Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Habit7 wrote:My handler is asking if you are dyslexic or something.
Wraith King wrote:Habit7 wrote:My handler is asking if you are dyslexic or something.
I understand if they can't answer the question.
Habit7 wrote:Wraith King wrote:Habit7 wrote:My handler is asking if you are dyslexic or something.
I understand if they can't answer the question.
yes your superior intellect and large volume of facts you gave to counter the Arbitration's findings has bested us. Take win.
sam1978 wrote:Catshill's ability to produce and the actuality may not necessarily be one and the same .
Wraith King wrote:Habit7 wrote:Wraith King wrote:Habit7 wrote:My handler is asking if you are dyslexic or something.
I understand if they can't answer the question.
yes your superior intellect and large volume of facts you gave to counter the Arbitration's findings has bested us. Take win.
I asked you a question based on the parts of the report you put forward and you can't answer. It shows you have no understanding of what you put forward.
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.
alfa wrote:Dude do you always have to fight down every single point in every single thread? Just collect your golden baliser award and take win
Wraith King wrote:sam1978 wrote:Catshill's ability to produce and the actuality may not necessarily be one and the same .
Habit7 doesn't understand anything about the topic. He doesn't even understand the things he post. He's clueless about his own posts.
Wraith King wrote: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.
alfa wrote:Dude do you always have to fight down every single point in every single thread? Just collect your golden baliser award and take win
Habit7 wrote:alfa wrote:Dude do you always have to fight down every single point in every single thread? Just collect your golden baliser award and take win
I am sorry are my facts countering your lived experience?
We are discussing the A&V Arbitration. If your authority is "I was there" I can equally cite myself as an authority as well. The arbitration report are the judicated facts, and the authority over all of our experiences. I don't care where you were. PNM or UNC have nothing to do with that. Stop calling on it as your safe word.
alfa wrote:Habit7 wrote:alfa wrote:Dude do you always have to fight down every single point in every single thread? Just collect your golden baliser award and take win
I am sorry are my facts countering your lived experience?
We are discussing the A&V Arbitration. If your authority is "I was there" I can equally cite myself as an authority as well. The arbitration report are the judicated facts, and the authority over all of our experiences. I don't care where you were. PNM or UNC have nothing to do with that. Stop calling on it as your safe word.
You have no facts, you're just going on what lawyers say on behalf of their client. As if lawyers would come out and say 'the man I defending did really do the crime.'
Based on your 'facts' from 'official' sources' Saddam had WMDs to ent Continue to believe everything you read
Habit7 wrote:alfa wrote:Habit7 wrote:alfa wrote:Dude do you always have to fight down every single point in every single thread? Just collect your golden baliser award and take win
I am sorry are my facts countering your lived experience?
We are discussing the A&V Arbitration. If your authority is "I was there" I can equally cite myself as an authority as well. The arbitration report are the judicated facts, and the authority over all of our experiences. I don't care where you were. PNM or UNC have nothing to do with that. Stop calling on it as your safe word.
You have no facts, you're just going on what lawyers say on behalf of their client. As if lawyers would come out and say 'the man I defending did really do the crime.'
Based on your 'facts' from 'official' sources' Saddam had WMDs to ent Continue to believe everything you read
For the umpteen time this is not what the lawyers said. This is what the arbitrators said. They based their information on looking at Petrotrin JV Department bulk tests, A&V field report, Tuckers reports witnesses statement, sworn witnesses under cross-examination and all other relevant information. I shouldnt believe what I read in their definitive conclusion...
... I should believe you because I read you say "I was there"
Habit7 wrote:Wraith King wrote:sam1978 wrote:Catshill's ability to produce and the actuality may not necessarily be one and the same .
Habit7 doesn't understand anything about the topic. He doesn't even understand the things he post. He's clueless about his own posts.
You are talking out of two sides of your mouth. If you are agreeing with sam1978 that Catshill can produce the quantity, then that is what A&V claimed and the Arbitrators concluded as true.
It seems your position is based on opposing me, even when it diametrically opposed to what you were saying before.Wraith King wrote: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.
Habit7 wrote:alfa wrote:Habit7 wrote:alfa wrote:Dude do you always have to fight down every single point in every single thread? Just collect your golden baliser award and take win
I am sorry are my facts countering your lived experience?
We are discussing the A&V Arbitration. If your authority is "I was there" I can equally cite myself as an authority as well. The arbitration report are the judicated facts, and the authority over all of our experiences. I don't care where you were. PNM or UNC have nothing to do with that. Stop calling on it as your safe word.
You have no facts, you're just going on what lawyers say on behalf of their client. As if lawyers would come out and say 'the man I defending did really do the crime.'
Based on your 'facts' from 'official' sources' Saddam had WMDs to ent Continue to believe everything you read
For the umpteen time this is not what the lawyers said. This is what the arbitrators said. They based their information on looking at Petrotrin JV Department bulk tests, A&V field report, Tuckers reports witnesses statement, sworn witnesses under cross-examination and all other relevant information. I shouldnt believe what I read in their definitive conclusion...
... I should believe you because I read you say "I was there"
alfa wrote:Habit7 wrote:alfa wrote:Habit7 wrote:alfa wrote:Dude do you always have to fight down every single point in every single thread? Just collect your golden baliser award and take win
I am sorry are my facts countering your lived experience?
We are discussing the A&V Arbitration. If your authority is "I was there" I can equally cite myself as an authority as well. The arbitration report are the judicated facts, and the authority over all of our experiences. I don't care where you were. PNM or UNC have nothing to do with that. Stop calling on it as your safe word.
You have no facts, you're just going on what lawyers say on behalf of their client. As if lawyers would come out and say 'the man I defending did really do the crime.'
Based on your 'facts' from 'official' sources' Saddam had WMDs to ent Continue to believe everything you read
For the umpteen time this is not what the lawyers said. This is what the arbitrators said. They based their information on looking at Petrotrin JV Department bulk tests, A&V field report, Tuckers reports witnesses statement, sworn witnesses under cross-examination and all other relevant information. I shouldnt believe what I read in their definitive conclusion...
... I should believe you because I read you say "I was there"
Nah believe Rowley when he said "We are not closing Petrotrin"
sam1978 wrote:A lot of semantics. Yes , if there were no chokes more oil would flow , in theory . That’s what ms Chow agreed to . Did it happen in reality though? Why did Deborah Peake advise that they should pursue an appeal?
sam1978 wrote:The current billion dollar loss? Wait for it . It was because of what Kamala did , we are now paying for it.
Kamala dismantled the whole national security apparatus , but seven years later , what has the Rowlee done to secure the borders? Kamala real do damages , cannot be undone.
Wraith King wrote:Video not embedding. The property belongs to A&V.
https://www.facebook.com/101470158310818/posts/353213123136519/
Habit7 wrote:Wraith King wrote:Video not embedding. The property belongs to A&V.
https://www.facebook.com/101470158310818/posts/353213123136519/
So the fact based arbitration from a Privy Council law lord, and CCJ President and Court of Appeal judge is biased because Petrotrin and A&V selected them in accordance with their 2009 contract. Thus should be disregarded.
But UNC La Brea makes a dotish claim and they are not biased too?
I don't know who is more dotish, the person making this claim or the person who could believe it. PNM continuing the highway from Oropouche to Dunlop Roundabout. All those parts are currently under various stages of development. For somebody to show a walled up yard and tell you that the highway is passing directly through that then I have beachfront property in Tabaquite to sell you.
The only walled up yard waiting to be demolished is Dumore in Oropouche junction and that was so since PP. The Debe to Mon Desir leg they hardly touch, just finish the bridges.
sam1978 wrote:Habit know where Penal is? I know that Rowlee does lime in Batchiya and Saltmine tr.
Wraith King wrote:sam1978 wrote:Habit know where Penal is? I know that Rowlee does lime in Batchiya and Saltmine tr.
Nazim don't want to have him by his house?
Wraith King wrote:sam1978 wrote:Habit know where Penal is? I know that Rowlee does lime in Batchiya and Saltmine tr.
Nazim don't want to have him by his house?
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 125 guests