Member Info for Madpunter

If there were issues with Cairn going back several months, it sounds like FRR were just biding their time. Maybe when the shorters had fallen for the trap, FRR give Cairn a push, with the emails for the court case.

ODR - The failed to deliver sales have to be covered by the broker, hence they are bought a few days later at a lower price. Just because they are called failed to deliver it doesn't mean that the sales weren't 'real sales'. The slump wasn't just due to these sales, but probably due to shorting by TW et al, hence the vitriol being posted on ADVFN. The price constantly dropping then spooks others to sell as well.

errazzel - There were lots of buys for similar amounts, which suggests that they were bought back a few days later when the price was lower.

Lots of the sales were cancelled a day or two later, similarly to what was happening earlier in the year with YA. Therefore, IMHO they were failed to deliver transactions.

pyro - Not nice what has happened to you and Kane. However, take heart from the fact that the shorters must be cra**ing themselves so much, that they have resorted to personal attacks, as they can't find holes in what you've posted.

Thanks Mole. After your email I was convinced that the GOGC auctioned oil wasn't FRR's, but now I'm 30% it is FRR's. The difficulty with selling and the lack of auctions have given me some doubt.
I still think regdik's theory about Exxon's W. Georgia interest as a sweetner prior to a deal with FRR has some merit, especially with they're 5 years of oversight. I'm edging towards a deal with with all three majors, with a percentage for BH for drilling etc and the remainder split with FRR, BP and Exxon (probably not on an equal basis). Zaza did say it was too big for one company.

ODR - Maybe Zaza wanted the shorting crew, TW et al to get sucked in as deep as possible? Perhaps there was an inkling that the court emails might result in the NOMAD walking?

Mole - I understand your view about the oil auctions and I admitted defeat a while back after your email, but the court case emails showing difficulty selling the oil and the need to keep shtum about funds has raised an element of doubt. Also, if the GOGC were selling stock at the higher prices, then the next auction would have been expected on 10th November and listed around the 2nd November, if the sequence followed. This would have still been near the peak of the oil price at the time of listing.
10th September 2018 for 5,000t
1st October 2018 for 5,000t listed on 20th September
22nd October 2018 for 9,000t listed on 13th October
Anyway, I'm surprised that nobody has commented about the three majors. It is clear from the emails that Exxon have been providing oversight for years and probably would have signed a NDA years ago, hence not mentioned in the recent signing of two majors. SH/O seemed unaware of Exxon's oversight and thought that they were not interested in Tarabani or Block 12 from 4 years ago. However, his following email shows that he is then aware of Exxon's oversight. Does this make Exxon the more advanced of the majors? They have already struck a deal with the GG to evaluate W. Georgia, an area that hadn't attracted much attention before, as far as I'm aware. Will there be three deals for different parts of Block 12, two with the super majors, with BH providing the drilling etc, or one big deal involving Exxon, BP, BH and FRR? Plenty of possibilities on the table and is the spat with SH/O just noise as referred to by Kickmuck?

IMHO there are a number of possible aces that they may have.
1) The funding with links to the Atlantic Council discussed on here last night.
2) A possible link with the naked shorting by YA, who seemed to roll over very quickly and get off relatively lightly.
3) FRR might have enough to pay the $2m already from oil sales, but feel that as SH/O have cost the company money, they have decided not to pay. It's different to not having enough to pay in a taxi situation, where it becomes a civil matter instead of a criminal matter, but I'm not sure whether it is relevant here. The GOGC oil auctions could still be FRR's oil, as they wouldn't want it known how much they have from the sales with what is happening, hence the reply to Mole. The strikes and difficulty selling the oil might have prompted the change of route to market, plus there's not been any more auctions since the three I previously suggested were from FRR.
4) BH has been owed money by FRR for work previously and is willing to undertake work without money and be paid in oil/gas as part of the MOU. They may provide an upfront payment as a last resort deal, with a bigger piece of the pie to avoid SH/O winning and the PSA going back to the GG.
5) A deal may be signed by one or more of the three majors, BH, BP and Exxon. We know from the emails that a NDA was signed with BH and BP. Also from P4/46 that Exxon were providing oversight on the project; from page 6/46 that Exxon had provided beneficial oversight for 5 years; and Exxon have struck a deal with the GG to evaluate W. Georgia. ZM and the interviewer in the last podcast mentioned 3 majors before the podcast was edited.
I have every confidence in ZM and SN.

Zib - I think you have the wrong end of the stick with the Welsh phrase.
Cheers! -Iechyd da (Pronounced: yeah-ck-id dah)
http://www.visitbala.org/heritage/try-some-welsh/

Shorting, yet they were let off relatively lightly. At the time I thought it was to ensnare SH/O and IMHO that is still the case. If there's a link with SH/O and YA and even TW et al , then SH/O has clearly not been acting in FRR's best interest. There's also the arbitration leak to TW et al to consider. I can't see SH/O risking this coming to court, there's too many skeletons in the cupboard, and if just one of them is linked to him, then that could destroy his fund.

Aubree21 - Assuming that Kickmuck was being sarcastic, then IMHO the last sentence (copied below) could mean Troy Rillo at YA and Cairns (advisors) are unlikely to get any Christmas cards. This would appear to be backed by StarRage's view of a breakdown of trust between Cairn and FRR, given the request for all documents between Hope and Cairn.

Just to say that I'm certain our good old FRIEND Troy (and advisors) will get lots of nice Christmas cards again this year.

I've added Fireflying's posts to the Frontera Archive :-
http://www.lse.co.uk/view-general-chat-thread.asp?forum=commodities-and-mining&thread=41C7D130-7E51-4344-82E7-83B697F53322&page=last#last

Posted by Kickmuck :-

Hi, yes I'm still on the planet Timster my old mate.
Exciting all this, hey?

I genuinely have no idea what's going on actually, as has always been the case, except to say that I understand that operations on the ground continue despite the tabloid trash with Mr. Hope and our little bareback wrestle with him in the sandy Cayman shallows.

So much excitement on the ground cleaning those identified workable Taribani wells, while we plan and execute the next development phases in 2019. Scanning this chat board, such a shame that the focus is elsewhere when actually there is so much going on in the field and such compelling operational progress.

Everything else really is just noise.....
Just to say that I'm certain our good old FRIEND Troy (and advisors) will get lots of nice Christmas cards again this year.

pyro my post from earlier answers a lot of your questions, assuming my thoughts are near the mark :-

IMHO ZM and SN have been forced into this situation by SH/O due to the veto. If SH/O vetoed the loan, then he could also have vetoed a possible PB or even any deal with BH or BP that involved money to clear any debts. Due to this SN and ZM take SH/O to court for blatantly breaching his fiduciary duties and apply for an injunction for defaulting on the loan. They don't want to pay shares to SH/O in what is tantamount to blackmail. The court grants the injunction and gives SH/O until 18th December to file their defence, but his lawyer's argue that the default on the loan is their defence and the injunction is lifted. The lawyer's for ZM and SN argue that they will appeal the injunction as it is linked to the case against SH/O and it's reinstated until the next hearing in January. As the court has kept the injunction in place, due to the links with the case, then it gives SH/O until 28th December to file a defence for the same reason. While all this has taken place it is possible that SH/O has been trying to forward sell the shares that he believes he is entitled to, hence the cancelled trades, like those that occurred with YA. The case against SH/O has opened up the possibility of a loan for $60m as it removes the veto. Ditto any deal with BH and BP, but is their time before the court case and with the festive holidays? Will SH/O risk a case going to trial before the injunction is lifted with all the resulting damage? IMHO their will be an OOCS and the court has paved the way for this outcome, by extending the timeline for the defence and reinstating the injunction. DYOR.

daniel1son - IMHO my earlier post answers your two questions :-
IMHO ZM and SN have been forced into this situation by SH/O due to the veto. If SH/O vetoed the loan, then he could also have vetoed a possible PB or even any deal with BH or BP that involved money to clear any debts. Due to this SN and ZM take SH/O to court for blatantly breaching his fiduciary duties and apply for an injunction for defaulting on the loan. They don't want to pay shares to SH/O in what is tantamount to blackmail. The court grants the injunction and gives SH/O until 18th December to file their defence, but his lawyer's argue that the default on the loan is their defence and the injunction is lifted. The lawyer's for ZM and SN argue that they will appeal the injunction as it is linked to the case against SH/O and it's reinstated until the next hearing in January. As the court has kept the injunction in place, due to the links with the case, then it gives SH/O until 28th December to file a defence for the same reason. While all this has taken place it is possible that SH/O has been trying to forward sell the shares that he believes he is entitled to, hence the cancelled trades, like those that occurred with YA. The case against SH/O has opened up the possibility of a loan for $60m as it removes the veto. Ditto any deal with BH and BP, but is their time before the court case and with the festive holidays? Will SH/O risk a case going to trial before the injunction is lifted with all the resulting damage? IMHO their will be an OOCS and the court has paved the way for this outcome, by extending the timeline for the defence and reinstating the injunction. DYOR.

Zubairs - IMHO the only way SH/O would allow a loan was with one of his director's added to the board, who possibly could then veto any case against SH/O.

theprodigy - If my earlier post is right, then paying 500m shares or $2m makes no difference, as SH/O could still veto any deal with BH or BP. If they took his loan for $2m, then with the extra director he eventually removes them from the board and takes over the company.

IMHO ZM and SN have been forced into this situation by SH/O due to the veto. If SH/O vetoed the loan, then he could also have vetoed a possible PB or even any deal with BH or BP that involved money to clear any debts. Due to this SN and ZM take SH/O to court for blatantly breaching his fiduciary duties and apply for an injunction for defaulting on the loan. They don't want to pay shares to SH/O in what is tantamount to blackmail. The court grants the injunction and gives SH/O until 18th December to file their defence, but his lawyer's argue that the default on the loan is their defence and the injunction is lifted. The lawyer's for ZM and SN argue that they will appeal the injunction as it is linked to the case against SH/O and it's reinstated until the next hearing in January. As the court has kept the injunction in place, due to the links with the case, then it gives SH/O until 28th December to file a defence for the same reason. While all this has taken place it is possible that SH/O has been trying to forward sell the shares that he believes he is entitled to, hence the cancelled trades, like those that occurred with YA. The case against SH/O has opened up the possibility of a loan for $60m as it removes the veto. Ditto any deal with BH and BP, but is their time before the court case and with the festive holidays? Will SH/O risk a case going to trial before the injunction is lifted with all the resulting damage? IMHO their will be an OOCS and the court has paved the way for this outcome, by extending the timeline for the defence and reinstating the injunction. DYOR.

Sorry the link didn't work. Try the link below and scroll down to page 13 :-
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ak7gVwQ3mttlkEvLsVIVIxgOx-I2