Member Info for Madpunter

Chris572 - You can't say it doesn't imply, just like I can't say it does imply. What I stated was 'IMHO' it implies and 'if' the first part of my statement was correct then it implies a deal is close. Just to clarify, both ZM and SN were in the Ukraine to meet the PM in the US Embassy and they had a letter from 8 senators backing them to get the tender process re-opened. Now no director is available, yet as far as we know both are still in the Caucasus region ( the subpoena couldn't be given to SN recently). FRR also have Luis E. Giusti an experienced oil executive who 'has received numerous accolades and awards including 1997 World Oil Executive of the Year and Latin American Oil Executive of the Decade', who could have represented the company. Therefore, IMHO it is significant that FRR had no representation at the conference. However, it may be that Zaza was intending to represent FRR and that due to a change in circumstances he was unable to attend.

https://fronteraresources.com/about/directors/

IMHO the fact that they didn't attend is linked with what keysersoze has stated, which implies that the super majors wanted a JV with FRR in Ukraine at the same time as a deal for Block 12. Furthermore, if this is true, then it also implies that a deal is very close to being agreed and only requires the court cases to come to fruition.

Ziggy - The Ukraine interview's release of production and profits could be to ensure that the liquidator's expedite matters when the court order was granted.

Ziggy - Fair point. The Ukraine tender was 6 weeks before the petition, so was probably the trigger as FRR were pledging to spend $56m. The profit and production interview could be to curtail the asset transfer investigation, by showing that payment is either in FEGL or on the way.

Ziggy - It's my assumption that the DoS was not backed up, as FRR wanted FRCC liquidated to enable the 5% RA to return to the GG. As Mourant was not paid it cast doubt over the DoS and the liquidator's were reticent to go after FEGL, as it looked like it was running on fumes. While freezing the accounts of the subsidiaries should be a formality, access to data and monies may require the Supervision Order. But why would they spend money on this process if it may not cover costs. The Ukraine interview then prompts them to petition for a Supervision Order (due to the production and profit information), but as they are uncertain if funds will be forthcoming, due to conflicting information, they want to look at the asset removal as well. As long as FRR have either left enough money in FEGL or added enough since, then the liquidator's will be satisfied.

Ziggy - If the DoS was backed up to avoid the Supervision Order, would the liquidation process have moved far enough to revert the 5% RA back to the GG? If not , then that would explain the wait before prompting the Supervision Order.
I can't see why the liquidator's would be interested in the asset transfer if all debts are paid, especially as they would have to go through the Georgian courts. Furthermore, when all debts are paid any money in excess returns to FRR, therefore the liquidator's would be incurring further costs, with no guarantee of payment (by trying to unravel the asset transfer).

Coggy - If Zaza had told us FRR was producing almost 2000bopd would they have been able to get SH off the BoD? Would SH veto any deal ZM and SN were negotiating, to enable a deal with one of his cronies? IMHO if Zaza has been economical with the truth, it's been for a good reason. SH/O had to go to ensure that FRR could get a good deal for shareholders.

Coggy - I've copied the relevant extract from link posted by Chris572 on the 10th September below :-

- Is it true that Frontera produces about 2 thousand barrels per day?

- No, less. To two. In 2018, we produced about 500 thousand barrels (about 70 thousand tons. - EP ). It's not about how many barrels. The fact is, for what period the production is designed. Will she stop in two months or in 20 years?

https://www.epravda.com.ua/rus/publications/2019/09/10/651021/

AJW - It's 500k barrels for 2018 and up to 2k barrels per day for this year. Therefore, using my estimate from the link below (see 4th post up from the bottom) of 1887bopd = 680k barrels for 2019.

https://www.lse.co.uk/chat/general/commodities-and-mining/frontera-archive-41C7D130-7E51-4344-82E7-83B697F53322.html?page=23

Ziggy - When the liquidation process was started then I assume that FRCC and it's subsidiary companies would have their bank accounts frozen. As there were letters of resignation for the directors of FRCC, then access to it's data I assume would be a formality. However, the subsidiary companies might require more paperwork due to data protection laws, whereas the freezing of accounts would provide a safety net for the banks (to avoid being sued), until a Supervision Order was obtained. Therefore, just like you're assuming that no monies would be left in the subsidiaries, the liquidators possibly thought likewise. Lets not forget SH/O was after Block 12 in FRCC, plus due to the default there would be no expectation of any monies. Also, the liquidators were probably reticent to expedite the process and were happy to allow the DoS to run it's course. Mourant possibly pushed for the liquidators to act due to the unpaid bill and the release of productivity and financial information from the Ukraine interview. Furthermore, even if no money was left in FEGL, monies could still be paid into a holding account set up by the liquidators to receive any money owed to FRCC and it's subsidiaries.

Page 12 of the link below shows the company structure, with FRGC below FRCC, with the operating company, FEGL below FRGC.
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ak7gVwQ3mttllmJrCLaIf6M8N8jw

"110. Defendants represented at oral argument that the directors have submitted a declaration of solvency to the voluntary liquidators. This does not deprive the liquidators’ of their authority to continue with the liquidation, however, as they may still apply to the Cayman Islands court for the court to supervise the liquidation if they believe either: (1) the company is or is likely to become insolvent; or (2) court supervision is necessary to facilitate a more effective, economic, or expeditious liquidation in the interests of the contributories and creditors."(110. copied from the 5th post from the bottom of P13 in the Frontera Archive {see link below})
https://www.lse.co.uk/chat/general/commodities-and-mining/frontera-archive-41C7D130-7E51-4344-82E7-83B697F53322.html?page=13

RR - Wrong bb. Try those listed at the bottom of this post, but in the meantime watch the following videos which explain why Brexit will benefit the UK, the faults with the EU (it's not a free market, it's a protectionist market with tariffs for those outside. The growing markets are those like Singapore and HK which are free, which the UK can become outside the EU) and why the politicians don't want to leave (10,000 EU employees on more money than David Cameron was on as Prime Minister; an exclusive subsidised shopping mall; allowances for everything and even free viagra {the Kelvin Mackenzie one}).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzNXL_W2Ago&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2j4oCDBbts&app=desktop
https://twitter.com/2018eew/status/1172951316513079297

https://www.lse.co.uk/chat/general/general/what-the-remain-stream-media-dont-want-us-to-know-DA8E383D-E55F-49EF-889C-6922DF2EEEE3.html
https://www.lse.co.uk/chat/general/general/eu-is-a-pack-of-cards-waiting-to-collapse-due-to-target2-ACEA28A0-3310-4306-AFFD-F37D0D5490CB.html

Timster - I answered that question when you asked yesterday (I've copied the answer below). Looking back at the timelines, the withholding of fees owed to Mourant didn't prompt the liquidator's to speed up the process. Assuming that I was right about them being reticent, due to the belief that FEGL didn't contain enough monies to cover costs, then the production and profit revelation in the Ukraine makes sense. Otherwise why would Zaza release the production information now and not through the official channels?

Timster - IMHO due to the NDA with BP and the only release of production figures has been the Ukraine interview. IMHO this was allowed as it was necessary to prompt the liquidator's court Supervision Order as the liquidation process had stalled.

Coggy - I like Mowtown as well. I went to see Smoky Robinson, Gloria Gaynor, Tina Turner and a few others back in the late seventies/early eighties.

tintin35 - You'll have to make do with an eleven and a half month summary :-

https://www.lse.co.uk/chat/general/commodities-and-mining/frontera-archive-41C7D130-7E51-4344-82E7-83B697F53322.html

Coggy - That's the music era I like the most. I'm probably a bit biased as I played tennis as a kid with the lead singer from Lone Star and I'm a friend of one of the guitarists from Tokio Rose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_roc1h9OCQ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga5UnmSk5d4

Coggy - He last posted in February, but still posts on other bb's.

So it's confidential and they won't give out anything at all, but they will admit the arbitration is being contested despite the confidentiality. Another one for the filter pool.

Although FRR no longer have any control of FEGL, they could still pay money into the company from oil revenue received since they lost control. Therefore, FRR may have deposited just enough to cover all the debts owed to SH/O, Mourant and the liquidators.

Ziggy - Thanks. That looks like a standard reply. Therefore Ulrika may not have even looked to see if there was a case involving the two companies, as for reasons of confidentiality she couldn't give you an answer anyway. IMHO the arbitration was about leverage and no longer exists. I've copied my post from the 12th September below :-

Posted by bugsy-b @ 20:03 :-

FRONTERA IS SUING GEORGIA
"29.AUGUST .2019 21:37 ECONOMIC
FRONTERA IS SUING GEORGIA AND SEEKING $ 3.5 BILLION IN COMPENSATION

https://www.bm.ge/ka/article/frontera-saqartvelos-uchivis-da-kompensaciis-saxit-35-miliards-itxovs/39074

Posted by Sycric @ 22:55 :-

Any suing of countries normally is on this. Cannot see if so seems like fake news.

https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/cases/AdvancedSearch.aspx

The two posts copied above were posted on the 29th August and copied from the second and fifth posts down of the link below :-
https://www.lse.co.uk/chat/general/commodities-and-mining/frontera-archive-41C7D130-7E51-4344-82E7-83B697F53322.html?page=22

IMHO the timing of the 'old news' posted in the link by bugsy-b and the fact that there's no listing in the link posted by Sycric points to someone trying to influence the case in the Ukraine.

Timster - IMHO due to the NDA with BP and the only release of production figures has been the Ukraine interview. IMHO this was allowed as it was necessary to prompt the liquidator's court Supervision Order as the liquidation process had stalled.