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.
ERHE update, RB post
By: Mongo1071
05 Apr 2005, 04:54 PM EDT
Msg. 19463 of 19731
(This msg. is a reply to 19444 by walldog0.)
Jump to msg. #
At last! A challenger....
1. ERHE will be carried by its JV partners,with no cash outlay to first oil.This is a fairly standard practice in the oil patch.
Okey dokey....what is the 'farily' standard practice when it comes to cash calls, letters of credit. can you post a link? Or how about a filing by any of the companys involved that describe the relationship above. If this is such a great deal for the shareholders why not release it?
It is NOT standard practice ANYWHERE to refinance a note with discounted shares, then pay off that note a short time later with all decisions made by a handpicked BOD without an independent director.
Mongrel blocks the shot and steals the ball.
2. About 5 years,imo...but proven estimated reserves can be determined much sooner than that,and ERHE's share price will rocket with that news.
Mongrel dribbles down the court....
5 years huh? Burn rate of 303,000 shares a day x 365 days times 5 years = about 553 million shares....but lets be generous and assume a three fold increase in share value...wow...thats still 184 million more shares, and let's not talk about the 'employee stock option incentive plan' and farm out percentages and drilling costs and dry wells and interest costs and payback periods...Let's do some simple addition....706+184= 890 million shares.
Mongrel fakes out wallie who is vainly defending the basket....
3.Zero cash outlay for production cost for ERHE, but ERHE will have to assign a percentage of their vast holding to their JV partners....15-20% of their entire holding should cover their expenses.
My goodness gracious. My pappy told me there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Assign a percentage? How much? Now it's Vast holdings when there has not been one single well drilled? Are these the same vast holdings that ERHE did not submit a single high bid for?
So according to you ERHE will make billions with no cash outlay, and that the revenue will begin to flow in 5 years?
And that the partners will pay all of the upfront costs AND Erhe will still skim off their percentage....
Bzzzzzzz.......Mongrel scores again....
ERHE: Other than TOTAL speculation -
Where is even 1 link to reliable information that indicates there is any possibility whatsoever of a 'carry' - as so many of this board are claiming as a 'done deal' ?
Interesting attitude. SEC Report Diving is equivalent to dumpster diving.
QED
Gigwoof - You are wrong. That post was DIRECTLY relevant to claims made in the post being replyed to about the reserves in Block 1 having been determined/verified by said company. That Press Release indicates that the Mar-2005 PRESS RELEASE containing that reference was probably fraudulent.
But, that is no surprise to me that you can't be honest in your Due Diligence. Anything for 'positive info' is acceptable to you, whether it is linked by a URL or not, whether it is true or not. But heaven help anything that indicates there might be fleas that people are missing.
au contraire - mx.
Asked and answered, numerous times. You simply choose not to have believed the answer, and I simply choose not to keep answering the same personal questions all the time.
oilman - what does that have to do with ERHC ?
http://www.freedomfunds.net/employ.html
It is in my job description.
Gigwoof - then we are even. Because I have never read a single post from you that was worth the time or effort.
Put back post #1241. It was ENTIRELY within the Terms of Service of IHUB - and you have exceeded your authority in removing it.
And remove the link to the JOE SHEA blogspot.
It continues to be libelous against me and Mongo.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 - Section 403 -- Disclosures of Transactions Involving Management and Principal Stockholders
a. Amendment. Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is amended by striking the heading of such section and subsection (a) and inserting the following:
#
"Sec. 16. DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, AND PRINCIPAL STOCKHOLDERS.
"(a) Disclosures Required.--
"(1) Directors, officers, and principal stockholders required to file.-- Every person who is directly or indirectly the beneficial owner of more than 10 percent of any class of any equity security (other than an exempted security) which is registered pursuant to section 12, or who is a director or an officer of the issuer of such security, shall file the statements required by this subsection with the Commission (and, if such security is registered on a national securities exchange, also with the exchange).
"(2) Time of filing.-- The statements required by this subsection shall be filed--
"(A) at the time of the registration of such security on a national securities exchange or by the effective date of a registration statement filed pursuant to section 12(g);
"(B) within 10 days after he or she becomes such beneficial owner, director, or officer;
"(C) if there has been a change in such ownership, or if such person shall have purchased or sold a security-based swap agreement (as defined in section 206(b) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 78c note)) involving such equity security, before the end of the second business day following the day on which the subject transaction has been executed, or at such other time as the Commission shall establish, by rule, in any case in which the Commission determines that such 2-day period is not feasible.
"(3) Contents of statements.-- A statement filed--
"(A) under subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (2) shall contain a statement of the amount of all equity securities of such issuer of which the filing person is the beneficial owner; and
"(B) under subparagraph (C) of such paragraph shall indicate ownership by the filing person at the date of filing, any such changes in such ownership, and such purchases and sales of the security-based swap agreements as have occurred since the most recent such filing under such subparagraph.
"(4) Electronic filing and availability.-- Beginning not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002--
"(A) a statement filed under subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) shall be filed electronically;
"(B) the Commission shall provide each such statement on a publicly accessible Internet site not later than the end of the business day following that filing; and
"(C) the issuer (if the issuer maintains a corporate website) shall provide that statement on that corporate website, not later than the end of the business day following that filing.".
--------------------------------
# Effective Date. The amendment made by this section shall be effective 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/SOact/sec403.html
You should be aware that MP is often compensated for issuing analyses, recommendations or opinions concerning particular companies. ( MP == Market Pulse )
Buried in the fine print.
oilman - the JDA probably has all the authority they wish to exert.
The question is - are they willing to ignore the issues that XOM is arguing about ?
Personally, I don't think the JDA can afford to ignore XOM in these matters, and attempt high-handed tactics. There is much that can be inferred about what is exactly going on - and you and I have a real good idea about what is being said behind closed doors. The 'issues' will affect every single other company vying to do business there also. If XOM were to walk - what would be the ramifications for the JDA being able to signup anybody ?
After all - no cash in hand for JDA, yet.
Maxx - the Form 4 filings made in the past two weeks have some big discrepancies on them. If I were to spell them out, my posts would probably be deleted.
I would encourage you to start with last years 10K (for 2003), with a spreadsheet, and fine comb each and every filing for
a.) Offor's stated holdings.
b.) Chrome's stated holdings.
c.) Payments of shares for interest, G&A, and other expenses.
d.) All share transaction amounts, and with whom those transactions ocurred.
Use a spreadsheet with liberal comments (to denote what the entries are) to keep track of it all.
Pay particular attention to the last six months - the loan renegotiation, and the (*) subnotes on each and every share holding and transaction note.
Giving the benefit of the doubt, the latest Form 4 filings for BOTH Offor and Chrome are grossly mistaken, and the actual holdings shown have been miscalculated.
There is a balance, oilman. Too few, no incentive.
Too much control, no effective governance.
IMO, 40% is WAY too much.
The SEC has long recognized that greater than 10% holders are demanding of closer scrutiny - because they can be a problem for other shareholders. When a company employee is also the effective super-majority holder of stock (and 40% in an OTC is an effective super-majority), when that employee is the EMPLOYER of ALL the BOD MEMBERS, and he himself is on the BOD, there is a factually present conflict of interest. Conflicts of Interest absolutely require independent BOD Members to act as a check against abuse of corporate power. The ISS (very well respected organization) covers this quite well in their white papers - as does even the Sarbanes-Oxley act.
HP had SEVERE problems that they still suffer from, due to too high a concentration of power in too few hands. T.Boone Pickens was one of the pioneers in breaking these types of strangleholds.
The Standard Oil Companies are the pre-eminent, or HIGHEST example, of the problems inherant in these types of concentration of power in public (or super large private) companies.
People are NOT worried about how much MSFT stock Bill Gates owns, because he owns less than 10% of the Outstanding stock of MSFT.
Bill Gates owns 9.723% of MSFT Common Shares outstanding according to his latest Form 4 filing - which are done routinely, and in a timely manner.
1,057,499,336 - Shares Owned by Gates on 2/10/2005 - as reported on Form 4 Filing of 2/14/2005 (note the lapse of ONLY 4 days for Mr. Gates timely filing)
428,520 shares owned by reporting person's spouse - same Form 4 filing.
1,057,927,856 Gates & Spouse Total Holdings - Latest Form 4
10,880,222,153 Total Outstanding MSFT Stock - Latest 10Q
0.09723403 = 9.723% of Total Outstanding MSFT Common Stock held by Bill Gates and Wife per latest SEC Filings.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000090201205000014/xslF345X02/edgar.xml
2/10/2005 Transactions - 2/14/2005 - Form 4 Filing
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000119312505013133/d10q.htm
10Q Filing MSFT - quarter ended 31 Dec, 2004 - filed - 2005-01-27
Good Corporate Governance for MSFT, by all standards.
maxmxx - People are bothered about the number of shares that Offor holds, because of the extreme discount to market that those shares have been issued at, because the 144 Filings, and Form 4 filings don't add up, because so many years elapsed with NO Form 4 or Form 5 filings, because there is no Independent Director on this company, because offor owns/controlls an effective majority, even though less than 50%, and because there has never been a vote on ANY BOD members by anybody except Offor.
None of the above apply to Gates.
There exists an extreme lack of Good Corporate Governance of this company because of the number of shares that Offor owns. For good white papers on what is considered GOOD Corporate Governance, go to ISS (Institutional Shareholders Services) website for several high quality discussions on the issue. Also, sites that discuss review Good Corporate Governance, as specified in the latest SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, are good to study.
Plenty of reasons for concern. Especially since the latest Form 4 filings indicate severe discrepancies in what Offor SHOULD be holding and what he is currently reporting as holding. All of which are, by law, mandatory disclosures for Publicly Trading Companies.
Form 4 - Offor 230,490,471 shares held Offor/Chrome Direct holdings.
Check the totals out.
That Form 4 is erroneous - reports declining shares held for the period reported, when over 72 million shares were acquired.
OT: Mr. Ed - that other issue was resolved. Probably was not worth the effort - but it was appreciated by me.
Mr. Mx - WHAT, exactly, is required for perfecting the preferential rights of ERHE in the JDA so that the company does not cease to exist ? It certainly is important enough to the company to repeat that statement in their SEC FILINGS every three months - And until that statement is dropped - it is most certainly worth discussion.
I have attempted to stimulate discussions of utmost importance to the survival of this company - by the COMPANY'S OWN ADMISSION.
As for 'discussions elsewhere' - if it is NOT ON IHUB, it is not relevant as being a 'repeat and rehash'.
From the latest 10-K -
... Should circumstances impede the Company from perfecting its interests in the 2001 Agreement with DRSTP or the 2003 Option Agreement, the Company would cease to exist ...
Quoted directly from the latest annual filing.
Thanks Mongo. That is certainly verifiable.
It can't be said much more clearly than that.
The company IS correctly revealing this risk factor in their SEC FILING - 10-K, filed in Dec, 2004.
http://www.sec.gov
Mr. Ed - that was an interesting request - and I answered it honestly. Now, my question, why wasn't the inverse request asked in the first place of those that are purporting that possibility ? Where is their proof ? Balance builder had a lot more words to refute me - but it was ALL speculation. I at least pointed out the difference between known and unknown.
Or to put it more bluntly, why do the negatives always have to be proven, and yet the speculative positives are accepted on this board as gospel ?
Just curious.
MonkeyT
Mr. Ed - the Houston Chronicle article briefly touched on the XOM bad blood with ERHC - and they did not elaborate. Nobody will talk about it, but everybody sees it in the continual delays.
Attempting to force a company to partner with somebody that they have no desire to partner with WOULD be one of the best explanations for the interminable bidding process that has been seen.
My objection to the statement about 'a partnership' was that absolutely no evidence was provided for such a left field speculation - and was a statement that I find typical of 'pump and dump' operations - wild claims with no basis in fact.
With XOM supposedly having 'worked with' ERHC in past years (it is in the filings - Mobil) one has to ask oneself why they wouldn't have been a very natural first partner to be approached for participation in the JDA with ERHE - instead of PXD, Nobel, and Devon - as has been rumored continually, PR'd only by ERHE - and only been talked about as a very weak 'exploring possibilities LOI' type of statement from PXD.
The lack of hard evidence for many of the wild speculations regarding this company is disturbing. Am I trying to dissuade you or anyone else from buying the stock ? No.
That lack of hard evidence (or any evidence other than my posts) is also rampant in the libel that was directed at me by some of the 'longs' - especially in Joe Shea's site.
Why do I do this ? Good question. Not much reward in it - other than getting people to take real unbiased looks at their speculations. Call it a penance if you want to call it anything. I feel no strong urge to either justify myself, nor to prove false accusations to be untrue. That is irrelevant to this stock - which IS the issue.
Hyup - no partnership of XOM and erhe will occur.
XOM has made that very clear in their negotiations with the JDA.
D-Day is here, March 18. The day that XOM is supposedly up against a hard deadline, will be forced to partner with ERHE, that erhe is 'going to the moon', and so on ... at least according to all the rumors being posted by everybody here and what those same posters propound over on RagingBull.
Anybody want to bet me that today will come and go, and XOM will NOT be 'signed up' at the end of the business day ?
Mr. Ed - thank-you.
I have no idea WHY the following post was removed from this board.
It is a reply to statements posted by oilman, and accurately reflects precisely what was stated in the Houston Chronicle article this morning.
The relevant portion of that article is excerpted following a repost of a very valid, and truthful post.
Posted by: monkeytrots
In reply to: oilman57 who wrote msg# 1040
Date:3/13/2005 1:47:30 PM
Post #of 1045
Oilman - I will disagree with you about the 'raping oil companies'. Nigeria is an excellent example. The oil companies cut very fair deals - especially the majors.
The employment and money that was brought in to those countries, by mostly honest oil companies, did the local economies and the people incredible good. Industries grew that never existed before, commerce, farming, health care, infrastructure that was not possible before was built. So, please don't attempt to play the 'big evil oil card' here. It doesn't wash.
The problem in the African countries has been, and continues to be, thugs and criminals in those countries who suddenly have incredible amounts of money that they are able to get their hands on. And they use that money for very, very bad purposes. Nigeria shows just how easily corruption can occur - the piracy, the stealing of oil revenues received by the government, the thuggery, the funding of terrorism. Now, you want to blame the 'big bad oil companies' for that - but you are very much mistaken. Big oil plays by the rules, but they can't and don't control the countries. That corruption arises from within - after money that is flowing precisely because the deals with the oil companies were fair exchange.
The excerpt ...
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3082404
The long-running controversy over ERHC's activities in São Tomé helped prod international experts to help the tiny country protect its natural resources.
A group of international law experts at Columbia University crafted an oil-management law to help ensure any new oil revenues don't end up in the pockets of corrupt officials, as has often been the case in West Africa.
Using this blueprint, São Tomé passed a law hailed as a model for resource-rich, Third World countries. "We are in a position to do better than other countries did," the National Petroleum Agency's dos Prazeres said.
Thank-you, slla. Hope everybody reads the ENTIRE article.
There are, however, a couple of things of which that writer is unaware. It will be unfolding in the coming months.
XOM will be at the center of it, and they have more stroke than Sao Tome.
"São Tomé would be better off if it could get rid of (ERHC's) claims somehow, but I doubt there is any legal standing to do so," said Martin Sandbu, a research fellow at Columbia's Earth Institute.
Dos Prazeres thinks his country needs to begin a search for oil.
"This is the agreement we have," dos Prazeres said. "That's the way it is."
Thanks for that link, which you seem to have forgotten.
That last sentence says it all. This deal would NOT be good for
São Tomé.
And in the oil business, that is NOT good business.
Hyup - pricelessy hilarious. Won't happen.
slla - you do realize that posts like that really make you look a bit silly, don't you ?
sil·ly (sĭl'ē) pronunciation
adj., -li·er, -li·est.
1. Exhibiting a lack of wisdom or good sense; foolish. See synonyms at foolish.
2. Lacking seriousness or responsibleness; frivolous: indulged in silly word play; silly pet names for each other.
3. Semiconscious; dazed: knocked silly by the impact.
[Middle English seli, silli, blessed, innocent, hapless, from Old English gesælig, blessed.]
sil'li·ly (sĭl'ə-lē) adv.
sil'li·ness n.
logo
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2004, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
silly
adjective
1. Displaying a complete lack of forethought and good sense: brainless, fatuous, foolish, insensate, mindless, senseless, unintelligent, weak-minded, witless. See ability/inability, planned/unplanned.
2. So senseless as to be laughable: absurd, foolish, harebrained, idiotic, imbecilic, insane, lunatic, mad, moronic, nonsensical, preposterous, softheaded, tomfool, unearthly, zany. Informal cockeyed, crazy, loony, loopy. Slang balmy2, dippy, dopey, jerky, sappy, wacky. See ability/inability, knowledge/ignorance.
3. Given to lighthearted silliness: empty-headed, featherbrained, flighty, frivolous, frothy, giddy, harebrained, lighthearted, scatterbrained. Informal gaga. Slang birdbrained, dizzy. See ability/inability.
Roget's II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition by the Editors of the American Heritage® Dictionary Copyright © 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
The noun silly has one meaning:
Meaning #1: a word used for misbehaving children
The adjective silly has 4 meanings:
Meaning #1: (informal terms) "gave me a cockamamie reason for not going"
Synonyms: cockamamie, cockamamy, fool, goofy, sappy, wacky, whacky, zany, unreasonable
Meaning #2: lacking seriousness; given to frivolity
Synonyms: airheaded, dizzy, empty-headed, featherbrained, giddy, light-headed, lightheaded
Meaning #3: inspiring scornful pity
Synonyms: pathetic, ridiculous
Meaning #4: (informal) dazed from or as if from repeated blows
Synonyms: punch-drunk, slaphappy
Translations for: Silly
Nederlands (Dutch)
dwaas, dom, onnozel, lichtzinnig, onzinnig, onbenullig, flauw
Français (French)
fou, bête, stupide, farfelu, sot, futile, insignifiant
Deutsch (German)
adj. - albern, töricht, dumm
n. - Dummkopf
Ελληνική (Greek)
adj. ανόητος, βλακώδης, γελοίος, απερίσκεπτος n. ανόητος
Italiano (Italian)
matto, stupido, balordo, puerile
Português (Portuguese)
adj. - tolo, disparatado
n. - imbecil
Русский (Russian)
несмышленыш, неразумный, одуревший, оглушать, ошеломлять
Español (Spanish)
adj. - tonto, bobo, estúpido, necio, insensato, fútil, ridículo, absurdo
n. - persona tonta
Svenska (Swedish)
adj. - dum, enfaldig, tokig, idiotisk, medvetslös
n. - dumbom, dummerjöns, dumsnut
中国话 (Simplified Chinese)
adj. - 愚蠢的, 失去知觉的, 无聊的
n. - 呆子, 傻瓜
中國話 (Traditional Chinese)
adj. - 愚蠢的, 失去知覺的, 無聊的
n. - 呆子, 傻瓜
日本語 (Japanese)
adj. - 愚かな, ばかげた, ぼけた, 打者に極端に近い, 気絶した, 馬鹿な
n. - おばかさん, 馬鹿
العربيه (Arabic)
(صفه) سخيف, بسيط, ساذج (الاسم) شخص أحمق أو سخيف
עברית (Hebrew)
adj. - טיפשי, מגוחך, רפה-שכל, המום, הלום-חבטה
n. - טיפש, עונת המלפפונים (בעיתונות)
If you are unable to view some languages clearly, click here.
To select your translation preferences click here.
http://www.answers.com/silly&r=67 *w*
No, they don't have rights to all the oil that may be discovered.
They have preferential rights to participate, must come up with their working interest share during both exploration and production, will probably have to post a performance bond of several million dollars, IF, and ONLY IF ...
They are actually awarded any rights at all in the ongoing
'awards' process of the JDA.
There is a BIG difference between having unperfected preferential rights (which apparently several companies have) and having an AWARD.
IF, erhe stays in the game ...
IF, erhe is able to make their cash calls ...
IF, erhe is awarded ANY EXPLORATORY RIGHTS whatsover ...
IF, oil and gas are actually found,
IF, those reserves can be commercially produced ...
IF, erhe fulfills their working interest obligations in ANY not yet awarded blocks,
and
IF, erhe doesn't run in to other problems ...
Then, and only then, will they have ANY RIGHTS whatsoever to any oil or gas that MAY OR MAY NOT be recoverable from those blocks.
That's a lot of if's, balance, so please quit the hyping.
In summary - ERHE has NO RIGHTS TO ANY OIL & GAS.
PERIOD.
That day may come, but it is an EXTREMELY RISKY proposition.
BB - correction. This company has NO product.
To allude otherwise, that this company has ANY oil or gas to sell, is a materially fraudulent statement. They do not.
And the COMPANY states that I am correct.
Straight from the SEC FILINGS.
Proof:
10-Q filing - 10 Feb, 2005 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/799235/000114420405003752/v012378_10q.htm
The Company intends (sic: future tense, uncertainty,forward looking statement) to form relationships with other oil and gas companies with technical and financial capabilities to assist the Company in exploiting its assets in the EEZ and the JDZ. (sic: misleading - they have NO assets in the EEZ nor JDZ - they have a potential asset - ie. unperfected preferential rights)
Now, THAT is a materially false and misleading statement from the company's latest 10Q , because it implies that which is not true - misleading. It has no other assets than 'preferential rights'. That is stated in the next paragraph.
The Company’s only assets are agreements with DRSTP and the JDA which provide ERHC with (sic: unperfected, ungranted, possible - again- misleading statement ) rights to participate in exploration and production activities in the Gulf of Guinea off the coast of central West Africa.
The company can NOT have it both ways. The can NOT have 'assets that can be exploited ... in the EEZ and JDZ' and then turn around and state that their only assets are agreements.
... and further - ascertaining the BASIC PREMISE OF THIS POST - that ERHE has ABSOLUTELY no product (oil or gas), whatsoever, in any way shape form or manner ...
Should circumstances impede the Company from perfecting its interests in the 2001 Agreement with DRSTP, or the 2003 Option Agreement the Company’s business would be materially affected. Should the Company perfect its interests in the 2001 Agreement and the 2003 Option Agreement, there is no certainty that the Company will be able to obtain sufficient financial and other resources to develop its interests. The Company currently has no other operations.
Sorry, Balance Builder - but when I see material mis-statements of fact about Stocks that I am following - I have this built in knee jerk reaction to set the record straight.
You could have made a correct statement about the growth in demand about world wide oil resources, and the possibility that oil & gas will be producible from blocks that ERHE may or may not get a real working interest in - but to state that they have product, was simply incorrect.
ERHE - IMPORTANT - Best POST of the MONTH AWARD -
Real DD, with REAL numbers, with REAL FACTS that are verifiable.
Good post, Mongo.
By: Mongo1071
11 Mar 2005, 04:55 PM EST
Msg. 9853 of 10129
(This msg. is a reply to 9847 by oldandintheway3.)
Jump to msg. #
But Offor's still doing GREAT....
$.565 minus $0.175 = $.39 ahead on the latest 73,000,000 shares.
$.39 x 73,000,000 = about $28.5 million. Not bad net for a $11 million dollar note. If you take the gross 'value' - $.565 x 73,000,000 = about $41.2 millon.
Next take the 23 million shares for the recent refi and interest and multiply it by say $0.45 and thats' only about another $10.3 milliion
So $10.3 million plus $41.2 million (and this does not EVEN include past years interest and share conversions) or about $51.5 million in stock for about $11 million in financing.
And you whine about BM 'costing' two cents?
Mongrel
Form 4 Filings for shares sold by OFFOR between 16 Dec, 2004 and today, 11 march, 2005 ?
Where are they ?
The 8-K filed on 23 Feb, 2005 clearly show that Offor has sold over 30 MILLION SHARES between those two dates.
The FORM 4 FILING(s) is(are) due.
Whether he traded those shares, or used in another settlement, or given away - it does not matter. He has to report the change in holdings.
That is what a PUBLIC COMPANY requires of its officer's and >5% holders.
Still, unperfected rights, 10-2-10.
Proof:
10-Q filing - 10 Feb, 2005 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/799235/000114420405003752/v012378_10q.htm
10-K filing -
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/799235/000114420404023079/v010516_10-k.htm
From the 10-Q, p-5 (filed less than 30 days ago)
Should circumstances impede the Company from perfecting its interests in the 2001 Agreement with DRSTP, or the 2003 Option Agreement the Company’s business would be materially affected. Should the Company perfect its interests in the 2001 Agreement and the 2003 Option Agreement, there is no certainty that the Company will be able to obtain sufficient financial and other resources to develop its interests.
(Note: anybody that claims this is NOT a problem (being able to obtain sufficient financial/other resources to finish perfecting the rights by developing its interests) for the company, is lying. Period. The company admits it IS a problem - a problem BIG ENOUGH to be mentioned quite plainly in its own SEC filings.)
And repeated WARNING on page 14 of the same 10Q ...
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk
The Company’s current focus is to exploit its only assets, which are rights to working interests in the JDZ and EEZ under agreements with the JDA and DRSTP. The Company intends to form relationships with other oil and gas companies with technical and financial capabilities to assist the Company in leveraging its interests in the EEZ and the JDZ. Should circumstances impede the Company from perfecting its interests in the 2001 Agreement with DRSTP or the 2003 Option Agreement, the Company would cease to exist. Should the Company perfect its interests in the 2001 Agreement and the 2003 Option Agreement, there is no certainty that the Company will be able to obtain sufficient financial and other resources to develop its interests. The Company currently has no other operations.
The SEC filings take full precedence over ANY so-call 'pr' releases.
Oh, - and where is the link to that info that gigwoof & chcr demand be put on ANY info posted here ? Seems that rule is only enforced on one side. I also note that the promise to add ANY GOOD QUALITY DD links to the 'home page' of this board has not been met either.
This is the FIRST, PRIMARY, and MOST RELIABLE site for ANY DD on ANY company, especially an OTC:BB stock:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000799235
Proper DUE DILIGENCE always starts with reading the SEC filings of a company. Not with going to press releases, blogs, company web sites, or internet chat boards.
CHCR, please add the link above, as promised on your home page, to the list of DD links.
Be a mensch - put it as the FIRST link in the list. *w*
ERHE has unperfected rights
Straight from the company filings....
"Should circumstances impede the Company from perfecting its interests in the 2001 Agreement with DRSTP, or the 2003 Option Agreement the Company’s business would be materially affected."
"Should circumstances impede the Company from perfecting its interests in the 2001 Agreement with DRSTP or the 2003 Option Agreement, the Company would cease to exist. Should the Company perfect its interests in the 2001 Agreement and the 2003 Option Agreement, there is no certainty that the Company will be able to obtain sufficient financial and other resources to develop its interests. The Company currently has no other operations."
"The Company’s only assets are agreements with DRSTP and the JDA which provide ERHC with rights to participate in exploration and production activities in the Gulf of Guinea off the coast of central West Africa. This geographic area of interest is controlled by foreign governments that have historically experienced volatility, which is out of management’s control. The Company’s ability to exploit its interests in the agreements in this area may be impacted by this circumstance. "
Thank-you, Mongo, for using REAL Due Diligence, straight from the company's own filings.
This is FULLY verifiable, and are true statements.
How is it offor gets 100 mil shares, has sold 60 mil shares for lawsuit settlement, and his latest reported share total remains unchanged ?
Looks like offor is AGAIN DELINQUENT in filing his forms reflecting 'change in securities holdings of >5% holder or officer'.
And there's the teeny little matter of a missing 30-40 million shares that don't show up on his latest statement of 'holdings' - aka. the latest 8-k.
Do the math - people - OFFOR HAS SOLD ALMOST 40 MILLION SHARES IN TO THE MARKET FROM HIS PERSONAL HOLDINGS IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS.
Sir Emeka Offor (2) 306,091,433(3) 42.97%(3)
Nicolae Luca - —
Ali Memon 1,000,000(4) 0.14%(4)
Chrome Energy, LLC 306,091,433(3) 42.97%(3)
First Atlantic Bank 60,641,821(5) 8.54%
All executive officers and directors as a group
307,091,433 43.05% (6)
(1) The total amount of outstanding common stock used when calculating the beneficial percentage ownership was 709,897,650 shares, which included 635,843,798 (as reported on the Company’s 10-Q filed for the quarter ended December 31, 2005) plus the 73,100,962 shares issued to Chrome pursuant to the conversion of the Notes and 934,890 shares issued to Chrome pursuant to the restructuring of debt that occurred in December 2004.
Where is erhe going to come up with their working interest monies from ? It has taken over 700 million shares just to 'pay' off $10 mil in fiat valued unperfected rights ?
How is ERHE going to be able to pony up the multiples of 10 Millions that will be required for just the rank wildcatting phase ?
Drillbit -
Are you the drillbit from msev ? If so, drop me a line @
monkeytrots@lycos.com
ERHC: IMPORTANT DD LINK UPDATE NEEDED.
Please add a link to SEC FILINGS as the FIRST DD LINK for ERHE on the 'home page'. This should ALWAYS be the FIRST Due Diligence link that ANY stock speculator or investor references.
And again, thank you for removing the incorrect info previously referenced in one of my earliest posts.
Thank-you,
MonkeyTrots
BB - LOL. You are more than welcome for the out I gave you in that RB post. Glad to see you are taking full advantage of it.
Good luck.