Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
oo, Voyager is headed to Suriname in South America. No need to go to EEZ Block 4 since there is no authorization to drill there.
.
LOL! If only it was that easy.
I'm in. Thanks, Eli.
While they did not use the word "Halo", specifically, the work with Halo was aluded to in the Q1. It was not clear, however, if they were including it as a current, ongoing activity, or if they were still just giving themselves credit for what they did in 2021.
.
Yep, we should know soon if SRMX/Tricascade is still involved with Halo.
.
Just would have preferred that he mention ERHC as an original block awardee along with Equator, rather than Oranto who was not awarded Block 3 until a year later. Oh, and that ERHC is the 100% owner of Block 4 (as far as anyone knows).
.
Yes, that was posted here a couple of times. Thanks.
Here is a recent article by a geologist. Hope he’s better with rocks than he is at journalistic research.
https://expronews.com/exploration/breaking-new-ground-in-sao-tome-principe/
.
I think you may be recalling the Oil News Kenya reporting where they said that Tarach-1 was a dry hole but later ERHC said that there were oil shows. We all know how that turned out in the end but for a while there Oil News Kenya was persona non grata on this board.
I don’t believe Upstream, or anyone, ever said that Tarach-1 was commercial nor do I, personally, ever recall them erroneously reporting with respect to ERHC. Hopefully, this will be the first time they are off the mark in that regard.
.
On the plus-ish side, if Upstream is wrong and oil was found, Shell/Galp might now say something sooner than later to counter bad reporting.
.
Upstream is not interpreting Galps comments so favorably.
https://www.upstreamonline.com/exploration/galp-s-gulf-of-guinea-wildcat-almost-complete-amid-signs-of-failure/2-1-1266770
.
A little more from Galp regarding Block 6 from their conference call. Still won't say if they found oil.
Although the transcript says "indiscernible" when you listen he clearly says "Sao Tome and Principe". Also later in the transcript where it says "some time", the spearker says "Sao Tome". The second link is to the call and you can hear this exchange starting at 35:30.
The next question comes from the line of Raphael Dubois from Société Générale. Please ask your question.
Raphael Dubois
Good afternoon, thank you for taking my questions. The first one is about [indiscernible]. I understand you're still analyzing the results of the drilling. But is there any chance you could already share with us some of what you already know? I guess if you encountered hydrocarbons, you should at least already know that. So, that will be my first question. And then on the dividends to non-controlling interest, I note that it dropped from €110 million to just €1 million in Q2, can you also maybe give us some idea of what it will look like for the next few quarters, is this a drop in Q2, is this something that was planned, is this due to a special skitter of payment to Sinopec or is this because of the Bacalhau spending?
Andy Brown
Okay, can I ask Thore to talk about that?
Thore Ernst Kristiansen
Yes, thank you, Raphael. So, the rig is still on location in some time. So, we are finishing now, very comprehensive data acquisition program that we've had there. And what I can tell you is that yes, we are analyzing the data and I will not conclude anything or communicate anything before we have done a really proper and thorough job there and aligned in the partnership and this is of course, very exciting, it is completely frontier area. So, we need also to be very careful to make sure that we spend enough time, so we really also understand what we have acquired. But I can tell you we have had a big acquisition of data that has been acquired and which we know will use some time to analyze. Thank you.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4525576-galp-energia-sgps-s-glpef-ceo-andy-brown-on-q2-2022-results-earnings-call-transcript
https://www.galp.com/corp/Portals/0/Recursos/Investidores/2Q_RESULTS_2022/Galp%202Q%202022%20Results%20Presentation.mp3
.
Galp still not giving anything away. This is all I could find in their 2Q results released today.
São Tome and Principe: Safely drilled Jaca well and analysing acquired data
https://www.galp.com/corp/Portals/0/Recursos/Investidores/SharedResources/Resultados/EN/2022/Results_2Q22.pdf
.
I believe this may be it.
http://www.kosmosenergy.com/InvestorPresentationLSEMeetingsAugust2017vFINAL.pdf
.
This is the new website included on the last PR. Not much better but working, at least.
https://verusintl.com/
.
Evidence continues to mount for a positive outcome for Block 6. Can't copy and paste and will need to subscribe to read the rest, but what can be read here sounds good.
https://www.africamonitor.net/en/opiniao/am1359stp/
.
If he went.
Before the conference it had shown his likelihood of attending as 60%. Kind of like how Max is giving himself a 60% chance of attending the AIoT show at in Taiwan in October.
https://10times.com/profile/max-c-li-45606936
.
You’re right, it does not. That is my opinion and I should have qualified it as such.
.
As mentioned before, the LCIA has strict confidentiality rules that remain in force even after the proceedings are closed. This confidentiality, thusly, acts as a gag order as relates to the proceedings. However, confidentiality with respect to an arbitration proceeding should not prevent the filing of company financial information, and ERHC did not present that confidentiality as an affirmative defense in their response to the SEC.
Publically traded companies, if required, can make the outcome of an arbitration public, as ERHC did.
26. Is the final outcome of an arbitration made public?
No. LCIA arbitration is a private process, and the LCIA Arbitration Rules have strict confidentiality obligations, which apply to the parties, the arbitrators, and the LCIA itself. Unless all parties agree, any documents relating to the arbitration, the award, and the outcome will not be made public.
Sometimes, the outcome of an arbitration is made public where a party is required to make certain information public (for example, because it is a publicly listed company) or where a winning party needs to go to a court to force the losing party to comply with the award. However, if a party goes to court they can often ask to keep things confidential, and the court will usually cooperate.
https://www.lcia.org/frequently_asked_questions.aspx
.
I take it you are looking for this info...
"The [Edinburgh] well was drilled to a total depth of 16,500 feet (5029 meters)"..."in a water depth of 232 feet (70.7 meters)".
https://www.oedigital.com/news/497944-shell-s-edinburgh-offshore-well-comes-up-dry
By contrast, the Graff-1 well "was drilled to a total depth of 5,376 meters in water depths of approximately 2,000 meters".
https://www.oedigital.com/news/494051-shell-s-partners-confirm-oil-discovery-at-graff-1-well-offshore-namibia
.
I think you took my original post the wrong way. It was only meant to show SSC that, based on information available concerning the Edinburgh well, it did not take months for it to be declared a dry hole but, rather, they apparently declared it with little delay, if any.
That is good news as relates to the present state of Jaca-1, as far as I'm concerned.
.
Well to me, "drilling" means drilling. So when it says "drilling could take up to 136 days", I read that as actual drilling time.
This well was estimated to take so long because it is a deep well located in shallow water, so most of the time was spent drilling through rock and not just dropping much of the drill string through water.
.
It took months for news of the Edinburgh well to come out because it took months to drill. They actually completed it ahead of their estimated drilling time.
Drilling at well 30/14a- 5 began on March 15, according to records held by the North Sea Transition Authority, using the Valaris 122 jack-up rig. A filing with regulator OPRED suggests drilling could take up to 136 days to complete.
https://finansavisen.no/forum/post/4374155/report
.
Not a fair comparison, IMO, since Impact is looking to sell its stake in a block with proven oil. It could be years before ERHC is at that same point.
.
Sorry. Allow me to clarify one more time. What I meant was that RM could look at publicly traded companies similar to ERHC with interests in adjacent blocks that do not already have discoveries. Like Block 4 will be to Block 6 if oil is found in 6.
Thanks, but I mentioned to RM that he/she should look at what happened to publicly traded, junior oil companies with interests in neighboring blocks, as ERHC’s Block 4 is to Block 6. Just as an example of what could happen short term.
There may not be any, I don’t know. I admit, I’ve been lazy on that DD.
.
RM, you could look into Namibia and see if there are any publicly traded “juniors” with interests in blocks adjacent to the recent big finds there and see what happened with their share prices. It wouldn’t necessarily offer a direct comparison, unless their trading is also restricted, but it would be the closest thing to the situation here, IMO.
If you do that, please report back.
Thanks.
.
That’s why I found it a little strange that PN was taking the position that African countries should move away from exploiting fossil fuels and do it sooner than later.
.
PNs panel discussion from last week. He advocates an interesting position.
Still showing the 4/24 location from what I can tell.
Yeah, when compiling their 2022 list, they must have decided that removing eight (20%) of the subsidiaries listed on the 2021 list was enough.
.
Thanks, NDT. I mentioned this the other day...
And recall that Kosmos established a São Toméan subsidiary specifically related to EEZ Block 4 in 2019, the same year it was reported that they had won their London arbitration against ERHC. Just saying.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=169307057
How dare they continue showing it as a subsidiary in 2022 when "finality" was reached in 2021.
.
Possibly.
Yep, no executed PSC for Kosmos because of Total and no executed PSC for Total because of Kosmos. Waiting impatiently to see where ERHC stands when a PSC is finally announced.
.
True, no PSC as of the date of the spreadsheet or as of today.
.
Since this is a spreadsheet showing "Autorizacoes" (Authorizations), there is no data yet for Block 4 because there has been no authorization to proceed with exploration, i.e., no PSC, yet. Something is definitely holding up that step in the process.
Thanks for posting this, NDT. I check in on the GRIP site quite often but had never stumbled across that link.
.
You really want to go there again?
I don’t believe in the gag order theory nor the completion of the ERHC/Total agreement hinges in what is found in Block 6 theory. I believe that Kosmos is still in the picture and that is why the ERHC/Total agreement has not been completed.
That is my opinion. You probably have an opinion, as well, and that’s fine with me.
.
Neither does Total, as far as I’m aware.
Kosmos got in the way. IMO, they still are.
.