Member Info for Madpunter

Posted by keysorsoze on the 24th October :-

Georgia Ranks 7th among 190 Countries in the World Bank Doing Business 2020

Georgia has ranked 7th with 83.7 points out of 190 countries in terms of Ease of Doing Business, the World Bank Report 2020 says.

Last year, Georgia ranked 6th on the list.

“For starting a business, for example, Georgia and New Zealand have the lowest number of procedures required, the survey reads, adding that “in dealing with construction permits, Georgia improved its building quality control by increasing public access to information.”

In the ranking, Georgia is ahead of Great Britain, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Lithuania and other countries.

The list is led by New Zealand, followed by Somalia.

The World Bank has been publishing the Ease of Doing Business rating since 2003.

By Ana Dumbadze

24 October 2019 13:00

Posted by Ivyspivey on the 24th October :-

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&ved=2ahUKEwjr4uTy5LXlAhXkWxUIHd4nDVIQFjAKegQIBBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffas.org%2Fsgp%2Fcrs%2Frow%2FR45307.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2zxrUG-l_WYUk03QtTbk1o

Posted by keysorsoze on the 24th October :-

Georgia US Free trade agreement possible
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/georgia-deserves-free-trade-agreement-america-87151

Georgia Deserves a Free Trade Agreement with America

October 10, 2019 Topic: economy Region: Eurasia Tags: TradeEconomyGeorgiaRussiaNATO

Tbilisi has proven that it deserves U.S. commitment and a stronger alliance.

by James Jay Carafano Alexis Mrachek Follow @AlexisMrachek on TwitterL

Eleven years ago, Russia invaded Georgia’s Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions, instigating a brutal, five-day war. Today, Russia occupies 20 percent of Georgia and continues to encroach on Georgian territory via a campaign of “creeping annexation.”

Yet, despite Russia’s malign influence, Georgia has made tremendous progress over the past decade. The government has continued its march toward greater integration with the West, and it has made remarkable advances in liberalizing the Georgian economy.

A North Atlantic Treaty Organization aspirant since 2008, Georgia has beenespecially close with the European Union since 2014, when Tbilisi entered the EU-Georgia Association Agreement. Among other provisions, that pact established a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, giving Georgia the so-called "four freedoms" of the EU Single Market: free movement of goods, services, capital and people.

Georgia has also maintained a solid partnership with the United States. It has contributed to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan for years, and still has 870 soldiers stationed there. This has been no mere back-of-the-line service, either. Georgia has suffered the highest casualty rate of all coalition partners in Afghanistan.

Back home, Georgia has done an outstanding job of throwing off the shackles of its Soviet past and liberalizing it economy. The Heritage Foundation has published its annual Index of Economic Freedom since 1996. During that time, Georgia jumpedfrom the ranks of “economically repressed” countries and joined the ranks of the “economically free.” Its ascension in Index rankings, from number 124 to number 16, is the greatest improvement on record.

For years the United States has discussed entering a free trade agreement with Georgia. Now is the time to do it.

For one thing, it would be a tangible demonstration of U.S. support for Georgia—something especially desirable ahead of next year’s parliamentary elections. It is a given that, throughout the campaign season, pro-Russian propaganda will assert that there is no point in voting for a pro-Western party since the West (supposedly) never reciprocates Georgia’s overtures

Posted by Madpunter on the 24th October :-
H.R.598 - Georgia Support Act
Latest Action: Senate - 10/23/2019 Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (All Actions)

Posted by Madpunter on the 25th October :-
House Adopts Connolly-Kinzinger Georgia Support Act

Washington, October 23, 2019
Yesterday, the House of Representatives unanimously passed H.R. 598, the Georgia Support Act, bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Gerry Connolly (D-VA) and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL). The legislation asserts the United States’ continued support for the independence and sovereignty of Georgia, recognizes Georgia’s commitment to democratic values including free and fair elections, and affirms U.S. opposition to Russian aggression in the region.

“With this vote, the House sends a clear and unequivocal statement of support to the people of Georgia in their struggle against an ever-looming Russian threat,” said Connolly. “As the head of the U.S. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I am particularly pleased that this bill recognizes that Georgia has been a longstanding NATO-aspirant country. I thank my colleague, Rep. Kinzinger, for working with me to protect and strengthen the relationship between Georgia and the United States.”

“The United States plays a pivotal role in encouraging our Georgian allies to continue working towards independence and complete separation from their aggressive neighbor, Russia,” said Kinzinger. “And I’m proud of their efforts and aspirations to join the NATO alliance, and applaud their commitment to democratic values. Today, the House reasserted the importance of a strong U.S.-Georgia partnership, and I thank my colleagues for their support, especially Rep. Connolly for his efforts to bring this to the floor.”

In Georgia’s occupied regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russia has fomented unrest, aided separatist movements, and committed serious human rights abuses, including ongoing detentions and killings. Russian forces continue to harass civilian communities along the administrative boundary line and impede the right of return of internally displaced persons. The Georgia Support Act bolsters Georgia’s territorial integrity by authorizing sanctions against those responsible for or complicit in human rights violations in these occupied territories.

The House first passed the Georgia Support Act during the 115th Congress. Connolly and Kinzinger reintroduced the legislation in the 116th Congress on January 16, 2019.
Copied from “House Adopts Connolly-Kinzinger Georgia Support Act” found in the link below :-

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr598

Posted by keysersoze on the 23rd October :-

Companies waking up to Georgia Gas potemtial
https://en.trend.az/scaucasus/georgia/3137649.html

China's TCC company: Georgia eyes to become successful supplier of gas to Europe

23 October 2019 13:59 (UTC+04:00)



BAKU, Azerbaijan, October 23

By Tamilla Mammadova – Trend:

Georgia seeks to successfully establish a bridge with Europe and become a guaranteed and reliable supplier of natural gas to European states, said Wang Lei, Vice President of China Tianchen Engineering Corporation (TCC), Trendreports via the Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development of Georgia.

He made the remarks at the Tbilisi Silk Road Forum 2019, which is being held in the Georgian capital on October 22-23.

Wang Lei spoke about current trends in energy supply, Georgia’s energy potential and joint projects in the country.

“We are implementing a project in Georgia, so we have studied this country well. We are currently working on the Gardabani project, which was commissioned by the Georgian Oil and Gas Corporation. Georgia is a good resource for hydropower development. With regards to energy supply, we can contribute to the electrical safety of Georgia by building electric enterprises,” he said.

More than 2,000 delegates from 60 countries, including more than 30 official delegations, take part in the Tbilisi Silk Road Forum this year.

Posted by CF73 on the 23rd October :-
I think the Frontera situation will be a prime example of closer working cooperation to mutually benefit both countries, with FRR on the minds of some of those political figures in a very specific sense.
On the basis of this article alone, I feel arbitration must've been sorted some while ago.
Good luck

Posted by Madpunter on the 23rd October :-
JAN 16, 2019
Introduced
Bills and resolutions are referred to committees which debate the bill before possibly sending it on to the whole chamber.
Read Text »
MAY 22, 2019
Ordered Reported
A committee has voted to issue a report to the full chamber recommending that the bill be considered further. Only about 1 in 4 bills are reported out of committee.
OCT 18, 2019
On House Schedule
The House indicated that this bill would be considered in the week ahead.
OCT 22, 2019
Passed House (Senate next)
The bill was passed in a vote in the House. It goes to the Senate next. The vote was by voice vote so no record of individual votes was made.

If this bill has further action, the following steps may occur next:
—
Passed Senate
—
Signed by the President

The above history of Bill HR 598: Georgia Support Act, is copied from the link below :-

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr598

The prognosis - 2% chance of being enacted according to Skopos Labs (details) [copied from the link above]. This line was listed prior to today's update showing the bill passed in the House. Furthermore, 90% of bills fail in committee or subcommittee, prior to a vote in the House (see link below, committee consideration). IMHO the hardest part of getting the bill through has already occurred, as 90% don't even get as far as a vote in the House of Representatives.

http://www.ushistory.org/gov/6e.asp

Posted by CF73 on the 23rd October :-
Gerogia and US ties (News)
As we wait to hear, some background reading to the closer political ties between Georgia and the US:

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/georgian-government-commends-us-house-of-representatives-passage-of-georgia-support-act-300943515.html

Georgian Government Commends U.S. House of Representatives Passage of Georgia Support Act

News provided by
Embassy of Georgia to the United States

Oct 22, 2019, 19:25 ET

TBILISI, Georgia, Oct. 22, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. House of Representatives passed with strong bipartisan support the Georgia Support Act, legislation that significantly strengthens defense, economic, and cyber security ties between Georgia and the United States.

"We thank the members of the U.S. House of Representatives for passing this landmark piece of legislation," said Prime Minister Giorgi Gakharia. "The U.S. is our closest strategic ally. Our partnership is based on our shared common values of freedom and democracy and our steadfast mutual support. This represents the first standalone legislation related to Georgia dedicated to taking our partnership to the next level."

The bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by 31 members of the House of Representatives, recognizes that the occupation of the Tskhinvali Region (South Ossetia) and Abkahzia is illegal and imposes sanctions upon those carrying out the associated human rights abuses. Anybody determined to have carried out such abuses will have their assets frozen and will be barred from entering the United States.

The bill further urges the United States Trade Representative to move forward with a bilateral trade agreement between the two countries. A trade deal would have significant economic benefits for Georgia and the United States – opening markets and making commerce between the two easier and more robust.

"This legislation will also bolster the already strong commercial ties between Georgia and the U.S.," Gakharia continued. "It represents one more step forward for Georgia, where increased economic and security ties with the U.S. will help create more jobs, build a strong middle class, and maintain sustainable security in the country."

Recognizing the continued threat posed by Russian occupation, the bill also directs the U.S. government to study and report on the threats to Georgia's sovereignty and ability to defend itself. The report will help outline what assistance the U.S. can offer in the future to increase Georgia's security, resilience and deterrence capabilities.

"We hope that the U.S. Senate will now pass this bill," Gakharia said. "The people of Georgia are grateful to the U.S. for its unwavering support."

Contact: Embassy of Georgia to the United States, 202-387-2390

SOURCE Embassy of Georgia to the United States

Posted by Earsbern on the 21st October :-

Extension for time
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE:
COMES NOW Plaintiff Outrider Master Fund, LP (“Plaintiff”) and files this, its Motion
for Extension of Time for service upon Defendant Zaza Mamulaishvili (“Mamulaishvili”),
respectfully stating as follows:
I. BACKGROUND
1. Plaintiff filed its Original Complaint against Defendants Steve C. Nicandros
(“Nicandros”) and Mamulaishvili on July 23, 2019.
2. On July 24, 2019, the Court filed its Order Setting Conference with instructions for
Plaintiff’s counsel to serve Defendants Nicandros and Mamulaishvili within ninety days from the date
the Complaint was filed (Dk. 2).
3. On August 5, 2019, Summons were issued for Defendants Nicandros and
Mamulaishvili. Defendant Nicandros was served with Plaintiff’s Original Complaint at his residence
in Houston, Texas, on September 11, 2019.
4. Mamulaishvili is an individual resident of the country Republic of Georgia. The Republic of Georgia is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and
Extrajudicial Documents, Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory and Additional Protocol,
nor any other applicable treaty. As a result, Plaintiff has attempted to serve Mamulaishvili in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(2)(c)(ii) by registered mail, international return
receipt requested.
5. On August 12, 2019, Plaintiff mailed a copy of the Summons and Original Complaint to
Mamulaishvili’s place of business in the Republic of Georgia at 12 Paliashvili Street, Tbilisi 0179,
Republic of Georgia. A true and correct copy of the registered mail receipt for this mailing is
attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference.
6. However, as of October 21, 2019, the United States Postal Service reports only that the
Summons and Original Complaint have arrived in Tbilisi, Georgia and are “in transit” to the
destination at Mamulaishvili’s place of business. Plaintiff has diligently tried to serve Mamulaishvili
within the initial ninety day period and obtain updates regarding the status of delivery of these
documents to Mamulaishvili, but has been unable to obtain information or detail beyond this finding.
7. Because Mamulaishvili resides in a foreign country, effecting service upon him has
been difficult and not yet successful. As a result, Plaintiff asks the Court for a thirty day extension to
serve Mamulaishvili after expiration of the initial ninety day period, which is set to end on October 22, 2019.
II. PRAYER
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court
grant this Motion for Extension of Time, and extend the deadline to serve for approximately 60
additional days, until on or about December 20, 2019.

Posted by Madpunter on the 20th October :-
Earsbern - I had missed the part about the scheduling (in your 19:18 post) or forgotten it. This part is significant IMHO 'Defendants (my note: OMF) are not prepared to engage in any form of ADR at this time.' While there was even a very small chance of a deal under the ADR, I decided not to elaborate. However, IMHO after reading the above quote, there is no chance of a deal under the ADR. Prior to the court papers posted on the 14th June, I was under the impression that due to a possible CRS with SH/O in the Civil Courts, no prosecution would arise in the Criminal Courts (see the 9th post down in the 1st link below about the Civil Regulatory Settlement for Mickelson's insider dealing). After reading the court papers, I looked up a few legal words from the 'FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver, Laches, Estoppel) Plaintiffs’ claims are barred under the doctrines of waiver, laches, estoppel and acquiescence.' (see the last post of the 2nd link below and the 3rd and 4th links). I'm no lawyer, but IMHO the CRS in the Mickelson case results in one of two interpretations.
1) Mickelson waives his right to hide behind the Fifth Amendment (the 5th) as the CRS has righted the wrong, resulting in no prosecution by the SEC.
2) The SEC waives their right to prosecute Mickelson, as the wrong has been put right by the CRS.
Either way a waiver has been applied due to the CRS. However, under Californian Law the waiver does not apply under certain circumstances 'In US states such as California, a waiver is not lawful when it is contrary to an express provision of law, its implicit policy, or good morals.[4] Furthermore, one cannot waive responsibility for violation of law, willful injury to a person or property of another, for fraud, or waive their residential tenant rights.' (see the 4th link below). Therefore, IMHO if the smoking gun (YA) is linked to SH/O it could not be used in the Californian jurisdiction without also incriminating Troy Rillo and YA. Furthermore, any evidence from the discovery incriminating SH/O, regardless of any CRS, could still result in Criminal proceedings with the SEC. Hence the discovery process doesn't start until after the ADR, as when the genie is released, it can't be put back. This also explains why the Smoking gun was not revealed in the Caymens and why FRR's lawyers referred to 'privileged information'. IMHO the case would be held in another jurisdiction, possibly Texas, if it needs to go to appeal, and only then will the smoking gun (YA) be used.

https://www.lse.co.uk/chat/general/commodities-and-mining/frontera-archive-41C7D130-7E51-4344-82E7-83B697F53322.html?page=8
https://www.lse.co.uk/chat/general/commodities-and-mining/frontera-archive-41C7D130-7E51-4344-82E7-83B697F53322.html?page=14
https://www.lockelord.com/-/media/files/newsandevents/news/2010/10/what-every-civil-litigator-needs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiver

Posted by Earsbern on the 20th October :-
CF73 - You say 'by end of Nov, we should know the result of ADR (if there is to be one)'. I really do hope that's right. But in the 'Joint Case Management Statement' of 25/07/19, it was stated under 'Scheduling',
'The parties are presently unable to agree on a proposed date to complete an initial ADR session. Plaintiffs (my note: FRR) propose completing an initial session of ADR not later than 15/11/19, with an ADR completion date of 15/05/20. Defendants (my note: OMF) are not prepared to engage in any form of ADR at this time.'
The statement then gives various dates for the proposed trial details.
I'm very much hoping that you're going to tell me I've missed something since this statement, since, as you infer, it would be enlightening to get some solid news. Sorry if the this post disappoints in any way.

Posted by CF73 on the 21st October :-
Appreciating you getting with helpful response. Starting make more sense. There's still a question when we might finally come to hear something. But as another trusted poster suggested, we may not until the deal is finally done. Also, if it plays out like is being said, then Hope could in serious trouble!
Don't think there's ever been anything this complicated on AIM.

Posted by Madpunter on the 21st October :-
If the initial arbitration was because the GG thought that FRR hadn't proved up the Basin Edge, Shallow Fields and only part of the other fields. Then with the money situation in Q1 2018, the GG probably thought that there was little scope of FRR drilling more wells than those planned in Taribani. FRR would have requested they have until June 2020 (if my memory is correct) under the PSA. The GG could then have countered that any drilling would require a 180 day EWT, plus time to analyse and obtain independent verification. Thus any initial flow rates warranting the full allotted time would be known b y mid October 2019 and if promising would grant FRR an extension to use the full time frame allowed under the PSA. The significant flow from T39's Eldari B, plus the computer modelling of BP, when coupled with a 5% RA could then have rendered the arbitration null and void.

Posted by Madpunter on the 21st October :-
CF - I didn't post the article, bugsy-b posted it and I re-posted it, along with a post by Sycric, which showed no case between FRR and the Republic of Georgia. My post was '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.' Add to this the time limits overshoot highlighted by ZiggyZag and a 5% RA which reverts to the GG, when FRCC is liquidated, which IMHO suggests that the arbitration is over. what's the point of this RA if it's left in a company that's being liquidated, other than to suffice an agreement where the GG was after a larger share? On current production it would not be enough to satisfy the DoS, plus with monies left from production in FEGL, it would not be required. Therefore, if you still think that the 5% RA is nothing to do with the initial arbitration request, please explain the purpose of the 5% RA?

Posted by CF73 on the 21st October :-
Apologies Madp regarding the mistaken identity thing
What I'm still trying to get my head around following ZiggyZag's post is where or how the Oct 2019 hearing fits into the scheme of things,,at least in terms of what Ziggy had carefully laid out. A great deal of effete had gone into it and am appreciative but was unable to work out what it might tell us about the hearing that is to happen/than may have happened this October e.g. does the October 2019 fit into the sequence of events laid our by Ziggy in any way? Was it possible to tell if the Oct 2019 hearing was some sort natural conclusion to what can be gleaned from Ziggy's findings? Certainly, there was no mention of our Oct hearing and so wasn't sure what to think.
Suggestions and thoughts welcome

Posted by Madpunter on the 21st October :-
CF - No problem mate. I'm only concerned with credit where credit is due and criticism where warranted, which can only occur with proper references and links. As for the 19th October hearing, IMHO it's either erroneous with the intent of influencing the Ukraine bid, or there was an extension given to allow FRR to meet it's obligations regarding Block 12 (see the post by Jeremiah99 @ 14:00 which suggests this reason for an extension). If it was the latter, then IMHO the Ukraine interview highlighted that FRR had met those obligations by announcing reserves of 14 billion barrels of oil and 30 TCF of gas. IMHO those reserve figures don't just come from Taribani, but from the Eldari B throughout Block 12, proved up and verified by BP's computer modelling. However, I still believe that a deal with the 5% RA resolved this situation long before now, hence no reference in the link posted by Syric. IMHO the Ukraine interview was to negate the old news about the arbitration, which no longer applied, but was being used to influence the Dolphin bid.

Posted by Madpunter on the 20th October :-
Ziggy - Your interpretation of the arbitration process backs up the assumptions I made in my post yesterday.

Posted by ZiggyZag on the 21st October :-
Been looking again at SCC rules and timescales re Arbitration .

Article 8 Commencement of arbitration
Arbitration shall be deemed to commence on the date the SCC receives the Request for Arbitration......we know that happened early 18.....

Article 22 Referral to the Arbitral Tribunal
When the Arbitral Tribunal has been appointed and the Advance on Costs has been paid, the Secretariat shall refer the case to the Arbitral Tribunal.

Article 29 Written submissions
(1) Within the period determined by the Arbitral Tribunal, the Claimant shall submit a Statement of Claim which shall include, unless previously submitted etc etc .............Auditors report says that was July 18.....
(2) Within the period determined by the Arbitral Tribunal, the
Respondent shall submit a Statement of Defence which shall include, unless previously submitted etc etc .........Auditors report says that was Sept 18

Article 43 Time limit for final award
The final award shall be made no later than six months from the date the case was referred to the Arbitral Tribunal pursuant to Article 22. The Board may extend this time limit upon a reaso- ned request from the Arbitral Tribunal or if otherwise deemed necessary.

Seems that sometime between early 18 and July 18 after various prelims that have to take place within the process the SCC Board referred case to tribunal as in Article 22 which is governed by Article 43 re timelines.

So Assuming July 18 we are nearly 14 months from when the actual Arbitration part started and 7 months over the normal time limit for final decision as in Article 43 .

Posted by CF73 on the 21st October :-
Thanks for that ZiggyZag,
In your mind, how does that tally with the date/ timeline from the recent article Madp posted (one of the earleir threads)?
"A further hearing on the Frontera arbitration lawsuit will take place in October 2019, according to the Gas and Oil Corporation audit report."

Posted by Jeremiah99 on the 21st October :-
"The Board may extend this time limit upon a reaso- ned request from the Arbitral Tribunal or if otherwise deemed necessary." I guess this clause may have come into play, but for which reason/s? Was the original arbitration request brought about because of FRR's failure to exploit the asset within a reasonable time frame? If so, one would dearly like to think they have bought time while a very big partner is currently busy helping to prove up the assets.

Posted by ZiggyZag on the 20th October :-
Bit confused re arbitration. The final sentence in auditors report re FRR litigation reads.....
.. The proceedings are in progress, next hearings are expected to take place in October 2019...
The Arbi rules / process reads as though its a one hit procedure i.e. submit claim , submit defence / counterclaim , Arbitrator appointed , ONE hearing , then decision with no appeal .
Cannot see anything that indicates multiple hearings as indicated above .

Posted by CF73 on the 19th October :-
Arbitration??
Does anyone have any info or links regarding arbitration?
Thanks in advance!!

Posted by Madpunter on the 19th October :-
CF - My post from the 13th September from the Archive is copied below :-
Posted by Madpunter yesterday @ 11:04 :-
Part 2

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.

See the 7th post from the bottom of the link below :-
https://www.lse.co.uk/chat/general/commodities-and-mining/frontera-archive-41C7D130-7E51-4344-82E7-83B697F53322.html?page=23

Posted by CF73 on the 19th October :-
ADR
We do have something concrete to focus our minds on in the coming weeks/ month or so. ADR will deadline end of November. The outcome of that should inform us of where we are and I hope open the way to resuming business as usual. In a situation of few concrete things, this is a useful thing to focus minds towards.

Posted by Madpunter on the 19th October :-
CF73 - IMHO the only chance of FRR making a deal with SH/O under ADR was if BP et al wanted FRR lock, stock and barrel. The now show in the Ukraine, plus the lack of acknowledgement of the Texas case, suggests that BP et al just want Block 12 and a deal under ADR is unlikely. Assuming FRR have the money to pay the liquidators and Mourant from monies left in FEGL from production, a deal under ADR has no benefit for FRR except for loosening time constraints. Furthermore, why would SH/O want a deal under ADR, when the smoking gun (YA) could still be used in the future. IMHO the smoking gun is a last resort to only be used if FRR go to appeal in another jurisdiction, as the collateral damage to Troy Rillo and YA could result in ruin (who would want to lend from them if it was proved that they naked short). However, could SH/O trust this reason as why this information would not be used in the future? The timing of events could also be significant, as if the liquidators complete their task before the ADR deadline, can FRR request the monies be paid into Escrow until the California case is concluded?

Posted by Madpunter on the 18th October :-

Mole - Assuming that Zaza wanted to abide by the NDA , then when you asked if the 3 trainloads of oil auctioned by the GG was from FRR, he couldn't tell you if it meant that the production could be ascertained. Also, the GOGC website as well as FRR's both changed and the new websites don't show lots of relevant historical data. We know that there was a problem selling the oil in 2018, which could explain the three trainloads in quick succession. The two trainloads per year prior to the Autumn of 2018 match's FRR's two trainloads per year. Why would the GG only sell two trainloads by auction, when they produce and have a share from other companies for a greater amount per annum? FRR's oil is different as the company hasn't got to the point where the GG's share starts, after the sunk costs are recovered. As the GG was in dispute about the sunk costs it is logical they would want to keep an eye on the amount sold until those costs are covered. As they would be selling FRR's oil then it would be auctioned for transparency. Why would they need to auction their own oil or oil received under PSA's? If my assumptions are correct, any further trainloads auctioned in 2018 would probably have been paid in 2019 due to the 45 day settlement and the Xmas/ New Year holiday period. This accounts for 500k barrels of oil produced, but only a profit of $1.2m, plus gives the right flow rates to produce up to 2kbopd stated in the interview.
There's no listing of any arbitration between FRR and the GG, only an article from a year ago, which was released while FRR were fighting for Dolphin. Furthermore, a 99% grab could not be referred to as 'a sledgehammer to crack a nut', whereas a 5% RA deal resulting in a 2.45% increase in the 51% GG share to 53.45% under the PSA could be described in such a way.
If the 5% RA is not a way of giving the GG an extra piece of Block 12, in exchange for helping to get rid of SH/O by transferring the asset, what is it for? A 5% Royalty of current production wouldn't be enough to satisfy the DoS if my theory of enough money left in FEGL isn't believed. Therefore, I don't see any alternative as to why the 5% RA was left in FRCC, a company which was going to be liquidated.
I think that the Mourant case, the liquidation of FRCC and the Texas case will all be resolved by monies left in FEGL from production revenue.

Posted by Moleinahole

A few observations from watching the posting of the last few weeks.
1. Revenue and Oil production: Logic suggests we are still producing at least enough revenue to pay existing trade creditors and staff as they are falling due either that of trade creditors are willing to accept deferred payments. I would guess they are able to juggle funds as they arrive at the moment. The 2018 campaign will have increased revenue. The debate is around how much. I very much doubt we are producing the numbers from the Ukraine article. The giveaway to that is that profit was $1m irrespective of what he said on production volume. Again the second remark Zaza made on sustainable long term production gives you a clue - you can produce on very high volume on open choke but that isn't a sustainable strategy. Could FRR have opened it up a bit for short periods to get cash? Possibly but they would not run it like that for any length of time in Taribani. The profile of taribani wells to date is steady production over time not gushers. Equally if they were producing in volume they would have had to have dealt with the associated gas.

However, it seems to me highly unlikely they have funds for further Georgia exploration without an external funding source or a partner. Hence the Ukraine bid is interesting in that regard. They may well have had prospective funding source for that - but away from the Georgia turmoil of OMF and arbitration.

2. Arbitration
For me the key at the moment is the arbitration. Do some sums on the claim. Allegedly GG want 99% of the block back. But its a big block. That would leave the producing Taribani, Mtsare and Mirzani in the 1%. Apart from Basin edge - most of that I would suspect is prospective for the Gas. The wildcard on gas at the moment is Schlumberger operations in adjacent Block. We don't know what they are up to either its also very quiet. FRR pushing out and delaying OMF does have the effect of pushing the end game for that the other side of the arbitration. The biggest risk in that at the moment is the damage the attempt to transfer the license out of FRCC has done - as it possible we are still in a limbo state with the company in liquidation with title to the license potentially unwound by the Cayman case and approval of said transfer to evade the liquidation threat moot with GG. Both pose existential threats to the business and could result in GG being the winner. I've seen these ideas about 5% royalty reverting to GG - they don't make sense to me. I think an all or nothing game is being played here.
3. Ukraine : anyone who watches the news about US, Gas companies and Ukraine at the moment would keep a low profile. I'm amazed we have so far not got a mention.
4. Texas case: The common thread of the 3 "defaults" is OMF cases. 500m shares if they have to - they will issue from the 1bn unissued. If paid by SN/ZM its a debt on the company to the board.
Not a good place as shareholders - but not finishe

Posted by Madpunter on the 15th October :-

Alternative valuation of Block 12
Block 12 has 19.1 billion barrels of oil equivalent with costs of less than $12/bbl, but very few wells producing, although there are already 1204 wells drilled, some that are suitable for side tracking. However, the costly part of the infrastructure, the transportation pipelines are already in place. BP owns 28.8% of the SCP natural gas pipeline and is the operator and BP owns 30.1% of the BTC crude oil pipeline (Exxon owns 2.5%). The gathering pipelines (see link below) which are much shorter and smaller in diameter , and therefore very much cheaper will need to be built, plus the processing facilities.

https://earthworks.org/issues/gathering_pipelines/

BP bought 4.6 billion barrels of oil resources in the Permian that's already producing 19k bopd, but with costs of well under $50/bbl for $10.5bn. Well under $50/bbl could mean more than $49/bbl or more than $40/bbl, therefore I will evaluate using both figures. The sale went through in July 2018 when the oil price was around $68/bbl for WTI. Therefore using the two figures for costs/bbl = profits of $28/bbl or $19/bbl. Multiplied by the 4.6 billion barrels = $87.4 - $128.8bn of profit. Therefore, the $10.5bn paid for the field is 8.15% - 12.01% of the profit for the field based upon the PoO for WTI at the time of the sale.
Block 12 has a conservative $48/bbl profit on the recent Brent of around $60/bbl (Block 12 sells at a $5 premium). 19.1 billion barrels x $48/bbl profit = $916.8bn. Just using 8% as the top buyout parameter = $73.34bn = £58.09bn at todays rate of $1 = £0.79. This would give a share price of £3.69. However, as money needs to be spent on cleaning and side tracking wells, gathering pipelines and processing facilities, then the figure will probably be less.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bhp-divestiture-bp/bp-pays-105-billion-for-bhp-shale-assets-to-beef-up-us-business-idUSKBN1KG34V
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Caucasus_Pipeline
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku%E2%80%93Tbilisi%E2%80%93Ceyhan_pipeline
https://www.dollars2pounds.com/

Posted by Earsbern on the 15th October :-

Houston, Texas 77024-6604 Zaza Mamulaishvili 12 Paliashvili Street Tbilisi 0179 Georgia /s/ Natalie A. Sears Natalie A. Sears

Posted by Earsbern on the 15th October :-

III. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter a judgment, substantially in the form attached hereto, that (i) grants the Motion; (ii) enters the attached Judgment and awards Plaintiff actual damages in an amount to be proven at the hearing on this Motion, attorney’s fees in the amount of $12,248.50, and $761.10 in costs and expenses; and (iii) grant Plaintiff such other and further relief to which it has shown itself justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Natalie A. Sears Ross H. Parker Texas Bar No. 24007804 rparker@munsch.com John D. Cornwell Texas Bar No. 24050450 jcornwell@munsch.com Natalie A. Sears Texas Bar No. 24098400 nsears@munsch.com
MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C. 500 N. Akard St., Suite 3800 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: 214-855-7500 Facsimile: 214-855-7584 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF OUTRIDER MASTER FUND, LP CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 14, 2019, a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment was served on the following parties by certified mail, return receipt requested in accordance with Local Rule 5.5. Steve C. Nicandros 414 Pineneedle Dr.