(d) ordering that the administration or realization of any assets of FRCC within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States be entrusted to the Liquidators as the exclusive representatives of FRCC in the United States;
In other words, access to any bank accounts held by FRCC or it's subsidiaries in the United States.

Earsbern - IMHO it implies that as there's no objection to the proposed order granting recognition, and there's no application for relief to protect the assets of FRCC. In other words, FRR want to speed things up in the liquidation process.

http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/insolven/insolvency-e.pdf

Freescot - You don't need the link, just click on General Chat in the left hand column. Next click on Commodities and Mining, and finally click on Frontera Archive.

regdik - The big plus on the side of the costs to monetise Block 12, is that the transportation pipelines are already in place and partly owned by BP. Also, the costs per barrel are some of the lowest in the world and it's onshore instead of offshore. IMHO BH will provide the wells, gathering pipelines etc for a share of the field, as they haven't been involved from day one for nothing. BH will then get years of work on a massive scale and the other SM's would only have to stump up the initial costs for their share of Block 12, spreading any risk.

regdik - I could only base my assumptions on the little verifiable information available, plus interpretations of the other sources. I don't see Uncle Sam letting most of Block 12 return to the GG, but think that it will be a 50/50 split, with the Eastern Shallow Fields and Basin Edge returned, as suggested by B-2-0. As there's decades of production; the gas is more in favour with energy policies; the oil in the Eldari B has associated gas and will be exploited before other oil deposits; then the Shallow Fields and Basin Edge may never get drilled.

theprodigy, brgmg69 and Jekyll - Thanks for the support.

ODR - Explain why a wealth warning when were posting on a de-listed share and my posts use 'IMHO' and/or 'if' and/or 'assuming' , terms which you seem to omit.
It is entirely possible that I'm wrong about oil sales, but Zaza's reply to Mole about the method of selling could also be due to FRR not wanting SH/O to know about how much production was taking place. I may have not helped in this matter, but by the time I realised this it was too late. I decided to continue as most seemed to think my figures fantasy and a change of tack might have made them more believable to the opposition (this was around the time of the Declaration of Solvency).
Regarding the factual evidence of unpaid lawyer's fees and 8 months of unpaid worker's wages, I didn't discard this information. On the contrary, I used it as evidence that money from oil and gas revenue was inaccessible to FRR, as IMHO it was being paid into FRCC or it's subsidiaries.
You state 'He then completely misinterprets PwC's involvement and yesterday conveyed this misinterpretation as fact.' You don't express your view as an opinion, yet even though my view uses 'could', 'possibly', and 'IMHO' you accuse me of stating my view as fact (see the relevant part of my post from yesterday below).
PWC weren't clearly being told to expect a summons and PWC could have and possibly were contacted in the Caymen's. Also, PWC may not know anything about the transfer of Block 12 from FRCC, as FRR could tell them that until the arbitration is concluded, they aren't allowed to divulge the details. Furthermore, PWC could have given Notice of Appearance and requested all the case paperwork at any time after the case started in NY on the 25th October 2019, so why wait until now (Harris County gave Notice of Appearance in the first week of November)? IMHO FTI have been stalling to allow the Texas case to progress for SH/O to try and get shares off ZM and SN. Any stalling has also helped FRR, as it has given more time for oil and gas revenue to accumulate, hence no early Notice of Appearance by PWC. IMHO FRR has waited until all the monies from production have been paid before PWC has joined the fray, prompting the end of any perceived stalling by FTI, hence the Recognition Hearing.
Please highlight anywhere that I have mislead readers? I do not include the word investors as FRR is de-listed and to imply that reader's can still invest is in fact misleading. Share certificates are required to deal on the Grey Market and there's been plenty of debate about holder's not being able to get their certificates.
Finally, yet again you state that I'm wrong, 'way off the mark' and 'dangerous' instead of stating that it's your opinion. How am I dangerous? Unless you're thinking I'm dangerous to shorter's resulting in them unable to sleep lol.