Rogadar.
10 Aug 2017
Re: Upanchors desireoil he has formed his own private discussion group, that is the reason, should have come to that idea years ago
Desireoil3009
10 Aug 2017
Re: Upanchors Hmmm. Whatever we like to call him I hope he's okay. His silence is unprecedented.
Rogadar.
10 Aug 2017
Re: Upanchors His CORRECT name is UPWANCHORS, his best ever message wasXEL best company on AIM 2015
Desireoil3009
10 Aug 2017
Upanchors You are one of the most exasperating and myopic posters ever to grace these BBs but you haven't posted for quite some time and unbelievably, I miss you.Are you okay?
hioyo
08 Aug 2017
Re: Liquidators docs ASH.I have now been able to open Liquidators docs. Thank you again.hioyo
hioyo
08 Aug 2017
Re: Liquidators docs Many thanks ash but I am still unable to read it .Grateful for your response .hioyo
changeling
07 Aug 2017
Re: Point 25 Does anyone else think it's interesting that the bondholders made their offer on the date of the commencement of the liquidationI was slightly surprised as it had kind of read to me previously as if they did what they did as they were left holding the baby but it obviously they had a strategy in place and put their offer in alongside the 3 others that they held sway over anyway.
changeling
07 Aug 2017
Re: Point 25 What we don't know is what was said at this Thursday 8th September meeting. Weird how the very next day the sp rockets until on Monday morning the bad news surfacesThey stated the meeting was with OGA, Xcite and it's potential funding partner - so up to that point the other party were motivated and interested enough to attend that meeting.Yet within literally one working day - possibly the same day as that meeting it's fallen apart.To my mind something must have come up at that meeting that the counter party didn't like or surprised them - the only party who's views they wouldn't have known in a "horses mouth" kind of way were OGA so IMO it must have either come from them or become apparent as something was revealed that was contra to what they had been led to believe was the case from Xcite What if that party were holding shares?Why so secret? I wouldn't have a problem with OGA saying something like" well at the meeting it became clear that the counter party weren't able to offer a long term funding solution, or didn't have sufficient operating experience" - it's still not naming them but at least we know then that Rupert had scraped the barrel and just found a maggot OGA should just spit it out and stop hiding behind the old chestnut of "the public interest" Rather a lot of "the public" lost money and it would be in their interests to have an answer. Everyone knows their money is gone they just want to know what happened.If your house burnt down you'd want to know how the fire started.
Galatea
07 Aug 2017
Re: Point 25 Could we deduce from this that the OGA think or know Xcite's name will shortly be dragged through the mud by a higher power and are protecting the unwitting counterparty? If that's the case it's response makes more sense.
Galatea
07 Aug 2017
Point 25 So the OGA admit the liquidation is still contentious, one for the parliamentary board:25. In light of the risk to the Company’s reputation, and noting that the matterssurrounding Xcite’s liquidation remain contentious, the OGA considers that thepublic interest in favour of withholding the information outweighs the publicinterest in disclosing the name of the Company.
ash6666
07 Aug 2017
Re: Liquidators docs [link]
eagle51
07 Aug 2017
Re: Oil & Gas Authority FOI citychap - the information provided to the XEL PI you refer to appears to differ from what they sent me in writing at the start of this year - see my post of 23 April below:[link] note the responsibilities the OGA says it has as to confidentiality and protection of the identity of those attending the meetings.. It would seem, however, that this does not extend to participant at the meetings having similar responsibilities because one or more of whoever attended the meeting on 8 September immediately released false information into the market that caused XEL's share price to spike and no doubt allowed the perpetrator/s to make a stack of money, entirely dishonestly. The identity of this party is the one the OGA is so keen to protect to "protect its reputation". Needless to say the FCA and AIM Regulation did absolutely nothing to investigate what was a clear case of fraud that would have been incredibly easy to pin on the perpetrator/s because there was only one day's dealings in XEL shares for them to investigate.This isn't a battle PIs can win because the forces are determined the whole saga should be buried and they will lie, obfuscate and cheat for as long as it takes before XEL finally dies a death when everyone has given up. The Govt will get its money. Shareholders who made it all possible can "go do one".The answer is to learn a valuable lesson, remove all your funds (assuming you have any left) from the UK Markes (particularly AIM) tand never invest a penny in them again. They are fundamentally dishonest - as is Government, its many agents and a large number of people who advance to senior positions within these organisations.all imo/ dyor
hioyo
07 Aug 2017
Re: Liquidators docs Hi Fl cannot open your message from Liquidators. Could anyone let me know what it contained please...Most grateful to anyone who will Cheers hioyo .
forwardloop
05 Aug 2017
Liquidators docs Link to Final report and letter to shareholders[link]
citychap2011
04 Aug 2017
Oil & Gas Authority FOI OGA response to an Xcite energy PI seeking information about the 8 Sep meeting between Xcite BoD, OGA, the Department for International Trade and a company whose details are being withheld by OGA.Our ref: FOI-2017-xxxx27 July 2017Dear Mr X1. Thank you for your email of 24 May 2017, which stated:“Dear Anonymous OGA Correspondent,Thanks for your reply. It is, however, disappointing to receive a standardresponse of no substance from an anonymous OGA Correspondent, which failsto answer any of the questions I have raised.I note that you state that "we do not comment on commercial matters withindividual companies" and "for various reasons including the commercialconfidentiality and (where applicable) the price-sensitive nature of such things,we do not comment on the details of such considerations for any individuallicences."However, given that Xcite Energy LTD's (XEL) is now in liquidation byliquidators in the British Virgin Islands, with no return expected for shareholders(hundreds of thousands of pounds of tax payer's pensions and savings havebeen lost), I fail to see how OGA's involvement with Xcite Energy LTD's (XEL)can still be considered commercially sensitive.I would like to know who was involved and what happened at the meetingof the OGA, Xcite Energy LTD's (XEL) Board of Directors and XEL'sproposed project guarantor on 8 Sept 2016, which led to XEL's fielddevelopment plans being shelved and the company being put into liquidation byunknown, likely foreign, bondholders.Is the OGA's bungling of the Bentley license something I should seek to raisedirectly at an ‘Audience with’ Andy Samuel?[link] would like to request an internal review of my enquiry because the standardreplies I have received from OGA are not satisfactory and do not providenor constitute true and fair information about how the OGA has handled the XciteEnergy LTD's (XEL) Bentley license.Thank you for your assistance in this matter.” [OGA Emphasis added]2. We note your request for an internal review of your initial enquiry as well asyour new request for information. We have responded separately to the requestfor an internal review and apologise for not having responded earlier.3. We have considered your request (highlighted in bold above) under theFreedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and, where relevant, under theEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs). Our response to your newrequest is set out below.4. While no meeting was held on 8 September 2016 between the “OGA, XciteEnergy LTD's (XEL) Board of Directors and XEL's proposed project guarantor”,we can confirm that a meeting between Xcite, the Department for InternationalTrade (DIT), a company whose details are being withheld (further details as tothe reasons this information is being withheld is set out below), and the OGAtook place on 8 September 2016 at the OGA’s London office. A copy of thenote from that meeting is attached to this response at Annex 1 (the Note).5. Some of the information contained in the Note has been redacted. While theOGA tries to be as transparent as possible, and our general approach is todisclose as much information as we are able, there are at times reasons andcircumstances in which the OGA cannot disclose information requested.6. The OGA considers that the redacted information from the Note is exempt fromdisclosure pursuant to Sections 36(2), 41(1), 43(2) FOIA and Regulations12(5)(d) and (e) EIR. A detailed explanation of the reliance on each of theexemptions is set out below.Section 36(2) – Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs7. The OGA’s qualified person considers that disclosure of the redactedinformation (a) would likely inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for thepurposes of deliberation (Section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA) and/or (b) would otherwiseprejudice or would be likely
