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.
Not according to my peeps...
ERHC will see drilling.
spec_29@hotmail.com...
Send me an email if you're not already on my list and I'll let you know when I'm done.
Time to blow this popsicle stand...
I'm looking for a place to start a new message board for ERHC. Do a google search every once in a while on ERHC Energy and it may pop up one day if I find a site I like.
See you cats later.
According to Yahoo Finance...
EEL (EEL.L) traded ~168,000 shares today.
Da link: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=EEL.L
They'll know what they have after 1 hole.**
No, but you can bet they have a very similar...
reporting requirement.
An event that a company considers material...
will be reported on a Form 8-K along with a press release.
If the press release is not accompanied by an 8-K, the company is just keeping the public abreast of its operations and the event is not considered material.
Larry?**
Looks like we'll get to drill two wells...
before we have to turn her over in August/September sometime.
I'd bet we did better than the $610,000 dayrate we lost on past rigs, also. Pathfinder's current dayrate is $395,000.
Shell would be my guess.
Thanks for the info!
Edit 1: Oh, the 12 wells in 12 months will have to include three rigs drilling in the JDZ at least.
Edit 2: Just noticed we do have a chance to get the rig until December which would allow us to drill 4 wells total with the Pathfinder before turning her over.
They will know within a reasonable amount...
and I've heard they will know within 3 feet of reservoir parameters.
And I guarantee you they will know if they hit an elephant. If it approaches 1 billion barrels, they will know.
I think that makes me 5 for 5 on rigs, LOL.**
Here's a few key provisions you failed to highlight...
8.2.3 In the event that any new laws, regulations, rules, contracts,
agreements or the like are issued or promulgated into law, this
Agreement, and all of its terms and conditions, shall be exempted from
any adverse effects upon ERHC.
8.2.4 DRSTP shall not engage in conduct or enter into agreements that
would tend to circumvent the obligations of this Agreement
11.4 DRSTP waives any and all rights it may have to object to any provision
or enforcement of this Agreement under any claim of sovereign immunity.
No Sir, I did not misquote anyone...
You look at the post I was responding to and you will see that exact quote word for word and upper case/lower case spellings exactly.
"...proposed Oil Law that would supercede all prior agreements."...
STP has always had the first three picks and ERHC has always had picks four and five.
STP's and ERHC's agreement is prevented from being modified by future law changes of STP by the agreement itself.
DO NOT let anybody bullchit you on that now or in the future!
I think once the AA leaves port we will not...
be able to track her. If you notice, the only location of ships being reported are the ships in port or very close to port.
Like I said...
Unless they threw that transponder overboard, I'd trust MarineTraffic.com anyday over Rig Zone.
Heading to the house.
Not unless they threw the transponder overboard.**
For 2009 (I ain't the Phantster)...
and my guess would be signed since we are in mid-February.
I think this is my last post for today. Two is my current limit.
Info on the rig has changed a little...
Now hearing end of 1st Qtr or beginning of 2nd Qtr for the rig they are working on. Prior info was end of 1st Qtr only.
APC's should still be in play, also.
That case is extremely irrelevant...
And ERHC's legal counsel has already explained EXACTLY how the SOL laws are applied to EVERY case.
You said, "Best to just leave the SOL issues to the lawyers IMO..." but you are the ONE bringing it up time after time.
It's why most on this board believe you to be an idiot.
What the hell?...
We actually agree on something, LOL.
If Addax gets bought out...
Their suitor is bound by the contracts in effect at the time of purchase.
Edit: It will have no effect on ERHC at all.
That depends on the location...
If that was a land well, it would be put into production depending on the size of the reservoir. I've seen plenty with 6 foot pay zones produced.
Nightdaytrader, yes I do believe they would have left knowing they hit a gusher. Don't know exactly why they took their ball and went home. They're probably not used to small companies hitting back, LOL.
Oh, I just found out I've been a bad boy and now I'm on a 2 post limit, LOL. Let's go play on Ivillage.
Massive column = massive oil...
I believe Chevron knows they hit an elephant.
His main problem will be getting SEO...
completely out of ERHC. And he ain't going cheap at all if they want him completely out of ERHC.
They will have to pay a big premium for that!
We will see drilling.**
Who's holding 51% of the shares of ERHC?**
No, I don't...
but evidently that man that does is thinking similar to me because if Gandur chitted in one hand and wanted in the other, guess which one would fill up first.
LOL, I gave you a link that says 5 wells were...
drilled before the end of 2002. Your link was to an article written in 2005.
If you can't understand simple math, let me explain it to you. 2002 came 3 years "before" 2005 meaning your article is worthless.
But you can keep your head up your arse if you want to.
I'd tell Gandur to "GFY" if he don't like the 4:1 ratio...
It ain't what he wants to spend, it what I want for my shares. I'm quite content on watching the drill bit turn.
After that bit turns, he'll pay alot more!
Where's my link?**
Wish I could read this article...
GHANA
Secret Talks on Jubilee
With estimates of Jubilee’s reserves rising by leaps and bounds the fact that two blocks are present on the field complicates the process of developing the acreage. (...) [204 words] [€4]
http://www.africaintelligence.com/aem/default.asp
As I've said previously,...
it has already been addressed in a conference call. Unless and until the the DOJ issues a notice saying the investigation is now closed, which they never or very, very rarely do, the SOL just moves forward one day.
At midnight tomorrow night, the SOL will move forward one day to February 11, 2004.
A company can never issue such a PR as you reference because of those circumstances or without the DOJ issuing a statement indicating the investigation is now closed.
Congratulations, you are the next fish in the barrel...
Yes, an extension request can be filed but only after a formal hearing in court and in front of a Judge.
Among other things required, the extension request must accompany a realistic expectation that the foreign country(s) will comply or honor a request of information by the U.S. authorities. We know this cannot and will not happen as both Nigerian and Sao Tomaen authorities have denounced the report as well as sacking the AG reponsible for releasing the report.
This has already been addressed by ERHC's attorney in a prior conference call.
Would you like to be baked, grilled or fried? Although I already think you're toast.
It's a dead issue if the instance did not occur on or after February 10, 2004. Get over it!
LOL, I'll bet you the the 1994 bribes were...
definitely outside the SOL?
You can point to the 1994 reference all you want but like I said, you ain't very good at deception.
I bet they still cleared $2.25 billion in profits...
after paying the $740 million in fines and bribes together.
This is not clear at all...
"It is CLEAR the US Government can and will formally charge a company many many years after the bribes were committed..."
You need reading comprehension 101 or a better course on deception because you ain't good at it.
And again, the bribes occured as late as 2004.
Shooting fish in a barrel is too easy.**
Your synopsis is incredibly wrong...
The article clearly states the bribes were paid as late as 2004 which is still within the 5 year SOL currently.
"The alleged bribes were paid between 1994 and 2004..."
I have also failed to see this quote you reference, "decade long investigation".
What I did notice was that it was a "decade-long scheme".
I also noticed that "a former KBR chief executive, pleaded guilty last September", 2008 by the way and since the last bribe occured in 2004 it happened well within the 5 year SOL.