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.
Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last Read Replies (3) | Next 10 | Previous | Next
mz157 Member Profile mz157 Share Tuesday, March 22, 2011 8:41:48 AM
Re: Krombacher post# 237839 Post # of 238693
krom and seek and others - here is your answer. sometimes it's better to just go to the source than to speculate and chase shadows. (note DK was dealing with a family emergency so he wasn't at his office):
If memory serves (can't look it up in current situation) public companies only report shareholders of 10 percent and greater in their filings. We used to report down to 5 percent, but if I remember correctly, it was pointed out (by a shareholder BTW) that 10 percent is the correct cutoff. So if you say a shareholder is not listed, it is because they don't hold at least 10 percent of the Company's shares. But what I was referring to with the reference to SEC filings by the SHAREHOLDER who holds 5% or greater if they trade shares. If you don't see those filings, they haven't traded their shares, presuming they file as required. That's not an ERHC responsibility - it is a shareholder responsibility.
Daniel Keeney, APR
DPK Public Relations
my note: Bloomberg, which is 99.9% accurate, still shows FAB with their 60mm shares and the directors are listed in the SEC filings since they are officers/insiders of the company.
haha I will end this since it's impossible to debate with someone who distorts facts and distorts statements he made recently. Good luck to you.
simple question: has the SP not been in an almost constant downtrend since the secondary?
ps. where's your spring rally?
you have your facts wrong in terms of chronology of the SP during the PP (just like you thought that PN had something to do with bringing in our partners and negotiating our rights + carries). You should learn the history of the company before you try to make your argument.
this is definitely a good one!
we aren't halted!
agreed - nobody on this board affects the SP positively or negatively and there is no imminent buyout as OC implied. He is also implying that people know of a deal. If that was the case and there was a deal, we would NOT be at 14 cents a share. the logic is laughable.
edit: 12 cents... UGH. pathetic. nothing to see here. move along
TT - you can file multiple complaints and I'm glad someone's keeping these guys honest. How about less fluff pieces in magazines and more direct communication with shareholders??? there is a reason the SP is now 15 cents.
I like the sound of that outlook. Thanks stun.
You have been saying this since the low to mid 20s. By my calculations (I know you have "different" ways of calculating losses and risk) this hasn't worked out for you yet.
I do hope I'm very very wrong and good things happen soon. After all, as I have said before I am here until 0 or 10 bucks a share.
Ps as dr j just said, one of buffett's biggest factors for buying a company is management. He said it just the other day when discussing his latest acquisition.
board reality check - we are at 16 cents a share and there is little chance of the spring rally that so many like to talk about. In the past, there was excitement surrounding this stock (even if you remove the shameless pump and dumpers) but this is now a broken stock. Management has been telling us for 3 years in PR's about what they ARE GOING TO DO and nothing has ever happened or come to fruition. The only thing that has come to fruition was a very poorly-timed shelf registration which will now hinder any potential new buyers. They also can't tell us anything about the JDZ or EEZ.
There is absolutely no reason to buy this stock right now since any new forward-looking PR no longer has credibility. Tangible GOOD results (which I doubt SNP will release anytime soon) are now the only thing that will move this stock and no there will not be a buyout until at least, if at all, 2012-13.
There is no longer any hype or excitement around this stock...it is officially broken.
krom and seek and others - here is your answer. sometimes it's better to just go to the source than to speculate and chase shadows. (note DK was dealing with a family emergency so he wasn't at his office):
If memory serves (can't look it up in current situation) public companies only report shareholders of 10 percent and greater in their filings. We used to report down to 5 percent, but if I remember correctly, it was pointed out (by a shareholder BTW) that 10 percent is the correct cutoff. So if you say a shareholder is not listed, it is because they don't hold at least 10 percent of the Company's shares. But what I was referring to with the reference to SEC filings by the SHAREHOLDER who holds 5% or greater if they trade shares. If you don't see those filings, they haven't traded their shares, presuming they file as required. That's not an ERHC responsibility - it is a shareholder responsibility.
Daniel Keeney, APR
DPK Public Relations
my note: Bloomberg, which is 99.9% accurate, still shows FAB with their 60mm shares and the directors are listed in the SEC filings since they are officers/insiders of the company.
I just checked Bloomberg and First Atlantic Bank is listed as the 2nd largest holder with 8.21% ownership or 60,641,821 via Proxy. Looks like this was all much ado about nothing (confirmed by DK below)...unless of course some of you are accusing the company/FAB of doing something illegal with the shares by not reporting shadow movements/transfers.
mz157:
Out of the office, but I'll refer you to the Company's filings with the SEC. We report on major shareholders in those filings as required. The shareholders of greater than 5% of a company's shares are required to file the necessary forms if they buy or sell. I am not aware of any trading by major shareholders of ERHC.
Daniel Keeney, APR
DPK Public Relations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mz157
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:35:32 -0400
To: <dkeeney@dpkpr.com>
Subject: RE: ERHC
Hi Dan - there was some discussion this weekend regarding First Atltantic Bank's holdings. According to Bloomberg, FAB is the owner of 8.21% of the shares (~60mm) as of 3/10/10. Can you confirm there have been no changes since?
Thanks,
mz157
didn't PN just say in that canned interview that ERHC wasn't involved in OML 40???
anyone with a passive stake would have to file a 13G by year-end of the year they acquired if over 5%. if an active investor, a 13D would need to be filed within 10 days. DK may be the best source for the answer.
The JDA has proved spineless in every other instance and SNP has walked all over them to this point. I will be extremely disappointed but not surprised at all if the JDA allows the one-year extension.
I hope they realized that SNP doesn't hold ALL the cards.
Krom - no one ever stated how much total paid. I would be shocked beyond belief if they paid anything close to 500mm. where did you get that figure?
Even if it's 5 bucks, we are not getting close to that after phase 1 (we'd be lucky for the male deer). Also, you don't just move 103mm shares(you said 110mm on friday) around like its nothing to other subs. Starcrest will NEVER get erhc shares as it makes no sense no matter what reason you have conjured it up for it to happen. You can bank on that.
Do you think we will be bought out this year?
ps Peter speaks....and the result? more questions than answers!
not really sure what you are getting at here? The buyout would be done via the public market so your private vs public doesn't make sense. Also, SEO, through proxy has stated that 10 bucks was his price. Now it could vary from there but I am guessing it's not much lower. No one is paying 5-7 billion for gas assets in deepwater right now. What is your proof on what you think offor wants???
Finally, I am still waiting on the starcrest filing where you claim starcrest owns 110mm shares? Where does 110mm come from? Did you know that subsidiaries are not owners of their parent company's other, unrelated assets?
ps care to put your money where your mouth is? Another gentlemen's bet that we aren't bought out in 2011?
exactly - which is why no one will buy us out in the near future at the price that offor wants since we don't have anything other than estimate reserves and phase 1 didn't produce enough to get to that number. that can all change after phase 2 drilling results....which could be a few years aways if the pace is the same as phase 1.
I don't see a buyout, if any for at least a year. as you said earlier, you need some sort of value to assign to the assets and it's pretty much impossible to do that right now. no one is going to pay the price that SEO wants based on hope and potential. phase 2 can hopefully change that but you still never know what drilling will bring. i say no buyout until at least 2012. you can TOTALLY bank on that.
Hi Seek - for DD purposes, can you please post the SEC filing where it shows Starcrest owning 110mm shares of ERHC? I have checked my bloomberg terminal and EDGAR and can't seem to find anything on it. Also, are there any articles pointing to SEO planning to take starcrest public is this just your opinion? TIA
I'm sure a PR would be released prior to the event by ERHC if phase 2 is a go.
#237139 oops
#237133
i think Krom's post all but confirms it
GREAT stuff krom...thank you for incredibly relevant DD!
Logic tells me this was the exact type of deal erhc has been talking about doing - seo's back yard, marginal property (how many times have we seen that phrase in a pr?) and teaming up with one of our BOD's to boot! Logic also tells me that erhc may have been interested based on reports coming out of Nigeria. Logic tells me that a consortium is just that... A consortium which means multiple parties so there is no reason seo wouldn't have an lcv lined up alongside erhc and eland (oh wait doesn't chrome qualify for just that?). Logic also tells me that financing could have easily fallen through. Yes logic is a powerful tool when you use it correctly and objectively.
Sorry nick but you won't need 12 years with that one... Bob will be long gone and more wealthy and the company folded by then ala smart talk.
your missing my point. my point was that erhc looks to have been part of the original consortium based on the tidbits coming out but then they may have had to pull out at the last second when they couldnt get the financing so Chrome stepped in...
PN's excuse was to the effect that they weren't ready and it was too soon according to the recent interview. Really?? I find that hard to believe. We have been trying to do an EXACT deal like this for years (at least according to their numerous forward-looking PR's). How could it be too soon and WHY even mention Shell in the first place??
edit: but if you are saying you thought that ERHC wouldnt get the cash in the first place and hence not bid, then yes you were right.
with all the articles stating that ERHC was in the bidding for OML 40, does anyone else find it strange that just like that...we supposedly never were? I wonder if PN tried to raise money but realized (smartly this time) that it would be way too costly...I am guessing at 10 cents a share or less. Or maybe no one was even willing this time? just find it odd when most sources were saying it was "Offor's ERHC" and not "Offor's Chrome".
start from bottom - DK answers. I do give him credit for quick responses.
No. That is a legit Nigerian media outlet.
We approached Hart’s.
The company will continue to issue updates as events warrant.
Sincerely,
Daniel Keeney, APR
DPK Public Relations
DFW: 214.432.7556
Houston: 832.467.2904
E-mail: dan@dpkpr.com
Web: http://www.dpkpr.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/dpkpr
Blog: http://www.danielkeeney.com
From: mz157
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 8:23 AM
To: dkeeney@dpkpr.com
Subject: RE: ERHC
Thanks - Was the Q&A part of the "package" for ERHC's participation at the conference, ie were you told that part of the sponsorship would be a feature Q&A? Also, out of curiosity, did we approach Hart's or did they approach us to run the story? Final question (sorry for the multiples): should we no longer expect the usual company updates we used to get (more than quarterly) based on the latest FAQ?
Thanks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dkeeney@dpkpr.com
To: mz157
Subject: RE: ERHC
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 21:34:41 -0600
The story in E&P magazine was the result of years of relationship building. The Q&A that was in News Direct was the result of a sit down Peter had while participating in the Nigeria Oil & Gas Conference a few weeks ago. These both are media hits resulting from long-term efforts to position the company. I’m not sure if these are what you are referring to, but if so, no fees were paid – they are what we term, “earned media.”
Sincerely,
Daniel Keeney, APR
DPK Public Relations
DFW: 214.432.7556
Houston: 832.467.2904
E-mail: dan@dpkpr.com
Web: http://www.dpkpr.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/dpkpr
Blog: http://www.danielkeeney.com
From: mz157
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 7:19 PM
To: dkeeney@dpkpr.com
Subject: RE: ERHC
Hi Dan - I noticed ERHC has recently been featured in some articles. Do we pay a fee or any type of money to get these features? I am curious how these come about?
Thanks,
mz157
The extension of Phase I expires on March 14, 2011. That is the date the operators must submit their plan for how to proceed. Given what we know and how decisions in the JDZ have been made in the past, we expect there will be negotiations. There is no hard date on when Phase II plans would be finalized or announced. Phase I has expired twice previously and in both cases it took the JDA a few weeks to indicate that an extension had been granted.
Sincerely,
Daniel Keeney, APR
DPK Public Relations
DFW: 214.432.7556
Houston: 832.467.2904
E-mail: dan@dpkpr.com
Web: http://www.dpkpr.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/dpkpr
Blog: http://www.danielkeeney.com
haha totally agree kownski...that's what angers many of us. the worst part is that they have done nothing of what he says regarding the business model...yet he talks as if it's something they have already done a hundred times over.
a few comments:
1) the part where he talks about the "business model"... he talks as if they have actually executed it and done it many times over. except for the fact that this business model has NEVER been executed.
2) it's clear that there are no grand conspiracies like doubleAA, bb, seek and amj like to put out there regarding phase 1. gas was found but that's it. it is encouraging that it seems like phase 2 will be a go
3) my concern is that they are trying to downplay the jdz and talk up these new marginal fields. i wish they would just stick to the jdz/eez.
4) PN doing these interviews always makes me angry. he's simply not competent and comes off as if he's patting himself for a job well done (a job he has never done)
fyi
Hi, mz157:
It has only been a few weeks since the company released its Form 10-Q. It is posted at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/799235/000114036111007128/form10q.htm. The 10-Q serves as a comprehensive report for the investment community on the Company’s performance and includes everything that the Company views as releasable at this time. As is always the case, when there is news to report about Company activities, ERHC management will announce it in a timely manner. I encourage shareholders to review the FAQ on the website where we try to capture and address the various questions that come in to the extent that we are authorized to do so. If you subscribe to the RSS feed on the Company website as some on iHub have done, you can be alerted when changes to the website are made.
Sincerely,
Daniel Keeney, APR
DPK Public Relations
DFW: 214.432.7556
Houston: 832.467.2904
E-mail: dan@dpkpr.com
Web: http://www.dpkpr.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/dpkpr
Blog: http://www.danielkeeney.com
dude, it's a joke.
though I agree, that is about the most unscientific poll I have ever seen.
If phase 1 was good, we would not be at 19 cents a share. It's obvious it wasn't successful from a proven oil standpoint (could be really good from an info/knowledge standpoint) from partners bailing to actual legal filings from public companies like Dana. I still think phase 2 will be much more rewarding.
please stop posting 2-3 year old articles. they are meaningless now with such a dynamic situation.