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.
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.
.
Yep, agree with the spitballing. That’s what we’ve all been doing for the last five years.
Enjoy your 4th! That goes for everyone.
.
If the agreement did not reach completion by the longstop date then either party had the right to terminate the agreement or the parties could agree to extend the longstop date. So there is a path to renegotiation, by choosing the former, but that would mean the agreement we are aware of no longer exists and that is the agreement that has been said to be the done deal.
.
A valuation formula based on what? The agreement was signed in 2017 with a goal to reach Completion “as soon as reasonably practicable” or within two years at the longest. To my recollection, there was no drilling planned in the EEZ at that point so I highly doubt the agreement had any contingencies based on what might be found if someone happened to drill a well somewhere in the EEZ before that time was up.
.
.
That’s a valid point. I have not found anything that says how many days it took to drill Venus 1, only that they experienced delays due to pressure kicks and weather.
Nope, it says they “owned” 100% of Block 4 on the date they entered into the agreement with Total. It also said…”The Partial Award also upheld the foreign multinational’s rights and interests by virtue of the Agreement and Deed [were] valid and enforceable.”
So, as I said, if that agreement is still in force, the value of the majority of the block (95% is what I recall being reported) has already been set.
.
Scenario 4: they are still drilling the initial well to target depth. Venus 1 was spud on December 1, 2021 and reports of Total hitting a reservoir did not surface until February 16, 2022. That is 78 days. Jaca-1 is still in that window so, who knows?
.
Impact has interest in the same block where Total proved oil with Venus 1. ERHC would not be able to command that kind of valuation in an undrilled block even with a large find in Block 6, IMO. Besides, if the “done” but not completed agreement with Total still stands, then the value of at least the majority of ERHC’s interest has already been set.
.
The establishment of the São Tomé sub in December of 2018 seems more closely tied to their negotiations regarding Block 1, which were taking place at that time, than to the “done” but not completed agreement with ERHC that was signed in October of 2017.
Block 1 of the São Tomé EEZ, tendered in August 2018 by the previous Trovoada government, had from the beginning firm interest of Total. Direct negotiation with the government culminated in March, with the signing of a production sharing agreement for the block, giving a majority of the company (55%) to Total, with Sonangol (30%) and the state of São Tomé and Príncipe (15%) as partners.
https://www.clbrief.com/companies-turn-to-the-waters-of-sao-tome-and-principe/
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.
.
Thank you for this post. I needed a good laugh tonight.
.
Makes me think he was just one of the unnamed convertible note buyers who has likely taken his profits and moved on. Otherwise why include this statement?
“Such owned Shares may include other instruments exercisable for or convertible into Shares.”
.
Hard to know for sure but here is info from a similar site that I’ve been tracking. It shows Maersk Voyager at the drill site as of 6/24, the same location it showed as of 5/17.
https://diffusion.shom.fr/navarea-en-vigueur
.
Hmmmm…? "We need this oil ...”.
So, is he still speaking optimistically, or is a bag somewhere missing its cat.
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/cop27-conference-must-advance-african-energy-development-officials-2022-06-23/
.
Judging by the minimal price advance on heavy volume, I’d say the reason for the PR was to sell shares. That has become Max’s M.O. until he shows otherwise.
.
The SBC-700 would not have been "available for T-Mobile's LTE network", previously, if had not been certified by T-Mobile.
.
There is a quote attributed to Riordan at the end of the pr.
No, both say that it is T-Mobile certified because it uses the Telit module. Today's "PR" just makes certification a little more prominent.
.
.
Rehasing the SBC-700 news. How about telling us they've actually sold one of these instead of just telling us it's available, again.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/otcapi/company/dns/news/document/59948/content
.
Anyone interested in hearing PN (and others) speak on June 28 can now do so for free...
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/energy-poverty-africas-energy-transition-and-the-global-energy-economy-tickets-360556583447?aff=erelexpmlt
.
Looks like the next pump is here...
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2022/06/21/2466101/0/en/Verus-Signs-Distribution-Agreement-in-Florida.html
.
If I knew when drilling would end I would sign up for the seven day trial around that time but, it could end tomorrow or eight days from now.
Just kidding. With the MarineTraffic phone app you can get 24 hour special access for any ship for $0.99. So I splurged.
Doesn’t say if they found oil, though, so not that special.
.
Thanks, Krom. At great personal expense I have acquired the latest lat/lon for Maersk Voyager…
Latitude 0.58938
Longitude 7.912
which I believe puts it at the same spot that you last reported when you said it had stopped.
.
He he…gag order.
Good one.
.
I’d be very surprised if they could do that without any industry watchdogs (I.e. Upstream) finding out.
.
Don’t believe anyone ever said it was in an ERHC block, but it is taking place in a block in the STP EEZ so is of interest to ERHC shareholders.
.
That's longer than the 50 days Graff-1 reportedly took to drill. They must be going deeper, like Venus-1X, or have had some issues (like Venus 1X) or maybe both.
And although the position info on Maersk Voyager has not been updated since April 24th, your point is well taken. If Voyager had moved off location to port somewhere we would have known.
Thanks, ND9.
.
Nicely stated.
Pete speaking again at the end of the month, and anyone can listen in for a mere $100. Needs to update his bio a little.
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/energy-poverty-africas-energy-transition-and-the-global-energy-economy-tickets-360556583447?aff=erelexpmlt
.
Thanks for the discussion, I learned a lot about arbitration that I did not know before.
Good luck to you, and all longs here, as well.
.
A Final Award does not change a Partial Award. From the ICC Arbitration Rules (emphasis mine)..
Article 2: Definitions
In the Rules:
.
.
.
(v) “award” includes, inter alia, an interim, partial, final, or additional award.
and
Article 35: Notification, Deposit and Enforceability of the Award
1)
Once an award has been made, the Secretariat shall notify to the parties the text signed by the arbitral tribunal, provided always that the costs of the arbitration have been fully paid to ICC by the parties or by one of them.
.
.
.
6)
Every award shall be binding on the parties. By submitting the dispute to arbitration under the Rules, the parties undertake to carry out any award without delay and shall be deemed to have waived their right to any form of recourse insofar as such waiver can validly be made.
In other words, Partial Awards are final with respect to the portion of the arbitration they decide. A Final Award decides any claims not decided by Partial Award (any claims not withdrawn), fixes the costs and, yes, ends the matter (the arbitration) with finality.
https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/rules-of-arbitration/
.