Open-question register

Contradictions stay open until the records resolve them

Frequency of repetition is not a resolution method. Every card preserves the source register’s status, prohibited assumptions, required evidence, and resolution test.

This archive is built for public-interest research, source verification, right of reply, and correction.

Current closed contradictions: none.

OPENCON-001

Omimex timing: 1985 versus 1994/1995

Priority: Critical
Status: Open; SEC evidence now identifies several distinct 1994/1995 events, but no registered document supports or defines the asserted 1985 event
Problem: The project brief identifies a priority timing conflict involving Omimex and the years 1985 versus 1994/1995. It does not define whether the dates concern corporate formation, entry into Colombia, agreement signing, effective transfer, regulatory approval, closing, operatorship, or a later retelling of one of those events.
Proposition A to test: A relevant, precisely defined Omimex event occurred in 1985.
Proposition B to test: A relevant, precisely defined Omimex event occurred in 1994 or 1995.
Evidence for A: None registered.
Evidence for B: EV-0018 reports Saba's January 1995 acquisition of a 25% Velasque

OPENCON-002

2006 transaction form: share acquisition versus asset-sale shorthand

Priority: Critical
Status: Open; near-primary participant statements registered, operative documents missing
Problem: Proposition F has been framed as an Omimex sale of Colombian assets. `DOC-0008` instead reports that MECL acquired Omimex de Colombia Ltd. from Omimex Resources, Inc. and expressly refers to a “transfer of shares.” A share acquisition could transfer control of an asset-owning company without a direct conveyance of each underlying asset. The annual-report wording does not establish the complete legal structure or transaction perimeter.
Share-acquisition evidence: EV-0001 and EV-0002.
Asset-sale evidence: None registered.
Date evidence: EV-0002 and EV-0008 associate 20 September 2006 with signing/share transfer/acquisition; EV-0003 and EV-0009 state an effective date of 1 April 2006.
Additional SEC evidence: EV-0036 states that Omimex de Colombia changed its name to Mansarovar Energy Colombia on 1 December 2006 due to the sale of Omimex de Colombia's parent company. It does not identify the buyer, seller, transferred securities, consideration, or closing milestone and therefore does not resolve the transaction form.
Do not assume: that “acquired Omimex de Colombia Ltd.” proves a direct asset conveyance; that signing, share transfer, closing, payment, and legal effectiveness occurred on one date; or that MECL itself was the ultimate beneficial owner on both sides of the joint venture.
Discriminating evidence needed: executed share-purchase agreement and schedules; share-transfer/closing instruments; seller and purchaser corporate approvals; Colombian company-register filings; audited acquisition note; consideration/payment record; any asset assignments executed separately.
Resolution test: identify the legal seller, purchaser, acquired security or asset, percentage, closing condition, and each milestone from operative or official records.

OPENCON-003

2006-08 Nare/Cocorna interests versus later ANH contract entries

Priority: High
Status: Open transition; source-backed August/September 1999 assignment-date conflict unresolved
Problem: `DOC-0008` reports MECL with 50% interests in the Nare and Cocorna association contracts, with Ecopetrol holding the remaining 50%. ANH's 2026 list records later NARE (2023) and TECA COCORNA (2015) instruments with Ecopetrol as 100% contractor and operator. The present corpus does not document termination, reversion, assignment, replacement, or continuity between the earlier association interests and later entries.
Earlier-interest evidence: EV-0006.
Intermediate-chain evidence: EV-0042 reports an ANH/Ecopetrol convention recital stating that Sabacol assigned all its Cocorná-contract interests, rights, and obligations to Omimex de Colombia on 5 August 1999. EV-0035 reports 5 September 1999 for the same described transfer. EV-0037 reports Ecopetrol's receipt of Teca on 8 October 2008, subject to the contemporaneously disclosed termination-date dispute.
Later-status evidence: EV-0012 and EV-0013 report the later ANH contract-list entries; EV-0043 directly verifies ANH and Ecopetrol's 6 March 2015 signature of the Teca Cocorná convention.
Do not assume: that the later rows are the same legal instruments; that the earlier interests continued unchanged; that the later Ecopetrol percentages prove when or how MECL/Mansarovar ceased to hold an interest; that the August or September 1999 date is correct merely because it appears in a newer, official, or visually clearer source; or that the dates necessarily describe the same legal milestone.
Discriminating evidence needed: the executed Sabacol-to-Omimex assignment; Ecopetrol/ANH, Ministry, or association-committee approval; notari

OPENCON-004

1995 Teca/Nare/pipeline acquisition and operatorship dates

Priority: High
Status: Open; SEC filings provide conflicting milestone labels
Problem: Saba's 10QSB says the Teca/Nare and pipeline interests were acquired on 12 September 1995 (EV-0015), while its acquisition-specific 8-K/A says the transaction closed on 14 September 1995 (EV-0016). Ecopetrol later says Texas Petroleum operated the Cocorná/Teca field until 13 September 1995 (EV-0033), while Saba's SB-2/A says Texas Petroleum continued as operator of Teca, Nare, and the pipeline through 4 October 1995 (EV-0039).
Additional assignment evidence: EV-0041 reports an ANH/Ecopetrol convention recital stating that Texas Petroleum assigned all its Cocorná-contract interests, rights, and obligations to Omimex de Colombia and Sabacol on 13 September 1995. This date coincides with Ecopetrol's reported Cocorná/Teca operatorship end date in EV-0033, but the recital does not establish approval, closing, or operator substitution for Teca, Nare, or the pipeline.
Possible distinction: The dates may describe accounting acquisition, contract assignment, document delivery, legal closing, field-specific assignment, governmental approval, or phased operatorship transitions. The present corpus does not establish that they are interchangeable or irreconcilable.
Do not assume: that acquisition and closing occurred on the same date; that operatorship changed for Cocorná, Teca, Nare, and the pipeline simultaneously; or that a filing's “through” date is the legal effective date of an approved operator substitution.
Discriminating evidence needed: the April 20 purchase-and-sale agreement, amendments, closing statement, delivery schedule, Ecopetrol/MinMinas approval instruments, association-contract committee minutes, and operator-change records for each asset.
Resolution test: assign each date to a named milestone and asset, then reconcile it against the operative documents and governmental approvals.

OPENCON-005

Cocorná association-contract termination: 2008 versus 2011

Priority: High
Status: Open in the SEC filing itself
Problem: Ecopetrol's 424B5 states that the Cocorná association contract ended and Teca was received by Ecopetrol on 8 October 2008 (EV-0037), but the same disclosure states that Mansarovar considered the termination date to be 18 June 2011 and that the parties submitted the issue to arbitration.
Evidence for 2008: EV-0037.
Evidence for 2011: EV-0040 records Mansarovar's asserted date; no final award or later resolution is registered.
Do not assume: that field delivery resolved the contractual termination date or that either party's position was adopted by the tribunal.
Discriminating evidence needed: arbitration pleadings and award; Cocorná contract and amendments; field-delivery instrument; interim operating/trust agreement; later Ecopetrol, Mansarovar, and ANH records.
Resolution test: identify the final binding termination date and its legal consequences from the award or another operative resolution.