Dan at court today
I’ve been very busy today trying to get to just what forms the basis of the recent court action by Excalibur Venture llc.
After trekking down to the Royal Courts of Justice I can exclusively reveal that there are four defendants named in the court action being brought by Excalibur
The case Number is 2010/folio/101517
The four defendants named are
1/ Texas Keystone Inc also known as Texas keystone inc
2/Gulf Keystone Petroleum Limited.
3/Gulf keystone limited
4/Gulf Keystone Petroleum UK Limited
There are no other documents listed and until ALL parties respond further news re’ the grounds cannot be obtained. Once all parties respond then the basis of the allegations will be placed in the Public Domain.
After speaking to several people at Excalibur (All extremely rude) we can reveal that the Excalibur claim is based upon “understandings verbal oral and written between GKP and Excalibur” apparently there is a dispute arising from contractual services undertaken by Excalibur on behalf of GKP. Other than that I’m afraid no party will divulge any more.
I’ve been checking out Excalibur and they seem to be a shadowy organisation operating out of the Sheraton hotel Baghdad,with a presence in Washington DC which can not be contacted. It’s a suite address which means it’s just a letter box!
2456 20th Street, NW
Suite 309
Washington, DC 20009
ph: 2023153725
fax: 2023153716
Iraq
Excalibur Ventures
Ishtar Sheraton Hotel & Towers, Suite 316
Baghdad, Iraq
Intl. ph: +88.216.7744.3130
e: rexrw@excaliburvc.com
United States
Excalibur Ventures
1420 Peerless Place, Ste. 305
Los Angeles, CA 90035
ph: (1) 310.999.5455
e: ericpw@excaliburvc.com
There’s other address’s for them which would suggest to me that they are “at the Bollocks” as one chap here thinks. They offer Project Finance,market Research, governmental advice right through to Risk Analysis/Security Services. They are a private listed company operating in the Middle east region. They are a very shadowy company who maybe chancing their arm with a frivolous claim for services rendered!
I’ll keep my ear to the ground!
Hola!
Dan
PS There was a £5 court fee for the case Number and information.
Thanks for that Dan I’ve got the case number now and i’ll be keeping my eye on them also
Great work!
Five quid is ther nothing free these days?
I’ve clicked on a few ads for ya1 Get ya money back and send the rest to help4heroes.
Well done son.
Good piece Dan.
Why does this not come as a surprise tho’? Iraq/shadowy has a nice ring to it, non? A stay well away away in my book, this is not worth the heartache, supergiant wells or not. IF it were me I would dump these and stick the money in XEL or EO., absolute guarantee of gains and a safe option too (you cannot contest the UKCS!), even if the potential riches are not as great, what’s the point of chasing a supergiant over the horizon that might never materialise? GKP gives me not good goosebumps but it could yet prove to be highly profitable and a real winner if you have patience. I hope it is for its holders but I would not want in for all the tea in China (and England).
Well done Dan
Much appreciated. So theres four defendents looks like this excalibur mob are a real dirty group theyve got there fingers in irag and are involved in the underbelly there.
Come on gkpers bombard them fookers withemails!
Amazing how a private blog can get info like this when the big sites can’t. Now we know theres 4 defendents, the case No and the partys involved haven’t yet fully responded to the allegations. Why cant the big finance sites have got this info?Five quid well spent.
Tricky Daniel beats the FT yet again. LMAO
Pickle
couldn’t even top up at 130p this morning, order wouldn’t go through even for 1k.
From Mirabaud Securities – Energy Research
The claim stems from 2006, when Texas Keystone (a privately owned company operated by the broader Kozel family, and totally separate from Gulf Keystone) and Excalibur had a bidding agreement to enter Kurdistan together. Excalibur claimed to have sufficient funding and strong connections in Kurdistan – neither of which turned out to be true – in fact Excalibur failed to qualify as a potential licencee. The agreement expired in February 2007 and then in November that year a subsidiary of Gulf Keystone signed a production sharing contract with the Kurdistan Regional Government for the Shaikan and Akri-Bijeel exploration blocks, along with MOL and Texas Keystone.
Should’ve saved your fiver, Dan, and just pulled the court filing up on your employer’s Bloomberg. Your employer DOES have a Bloomberg, right?
For the record, the claim is against Texas Keystone – the Kozel family’s company that has retained a 5% stake in the Kurdistan blocks. In 2006, Excalibur and Texas had a deal to go into Kurdistan in partnership, with Excalibur pulling the government strings. That deal didn’t work out and GKP reckons it expired in early 2007. GKP (and Texas Keystone) then signed its production sharing contract with the Kurdistan government a few months later.
But, of course, you knew all that. Because if you didn’t, it’d mean you’re just another minor league AIM ramper who’s as clueless as the people you’re trying to impress.
Hola.
You can’t access court documents from Bloomberg you fool.
I spoke to a Micheal Parker at the Royal courts this afternoon and he informed me that if I wanted to research I would have to present myself in person at the court and pay £5 to access the system I expect this applies to all and sundry even Bloomberg.
There’s no such thing as an “employers Bloomberg”. Bloomberg are an international data provider within a global sphere.
You’ve obviously got some kind of axe to grind when you can give us all the kind of information that this blog has over the last year or so and make me money then people may listen to you. Until then Artur six piss off you cheap and nasty man. Jealousy will get you nowhere you worm.
James.
Keep up the great work Daniel and ignore pricks like this better still please remove the idiotic post it is full of lies.
well said james
No you’re completely and utterly wrong. The claim as registered under case Number 2010/folio/101517 is against the four named defendents in the post. There is as the poster James stated NO such thing as an “Employers Bloomberg”. A quick visit to the Royal courts of Justice by any one who wishes too will confirm this.
Now I suggest you stop posting bulls*** and concentrate on your research which is sadly lacking any kind of cohesive rationale.
Hola!
Dan
you guys… when arthur says ’employers bloomberg’ he means a bloomberg terminal that employers pay for… it’s not that confusing. a lot of ppl would call it that?
and when you say ‘You can’t access court documents from Bloomberg you fool.’
that’s just wrong! what do you think this is? https://www.bloomberglaw.com/login.htm
so maybe you shldnt get so angry at ppl who disagree w/ you
$$$ Man
You don’t know what you’re talking about Mister.
The Royal courts of Justice computer system is a secure network encrypted with an above top secret rating!!!. No person or organisation from outside can access it. It is an independent system controled by the Home Office/ministry of Justice. Bloomberg are a private global data/media company they CAN NOT access Ministry of Justice systems. Next you’ll be telling us all that they can access the HOLMES computer from the Met! Please if you want to try and play with the big boys then do your research. I am a former Police officer (retired) who has worked the capital for many years. The commercial court system is encrypted. Any private individual or organisation has to present themselves in PERSON. To apply for access/information. And as for the link to Bloomberg thats just plain nonsense that link doesn’t get you into the court system it just gets you into the Bloomberg system where you access Bloomberg data! If they have the data on the Excalibur/GKP case on their system then they have paid their £5 just like any other person. Anyone can sign up for Bloomberg just as anyone can sign up to any other finance site. YOU CHARLATAN! YOU FOOL!
James
wow
all caps? you dont need to get so angry man
anyway i dont know why im bothering with this but….
all i was saying (as arthur did) was that you can access court filings from bloomberg law, if you have access to it. do you find that hard to believe? have you ever used bloomberg law?
He could of saved his £5 and just read it all off the iii bulletin board a couple of hours before he posted this.
Wait a minute…
Sorry to have to deflate your balloon $$$.
There is no such thing as an employees Bloomberg or a Bloomberg terminal. What you are confusing yourself with is the Bloomberg Media and Financial data feedss. The service we offer is based on what level of subscription you take out. Check out PA/REUTERS data stream. Bloomberg is a news service. Just as reuters are. Most financial institutions run Reuters,bloomberg and lots of different data streams simultaneously and brokers will run news feeds on their stations.
We gather news Globally from many sources. We do not have a feed into the court network, if we did we would be locked up for hacking.
Hope this helps.
uh… do you really work for bloomberg?
you say that theres on such thing as a bloomberg terminal + yet it has it’s own wikipedia page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Terminal
so strange….
Correct me if i’m wrong but the basis of the discussion is why Dan paid £5 to the HMCS? Well a fiver matey is certainly much better than £1150 per month for a Bloomberg subscription the point is that the Bloomberg law section only gives out info obtained from the court it can’t akkses the court system. It has to pay just like all of us. Danny went to the court off his own back which suggests that Dannyboy is on hols or throwing a sickie, Where he does or dosen’t work none of us will ever know. Its an anon blog! But to keep harping on about the ins and outs of a court fee is quite simply moot.
Thanks for the effort Dan + thanks for the Matra posts I nearly sold @ 1.89p held them then sold at 4.10p now have a free carry on 200k shares. Will keep them for a few years.