Mediterranean Oil & Gas Share Discussion Threads

[grannyboy] 06/3/2014 14:11

NR cannot make an informed decision if certain parts of the seismic was left out, which was put to the court previously.

[nutty1] 06/3/2014 13:22

" Leni Gas & Oil made it expressly clear to Mediterranean Oil & Gas, before entering into sale negotiations, that it would not sell its interest in Malta Area 4 if the 3D seismic analysis indicated Cretaceous prospects"

Its up to all parties to review the seismic and make their own call concerning Cretaceous prospectivity. As you have stated a "lack of willingness not ability to pay cash calls" with regard to the seismic, Neil, how can you expect any sympathy?

[pensioner2] 06/3/2014 12:45

Maybe he's taken Och Ziff's shilling?

[grannyboy] 06/3/2014 12:42

Well i do find it very strange that BOTH of those so called court summary's(over the 2 days) from that individual romaron very biased in MOG's favour, and do not square up with others attendee's views....

[glyn10] 06/3/2014 12:26

as always, people have different views and interpretations of events. At the end of the day we can all have opinions but it is only one that counts and that is the Judge ! So, we just need to wait patiently for the decision and then chew over the bones

[bobobob5] 06/3/2014 11:39

I would not agree that the above extract is in any way representative of yesterday. Ritson made it clear that LGO had asked for the data, which was not provided as requested. Ritson said "why should we incur the time and costs of going to Rome when the data could have been sent to our workstations London electronically, as is standard practice?" (I paraphrase slightly). Indeed, MOG's barrister made a foolish comment to Ritson "Are you psychic?" and got pulled up by the Judge for making such a remark. The Judge also revealed a bit of displeasure later; he said "I would like to thank the staff for keeping the Bundle updated" to which the MOG barrister said "I don't want to take the credit for that", which got the very immediate snap-back from the Judge "I wasn't giving it to you".

[garymegson] 06/3/2014 08:56

Make of this what you will as it hasn't been posted on here.

Wed 19:45 Today in Court March 5 romaron

Just to set the scene:



Paxman v Knott 4.30 = Zarcoli v Ritson (4.30 in)

I didn't enjoy today as much. Interrogation and evisceration loses its appeal after the first hour. The cavalier attitude towards costs is amazing. Its almost as if both sides are on legal aid (I suppose you are effectively if you cannot pay if you lose).
It was the MOG barrister questioning Mr Ritson under oath all day. I am not a court reporter or capable of shorthand so if you want a blow by blow account then I'm sure there will be somebody who recorded today's events so I shall just post the points that interested me.
It opened with Zarcoli (Z) the MOG barrister eventually getting Neil Ritson (NR) to reluctantly agree that siesmic data was available at all times in Rome. NR rather petulantly said it was MOG's responsibility to deliver it to LGO. That was why he didn't take up the offer.
I realise that BB posters try or are accused of putting over a one-sided view for their team so I take particular interest when Justice Males (JM) intervenes.
JM interventions:
To NR "is a data-room the First step in a farm-out?"
To NR "Almost always also means NOT always".
To NR "No company would pull out of marketing because discussions [on farmout] are taking place".
To NR "[MOG] would try to deceive you and the world by the video 9/7/12?".
To NR [upon NR's lack of time to read reports/letters due to holiday in July 12] "You're not a one man company?" to which NR replied that "we are small and his deputy was part-time & Fergus was busy". *An uncharitable person might say his holiday was more important and this was his Tony Hayward moment.
To NR "an unconscious decision" questioning an action which puzzled him.
To Z "that was uncalled for!" an admonishment when Z asked NR if he was physic [a contemporaneous note appeared to foretell the future]

NR struggles with a straight answer or Yes or No. His most common reply is "I can accept that is an interpretation" or a variation after long consideration.

The 19 July 12 was important as there was an OpCom meeting where an Equipoise report was to be made. Somebody else can add colour here as NR said he wasn't allowed certain material but if he had made the effort he could have found out.

Bill Higgs (BH) sent out 86 bulletins regarding marketing/farm out but NR was unaware or couldn't remember.

Z says there is no prospect in cretaceous according to NR. NR agrees, making farm out more difficult and is forced to agree that in LGO opinion Malta has gone from prospect to liability. He sends an internal email saying "we just need to get out of this".
He emails David Lenigas and Horton. Do we "cut and run or stand and fight?". Decision is to cut and run. He also suggests going adversarial on an outstanding invoice with MOG of $19,000. Threats to block the well are mentioned.

I could go on with some technical stuff (no expert) which is mainly NR saying something about a letter of comfort regarding the Maltese Govt (MRA). The Court seemed to accept that it was a technicality as the MRA would only grant an extension letter if the Joint Venture committed to the well. NR says he would vote to block the well.
NR complained that MOG showed info to 3rd parties but not to LGO. NR never asked for an update on farmout.

NR said today "lack of willingness not ability to pay cash calls" without prompting (unusual). I'm ending on this as I said it may come back to haunt him when asked if it was a case of, can't pay or won't pay. He chose won't pay so it was a little surprising that he hadn't been paid a salary from Sept 11 to June 12. He had nobly put himself at the head of other creditors. This raised an eyebrow from JM.

My personal opinion is that NR blames his incompetence on MOG, but then I would say that according to BB culture and practise.
Tomorrow is BH's turn and I expect the Mishcon guy to be worth his labour. I have an

[mdchand] 06/3/2014 08:30

hamlette note the choice of words here - under a 'duty to provide' and not 'contractually obliged'. I suspect mog didn't have to disclose any negotiations with genel if that was not expressly written into any agreement, but a lot will depend on how one describes a 'cretaceous prospect'. LGO was looking for a way out, and MOG gave them every opportunity to exit.....it's very sharp practice but I doubt its as clear cut as people think.

[12bn] 06/3/2014 07:36

I think that it is a couple of weeks after the case finishes.

[altom] 06/3/2014 07:23

When is the result of trial expected ? Is it today ?

[12bn] 06/3/2014 06:42

mdchand,MOG have lost one set of lawyers and 2 directors,could it be that the chairman has been told that MOG are likely to lose but he has decided to fight, as it is his head on the block if he settles early.I am only speculating but maybe a probable loss is better than a dead cert loss if case is settled early,from his point of view.

[hamlette] 06/3/2014 00:28

This is what NR said back in Sept 2012, which clearly indicates an expectation of disclosure.

" Leni Gas & Oil made it expressly clear to Mediterranean Oil & Gas, before entering into sale negotiations, that it would not sell its interest in Malta Area 4 if the 3D seismic analysis indicated Cretaceous prospects. Leni Gas & Oil would not have sold its interest for $1 plus liabilities had it been aware of interest from Genel Energy or other potential farm-in partners. Leni Gas & Oil considers that Mediterranean Oil & Gas subsidiary PECL, as operator, was at all times under a duty to provide such information to Leni. Leni Gas & Oil is concerned that representations other than the factual position may have been made to it prior to agreeing to sell and before signing the sale of its 10 per cent working interest in Malta Area 4," said Leni Gas & Oil chief executive, Neil Ritson.

[mdchand] 05/3/2014 23:00

bob - I understand the duty of disclosure pre-trail only too well and so would have MOG and its lawyers. I've seen your report on the LGO BB and while the information looks damning, MOG's lawyers would have reviewed the evidence/emails and known that this would come out in court and how it would play out. Therefore, one can only conclude that their defence is based on this fact. I suspect there will be some obscure clause in whatever contract they signed with LGO that MOG are relying on that they believe didn't require them to fully disclose any / all information to LGO. Was the onus on LGO to ask for specific information rather than on MOG to provide it? Could MOG rely on the fact that had LGO asked for specific information it would have freely disclosed it? I guess we'll find out tomorrow.

[kaos3] 05/3/2014 16:02

hxxp://www.zvijezda.com/mediteran-oil

[oregano] 05/3/2014 09:21

Bob, thanks for the feedback. sounds an interesting insight into the way these companies work.

[bobobob5] 05/3/2014 00:51

Maybe about fifteen or so, but most of them were not PIs. Some legal types and at least one taking shorthand.

[haroldthegreat] 04/3/2014 19:34

bob were there a lot of people in the public area

[jamesiebabie] 04/3/2014 14:36

bobobob5 4 Mar'14 - 13:30 - 11477 of 11494 3 0Moderate | Ban

The case is underway, break for lunch. Most of the morning was LGO setting out their Claim, and the Judge asking for details of how much money was being claimed from MOG. The last 15 minutes or so was the MOG response.

Here are some good quotes from the LGO barrister: "There was a limited window for this fraud to be perpetrated"..."Higgs revels in what he has done"..."We say he revels in having swindled LGO"..."Higgs said in email to Mr Ulrich on 31 July 'Life is good...FYI RNS coming out. Good news, especially when the Market sees we have converted one dollar into ten million dollars'"..."23 August email from ex-NED to Higgs 'Outstanding. Well done, onwards and upwards'"..."Higgs proactively put us off the scent"..."Higgs tells something, but not everything".

Neil Ritson will be giving evidence this afternoon.

In my purely personal opinion, it looks from these openings as if MOG already had two indicative offers from Genel when Higgs spoke to Ritson, but failed to mention them. Other information about deeper prospectively, the improved Chance of Success in the Eocene, and the improved NPV10 value of the Eocene, were apparently withheld from Ritson. So when LGO did the deal, they had incomplete information.

I think MOG are trying to argue that this was OK and that they did not need to reveal such things. That is something that the Judge will need to decide.

this is not legal advice I am not qualified to give it

[edgar222] 04/3/2014 12:30

Bob

These days you don't even have to ask the Judge for permission, you can go straight to the Court of Appeal for that.

[onceabroker] 04/3/2014 09:48

bobobob5

I read your last reports from the case management last year - excellent work.

Will you be posting on the LGO thread or here?

Best regards

John

[12bn] 04/3/2014 09:22

Great,bobobob5,I hope that you can keep us updated.

[thehairydagger] 04/3/2014 09:22

bobo, were you sending reports from the court on your laptop during the GKP case ?

[bobobob5] 04/3/2014 09:13

I'm going along to the Court in a minute. Provided that the thing doesn't ring, you can take a mobile into court. Indeed, you can even take a laptop in, and plug it into their electricity supply lol. Reception is very poor unless you subscribe to their paid service. There's no public gallery, you just sit behind the lawyers. The larger courts will take maybe 50 members of the public, they will bring extra chairs in etc.

[haroldthegreat] 04/3/2014 07:14

bob are you going to court? do they allow you to take a switched off mobile into court? they do not in a criminal court. how many people can sit in the public galley?