Agreed on the timely information. Would love to know what Total is doing on Block 1 since I believe their one year extension for Phase I has expired.



.

Hey, Krom. It's been a few weeks now. Any word from MOE?

Thanks.



.

Yep, you could speculate that.

That is fair speculation as to why Kosmos did not follow through on Block 4.




.

Yes, Kosmos won the arbitration case but that only gave them the right to enforce their contract with ERHC. They never did that, however, for what reason only they know.



.

I have no idea what Kosmos thinks. I only know that they won the right to enforce their contract with ERHC regarding Block 4. Why they did not is anybody's guess. And, yes, ERHC obviously thinks they have a claim on Block 4. Or at lease they thought so at the time they issued the ICE. As with Kosmos, I have no idea what Total thinks with respect to Block 4.

How do we know that Kosmos did not bid on block 4 at all? I'm not saying they did, but the ANP-STP announcement did not say how many bids were received. Yes, there was some "intelligence" posted here about the resultes of the bidding process but it would have had us believe that no one finalized a bid so, apparently, it cannot be relied upon.

I agree that Shell would not have bid on the Block if they thought ownership rights were in question. But, who do they believe is the rightful owner, ERHC or STP?

Shell and Kosmos are not partners in any STP EEZ blocks. Shell purchased all of Kosmos' interests in all blocks except Block 5.


.

I never said Kosmos had control of Block 4.

What scenario and what issue would be forced? I'm sorry, but I find your posts hard to follow.

I suppose it is possible that an arbitration proceeding could be taking place but, if that were the case, I don't think that Sao Tome would have gone forward with inviting Shell to negotiate a PSC.

Link please to Kosmos and ERHC being partners. You will not find one because they are not. Either ERHC or Sao Tome currently has the rights to Block 4. It would be nice to know which.


.

Kosmos won the arbitration case and no longer needed the Harris County case. We can only speculate as to why they did not exercise their legally won right to purchase Block 4 for $700K.



.

Proof of Kosmos victory in arbitration...


1. AEI article...

According to our sources, ERHC recently lost its London arbitration against Kosmos Energy over block 4 in Sao Tome and [...]

https://www.africaintelligence.com/central-africa/2019/10/22/jon-cappon-takes-charge-of-kosmos--legal-fight-for-block-4,108378344-art


2. Kosmos' attorneys...

Kosmos Energy Sao Tome and Principe v. ERHC Energy, Inc., No. 201771987 (157th District Court, Harris County, Texas), and Kosmos Energy Sao Tome and Principe v. ERHC Energy (BVI), LTD, No. 23177/TO (ICC International Court of Arbitration).
Led international arbitration and a Texas State Court action in a fight over rights to a deep-water offshore drilling block off the coast of Africa.
Obtained temporary injunction in Texas State Court and permanent injunctive relief from the ICC arbitration panel in London to preserve the deep-water offshore asset for the client.
Total victory for Burns Charest client after multi-day arbitration proceeding in London.
In arbitration, presented key third-party witness and damages expert and crossed damages expert.

https://www.burnscharest.com/team/daniel-charest


Kosmos Energy Sao Tome and Principe v. ERHC Energy (BVI) Limited (International Chamber of Commerce (London); Harris County District Court, Texas 157thJudicial District) – Represented Kosmos in a dispute over rights to conduct oil and gas exploration in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of São Tomé and Príncipe. Oversaw dual-track litigation in the ICC and Harris County. Secured preliminary injunctions in both jurisdictions, summary judgment on liability in Harris County, and a complete victory at the ICC, including attorneys’ fees.

https://www.winston.com/en/professionals/slifer-leelle-b#experience


.

RKT, please correct me if I'm wrong but what I think you said in your post was that ERHC traded their 85% interest in Block 4 back to Sao Tome for something (unspecified) and then worked with Sao Tome to exercise their 15% working interest option to get back into Block 4. If that were the case, there would have been no reason for them to issue the international caveat emptor. Additionally, each of those things would have been material events requiring the filing of an 8K.

Sorry, but that scenario just does not add up to me.


.

Man, I wish I could have some of what y’all are smoking.



.

OK. Bring it on.



.

Wow! I wish. But, sadly, this will not happen, IMO.





.

Kosmos did beat ERHC in court (arbitration). Are they still involved somehow? Gumming up the works, if you will?



.

Six…

I think she has been around since Lighthouse Marketing came on the scene, but for sure since the TCCI announcement where she was mentioned.

Not sure of her qualifications but she is Bob’s wife (or at least significant other) and she starred in one of the Dongle videos, “Susan at the coffee shop”, or something like that.


https://www.otcmarkets.com/otcapi/company/dns/news/document/62637/content



.

OK, finally found the article, although I was a little off on my recollection of the amount owed by ERHC. Instead of a couple hundred thousand, it is more like a couple, couple, couple hundred thousand. But still not the millions they would need to pay if they exercised their 15% option on Block 4.

Seems like nothing ever became of the alleged scandal, but I wonder what happened in the arbitration case mentioned in the article. It appears as if both sides are acting like they won; STP by putting Block 4 out for bids and ERHC by issuing the international caveat emptor.


The National Petroleum Agency explains in a proposed information dated April 10, 2018, that in 2016, ERHC deposited in the national oil account the amount of 120 thousand dollars, as a demonstration of goodwill to pay the taxes due to the State Sao Tome, and that the other part of the value, approximately 622 thousand dollars would later be deposited.


https://www.telanon.info/politica/2018/12/18/28397/escandalo-numa-montagem-de-60-mil-dolares-pagos-pela-anp/


.

Krom, on your question, I recall seeing a value assigned to the taxes in an article. I cannot remember if it was a post here or just on the web in general. Wherever it was I’m having trouble finding it now, but will keep looking.


.

I don’t believe that the 15% that ERHC would get would necessarily be STPs 15%. The option may allow them to eat into Shell’s 85%.

In any event, we must remember that the 15% option is not free. It requires ERHC to pay their percentage of all costs on the block; signature bonus, training and social fees, exploration costs, etc. So they are going to sign up to spend, potentially, millions of dollars when all they had to do was pay a couple hundred thousand for the taxes and they would have been clear to proceed with the Total deal and its implied carry? What a strange way to do business.




.

Exactly, and I look forward to that PR or something similar as it will finally tell us ERHC’s status on Block 4. Something we cannot definitively know just because there has not been an 8-K saying that they are no longer in Block 4.




.

Logical? Maybe. Realistic? Probably not given ERHC’s history of not putting out bad news via press release and/or 8K. They typically bury that stuff in a 10-Q or K, letting shareholders know what happened weeks, or even months, later. That is what happened with Chad and we’ve still never been informed by the company about Kenya.

What they have done is put out information like that below. From an ERHC standpoint, that seems the more logical thing to happen if they were now working with another (or possibly two) “renowned integrated oil and gas company” in a similar fashion.


Republic of Kenya Block 11A

ERHC has concluded a farm-out agreement with a renowned integrated oil and gas company.

The farm-out agreement is subject to the consent of the government of the Republic of Kenya.

Under terms of the agreement, ERHC would transfer of a portion of its interest in Kenya Block 11A as well as operatorship.
The proposed farm-out agreement includes a carry and other considerations.
As required under the farm-out agreement, until government consent is granted, details regarding the partner and terms will remain confidential.

Pending government consent to the farm-out agreement, ERHC continues to operate Block 11A.

Work is ready to commence on the airborne Full Tensor Gravity Gradiometry (FTG) survey of Block 11A following the subcontractor’s completion of work on a neighboring block.

“This is an excellent time for the entry of a technically and financially capable operating partner,” said ERHC President and CEO Peter Ntephe. “We have negotiated a mutually beneficial agreement that advances ongoing exploration in Block 11A and enhances shareholder value.”

https://www.dpkpr.com/news/government-consent-for-farmout-agreement-for-kenya-block-11a/

The announcement tells me that Shell was a bidder and that STP declared them the winner. How things stand after that is unknown.

Hope MOE gives you some solid answers.



.

I guess one thing the announcement does tells us for sure is that STP didn’t give a rat’s about ERHC’s ICE.


.

Krom, when you posted previously that your STP source said that one company had dropped out of the Block 4 bidding, I took that to mean that they did not bother to complete the bidding process. However, do you think we can take the below announcement to indicate that Shell was that bidder and that “dropped out “ meant that, although they did submit a bid, they declined the ANP’s invitation to negotiate a PSC for Block 4?

Did your source provide enough context to conclude that is indeed the case?

Thanks.


RELEASE

The National Petroleum Agency of São Tomé and Príncipe (ANP-STP), through ANNOUNCEMENT ANP-N°.1/2023, invited interested oil companies, holding technical and financial capabilities, to express interest in acquiring eighty-five percent ( 85%) of Participating Interests in Block 4 of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of São Tomé and Príncipe.

Interested companies were notified that they should submit their technical and financial proposals by January 20, 2024.

After analyzing the proposals received, ANP-STP informs that it has invited the company KE STP COMPANY B.V. "SHELL" to begin negotiating the terms of the Production Sharing Contract relating to Block 4 of the Exclusive Economic Zone.

São Tomé, on March 11, 2024.


https://www.anp-stp.gov.st/index.php/pt/publicacoes/noticias-pt/item/download/42_73eebdc9dd71523fb91f27683ba57f36




.

Not confused. Sinoangol out, Sonangol still in at 30% (I believe).

That is correct. Sinoangol was kicked out in 2016 for breaching their PSC. While they owned the block, they did have Sonangol farm in for 30% which it appears STP is letting them hang on to, possibly as part of a cooperation agreement between STP and Angola. Since Total is partners with Sonangol on Block 1, it seems like it would make sense to partner up on Block 2, as well.

As far as I am aware, Block 8 has never been awarded to anyone so Total should be able to easily pick that block up from STP if they want it.


.

There is no evidence that any Chinese companies are currently in the EEZ.




.

Thanks, but those posts were about proposed PSC's not final, signed PSC's.

And that discussion was from late 2022. I don't believe the idea of a "stealth" PSC was floated until some months later.

I don't blame STP for not awarding the block to someone they feel is not financially capable. Looks like they do not want another ERHC situation on their hands.


.

I believe I have only expressed doubt about the existence of a stealth PSC and do not recall making any posts connecting the 400-page document to the theory of a stealth PSC. If you can improve my recall by finding such a post, please do so.

To my thinking, if a PSC (stealth or otherwise) existed then STP would not have attempted to strip Total/ERHC of their rights and the bidding process would never have taken place. They would have been happy to have received a signature bonus and other payments (training, etc.) that PSC’s bring and, more importantly, they would have been pleased that progress was being made toward finding commercial oil (possibly), which is what they want more than anything.

Thank you for the update on the bidding process. Did your STP contact specifically say that Bidder 1 pulled out because of the CE?


.

But, was that "done" deal ever completed. Lack of a PSC, one of the conditions for completion, points to no.


.

AR filed


https://www.otcmarkets.com/otcapi/company/financial-report/394408/content



.

Yes, the lack of news on any Block 4 bidding could be a good indicator that the caveat emptor had its intended effect.

Time, as always, will tell.



.

A recently published write up on Jaca-1 results (see page 40/41).

If I'm reading it correctly, it is saying that the oil is being generated closer to Block 4 and moving toward Block 6. Hopefully some is staying in Block 4.

Any oil techies out there who can provide an interpretation for the laymen?

https://geoexpro.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Geo_Expro_v21i01_web.pdf


.

Like you, I can only speculate on the happenings with Block 4, but here’s a guess.

Perhaps Sao Tome believed they were covered, legally, by the 2018 tax collection process that was served on ERHC. Perhaps in that process STP told ERHC that they would give them five years to pay the taxes due on Block 11 or they would lose Block 4. When ERHC had not paid the tax by 2023, STP proceeded with their attempt to take back Block 4 but ERHC said, “not so fast”, and issued the caveat emptor.

And, yes, Oranto does have a PSC for Block 3.

https://www.resourcecontracts.org/contract/ocds-591adf-2060430881/view#/pdf

It is highly doubtful that there is a stealth PSC. If there was then that would mean that ERHC and Total completed their deal which would have brought some funding to ERHC, some of which they could have used to pay the Block 11 tax which would have kept STP from trying to pull the block.

Agreed. Please get us to a PSC on Block 4 before the end of September.

And sorry for the delay in responding. It’s been a busy week.

.

Yep, as far as we know. Just a little public service I’m providing at no extra charge.

Seven…

I see there was another trademark filing. Hardly worth discussing if history is our guide.

But maybe you’ve found something more intriguing?




.

Annual update. In the last year Kosmos removed 10 subsidiaries from their list while adding none. One subsidiary they did not remove, once again, is "Kosmos Energy Sao Tome and Principe Block 4". Why? Why? Why?


https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1509991/000150999124000029/exh211-12312023listofsubsi.htm



.

US 5G dongle competition incoming...

Now that it’s finally here, I only have to wait until around the fourth quarter of the year for it to launch in Europe. The US will get it in Q3, and here comes the best part. TCL told me it’ll be available for under $100. It’ll be up to carriers to commercialize it, but the Chinese vendor is already working with a major, albeit unnamed, US mobile operator.

https://bgr.com/tech/tcl-just-launched-a-5g-dongle-at-mwc-and-ill-buy-one-immediately/


.