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.
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/
.
The 8K says that the arbitrator found that ERHC was the legal owner of 100% of EEZ Block 4 as of October 17, 2017. It says nothing to ownership after that point in time.
.
Arbitration proceedings begin when one party (the Claimant) makes a claim or claims against another party who may then make their own claim or claims. Clearly the Total v. ERHC arbitration involved mulitple claims otherwise the arbitrator would have had no need to point out that the Partial Award did not address all issues and claims. And, we only see the claims you mention in the Partial Award because they were the only claims that the arbitrator did address.
Again, we do not know what all of the claims in the arbitration were because we cannot see Total's complaint or ERHC's response. They may have been minor in comparison but they were "claims", nonetheless. And it was those claims that the 8K refers to as withdrawn, IMO, because the entire purpose of the 8K was to inform about the Total v. ERHC arbitration.
.
The Total v. ERHC arbitration, itself (the subject of the 8K), involved more the one "claim". From the Partial Award...
30. Of the matters finally decided by this Partial Award, two are by consent, and two are decided following my consideration of the Parties’ submissions and exhibits. This Partial Award decides nothing more than those issues and claims.
What all of the claims were we don't know because we do not have access to Total's Complaint.
https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-total-e-p-activites-petrolieres-v-erhc-energy-inc-partial-award-wednesday-15th-august-2018
.
But where do they talk about “and entities”? They do not.
Where does it say that Kosmos was a party to the litigation addressed in the 8K? It does not.
1.An arbitration holding in London, England, under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce, between a foreign multinational and ERHC Energy Inc. (together the “Parties”)...
.
And therein lies the problem. Not only was Kosmos not directly mentioned in the 8K, they were not even alluded to, as was Total. So anything having to do with Kosmos has to be "read into" the 8K.
That is what leads me to say that there is still no definitive proof that the reported result of the Kosmos v. ERHC arbitration case does not still stand.
.
I like discussing topics relevant to ERHC.
Thanks.
.
Great. Would love to see the convincing evidence you have found.
.
Yes, I recall those posts. The problem with the Jus Mundi information is that it only has documents that were also available in the 400 page document. Likely because these were the only documents that ERHC and Kosmos and ERHC and Total agreed to release per the confidentiality agreements related to their arbitration proceedings.
There is nothing on that Jus Mundi website that provides any confirmation of what has happened with Kosmos relative to Block 4.
.
Possibly a deal of some sort was worked out. Just need to see if that is the case.
Thanks.
.
Still waiting for firm evidence that Kosmos’ reported win over ERHC in their London arbitration regarding EEZ Block 4 has been nullified. Maybe it has, but there in no definitive proof of that, IMO.
Disclosure: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a shareholder in Kosmos Energy. Any interest in Kosmos is purely related to ERHC.
.
First off, let me compliment you on your ability to whip out these formatted, colored posts so quickly. Very impressive!
My comments/adjustments to your comments in bold green...
Applying these principles, we deny the Division’s motion for a ruling on the pleadings for two reasons. First, the Division does not cite or apply the controlling standard. A movant must show that “even accepting all of the non-movant’s factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the non-movant’s favor, the movant is entitled to a ruling as a matter of law.”34 The Division does not identify and cite to undisputed allegations of the OIP and assert that they entitle it to the relief it seeks, as it must.35
so what the SEC is saying is that if the SEC Division wants a ruling on the pleadings then the SEC Division (the movant) has to give ERHC (the non movant) the benefit of the doubt and assume ERHC has a valid excuse to be addressed and draw all inferences in Erhc's favor. Only then, having addressed the Gag order can the Division then press for a ruling on the pleadings. The inclusion of "or summary disposition" in your first sentence was unwarranted because the paragraph cited only discusses a motion for a ruling on the pleadings.
ERHC averred in its answer that it had “duly and timeously [sic] filed its periodic reports for over 10 years,” and cited pending litigation subject to a state court “sealing order” as “restraining any disclosure” and “depriving [ERHC] of the resources to meet certain regulatory obligations.” The Division focuses only on ERHC’s concession that its Form 10-Q is delinquent and does not address the substance of its answer.
so here, the SEC is saying that the Division is only focusing on the late filings and giving no opinion about ERHC's excuse regarding the gag order. I agree with this.
Second, the record is insufficient for us to determine the public interest at this time. As explained above, Section 12(j) proceedings are often resolved based on motions for summary disposition. But because the Division filed a motion for a ruling on the pleadings under Rule 250(a), none of the additional materials beyond the pleadings that we would consider under Rule 250(b) are before us now.36
here the SEC is just summarizing what it said ealier in the ruling document about how a motion for a ruling on the pleadings makes it difficult to determine proper sanction...
The Division is also unlikely to be able to establish that it is entitled to relief based on the pleadings in a disputed proceeding pursuant to Section 12(j).28 The OIP in a Section 12(j) proceeding institutes proceedings to determine whether the facts alleged by the Division are true,whether respondents have any defenses, and whether “it is necessary and appropriate for the protection of investors” to impose remedial relief.29 The pleadings alone in a disputed Section 12(j) case are unlikely to present a sufficient basis to make these determinations.
As relevant here, we have articulated a broad nonexclusive set of factors to apply in determining in cases filed pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(j) whether either suspension or revocation of the registration of registered classes of securities of a delinquent filer is the appropriate remedy in the public interest.30 Because the public interest is neither an allegation of fact nor an affirmative defense, neither the OIP nor the answer in a Section 12(j) proceeding address the factors relevant to determining any appropriate sanction.
And we will not convert the Division’s motion into a motion for summary disposition for the reasons explained above. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Division of Enforcement’s motion for a ruling on the pleadings against ERHC Energy, Inc., is denied.
The "reasons explained above" are that the division will not convert the motion into a motion for summary dispostion because it does not have the power to do so...
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a court to convert a motion to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings to a summary judgment motion if the parties submit materials outside the pleadings, our Rules of Practice contain no similar provision.25
There is nothing in the ruling document that precludes the Division from filing a motion for summary disposition now that it's motion for a ruling on the pleadings has been denied, so that is what they have done and the world awaits the SEC's ruling on that motion.
.
Thanks, RKT, your input is noted, however, I will continue to discuss what I feel needs to be discussed on this ERHC Energy discussion board.
Fortunately for you, though, I have no time to continue the discussion today. I will be back tomorrow, though, to try to clear up today’s inaccuracies.
.
The ruling said, because you did not address all of the pleadings (the gag order being just one of them) I, the Judge, deny your motion for a ruling on the pleadings.
I see nowhere in the ruling where it says address the gag order or go to trial.
.
As I understand it, no trial date would be set (not sure these proceedings actually have trials) until all pre-trial motions are exhausted.
The real question is why has the Judge not ruled in the motion for summary disposition. Maybe it just takes time. If I recall correctly, the ruling on the motion for a ruling on the pleadings took over a year.
.