TriniTuner.com  |  Latest Event:  

Forums

AV Drilling wins its case

this is how we do it.......

Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods

Wraith King
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1646
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » July 28th, 2021, 12:21 pm

sMASH wrote:no way no how dis making sense. petrotrin fire the company and resolve to repay them 1bn dollars. lol.


The financial well being of the company is not relevant to the persons appointed to run the company.

This may help make sense of what is going on. The company is state owned which means it is owned by the citizens of the country. Therefore the persons in charge do not relate to the company in the same manner as a private owner will feel about his company. So the persons in charge of a state company has no drive to make the company profitable as profits does not benefit them. Money is lost through corruption because the persons in charge are not held accountable and the company itself is used to reward party financiers and supporters. With a private company owners will hold managers accountable and there will be greater financial scrutiny.

User avatar
Habit7
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 11310
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 10:20 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Habit7 » July 28th, 2021, 1:03 pm

sMASH wrote:THE ADJUDICATORS DIDNT INVESTIGATE FOR THEM SELVES, THEY ONLY EVALUATE WHAT BOTH SIDES PRESENTED TO THEM

Adjudicators do not investigate. Again you are conflating issues. Evidence was presented to show that Catshill could increase the production that resulted, Petrotrin had faults in their metering and measuring and Petrotrin failed to prove any collusion between Dookiesingh and Baksh. That is how cases are adjudicated. You cannot jump up and say like you have that evidence went missing and when called to prove it you reply, "lol."

Arbitration is a standard method of resolving business disputes, it was used when BAE sold the OPVs to Brazil when Kamla cancelled the contract, it was used when Constructura OAS tried to pocket the $1B advance the PP gave them despite they were almost bankrupt. Arbitrations are not arbitrary, it was the primary way of resolving this dispute and just because you are disappointed in the outcome you cannot make outlandish claims that have no proof.

Wraith King wrote:The arbitration panel comprised of one selected by A&V (PNM financier), one selected by Petrotrin (company managed by a PNM political appointee and one selected by both parties ie. the PNM financier and a PNM political appointee.

Habit7 I don't think others are stupid enough to believe your lies, manipulation and propaganda.

and speaking of outlandish claims without any proof you forgot to show any of my "lies, manipulation and propaganda"

It was the same PNM political appointed board that saw the discrepancies in oil from A&V, stopped their payment and put it in escrow, did an internal audit, did 2 external audits and evicted A&V from the field. If political favour was supposed to play a role, it seemed it took a long time to kick in.

And they appointed Lord David Hope, a former member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England, retired president of the Caribbean Court of Justice St Lucian Sir Dennis Byron and retired local judge of the Appeal Court Humphrey Stollmeyer. They are all eminent jurists and well respected throughout the Commonwealth as independent judges, but you might still call them balisier waving PNMs.

sam1978
Riding on 16's
Posts: 1145
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 8:30 am

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby sam1978 » July 28th, 2021, 1:35 pm

Do you know how the three were selected?

User avatar
Habit7
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 11310
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 10:20 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Habit7 » July 28th, 2021, 1:46 pm

sam1978 wrote:Do you know how the three were selected?

By a Contract dated 18th November, 2009 called an Incremental Production
Service Contract (“IPSC”) A & V Oil and Gas Limited (“the Claimant”) and
the Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago Limited (“the Respondent”)
agreed that the Claimant would take possession of and explore and extract oil
from an area commonly referred to as the Catshill Field and deliver oil to the
Respondent. Clause 36.6 of the IPSC provided that, if Mediation failed to settle
a matter in dispute, the matter in dispute was to be referred to a panel of three
Arbitrators, one to be appointed by each of the Parties and the third to be
appointed by agreement in writing by the Parties. It also provided that the
decision of the majority shall be binding upon the Parties and determine the
matter in dispute.

User avatar
zoom rader
TunerGod
Posts: 24864
Joined: April 22nd, 2003, 12:39 pm
Location: Grand Cayman

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby zoom rader » July 28th, 2021, 1:52 pm

sam1978 wrote:Do you know how the three were selected?
Via bailiser house

sam1978
Riding on 16's
Posts: 1145
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 8:30 am

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby sam1978 » July 28th, 2021, 2:02 pm

One side chooses one of the panel , the other side chooses one , then both agree on a third. What happens if the two sides are related via some means?

Rowdy friend Av choose one , Petrotrin board led by Rowlee other friend chose one . Then Rowlee two friends chose the third. This is just a hypothetical situation , could that happen in reality?

Wraith King
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1646
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » July 28th, 2021, 3:55 pm

A PNM financier and a PNM political appointee selected a panel to determine a matter regarding criminality on the part of the PNM financier in a multi million dollar case and Habit7 wants others to believe the matter was handled in a neutral manner.

As usual, all he puts forward are lies, manipulation and propaganda.

Wraith King
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1646
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » July 28th, 2021, 4:05 pm

It wasn't an arbitration panel, it was a collusion panel.

User avatar
The_Honourable
Trying to catch PATCH AND VEGA
Posts: 6607
Joined: June 14th, 2009, 3:45 pm
Location: In the Land of Stupidity & Corruption

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby The_Honourable » July 28th, 2021, 4:23 pm

sam1978 wrote:One side chooses one of the panel , the other side chooses one , then both agree on a third. What happens if the two sides are related via some means?

Rowdy friend Av choose one , Petrotrin board led by Rowlee other friend chose one . Then Rowlee two friends chose the third. This is just a hypothetical situation , could that happen in reality?


THIS!!! but eric williams children and grandchildren can't see that.

Best believe they would have seen it if it was for example a unc appointed petrotrin board run by Gerald Ramdeen vs Krishna Lalla and SIS at arbitration.

User avatar
Habit7
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 11310
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 10:20 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Habit7 » July 28th, 2021, 4:45 pm

The_Honourable wrote:
sam1978 wrote:One side chooses one of the panel , the other side chooses one , then both agree on a third. What happens if the two sides are related via some means?

Rowdy friend Av choose one , Petrotrin board led by Rowlee other friend chose one . Then Rowlee two friends chose the third. This is just a hypothetical situation , could that happen in reality?


THIS!!! but eric williams children and grandchildren can't see that.

Best believe they would have seen it if it was for example a unc appointed petrotrin board run by Gerald Ramdeen vs Krishna Lalla and SIS at arbitration.

What you and others are trying to allege is that PNM colluded with PNM to appoint some party hacks as arbitrators. Aside from there being no evidence we have quite the opposite.

They appointed a lawlord and former Privy Council judge, a former CCJ judge and president of the CCJ and a former judge of our highest court the Court of Appeal. You couldn't ask for a more applicable and unbiased team of adjudicators.

But because the outcome doesnt agree with your political bias you want to allege a conspiracy. It seems like whether it is vaccines or politics ppl like conspiracies and not the truth.

Wraith King
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1646
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » July 28th, 2021, 4:54 pm

Habit7 wrote:
The_Honourable wrote:
sam1978 wrote:One side chooses one of the panel , the other side chooses one , then both agree on a third. What happens if the two sides are related via some means?

Rowdy friend Av choose one , Petrotrin board led by Rowlee other friend chose one . Then Rowlee two friends chose the third. This is just a hypothetical situation , could that happen in reality?


THIS!!! but eric williams children and grandchildren can't see that.

Best believe they would have seen it if it was for example a unc appointed petrotrin board run by Gerald Ramdeen vs Krishna Lalla and SIS at arbitration.

What you and others are trying to allege is that PNM colluded with PNM to appoint some party hacks as arbitrators. Aside from there being no evidence we have quite the opposite.

They appointed a lawlord and former Privy Council judge, a former CCJ judge and president of the CCJ and a former judge of our highest court the Court of Appeal. You couldn't ask for a more applicable and unbiased team of adjudicators.

But because the outcome doesnt agree with your political bias you want to allege a conspiracy. It seems like whether it is vaccines or politics ppl like conspiracies and not the truth.


Trying to allege?!

Again, it wasn't an arbitration panel but a collusion panel.

Just because the outcome agrees with your political bias you want to allege neutrality by the panel. It seems whether it is vaccines, politics or any topic, Habit7 puts forward lies, manipulation and propaganda.

User avatar
sMASH
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 17790
Joined: January 11th, 2005, 4:30 am

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby sMASH » July 28th, 2021, 4:58 pm

they decided on what was presented to them. if they didnt get all the info of what deokisingh and nazim had signed off on, well, obviously they could conclude ' the company couldnt substantiate there were errors in the amounts supplied'.... its obvious.

the man who does instruct the man who signs the cabinet note to issues billions of dollars to petrotin, is the same man that call the man who had a well that showed 150% increase in production over night. and the man that signed off as recived, of those quantities of oil was selected to be a councillor for the party of the same man...

habbit7.xxx really want we to sit here and belive that all parties acted independently .

boy, gone from here!!!!

alfa
Chronic TriniTuner
Posts: 657
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 4:15 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby alfa » July 28th, 2021, 5:11 pm

AV claimed to have been producing 4000 barrels a day. The very day petrorrin took it back they measured around 1100 per day and a steady decline since. Ask anyone who used to work cats Hill.
Habit rock so with only posting what you've read while never having stepped foot in an oil field

User avatar
zoom rader
TunerGod
Posts: 24864
Joined: April 22nd, 2003, 12:39 pm
Location: Grand Cayman

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby zoom rader » July 28th, 2021, 5:24 pm

alfa wrote:AV claimed to have been producing 4000 barrels a day. The very day petrorrin took it back they measured around 1100 per day and a steady decline since. Ask anyone who used to work cats Hill.
Habit rock so with only posting what you've read while never having stepped foot in an oil field
Habitarse 7 only reads fake with outdated articles and tries to pass that off ad facts

He has never worked in the energy industry so he only goes by what is presented to him .

sam1978
Riding on 16's
Posts: 1145
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 8:30 am

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby sam1978 » July 28th, 2021, 6:39 pm

Habit7 could be a team who has access to lawyers and spin doctors who reply immediately to contradict any negative posts against the PNM.

User avatar
gastly369
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 8785
Joined: May 15th, 2009, 4:40 pm
Location: trinidad

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby gastly369 » July 28th, 2021, 10:24 pm

alfa wrote:AV claimed to have been producing 4000 barrels a day. The very day petrorrin took it back they measured around 1100 per day and a steady decline since. Ask anyone who used to work cats Hill.
Habit rock so with only posting what you've read while never having stepped foot in an oil field
Grounds men know the truth...

Catshill was a nice place

User avatar
Habit7
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 11310
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 10:20 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Habit7 » July 29th, 2021, 9:45 am

alfa wrote:AV claimed to have been producing 4000 barrels a day. The very day petrorrin took it back they measured around 1100 per day and a steady decline since. Ask anyone who used to work cats Hill.
Habit rock so with only posting what you've read while never having stepped foot in an oil field

I really have no time for your anecdote or anyone else's. I based my position on the facts. If you don't like the facts, go cry in your pillow.

The third stage comprises the production from the wells in pad 4, CO 161-CO
166: Claimant’s Closing Submissions, paragraphs 96-106 [26-29]. This cluster
was put into production between 15th and 23rd June, 2017. Wells CO 161, 164
and 165 are recorded as having come in initially on a bean, but on 21st June,
2017 these three wells were noted as having no bean attached. Wells CO 162,
CO 163 and CO 166 then came in on 22nd and 23rd June, 2017 also flowing with
no bean attached. The effect of the introduction of these wells was to increase
the reported production of 3614 bbls from 60 wells on 14th June, 2017 to 7124
bbls from 66 wells as at 23rd June, 2017. The JV Department carried out a test
of these wells on 29th June, 2017 the details of which are given in paragraph 98
of the Claimant’s Closing Submissions. It recorded that they were all flowing
at a high rate with no choke. But, unlike the wells in pad 3, there was a very
swift decline, with the result that by 10th July, 2017 they had all ceased to flow.
This information was given by the Claimant to the Respondent in its
production reports, with the words “stopped flowing” against the entries for
wells CO 161, CO 162 and CO 164 in the report for 3rd July, 2017 for wells CO
165 and CO 166 in the report for 9th July, 2017 and for well CO 162 in the report
for 10th July, 2017 [8038-8045]. The result was a drop back in the reported
production for 10th July, 2017 to 3,400 bbls.

The Claimant says that the explanation for the way these wells behaved lies in
the fact that they were all flowing without a choke, as Mr. Rajab explained in
cross-examination. He said that this was the reason for the sharp decline in
their production and that he regretted that these wells were not on chokes.
Without them the wells were wide open [Transcript, pp 225-6, 245]. The
Respondent disputes this explanation in paragraph 32 of its Reply
Submissions [9]. But its witness Ms. Chow agreed that if there is no choke
there is nothing to control the flow rate on the well as the oil is coming out and
that without chokes you would get an awful lot of oil coming out very quickly
[Transcript, pp 1143-4]. Mr. Alvarez agreed with her [Transcript, p 1593].
These wells achieved reasonable rates after the Audit visit on 11th July, 2017
when they were put to pump on various dates from 25th to 31st July, 2017 as
described in paragraph 106 of the Claimant’s Closing Submissions [29]. It
would be wrong to conclude from what happened then when they were on
pump that the production rates that were reported while these wells were not
choked were fraudulent, as the Audit Team seem to have done: see the
opening remarks in their Memorandum and paragraph 4.4 of their report
[5466, 5481]. But the fact that production continued to be successful, albeit
with fewer wells, in the second half of 2017 tends to lend further support to
the overall credibility of the Claimant’s argument: see the details set out in
paragraph 112 of the Claimant’s closing submissions [30].

alfa
Chronic TriniTuner
Posts: 657
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 4:15 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby alfa » July 29th, 2021, 10:49 am

Habit7 wrote:
alfa wrote:AV claimed to have been producing 4000 barrels a day. The very day petrorrin took it back they measured around 1100 per day and a steady decline since. Ask anyone who used to work cats Hill.
Habit rock so with only posting what you've read while never having stepped foot in an oil field

I really have no time for your anecdote or anyone else's. I based my position on the facts. If you don't like the facts, go cry in your pillow.


Facts you say. I was there you idiot. Anyway get your brasso and continue to shine pnm ballz.


The third stage comprises the production from the wells in pad 4, CO 161-CO
166: Claimant’s Closing Submissions, paragraphs 96-106 [26-29]. This cluster
was put into production between 15th and 23rd June, 2017. Wells CO 161, 164
and 165 are recorded as having come in initially on a bean, but on 21st June,
2017 these three wells were noted as having no bean attached. Wells CO 162,
CO 163 and CO 166 then came in on 22nd and 23rd June, 2017 also flowing with
no bean attached. The effect of the introduction of these wells was to increase
the reported production of 3614 bbls from 60 wells on 14th June, 2017 to 7124
bbls from 66 wells as at 23rd June, 2017. The JV Department carried out a test
of these wells on 29th June, 2017 the details of which are given in paragraph 98
of the Claimant’s Closing Submissions. It recorded that they were all flowing
at a high rate with no choke. But, unlike the wells in pad 3, there was a very
swift decline, with the result that by 10th July, 2017 they had all ceased to flow.
This information was given by the Claimant to the Respondent in its
production reports, with the words “stopped flowing” against the entries for
wells CO 161, CO 162 and CO 164 in the report for 3rd July, 2017 for wells CO
165 and CO 166 in the report for 9th July, 2017 and for well CO 162 in the report
for 10th July, 2017 [8038-8045]. The result was a drop back in the reported
production for 10th July, 2017 to 3,400 bbls.

The Claimant says that the explanation for the way these wells behaved lies in
the fact that they were all flowing without a choke, as Mr. Rajab explained in
cross-examination. He said that this was the reason for the sharp decline in
their production and that he regretted that these wells were not on chokes.
Without them the wells were wide open [Transcript, pp 225-6, 245]. The
Respondent disputes this explanation in paragraph 32 of its Reply
Submissions [9]. But its witness Ms. Chow agreed that if there is no choke
there is nothing to control the flow rate on the well as the oil is coming out and
that without chokes you would get an awful lot of oil coming out very quickly
[Transcript, pp 1143-4]. Mr. Alvarez agreed with her [Transcript, p 1593].
These wells achieved reasonable rates after the Audit visit on 11th July, 2017
when they were put to pump on various dates from 25th to 31st July, 2017 as
described in paragraph 106 of the Claimant’s Closing Submissions [29]. It
would be wrong to conclude from what happened then when they were on
pump that the production rates that were reported while these wells were not
choked were fraudulent, as the Audit Team seem to have done: see the
opening remarks in their Memorandum and paragraph 4.4 of their report
[5466, 5481]. But the fact that production continued to be successful, albeit
with fewer wells, in the second half of 2017 tends to lend further support to
the overall credibility of the Claimant’s argument: see the details set out in
paragraph 112 of the Claimant’s closing submissions [30].

User avatar
Habit7
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 11310
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 10:20 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Habit7 » July 29th, 2021, 11:02 am

"I was there" < documented sworn testimony and reports by those whose names are on record

Wraith King
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1646
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » July 29th, 2021, 11:30 am

Habit7 wrote:
alfa wrote:AV claimed to have been producing 4000 barrels a day. The very day petrorrin took it back they measured around 1100 per day and a steady decline since. Ask anyone who used to work cats Hill.
Habit rock so with only posting what you've read while never having stepped foot in an oil field

I really have no time for your anecdote or anyone else's. I based my position on the facts. If you don't like the facts, go cry in your pillow.

The third stage comprises the production from the wells in pad 4, CO 161-CO
166: Claimant’s Closing Submissions, paragraphs 96-106 [26-29]. This cluster
was put into production between 15th and 23rd June, 2017. Wells CO 161, 164
and 165 are recorded as having come in initially on a bean, but on 21st June,
2017 these three wells were noted as having no bean attached. Wells CO 162,
CO 163 and CO 166 then came in on 22nd and 23rd June, 2017 also flowing with
no bean attached. The effect of the introduction of these wells was to increase
the reported production of 3614 bbls from 60 wells on 14th June, 2017 to 7124
bbls from 66 wells as at 23rd June, 2017. The JV Department carried out a test
of these wells on 29th June, 2017 the details of which are given in paragraph 98
of the Claimant’s Closing Submissions. It recorded that they were all flowing
at a high rate with no choke. But, unlike the wells in pad 3, there was a very
swift decline, with the result that by 10th July, 2017 they had all ceased to flow.
This information was given by the Claimant to the Respondent in its
production reports, with the words “stopped flowing” against the entries for
wells CO 161, CO 162 and CO 164 in the report for 3rd July, 2017 for wells CO
165 and CO 166 in the report for 9th July, 2017 and for well CO 162 in the report
for 10th July, 2017 [8038-8045]. The result was a drop back in the reported
production for 10th July, 2017 to 3,400 bbls.

The Claimant says that the explanation for the way these wells behaved lies in
the fact that they were all flowing without a choke, as Mr. Rajab explained in
cross-examination. He said that this was the reason for the sharp decline in
their production and that he regretted that these wells were not on chokes.
Without them the wells were wide open [Transcript, pp 225-6, 245]. The
Respondent disputes this explanation in paragraph 32 of its Reply
Submissions [9]
. But its witness Ms. Chow agreed that if there is no choke
there is nothing to control the flow rate on the well as the oil is coming out and
that without chokes you would get an awful lot of oil coming out very quickly
[Transcript, pp 1143-4]. Mr. Alvarez agreed with her [Transcript, p 1593].
These wells achieved reasonable rates after the Audit visit on 11th July, 2017
when they were put to pump on various dates from 25th to 31st July, 2017 as
described in paragraph 106 of the Claimant’s Closing Submissions [29]. It
would be wrong to conclude from what happened then when they were on
pump that the production rates that were reported while these wells were not
choked were fraudulent, as the Audit Team seem to have done: see the
opening remarks in their Memorandum and paragraph 4.4 of their report
[5466, 5481]. But the fact that production continued to be successful, albeit
with fewer wells, in the second half of 2017 tends to lend further support to
the overall credibility of the Claimant’s argument: see the details set out in
paragraph 112 of the Claimant’s closing submissions [30].


Habit7 do you ever understand what you posted or is it that your handler doesn't explain what they are giving you to put forward? What you put forward are claims made by A&V, which is disputed by Petrotrin so for you to claim it is facts is just a blatant lie. Do you understand what a submission is?

The six wells that were responsible for the increase conveniently stop producing within a week of the audit. A&V having inside information from persons working Petrotrin, such as Vidya Deokiesingh, would have been warned in advance of the audit and acted to attempt to cover their fraud by stating the six wells responsible for an almost 100% increase of what 60 other wells were producing stopped flowing almost simultaneously. Who knows Keith probably made a phone call to him at this time as well.

The other wells continuing to be "successful " does not lend further support to A&V's credibility as they claimed because they were not accused of supplying zero barrels of oil but fraudulently increasing the number of barrels they were supplying. Again it was a submission made by A&V and submissions are not facts.

As well the information you put forward stated that well CO 162 stopped flowing on the 3rd and 10th July, 2017. Can you indicate if the well stopped flowing on two occasions?

Wraith King
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1646
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » July 29th, 2021, 11:37 am

Habit7 wrote:"I was there" < documented sworn testimony and reports by those whose names are on record


No it isn't. He is privy to actual information that contradicts a tainted (by way of apparent bias) process.

In the event you want to ask about the bias, the selection of the panel was already discussed earlier.

Redman
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 9852
Joined: August 19th, 2004, 2:48 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Redman » July 29th, 2021, 12:00 pm

The Court of Appeal gave a judgement on the situation in 2018.

The basically upheld Petrotrins rights to suspend AV.

However it goes into some detail of the accusations made by Petrotrin- and how AV dealt with it at that time.

http://webopac.ttlawcourts.org/LibraryJ ... an2018.pdf

User avatar
Habit7
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 11310
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 10:20 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Habit7 » July 29th, 2021, 1:03 pm

Wraith King wrote:
Habit7 wrote:
alfa wrote:AV claimed to have been producing 4000 barrels a day. The very day petrorrin took it back they measured around 1100 per day and a steady decline since. Ask anyone who used to work cats Hill.
Habit rock so with only posting what you've read while never having stepped foot in an oil field

I really have no time for your anecdote or anyone else's. I based my position on the facts. If you don't like the facts, go cry in your pillow.

The third stage comprises the production from the wells in pad 4, CO 161-CO
166: Claimant’s Closing Submissions, paragraphs 96-106 [26-29]. This cluster
was put into production between 15th and 23rd June, 2017. Wells CO 161, 164
and 165 are recorded as having come in initially on a bean, but on 21st June,
2017 these three wells were noted as having no bean attached. Wells CO 162,
CO 163 and CO 166 then came in on 22nd and 23rd June, 2017 also flowing with
no bean attached. The effect of the introduction of these wells was to increase
the reported production of 3614 bbls from 60 wells on 14th June, 2017 to 7124
bbls from 66 wells as at 23rd June, 2017. The JV Department carried out a test
of these wells on 29th June, 2017 the details of which are given in paragraph 98
of the Claimant’s Closing Submissions. It recorded that they were all flowing
at a high rate with no choke. But, unlike the wells in pad 3, there was a very
swift decline, with the result that by 10th July, 2017 they had all ceased to flow.
This information was given by the Claimant to the Respondent in its
production reports, with the words “stopped flowing” against the entries for
wells CO 161, CO 162 and CO 164 in the report for 3rd July, 2017 for wells CO
165 and CO 166 in the report for 9th July, 2017 and for well CO 162 in the report
for 10th July, 2017 [8038-8045]. The result was a drop back in the reported
production for 10th July, 2017 to 3,400 bbls.

The Claimant says that the explanation for the way these wells behaved lies in
the fact that they were all flowing without a choke, as Mr. Rajab explained in
cross-examination. He said that this was the reason for the sharp decline in
their production and that he regretted that these wells were not on chokes.
Without them the wells were wide open [Transcript, pp 225-6, 245]. The
Respondent disputes this explanation in paragraph 32 of its Reply
Submissions [9]
. But its witness Ms. Chow agreed that if there is no choke
there is nothing to control the flow rate on the well as the oil is coming out and
that without chokes you would get an awful lot of oil coming out very quickly
[Transcript, pp 1143-4]. Mr. Alvarez agreed with her [Transcript, p 1593].
These wells achieved reasonable rates after the Audit visit on 11th July, 2017
when they were put to pump on various dates from 25th to 31st July, 2017 as
described in paragraph 106 of the Claimant’s Closing Submissions [29]. It
would be wrong to conclude from what happened then when they were on
pump that the production rates that were reported while these wells were not
choked were fraudulent, as the Audit Team seem to have done: see the
opening remarks in their Memorandum and paragraph 4.4 of their report
[5466, 5481]. But the fact that production continued to be successful, albeit
with fewer wells, in the second half of 2017 tends to lend further support to
the overall credibility of the Claimant’s argument: see the details set out in
paragraph 112 of the Claimant’s closing submissions [30].


Habit7 do you ever understand what you posted or is it that your handler doesn't explain what they are giving you to put forward? What you put forward are claims made by A&V, which is disputed by Petrotrin so for you to claim it is facts is just a blatant lie. Do you understand what a submission is?

The six wells that were responsible for the increase conveniently stop producing within a week of the audit. A&V having inside information from persons working Petrotrin, such as Vidya Deokiesingh, would have been warned in advance of the audit and acted to attempt to cover their fraud by stating the six wells responsible for an almost 100% increase of what 60 other wells were producing stopped flowing almost simultaneously. Who knows Keith probably made a phone call to him at this time as well.

The other wells continuing to be "successful " does not lend further support to A&V's credibility as they claimed because they were not accused of supplying zero barrels of oil but fraudulently increasing the number of barrels they were supplying. Again it was a submission made by A&V and submissions are not facts.

As well the information you put forward stated that well CO 162 stopped flowing on the 3rd and 10th July, 2017. Can you indicate if the well stopped flowing on two occasions?

Well again you are talking the same nonsense like you did earlier when you said Kamla's statement in Sept 2017 was informed by the external audits which were dont in Oct and Nov 2017.

These are not just the claims put forward by A&V, these are them being summarised by the arbitrators with their comments of which parts are believable and which aren't. The arbitrators then made a conclusion on the issue which I already posted on the previous page. Image

The wells came into production in an area where there was a blowout in 1955, it was capped and abandoned until then. Petrotrin's own JV Department did bulk tests on 20 & 21st April 2017 and affirmed the production before the Audit. Just like a shaken soft drink, when you open it the CO2 is under pressure and will escape at a high rate, then it will bubble decreasingly until it goes flat. When those wells came into production from March 2017 they would have high production esp if they have no choke on them. Then as the closure is being depleted the pressure would drop leading to them using pumps to maintain production. There is much more information in the arbitration affirming that. They said the Audit on 11th July had many defects. The wells stopped flowing because they were all tapped into the same closure and the natural pressures it was flowing under had decreased. "These high producing wells did not suddenly wax up, sand up or stop producing on the day of that visit as they seem to have assumed." They subsequently produced with pumping, there was not strange about that.

"We are satisfied that the Catshill Field was capable of producing the quantities of oil that the Claimants say they sold to the Respondent."

I really dont care what anybody anonymous person comes on the forum has to say. You were wrong about Kamla's statement, smash is saying documents have gone missing yet the arbitration citing all the relevant documents. Anybody can run their mouth and produce no facts. I am citing what the relevant persons testified to under record, what the evidence says and what 3 eminent judges adjudicated on.

If you have no evidence better than that, then you are wishing upon a star.

Wraith King
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1646
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » July 29th, 2021, 1:31 pm

Habit7 wrote:
Wraith King wrote:
Habit7 wrote:
alfa wrote:AV claimed to have been producing 4000 barrels a day. The very day petrorrin took it back they measured around 1100 per day and a steady decline since. Ask anyone who used to work cats Hill.
Habit rock so with only posting what you've read while never having stepped foot in an oil field

I really have no time for your anecdote or anyone else's. I based my position on the facts. If you don't like the facts, go cry in your pillow.

The third stage comprises the production from the wells in pad 4, CO 161-CO
166: Claimant’s Closing Submissions, paragraphs 96-106 [26-29]. This cluster
was put into production between 15th and 23rd June, 2017. Wells CO 161, 164
and 165 are recorded as having come in initially on a bean, but on 21st June,
2017 these three wells were noted as having no bean attached. Wells CO 162,
CO 163 and CO 166 then came in on 22nd and 23rd June, 2017 also flowing with
no bean attached. The effect of the introduction of these wells was to increase
the reported production of 3614 bbls from 60 wells on 14th June, 2017 to 7124
bbls from 66 wells as at 23rd June, 2017. The JV Department carried out a test
of these wells on 29th June, 2017 the details of which are given in paragraph 98
of the Claimant’s Closing Submissions. It recorded that they were all flowing
at a high rate with no choke. But, unlike the wells in pad 3, there was a very
swift decline, with the result that by 10th July, 2017 they had all ceased to flow.
This information was given by the Claimant to the Respondent in its
production reports, with the words “stopped flowing” against the entries for
wells CO 161, CO 162 and CO 164 in the report for 3rd July, 2017 for wells CO
165 and CO 166 in the report for 9th July, 2017 and for well CO 162 in the report
for 10th July, 2017 [8038-8045]. The result was a drop back in the reported
production for 10th July, 2017 to 3,400 bbls.

The Claimant says that the explanation for the way these wells behaved lies in
the fact that they were all flowing without a choke, as Mr. Rajab explained in
cross-examination. He said that this was the reason for the sharp decline in
their production and that he regretted that these wells were not on chokes.
Without them the wells were wide open [Transcript, pp 225-6, 245]. The
Respondent disputes this explanation in paragraph 32 of its Reply
Submissions [9]
. But its witness Ms. Chow agreed that if there is no choke
there is nothing to control the flow rate on the well as the oil is coming out and
that without chokes you would get an awful lot of oil coming out very quickly
[Transcript, pp 1143-4]. Mr. Alvarez agreed with her [Transcript, p 1593].
These wells achieved reasonable rates after the Audit visit on 11th July, 2017
when they were put to pump on various dates from 25th to 31st July, 2017 as
described in paragraph 106 of the Claimant’s Closing Submissions [29]. It
would be wrong to conclude from what happened then when they were on
pump that the production rates that were reported while these wells were not
choked were fraudulent, as the Audit Team seem to have done: see the
opening remarks in their Memorandum and paragraph 4.4 of their report
[5466, 5481]. But the fact that production continued to be successful, albeit
with fewer wells, in the second half of 2017 tends to lend further support to
the overall credibility of the Claimant’s argument: see the details set out in
paragraph 112 of the Claimant’s closing submissions [30].


Habit7 do you ever understand what you posted or is it that your handler doesn't explain what they are giving you to put forward? What you put forward are claims made by A&V, which is disputed by Petrotrin so for you to claim it is facts is just a blatant lie. Do you understand what a submission is?

The six wells that were responsible for the increase conveniently stop producing within a week of the audit. A&V having inside information from persons working Petrotrin, such as Vidya Deokiesingh, would have been warned in advance of the audit and acted to attempt to cover their fraud by stating the six wells responsible for an almost 100% increase of what 60 other wells were producing stopped flowing almost simultaneously. Who knows Keith probably made a phone call to him at this time as well.

The other wells continuing to be "successful " does not lend further support to A&V's credibility as they claimed because they were not accused of supplying zero barrels of oil but fraudulently increasing the number of barrels they were supplying. Again it was a submission made by A&V and submissions are not facts.


Well again you are talking the same nonsense like you did earlier when you said Kamla's statement in Sept 2017 was informed by the external audits which were dont in Oct and Nov 2017.

These are not just the claims put forward by A&V, these are them being summarised by the arbitrators with their comments of which parts are believable and which aren't. The arbitrators then made a conclusion on the issue which I already posted on the previous page. Image

The wells came into production in an area where there was a blowout in 1955, it was capped and abandoned until then. Petrotrin's own JV Department did bulk tests on 20 & 21st April 2017 and affirmed the production before the Audit. Just like a shaken soft drink, when you open it the CO2 is under pressure and will escape at a high rate, then it will bubble decreasingly until it goes flat. When those wells came into production from March 2017 they would have high production esp if they have no choke on them. Then as the closure is being depleted the pressure would drop leading to them using pumps to maintain production. There is much more information in the arbitration affirming that. They said the Audit on 11th July had many defects. The wells stopped flowing because they were all tapped into the same closure and the natural pressures it was flowing under had decreased. "These high producing wells did not suddenly wax up, sand up or stop producing on the day of that visit as they seem to have assumed." They subsequently produced with pumping, there was not strange about that.

"We are satisfied that the Catshill Field was capable of producing the quantities of oil that the Claimants say they sold to the Respondent."

I really dont care what anybody anonymous person comes on the forum has to say. You were wrong about Kamla's statement, smash is saying documents have gone missing yet the arbitration citing all the relevant documents. Anybody can run their mouth and produce no facts. I am citing what the relevant persons testified to under record, what the evidence says and what 3 eminent judges adjudicated on.

If you have no evidence better than that, then you are wishing upon a star.


Firstly, you haven't answered the question regarding your last post.

Secondly, what you initially put forward were the submissions of A&V which would be contained in the report. You really don't have a grasp on how a report is done.

Finally, the bias in the selection of the panel was already discussed before so I don't understand why you think we would accept their conclusions as neutral and just.

Don't forget to ask your handler for information to answer the question. Here's a reminder-

As well the information you put forward stated that well CO 162 stopped flowing on the 3rd and 10th July, 2017. Can you indicate if the well stopped flowing on two occasions?

Just as you claim to not care about anonymous persons on the forum, others fell the same way about you except others have a reason not to pay attention to you as.you usually lie, try to manipulate and put forward propaganda.
Last edited by Wraith King on July 29th, 2021, 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wraith King
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1646
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » July 29th, 2021, 1:33 pm

Habit7 doesn't seem to understand that the decision of a biased arbitration panel holds no weight with persons who don't blindly follow PNM.

User avatar
Habit7
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 11310
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 10:20 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Habit7 » July 29th, 2021, 2:25 pm

Idk know what question you are referring to.

You don't seem to understand. A&V made submissions, Petrotrin made submissions. What I posted are not A&V submissions but the Arbitrators comments on A&V's submission wrt to Catshill's capability. They then concluded that the Catshill field can produce the stated amount.

As I said before, you could believe that a Privy Council judge, a CCJ judge and a Court of Appeal judge are all balisier waving PNM supporters. But they some of the most independent ppl both parties could have called on to adjudicate the case. But in true UNC form, you want to have a recount, because you don't like the result therefore everybody thief.

Blindly following is claiming that information is missing and that judges are biased without producing any proof. That is blind faith and spreading propaganda.
I am relying on the facts and laying them out. You should try it sometime.

Wraith King
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1646
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » July 29th, 2021, 2:59 pm

Habit7 wrote:Idk know what question you are referring to.

You don't seem to understand. A&V made submissions, Petrotrin made submissions. What I posted are not A&V submissions but the Arbitrators comments on A&V's submission wrt to Catshill's capability. They then concluded that the Catshill field can produce the stated amount.

As I said before, you could believe that a Privy Council judge, a CCJ judge and a Court of Appeal judge are all balisier waving PNM supporters. But they some of the most independent ppl both parties could have called on to adjudicate the case. But in true UNC form, you want to have a recount, because you don't like the result therefore everybody thief.

Blindly following is claiming that information is missing and that judges are biased without producing any proof. That is blind faith and spreading propaganda.
I am relying on the facts and laying them out. You should try it sometime.


I posted it again in my last comment and here it is again -

As well the information you put forward stated that well CO 162 stopped flowing on the 3rd and 10th July, 2017. Can you indicate if the well stopped flowing on two occasions?

Wraith King
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1646
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » July 29th, 2021, 3:18 pm

Habit7 wrote:Idk know what question you are referring to.

You don't seem to understand. A&V made submissions, Petrotrin made submissions. What I posted are not A&V submissions but the Arbitrators comments on A&V's submission wrt to Catshill's capability. They then concluded that the Catshill field can produce the stated amount.

As I said before, you could believe that a Privy Council judge, a CCJ judge and a Court of Appeal judge are all balisier waving PNM supporters. But they some of the most independent ppl both parties could have called on to adjudicate the case. But in true UNC form, you want to have a recount, because you don't like the result therefore everybody thief.

Blindly following is claiming that information is missing and that judges are biased without producing any proof. That is blind faith and spreading propaganda.
I am relying on the facts and laying them out. You should try it sometime.


I posted the question separately so you wouldn't get distracted.

You have no idea what a submission is it seems because you initially posted their submissions. Go ask your handler to explain to you what a submission is and how it differs from a fact.

You just lost in the world of posting things that your handler gave to you that you have no knowledge on, that is blind faith and spreading propaganda.

Again, all you put forward are lies, manipulation and propaganda.

User avatar
Habit7
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 11310
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 10:20 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Habit7 » July 29th, 2021, 4:56 pm

Wraith King wrote:As well the information you put forward stated that well CO 162 stopped flowing on the 3rd and 10th July, 2017. Can you indicate if the well stopped flowing on two occasions?

That is what A&V records say.

Wraith King wrote:You have no idea what a submission is it seems because you initially posted their submissions. Go ask your handler to explain to you what a submission is and how it differs from a fact.

A&V records are part of their submission, hence the arbitration has stopped flowing in quotation marks. This is becoming a foolish point argue. Before the arbitration A&V will make a submission, Petrotrin will make a submission. This is similar to many court cases where before any adjudication before a judge a written statement is given by both sides. In the judge giving his written decision the judge will cite information from either side to comment on it. In like manner, the Arbitrators in giving their written judgement are commenting on A&V's submission and citing from it and referencing where Petrotrin submission disagrees. To help you out I enbolden the parts where the Arbitrators are refering to A&V and Petrotrin in the 3rd person.

These are the Arbitrators' comments on A&V's submission, they are not A&V's submission.

Habit7 wrote:
The third stage comprises the production from the wells in pad 4, CO 161-CO
166: Claimant’s Closing Submissions, paragraphs 96-106 [26-29]. This cluster
was put into production between 15th and 23rd June, 2017. Wells CO 161, 164
and 165 are recorded as having come in initially on a bean, but on 21st June,
2017 these three wells were noted as having no bean attached. Wells CO 162,
CO 163 and CO 166 then came in on 22nd and 23rd June, 2017 also flowing with
no bean attached. The effect of the introduction of these wells was to increase
the reported production of 3614 bbls from 60 wells on 14th June, 2017 to 7124
bbls from 66 wells as at 23rd June, 2017. The JV Department carried out a test
of these wells on 29th June, 2017 the details of which are given in paragraph 98
of the Claimant’s Closing Submissions
. It recorded that they were all flowing
at a high rate with no choke. But, unlike the wells in pad 3, there was a very
swift decline, with the result that by 10th July, 2017 they had all ceased to flow.
This information was given by the Claimant to the Respondent in its
production reports, with the words “stopped flowing”
against the entries for
wells CO 161, CO 162 and CO 164 in the report for 3rd July, 2017 for wells CO
165 and CO 166 in the report for 9th July, 2017 and for well CO 162 in the report
for 10th July, 2017 [8038-8045]. The result was a drop back in the reported
production for 10th July, 2017 to 3,400 bbls.

The Claimant says that the explanation for the way these wells behaved lies in
the fact that they were all flowing without a choke, as Mr. Rajab explained in
cross-examination. He said that this was the reason for the sharp decline in
their production and that he regretted that these wells were not on chokes.
Without them the wells were wide open [Transcript, pp 225-6, 245]. The
Respondent disputes this explanation in paragraph 32 of its Reply
Submissions [9].
But its witness Ms. Chow agreed that if there is no choke
there is nothing to control the flow rate on the well as the oil is coming out and
that without chokes you would get an awful lot of oil coming out very quickly
[Transcript, pp 1143-4]. Mr. Alvarez agreed with her [Transcript, p 1593].
These wells achieved reasonable rates after the Audit visit on 11th July, 2017
when they were put to pump on various dates from 25th to 31st July, 2017 as
described in paragraph 106 of the Claimant’s Closing Submissions [29]. It
would be wrong to conclude from what happened then when they were on
pump that the production rates that were reported while these wells were not
choked were fraudulent, as the Audit Team seem to have done: see the
opening remarks in their Memorandum and paragraph 4.4 of their report
[5466, 5481]. But the fact that production continued to be successful, albeit
with fewer wells, in the second half of 2017 tends to lend further support to
the overall credibility of the Claimant’s argument: see the details set out in
paragraph 112 of the Claimant’s closing submissions
[30].


You are trying to engage me in a competition of wit and are losing badly.

Wraith King
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1646
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » July 29th, 2021, 5:04 pm

Habit7 wrote:
Wraith King wrote:As well the information you put forward stated that well CO 162 stopped flowing on the 3rd and 10th July, 2017. Can you indicate if the well stopped flowing on two occasions?

That is what A&V records say.

Wraith King wrote:You have no idea what a submission is it seems because you initially posted their submissions. Go ask your handler to explain to you what a submission is and how it differs from a fact.

A&V records are part of their submission, hence the arbitration has stopped flowing in quotation marks. This is becoming a foolish point argue. Before the arbitration A&V will make a submission, Petrotrin will make a submission. This is similar to many court cases where before any adjudication before a judge a written statement is given by both sides. In the judge giving his written decision the judge will cite information from either side to comment on it. In like manner, the Arbitrators in giving their written judgement are commenting on A&V's submission and citing from it and referencing where Petrotrin submission disagrees. To help you out I enbolden the parts where the Arbitrators are refering to A&V and Petrotrin in the 3rd person.

These are the Arbitrators' comments on A&V's submission, they are not A&V's submission.

Habit7 wrote:
The third stage comprises the production from the wells in pad 4, CO 161-CO
166: Claimant’s Closing Submissions, paragraphs 96-106 [26-29]. This cluster
was put into production between 15th and 23rd June, 2017. Wells CO 161, 164
and 165 are recorded as having come in initially on a bean, but on 21st June,
2017 these three wells were noted as having no bean attached. Wells CO 162,
CO 163 and CO 166 then came in on 22nd and 23rd June, 2017 also flowing with
no bean attached. The effect of the introduction of these wells was to increase
the reported production of 3614 bbls from 60 wells on 14th June, 2017 to 7124
bbls from 66 wells as at 23rd June, 2017. The JV Department carried out a test
of these wells on 29th June, 2017 the details of which are given in paragraph 98
of the Claimant’s Closing Submissions
. It recorded that they were all flowing
at a high rate with no choke. But, unlike the wells in pad 3, there was a very
swift decline, with the result that by 10th July, 2017 they had all ceased to flow.
This information was given by the Claimant to the Respondent in its
production reports, with the words “stopped flowing”
against the entries for
wells CO 161, CO 162 and CO 164 in the report for 3rd July, 2017 for wells CO
165 and CO 166 in the report for 9th July, 2017 and for well CO 162 in the report
for 10th July, 2017 [8038-8045]. The result was a drop back in the reported
production for 10th July, 2017 to 3,400 bbls.

The Claimant says that the explanation for the way these wells behaved lies in
the fact that they were all flowing without a choke, as Mr. Rajab explained in
cross-examination. He said that this was the reason for the sharp decline in
their production and that he regretted that these wells were not on chokes.
Without them the wells were wide open [Transcript, pp 225-6, 245]. The
Respondent disputes this explanation in paragraph 32 of its Reply
Submissions [9].
But its witness Ms. Chow agreed that if there is no choke
there is nothing to control the flow rate on the well as the oil is coming out and
that without chokes you would get an awful lot of oil coming out very quickly
[Transcript, pp 1143-4]. Mr. Alvarez agreed with her [Transcript, p 1593].
These wells achieved reasonable rates after the Audit visit on 11th July, 2017
when they were put to pump on various dates from 25th to 31st July, 2017 as
described in paragraph 106 of the Claimant’s Closing Submissions [29]. It
would be wrong to conclude from what happened then when they were on
pump that the production rates that were reported while these wells were not
choked were fraudulent, as the Audit Team seem to have done: see the
opening remarks in their Memorandum and paragraph 4.4 of their report
[5466, 5481]. But the fact that production continued to be successful, albeit
with fewer wells, in the second half of 2017 tends to lend further support to
the overall credibility of the Claimant’s argument: see the details set out in
paragraph 112 of the Claimant’s closing submissions
[30].


You are trying to engage me in a competition of wit and are losing badly.


You don't know the difference between a fact and a submission. You put forward submissions from A&V and claiming it is a fact.

Did you ask your handler to answer the question? Here it is again, "As well the information you put forward stated that well CO 162 stopped flowing on the 3rd and 10th July, 2017. Can you indicate if the well stopped flowing on two occasions?"

I will understand if your handler is unable to answer.

Engaging you in a competition of wit will be an insult to my intelligence. You have shown to be generally ignorant on any topic you decide to put forward your lies, manipulation and propaganda.

Advertisement

Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: foreignused, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Mats Hummels and 87 guests