http://www.gulfkeystone.com/ The firms exploration programme in Algeria is going well and "the shares look good value", say the Investors Chronicle. Your comments please. goal.

Guys...there might be a buck to be made on CYAN..(Cambridge tech)....it's up to you...

RF, I have given you the figures, you can work out the percentages yourself.......... sometimes people like to avoid the actual truth..........

Why do you think everyone ramps "13 billion OIP" and everyone ignores license percentage, tax and PSC, recovery factor..................

So where is this heading ?

Will it be 150p touched soon ? or 100p ? Looks to have lost the will to hold up now, people are getting out quick.

as i've always said - the pity is the location of the oip - held this company back for ages now and will continue to do so - should be sold eventually at a lowish price v oip to an adventurous major most likely chinese - gla

court case not helping currently hence bit of a slide

Sub 185p trades there....... looking like a solid crash might happen soon - unlucky anyone in this over 200p - lots of stop losses being knocked out.

Wonder if the poster who tell others to "protect their cash" and "sell" on stocks they do not hold, will be saying so on here, a stock they do hold........ ??

Some people love to tempt fate... it's going down... good short for me.

Nothing worse than holding a stock and having two fuckwits continually posting negative crap.

Miss Hlyeo is one of the biggest muppets on £AM, getting most of her calls wrong and then crawling off into the woodwork never to post on the same thread again. Never gives a reason for any opinion other than the hysterical sell, sell, sell, or buy, buy, buy, or perhaps a copy and paste from someone who might actually know what they're talking about. Even caught her talking to her alias, Justyi, on one occasion in some pathetic exercise to ramp a share - now that was amusing.

Talking of desperate rampers, then there's, Proselenes, the BB troll, who ramps the arse of a stock, sells up at a loss and then returns to trash it non stop. Of course he won't be able to read this so his nasty little mate, grannyboy will have to reply on his behalf, lol.

You just can't beat these boards for entertainment that's for sure!

For the record, I have no position in GKP, but wish holders the best of luck.

hi peter .... good to hear from you again ..... for myself with GKP, i'll just sit and wait .... imo, GKP is more likely to win the day in court, though they may make a "commercial settlement" for peace and quiet - very much what excalibur would like, i am sure ..... once that is cleared away, the market will decide what shaikan and thus GKP is worth ..... meanwhile P's ramblings (or even my own), and hyleo's unsupported rubbish (probably no true position anyway) have no effect at all, whether or not subsequently proven right or wrong with regard to sp itself

Good luck with it Richard, the only thing hlyeo is short on is brainpower!

By the way I still owe you a round of golf, so once the weather settles down, I'll get in touch.

GKP still rolling downhill... looking good 4 me.

Probably to do with the Russia/Iraq arms deal.

That swings the power back to Baghdad and massively increases the risk for any company working in Kurdistan on "illegal" licences (as defined by the Iraqi government).

Shorters getting burnt here, up 2%.,.

apparently the iraqis were gazumped .... the russians pulled that arms deal as the israelis offered a better price .... i have it on the best authority

No real burn... just be patient.

Theres only one way this is going.,.

Haven't bothered of late(little point) and just catching up,here's a account from
a respected poster,who was in cpurt on tuesday.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GKP's barrister began by saying that Excalibur's claim is that the
SOLE REASON for the failure by Rex to get funding is because GKP had
failed to provide Excalibur with a document which Excalibur now say
was essential. The barrister explained that Rex had sent Todd a letter
(it was on the Court PCs...I was sitting behind Rex and I was close
enough to just be able to read the PC screens!) to which two drafts
were attached. Rex wanted GKP to work one of these two drafts into a
formal document, so that Excalibur and GKP could both sign it. The
drafts were:

(a) a letter of acknowledgement that Excalibur had introduced GKP and
TKI to the Kurdish Government, in consideration for a 24% stake in
Shaikan

(b) as for (a), but expanded to include "in addition, a 30% stake in
Uzbekistan and Africa or other International opportunities introduced
by Excalibur"

(note: the 24% of Shaikan was the 30% of the 80% i.e. excluding the
KRG 20%, and these drafts clearly post-date the original 30/70
agreement because Shaikan was not under discussion at that earlier
time, and in any case Adnan Samarrai wanted Sangaw and not Shaikan)

The GKP barrister emphasised that Excalibur were saying that GKP's
failure to provide this formal document was the ONLY REASON for
Excalibur not getting funding. (note: the GKP barrister's line of
argument obviously being that, if GKP can show that there was no
requirement to provide such a document, or if it was in any case
irrelevant, the Judge must rule that the Excalibur claim falls)

He then developed two lines of argument to demolish Excalibur's argument.

The first was to show that there was no obligation upon GKP to provide
any such document:

* if GKP was not party to the original Excalibur/TKI agreement, it was
under no obligation to provide anything

* "on any view, the idea that Excalibur had gained 30% was
hypothetical and might not be true. Terms were not mentioned. It might
not be agreed despite good faith on both sides" (note: I think he
meant KRG and GKP) "GKP cannot be expected to sign something that it
was not confident could be delivered"

* "if it WAS clear (the position on the agreement) then Excalibur
could demonstrate its 30% by showing its Collabroration Agreement. But
there is no evidence that it did". (note: the barrister then pursues
this further, see below)

The second line of argument:

* "no basis in factual or expert evidence that a letter in the terms
sought by Excalibur would have no impact" (note: this is what my notes
say...I am not certain what he was implying...he may have said the
opposite to what he meant, or I may have misheard him). "No potential
funder ever asked for such a letter"

* "Investors initially ASSUME that such a document does exist, and
would deal with it" (note: its existence or not) "at Due Diligence
(after Non Disclosure Agreement). These investors would need a more
formal document than the draft. The expert's opinion on the letter
required by Excalibur is that it is 'Unnecessary and Irrelevant'"

* "Rex Wempen wanted the latter as 'credentials' for having 'done a
big deal' ". The GKP barrister then mentioned an email from Eric
Wempen to Rex Wempen, dated 24 November (note: must be 2007, see
below) in which Eric Wempen said: "Think of your future first. So try
to get your Origination letter from Kozel"

* The GKP barrister said that this request for such a document
represented a "False Claim from Wempen in November 2007. But this
claim is still remarkably being made in these (note: High Court,
obviously) proceedings"

* "there was not a hint of suggestion that this was referred to in
contemporaneous documents" (the GKP barrister made some reference to
this being an overarching point and he then goes on further about
this, see below)

* "in any event it fails on the facts"

He then went on to say that, in terms of an Indirect Interest,
Excalibur never raised this until November 2007. Emails in following
weeks were "in language of supplication not denial". Rex Wempen had
said to Eric Wempen "there were countless ways of doing it" i.e. all
kinds of possibilities. The barrister said that "Lack of definition
leads to Excalibur's problem in this case"

He said "there is nothing wrong in Excalibur being flexible BUT they
cannot now say that GKP was wrong in not having provided one of six
possible ways" i.e. six possible ways by which this matter might have
been addressed/dealt with at the time. There was then a short exchange
with the Judge:

Judge: "which one?"
GKP barrister: "you will decide"
Judge: "yes I will" (followed by laughter in the Court)

The GKP barrister then explained that "Excalibur had failed to pay a
large amount of signature bonus and imposed on GKP a liability to
pay." He said "Why should GKP agree anything until Excalibur agreed to
pay?"

He then said that, if an Indirect Interest were given to Excalibur via
equity in GKP "A shareholders' agreement would have taken months. But
the clock was ticking" i.e. on the Shaikan licence award with the KRG.
"Not GKP's fault"

He then said "should at 3.12.07 GKP have given a confirmed agreement?
But Rex Wempen abandoned the 30% claim in exchange for a buy-out by
GKP (and probably MOL)"

In May 2008, "Eric Wempen picked up on GKP's seismic being positive on
Shaikan. Excalibur wrote on 26 June 2008" (note: I think to GKP's
lawyers?) "But it was too late because of the PSC duration time of 90
days"

The GKP barrister then said that *if* GKP were requited to follow the
agreement (Note: I assume the original Excalibur/TKI one, but it might
be the non-existent Excalibur/GKP one...he was covering so many
angles) *then* they were NOT required to do so if Excalibur had paid
no money. He then said:

1. "what are the "dependent covenants" on Excalibur?". He said there
was an obligation to tender the sums due from them for the Shaikan
sigature bonus. (note: I was told in the coffee bar that the Shaikan
signature bonus was $25m)

2. "there is no evidence that the absence of the level of
documentation put off any potential investors. In those rare cases
where Excalibur got to the stage of submitting a 'teaser', Excalibur
claimed a "participatory ownership".

He then said "Let's look at the teaser sent to UBS and others. Wempen
called it an NDA. It claimed 'A unique opportunity to invest alongside
three competent international partners, one UK based, one a US
Independent, and one a European state oil company' "

He explained that Excalibur had said "a 10% OWNERSHIP of the field is
available in return for a $40 million payment to Excalibur who
initiated the deal"

(note: this was news to me! So having purportedly got a 30% stake in
Shaikan for no cost at that time, i.e. having not paid anything to
GKP, Excalibur were then seeking to dispose of one-third of that
purported stake for $40 million, thereby valuing the 80% non-KRG
percentage of Shaikan as 8 x $40m = $320 million, though GKP had paid
only $25 million for it. No such calculations were given in Court)

The GKP barrister then said "The notion that Excalibur UNDERSOLD its
title, when it OVERSOLD on everything else, is seriously open to
question". He then quoted the expert evidence from Mr. Wilkinson that
an Indirect Interest would be much less interesting to an investor
than a Direct Interest.

He said that "My last point is to remind his Lordship that it is wrong
for Excalibur to claim that this (note: referring to the alleged
failure to provide the requested document) was the ONLY obstacle to
not getting funding. GKP claims that Excalibur could not get funding
for other reasons"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There was then some discussion, in closing the business for the day,
between the two barristers about expert reports.

BUT as part of that, there (was my notes indicate coming from
Excalibur's barrister) a statement that in one of the two reports
provided by the expert Mr. Wilkinson, Credit Suisse is mentioned as
having provided some funding to Excalibur. What this funding was about
was left unexplained.

Excalibur's barrister said to the Judge "Something of a barrage of
information has been coming our way" and he said "there was an
important discovery last Friday. Memery Crystal wrote to Clifford
Chance about it and they need a reply. I am mentioning it now"

(note: I assume that this refers to the emails that GKP/TKI have
apparently successfully forced out of someone...the GKP team have
apparently been working through the weekend on this matter, and wrote
a letter (the above mentioned one?) to Clifford Chance at about 11pm
last night)

The Judge said "I am going to go away and read the material. I hope to
start the case again on Monday"

According to my notes, the last material statement was from the
Excalibur barrister, who said "If these questions result in
disclosure, it will involve release of documents already in Clifford
Chance's possession" and he added that "they relate to UBS".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

but in my humble opinion, do your own research etc. as always

pinion.financialpost.com/2012/10/26/lawrence-solomon-oil-majors-back-kurdistan/

Tuesday the next day in court.