Member Info for Madpunter

Posted by TOT on ii :-

Eyeson,

I’m afraid Brookie’s telling porkies again as you can see from his posting history in this link:https://www.ii.co.uk/discussion/u/brookemia/activity/replies

I have had many a spat with him on the QFI board over the years and he got me banned from ii for a while. Fortunately I got re-instated after a campaign by fellow shareholders and threats to take their business elsewhere eventually overwhelmed II’s Neighbourhood Watch team. ‘Brookie’ as he is known to QFI shareholders has a massive grudge against the company and I thought he had been banned at the same time I was reinstated. I suspect he has crept back in following the website revamp and his posting history is clear to see on both II and Advfn boards.

What I can’t get my head around is the fact that he never posted on FRR on either forum prior to its delisting but has recently taken to baiting the trolls who inhabit the Advfn board. He also has a history of interfering in the business affairs of companies by writing to other companies that they are associated with.

Curiouser and curiouser said Alice…

Zib - I thought I'd post about Target2 as none of my friends who voted remain had ever heard the name before. I won't post anymore about Brexit on here as I've set up a thread 'somewhere else' :-

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

Cloaking it all is obfuscation, political mendacity and endemic denial. Leaders of the
heavily indebted states have misled their voters with soothing bromides, falsely
suggesting that some form of fiscal union or debt mutualisation is just around the
corner. Yet there is no chance of political union or the creation of an EU treasury in
the forseeable future, which would in any case require a sweeping change to the
German constitution – an impossible proposition in the current political climate. The
European project must therefore function as a union of sovereign states, or fail.

The previous post and the continuation above are copied from pages 39 and 40 from the link below:-
http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/19674/1/Target%202%20v1.pdf

Similarly, Otmar Issing, the ECB’s first chief economist and one of the founding fathers of
monetary union, admits that the ECB is becoming dangerously over-extended and the whole
euro project is unworkable in its current form:
One day, the house of cards will collapse. The euro has been betrayed by politics, the
experiment went wrong from the beginning and has since degenerated into a fiscal
free-for-all that once again masks the festering pathologies. Realistically, it will be a
case of muddling through, struggling from one crisis to the next. It is difficult to
forecast how long this will continue for, but it cannot go on endlessly…The Stability
and Growth Pact has more or less failed. The moral hazard is overwhelming. Market
discipline is done away with by ECB interventions. There is no fiscal control
mechanism from markets or politics. This has all the elements to bring disaster for
monetary union. The no-bailout clause is violated every day and the European
Court's approval for bailout measures is simple-minded and ideological.…The ECB
has crossed the Rubicon and is now in an untenable position, trying to reconcile
conflicting roles as banking regulator, Troika enforcer in rescue missions and agent
of monetary policy. Its own financial integrity is increasingly in jeopardy.
The venture began to go off the rails immediately, though the structural damage was
disguised by the financial boom. There was no speed-up of convergence after 1999 –
rather, the opposite. From day one, quite a number of countries started working in the
wrong direction. A string of states let rip with wage rises, brushing aside warnings
that this would prove fatal in an irrevocable currency union. During the first eight
years, unit labour costs in Portugal rose by 30% versus Germany. In the past, the
escudo would have devalued by 30%, and things more or less would be back to where
they were. Quite a few countries – including Ireland, Italy and Greece – behaved as
though they could still devalue their currencies. The elemental problem is that once a
high-debt state has lost 30% in competitiveness within a fixed exchange system, it is
almost impossible to claw back the ground in the sort of deflationary world we face
today. It has become a trap. The whole Eurozone structure has acquired a
contractionary bias. The deflation is now self-fulling. The first Greek rescue in 2010
was little more than a bailout for German and French banks. It would have been far
better to eject Greece from the euro as a salutary lesson for all. The Greeks should
have been offered generous support, but only after it had restored exchange rate
viability by returning to the drachma. [The fear was a chain-reaction reaching Spain
and Italy, detonating an uncontrollable financial collapse. This nearly happened on
two occasions, and remained a risk until Berlin switched tack and agreed to let the
ECB shore up the Spanish and Italian debt markets in 2012.]

Sorry, the link didn't work :-

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/7356/brussels_biggest_headache_will_be_if_italy_quits_the_euro

Target2 will bring down the EU pack of cards eventually IMHO.

https://www.handelsblatt.com/today/finance/target2-when-is-a-trillion-euro-not-a-trillion-euro/23582376.html?ticket=ST-3434810-LSgvjH2N1v4iVYEmX0Yl-ap5

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/7356/brussels_biggest_headache_will_be_if_italy_quits_the_euro

https://www.quora.com/Which-countries-will-destroy-the-E-U-if-they-leave-it
The Quora link gives a simple explanation of the stupidity of Target2 IMHO :-

The easiest way to understand Target2 balances is to discover how they come about. You’ll realise just how odd the whole thing is.

There are two ways. The first is to do with trade.

When a Greek buys a German car, he sends money to Germany and gets a car in return.

The eurozone monetary system now has a problem. The amount of euros in Greece has fallen and the amount of euros in Germany has risen. This couldn’t happen if each country had its own currency, as that currency would only be valid in their home country.

If Greece continues with a trade deficit over time, it’ll eventually run out of euros. Which is a terrifying prospect for economists. So they send the money from Germany back to Greece via the Target2 system.

To record the transaction of euros flowing back south, Germany gets a Target2 asset and Greece a Target2 liability. In a way, Greece gives Germany a very abstract “IOU” for the money sent to Greece.

Over time, as the trade deficit continues, Germany’s Target2 assets build up and Greece’s Target2 liability builds up.

In theory, the trade balance is supposed to reverse… eventually. Olive oil exports sold to Germany become bigger than German car exports sold to Greece. The Target2 balance trends back towards 0. No problems arise.

The trouble is, the Target2 system has abolished all the natural forces which make trade rebalance over time. The exchange rate between Germany and Greece cannot adjust to encourage Greek exports and make German cars more expensive in Greece. They’re both on the euro.

Because Target2 is nothing but an accounting entry, it effectively costs Greece as a country nothing to buy German cars. The money they paid Germans flows straight back into Greece via Target2. So the Greeks can go on buying more German cars.

The Germans are being robbed, and they’re financing Greece’s trade deficit at the same time. Without any hope of that trade deficit reversing. Which means the Greek economy is kept in the doldrums, unable to rebalance and return to economic growth.

Bezzy - Thanks, but I will refrain from reading the posting history on ADVFN, as I'm not a member, so can't access the full threads etc. I don't intend to join that site as it's full of vile personal abuse, which wouldn't be tolerated on other sites. Still it enables all of the TW follower's to congregate in one place, which might make life easier for the SEC, 'IF' the racketeering charges eluded to previously materialise.
Please pass on the ID requirement to brookemia, as it's possible that whoever has accessed her email, is also the same person who posted on ii.

Bezzy - To open an account for posting on ii one has to provide ID. Therefore, it would be easy for the Police to check for the real brookemia, who is accessing his email and posting on ii.

I assumed the brookemia post on ii was a translation of the Ponomarev tweet, for which Ivyspivey2 posted a link.

Ivy - If you've been away just check the Frontera Archive. I think the 2nd of August was the last reference to one of your posts on page 20.

https://www.lse.co.uk/chat/general/commodities-and-mining/frontera-archive-41C7D130-7E51-4344-82E7-83B697F53322.html?page=21

It looks like Ponomarev thinks or knows about a deal with Exxon, BP and BH.

I think it is a bit “EXTRAORDINARILY HYPOCRITICAL” for ZAZA Mamulaishvili of Frontera Resources, to complain about “International Standards of integrity and transparency”being contravened, when he refuses to communicate with his shareholders for 8 months, and the Majors -whether it be EXXON/BP/ BAKER HUGHES/ Georgian Energy Ministry or Government who might/not be complicit in this BREATHTAKING and arrogant claim, from Frontera, because they did not win.

How they thought they could be even considered is eye-watering, given they are facing court actions in Cayman Islands, Texas, California, including one brought by their own attorneys in Cayman Islands, for non-payment of fees. Journalists are reporting daily on Frontera’s problems, and it will surely must be a formality, before one of them picks up and runs with this story.

Shareholders have to read from Internet articles that Zaza Mamulaishvili is announcing to the world that we-as shareholders-have 19+ BILLION BARRELS of RESERVES, yet we are unable to pay our attorney fees or advise shareholders what is happening on all fronts.

The secret complicity with which Oil Majors/Service Companies/Government and or Ministries are involved is quite shameful and needs to be exposed and shared with the wider audience

The following is part of the transcript, where Zaza Mamulaishvili, is making GLOBALLY PUBLIC, his FRUSTRATION at not being awarded the UKRAINE bid- which included an “ENTRANCE FEE INDEMNITY OF $55M.

This is a huge sum, and where was this sum coming from
MR SERVICE COMPANY or MR OIL MAJOR, please as Frontera do not have enough money to pay attorneys, or advise shareholders about an AGM, or email their PR Company.

Very bizarre indeed, and failing desperate attempts at getting the simplest reply from any of you, it is now time to ratchet up the need for investigation by the wider journalistic elements.

This could have been prevented by a simple reply, and each and every one of the addressees could have obliged, but did not through some ridiculous notion that this could be kept “SECRET”

“It was with this promise that Frontera Resources decided to take part and spend their time and resources in Ukraine. Unfortunately, if the procedure associated with such a public competition is not followed in accordance with established internationally recognized standards of integrity and transparency, and in return an advantage is given to local participants with dubious qualifications and backgrounds, US oil and gas companies will not be interested in introducing them in the future investments and technologies in the oil and gas sector of Ukraine”

1 USD = 0.823227 GBP. Therefore with 15,760,835,403 Ordinary Shares, $1bn = 5.22p per share.

Gipps - IMHO it is three super majors, BP, Exxon and BH. In the podcast that was edited Zaza mentioned three majors; Exxon are in the court papers as having given oversight for years; BH have been in from the start and have signed a MOU; and BP have signed a NDA. Remember Zaza did state that it was too big for one major to takeover Block 12. IMHO this is why the deal has taken so long to complete

Ziggy - IMHO the liquidators are only checking whether Block 12 has actually been moved out of FRCC, hence the wording 'purporting to transfer'and 'highly questionable veracity'. As Goit points out, SH/O's lawyers would have put negative spin on the transfer, therefore, as the legality wasn't highlighted it shouldn't be a problem. Just noticed pophead's post, which is effectively the same analysis.

Bernadotte - I've copied posts from the 2nd August below :-

The latest press release shows that the reserves are 30TCF = 5.1 billion barrels of oil equivalent (170 million barrels = 1TCF). Therefore, FRR has over 19.1 billion barrels of oil reserves. IMHO, with the drilling of T39 and possible drilling of Niko (B-2-0 referred to this as being drilled to zone 24), plus BP's computer modelling, I would assume this is 1P and PUD. The recoverable rates for Block 12 gas were around 70% of the CPR figures, which implies 140 TCF recoverable for the 202 TCF in place. Therefore, this implies the 30 TCF is P1 with the additional reserves classed as P2 and P3.
https://fronteraresources.com/operations/georgia/taribani/
https://fronteraresources.com/operations/georgia/mtsarekhevi/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

The table in the link below adds some perspective, as China has 25.9 billion barrels of oil and Qatar 25.2 billion barrels of oil, compared with 19.1+ billion barrels of oil in Block 12.
https://www.thebalance.com/oil-reserves-definition-categories-world-s-largest-3305873

19.1 MMbbls x $60/bbl = $1.146tn. Typical takeovers can be as high as 5% to 10% for P1 reserves as opposed to 1 % to 3% for P2 reserves (if my memory is correct). This equates to $57.3bn - $114.6bn, although as FRR has very little actual production, 5% may be the top parameter. Furthermore, BP may only want the gas or a percentage of Block 12. Lots of possibilities, but certainly a box worth fighting over!

Ziggy - As erazzel has pointed out, the transfer was mere 'high veracity', therefore, IMHO the liquidators just want confirmation that the asset was transferred.

EkXoc -The facts :-
1) FRR has been asset rich and cash poor.
2) After a deal with the super majors, cash will no longer be a problem.
3) FRR hasn't paid SH/O the $30m.
4) FRR needed to show it can spend $56m in the Ukraine.
5)The Commission and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine in March this year decided to hold a competition, and on April 12 announced that the deadline for accepting applications for participation in the competition was June 12, the deadline for the Commission to submit a proposal to determine the winner was July 12, and the final decision of the government should be made no later than September 12, 2019.
6) Trident won the competition and FRR are contesting in court.
As FRR are going to court to get the competition result cancelled, it suggests that FRR think they will win the Dolphin tender. IMHO FRR has agreed a deal with the super majors and is just dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Assuming BP is involved, then with a partner with deep water O + G expertise, plus funding, FRR would have won the Dolphin tender.

Ziggy - You stated :-
'And it is that removal ..... the other 95%.....that liquidators are eluding to in their request for court supervision documents .'
Where is this eluded to? Copy and paste or provide a link please.

Ziggy - The 5% RA is all that is left in FRCC. When liquidated it will transfer to the GG. IMHO the liquidators can only go after what assets or companies that FRCC own ie only what is below NOT above. In other words subsidiary companies, not companies to which FRCC are subsidiary.