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.
Rose, a fellow ihub poster is having some problems and I thought you may be able to help here. I sent a link but in thinking about it, I'm pretty sure this is a premium board so he/she may be unable to ask here. Here is the problem if you wouldn't mind offering guidance, I'll suggest they check here.
Btw, after my "head starting spinning" because you suggested I re-map my keyboard, I got a new laptop for Mother's Day and no longer have the wandering cursor problem.
Thanks for any help you can provide.
Posted by: mz157
In reply to: None Date:7/11/2006 8:44:12 PM
Post #of 64857
OT - TAMTAM or any other computer savvy folks...
i remember awhile back you posting about anti-virus software etc. I have been having some major problems as I think i got a pretty serious virus. I have Norton and every time i turn the computer on it says my "auto protect" is off (which i then have to turn on manually) and also I am now unable to turn my firewall back on (i get a pop-up and when i go to turn it on i am unable - needless to say any important stuff for me is definitely not done over this pc). finally, my screen will go blue and then quickly restart multiple times (with some wording on it but its to fast to read). i dont expect an answer for this particular problem, but any info/help/suggestions/software i can try would be greatly appreciated (i have spyware and did a trial of hitman as well). TIA!
So, you would just like all of us to concede that the stock price is down 50% due to the search warrant and investigation?
Ok, you're right. There are no other contributing factors to the stock price to fall 50% except these. Now, can we move on? Or do you need each poster to proclaim that you are right and the stock price has dropped solely due to the investigation?
My bet is they would just to move on to another topic. You've stated your opinion several times. People disagree. Can we PLEASE move on?
LOL! He tries so hard...you gotta give him credit.
All, everyone was very supportive about the costs I was incurring with PACER and just wanted to let you know, my total bill for the quarter was $34.88.
Let's see with that money I could've bought about 60 more shares of ERHE (after commission) or a dinner at IHOP with my family or filled my car about 3/4 of the way...
In other words, not a big deal at all.
They will quite complainning and be ho rawing the first thing this week after the spike, people love to follow the dred and gloom, they fall for it, well to tell ya , there has never been a day I have felt bad about owning this stock or adding to my possition. Your dividends will come.
Nigeria: Oil Firm Completes Acquisition Of Okwok Field
This Day (Lagos)
July 9, 2006
Posted to the web July 10, 2006
Patricia Ubaka
Lagos
Addax Petroleum Corporation an international oil and gas exploration and production company has acquired from Oriental Energy Resources Limited, a 40 per cent participating interest in the Okwok Field in licence area OML 67 following receipt of Nigerian government approvals.
Under a Joint Venture Agreement between Oriental and the Corporation, Oriental retains a 60 percent interest. Addax Petroleum will be technical adviser for the Okwok Field joint venture.
Jean Claude Gandur, President and Chief Executive Officer of Addax Petroleum, while commenting on the acquisition, said, "We are delighted to conclude our participation in Okwok and value the opportunity to partner with Oriental. We believe that we are the natural partner for Oriental given the proximity of this opportunity to our infrastructure in OML 123. This opportunity fits very well with our strategy of business growth in Nigeria and maximising our infrastructure assets".
According to a press statement by the company, Addax Petroleum in return for obtaining a 40 per cent participating interest in the Okwok Field, is obliged to pay a farm-in fee and to carry Oriental's appraisal and development costs on the Okwok Field until first oil and thereafter be repaid from part of Oriental's entitlement of oil production.
Okwok Field is located south of the OML 123 in a water depth of approximately 50 metres. The field was discovered in 1967 and was appraised soon thereafter by a further two wells but was not production tested.
In 2001, Mobil contributed the Okwok Field to Nigeria's Marginal Field Programme which was established by the Nigerian Government to encourage more Nigerian company participation in the oil and gas sector. Pursuant to this programme, Oriental recently completed a farm-in agreement for the Okwok Field with Mobil and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation.
Addax Petroleum and Oriental plan to drill up to three appraisal wells in the Okwok Field with the GSF High Island IX drilling rig, commencing in early July, 2006 to confirm the commercial potential of the field.
A successful appraisal programme by Oriental and Addax Petroleum will be followed by field development operations. First commercial oil production from Okwok could commence as early as 2008.
Addax Petroleum is an international oil and gas exploration and production company focused on Africa and the Middle East.
Addax Petroleum is the largest independent oil producer in Nigeria and has increased its crude oil production from an average of 8,800 barrels per day for 1998 to an average to date of approximately 80,000 barrels per day in the first quarter of 2006.
Lets take a look at Google (NASDAQ: GOOG), a few months back I spoke about Google beta testing Wi-Fi hotspots in Mountain View, California. This was an indication of what is to come and if you pay close attention to Google and what they are really trying to do then you can see beyond the brick at their ultimate goal. Lets just stick to the Wi-Fi point for a moment, it looks like Google is setting themselves up to go head to head with Hi Speed internet and DSL providers. According to reports the company has acquired a decent amount of fiber optic cable that could be used to supply high-speed Internet access across the country. So this could put any potential Google Internet Service in direct competition with the likes of Verizon (NYSE: VZ) and Time Warner (NYSE: TWX) on the high-speed Internet front, now I would not rule out Google Internet Phone service to put them in a battle with eBay’s (NASDAQ: EBAY) Skype service and Vonage (NYSE: VG). Lets not forget that Google now has Gpay, which will begin to take business away from eBay’s Paypal service. From developing software that would directly compete with various software programs from Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) to the enhancements made to the Google search engine which includes Gmail, Google Finance, and how about Google Video which is similar to YouTube.com, the company is looking to be a one stop shop for the Internet lifestyle that is becoming the norm. So as investors concentrate on the company’s advertising revenue from the Google.com site solely, they need to look deeper into the company as they are not just targeting the search engine business but anything to do with the Internet in general. They want to be king of the Internet jungle and it looks like their roar will be heard for years to come.
http://press.namct.com/content/view/6568/139/
We’ve been getting a lot of emails as it relates to IMPART Media Group (OTCBB: IMMG), this is the digital signage play that we tagged as a possible listing play. The stock is down a bit from the $1.75 mark as it closed at $1.31 on Friday. The stock went down on light volume as it is a thinly traded security, after speaking with the company and taking an in-depth look into the industry we still stick by our outlook for the company. So for those investors that have been looking at the company, this slight slide may present a bottom fishing opportunity. As we said in the past, Focus Media Holding (NASDAQ: FMCN), a stock that we nailed on a few ends over the past couple of months, is still the digital signage leader in China, we believe that they are looking to establish a presence in the United States but not from scratch and IMMG is one of a very few companies that fit the bill. So this is a stock to keep on your watch list.
http://press.namct.com/content/view/6568/139/
Press Release Source: Impart Media Group, Inc.
IMPART Media Group Implements Online Shopping Cart System
Monday July 10, 8:00 am ET
New Order-EZ System Helps Increase Revenues for Spiritual Cinema Circle
SEATTLE, July 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- IMPART Media Group, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: IMMG - News), an innovator in the delivery of out-of-home digital advertising, informative content and network management, announced today that NextReflex, an online advertising division of Impart Media Group, has completed implementation of a its newly debuted and proprietary online shopping cart technology, called Order-EZ, for California-based Spiritual Cinema Circle (SCC), the premier, membership-based distributor of spiritual cinema. SCC began using Order-EZ last month to support its online membership acquisition process. Since its inception earlier this year the Order-EZ system has generated a significant lift in SCC's customer revenues by boosting the average order size generated through SCC's free membership offering. Unlike standard shopping cart systems, Order-EZ is a backend engine that streamlines the up-sell and cross-sell process, expands sales tracking, and offers stronger product branding across multi-channel marketing campaigns. The up-sell/cross-sell application has proven especially advantageous to clients who rely on backend revenues streams to ensure successful promotions.
(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20060214/SFTU169LOGO )
Source: Impart Media Group, Inc.
· Click Here to Download Image
"Our free online membership offering has been well received by consumers who are highly interested in the unique type of programming we offer, and the up-sell/cross-sell application provided with Order-EZ has enabled us to showcase a broader offering to these highly motivated buyers, resulting in a significant lift in membership-based revenue," stated Spiritual Cinema Circle President, Jeff Giordano.
Anthony Medico, executive vice president and general manager of Impart's NextReflex division stated, "With the development of Order-EZ we are able to take our clients online marketing promotions and apply the time-tested direct response methodologies that have worked so well in traditional media." Medico added, "We are extremely pleased with the market debut of the Order-EZ system and with the revenue lift that it can offer clients by monetizing their free promotional offers. For SCC it has enabled a significant upswing in gross revenue and for Impart, Order-EZ provides revenue on a per transaction basis."
About Impart Media Group, Inc.
Impart Media Group, Inc., headquartered in Seattle, Washington, is a rapidly expanding digital signage leader in the emerging out-of-home media sector. The company is growing through a consolidation strategy that includes acquiring the industry's best and brightest talent and developing the most advanced solutions to create a broad, integrated one-stop communications media company focused on digital signage and networked advertising offerings for leading brands and environments in industries such as retail, grocery, banking, restaurants, hospitality, government, airports, and public transit spaces, among others. The company's digital media solutions enable the simultaneous delivery of video, stills, text, web, and animation content to a variety of remote audiences in real time, allowing for immediate customization of messages through a centralized network operations center or secure web portal. For more information please visit: www.impartmedia.com or call 800-544-3343.
About Spiritual Cinema Circle
The Spiritual Cinema Circle finds the best of spiritual cinema -- movies with heart and soul -- from around the world to bring films directly home to consumers. As the premier distributor of spiritual cinema, the company has quickly positioned itself as the key distributor for movies with meaning. Since its inception, The Circle has attracted the attention of spiritual luminaries Neale Donald Walsch, Deepak Chopra and Cheryl Richardson, and media outlets from USA Today, to Newsweek, MovieMaker Magazine, Spirituality & Health, and The Chicago Sun-Times.
Safe Harbor Statement Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. This news release may contain forward-looking statements relating to the success of any of the Company's strategic initiatives, the Company's growth and profitability prospects, the benefits of the Company's products to be realized by customers, the Company's position in the market and future opportunities therein, the deployment of Impart products by customers, and future performance of Impart Media Group. Forward-looking statements may also include, without limitation, any statement relating to future events, conditions or circumstances. Forward-looking statements in this release are not promises or guarantees and are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially. These risks and uncertainties include, among others, risks involved in the completion and integration of acquisitions, the possibility of technical, logistical or planning issues in connection with deployments, the continuous commitment of the Company's customers and other risks detailed from time to time in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). You should not place undue reliance upon any such forward-looking statements, which are based on management's beliefs and opinions at the time the statements are made, and the Company does not undertake any obligations to update forward-looking statements should circumstances or management's beliefs or opinions change.
CONTACT:
Cheryl Isen, Principal, Isen and Company
425-222-0779 or Cheryl@IsenandCo.com
Investor Relations:
Rick Lutz, LC Group 404-261-1196 or LCGroup@mindspring.com
Sidewinder (just realized no one had responded yet) and King:
The only significant news that I can recall for the past week or so, is that the judge denied ERHC's request to unseal the affadavit. As the documents had already been copied for them, the motion to return their documents was pretty much a moot point.
Here's link to first of court documents and then there's a couple (few?) more posts after this:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=11921174
Of course, now I had to find out what "pimento cheese" really is and, funnily enough, the 3 cooking sites I tried had nothing. :) But according to m-w.com:
"Main Entry: pimento cheese
Function: noun
: a Neufchâtel, process, cream, or occasionally cheddar cheese to which ground pimientos have been added"
I lived in Alabama for a couple of years and they put pimento cheese on their burgers. I'm not sure that it's really any sort of cheese (not sure what it is actually), but very good on a burger...
Imagine going to the Philippines just to look at a penny stock mine. I think the guys is so nuts, this was a logical decision to him. 4 mile hike or not...and specially if Pearl picked up the tab! Lol! Have a good night.
Geez, that whole board is whacko - I don't know how you can manage to read and reply with civility. I've finally "ignored" the two most frequent posters arguing about whether one of them did or did not say he trusted Filippinos, but that means nothing because he's "married to a Fillipino" and on and on and on and on...
Anyway, I also owe you a thanks from the Recipe board re: Japanese beetles and hot pepper spray. With 2 small kids, I like using natural and organic when possible.
It's funny you mentioned those bags to attract them. We're in your typical suburban subdivision and you can always tell when the Japanese beetles have arrived. As you drive through the subdivision there are these white bags hanging from all the trees (sort of like everyone is decorating for a holiday -very strange the first year we experienced this). The kicker is we don't get the beetles until those bags start hanging from all our neighbor's trees. So, needless to say, I agree with the Nursery folks you've talked to who say they only attract more.
Thanks, again, for the tip.
Thanks for the update.
The good news is that now that we have money in the bank there should be no further reason to issue stock for services (I hope).
say dude you washed up you got it right and then kicked the milk over by the way a mountian water is the best water to drink out fof the palm of hand or in a banna leaf cup......
This link should work for you. Thanks for taking the time to research this.
Edit: FYI, it opens onto page 4 because I went back to check to make sure you could see these before sending it. Most recent are on page 1.
http://sec.freeedgar.com/resultsFilings.asp?page=4&id=5015
Miami-I don't think the US has the abilitiy to take away any of ERHE's rights. However, if you carry this thought to who may want to challenge ERHE's rights, I'd be suprised if STP would want to go up against China (Sinopec).
OT: FYI, Tryoty, unless you private message Matt (or someone forwards it to him), he probably isn't seeing your comments/questions. Even on the Q&A board (which he moderates), unless you ask a question "in reply" to one of his previous posts, he may not see it. FWIW.
Oilman, when I read the actual documents, I felt even better about ERHC retaining our rights. It may have been a "sweetheart" deal in 1997, however, ERHC gave up quite a bit in the renegotiations, imo. (I know alot of people have stated that, however, when I followed the documents and some of the the articles from that time, it helped me understand it better for myself.)
And, these negotiations were long and drawn out, so I agree with the folks that say trying to nullify would be also. And, I agree that STP needs the cash now, not later.
I know STP may want to change the past, and they have successfully fought this twice now. With a conviction (which I think is unlikely - maybe a settlement, but very suprised if it gets further than that), maybe (as suggested earlier) they will be able to further whittle away at the eez but that's the most I see them being able to accomplish.
So, if you haven't recently, take a couple of hours and look at information from this time frame and you just might decide for yourself that the possibility is much smaller than you think right now.
All of course my humble opinion.
Here are the changes from original and agreement (still?) in place from 2001 (then add the 2003 Option Agreement update). This is ERHC's summary of agreement. If you want to read the entire document (11 pages), go to the link and then in document you will see Exhibit 1 highlighted. Just click on it and you can read the Memorandum Agreement.
Environmental Remediation Holding Corp., a Colorado corporation
("ERHC"), and The Democratic Republic of Sao Tome Principe ("DRSTP") have agreed that, should a treaty between The Federal Republic of Nigeria and DRSTP on the joint development of petroleum and other resources in areas of the exclusive economic zone of the two nations become effective the "Treaty"), a Memorandum Agreement (the "Memorandum Agreement") dated May 21, 2001 between ERHC and DRSTP will then become effective and be in effect through September
30, 2024. Should the Treaty not become effective by May 21, 2003, (i) the Memorandum Agreement will be null and void and (ii) the arbitration proceedings in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law regarding the agreements described in
the following paragraph ("the Current Arbitration") will resume.
DRSTP and ERHC, together, at certain times, with Procura Financial Consultants, C.C. ("Procura"), entered into various memoranda of agreement, letters and stipulations regarding the evaluation and study of oil, gas and mineral reserves within DRSTP. Those documents include: (i) a Letter of
Understanding between DRSTP and ERHC dated May 18, 1997; (ii) a Memorandum of Agreement between DRSTP on the one hand and ERHC/Procura on the other hand dated May 27, 1997; (iii) a Memorandum of Understanding between DRSTP and ERHC
dated December 30, 1997; and (iv) a Stipulation by and between DRSTP and ERHC dated November 20, 1997 (documents (i) through (iv) are collectively referred to as the "Original Agreement"). Pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement,
ERHC and DRSTP have agreed to cease the Current Arbitration and amend various terms of the Original Agreement.
The Memorandum Agreement is set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Form 8-K and is incorporated herein in its entirety by reference in response to this Item. The foregoing description of the terms and provisions of the Memorandum
Agreement is a summary only, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such docuument.
Pursuant to the Memorandum Agreement, ERHC will (i) relinquish its
rights to negotiate on behalf of DRSTP with oil companies the remaining
concessions to be leased and developed and the right to receive a 5% override
payable by those oil companies for ERHC's services, (ii) assign its 49%
ownership in Sao Tome and Principe National Petroleum Company S.A. ("STPetro")
to DRSTP and (iii) relinquish its right, through its ownership in STPetro, to
a minimum of the four best concessions in the Exclusive Economic Zone (as
defined in the Memorandum Agreement) of DRSTP.
Pursuant to the Memorandum Agreement DRSTP will (i) assign to ERHC 10%
of its share of all Profit Oil (as defined in the Memorandum Agreement)
received from operations conducted in the Joint Development Zone (as defined
in the Memorandum Agreement), (ii) assign to ERHC 5% of its share of all
Signature Bonuses (as defined in the Memorandum Agreement) paid by contractors
operating within the Joint Development Zone, (iii) grant ERHC the right to
receive a 1.5% overriding royalty interest in all the production of crude oil
and/or natural gas in the Joint Development Zone, (iv) grant ERHC the option
to acquire up to a 15% paid working interest in up to two blocks of ERHC's
choice in the Joint Development Zone (this working interest option must be
exercised by ERHC prior to the signature of an Exploration and Production
Agreement (as defined in the Memorandum Agreement) with an operator), (v) award
2
8-K Last Page of 3 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 3rd
to ERHC up to two blocks of ERHC's choice in the Exclusive Economic Zone but
outside the Joint Development Zone for development (DRSTP will have the prior
right to reserve up to a maximum of the first three blocks) and (vi) grant
ERHC the option to acquire up to a 15% paid working interest in up to two
blocks of ERHC's choice in the Exclusive Economic Zone but outside the Joint
Development Zone (this working interest option must be exercised by ERHC prior
to the signature of an Exploration and Production Agreement with an operator).
In addition, ERHC will pay income tax on net income received from
DRSTP obligations under the Memorandum Agreement and ERHC's interest in the
Memorandum Agreement is assignable to a subsidiary of ERHC without DRSTP's
consent. However, written consent must be obtained if an assignee is not a
subsidiary of ERHC.
http://www.secinfo.com/dRqWm.4FQg8.htm
Here is current agreement with STP and ERHC:
(Edit: current as far as I can tell, I don't think it was renegotiated after this, right?)
2003 Options Agreement:
Concession Fee Agreement
After the acquisition by Chrome in February 2001, the Company initiated negotiations with the DRSTP concurrent with the arbitration process. On May 21, 2001, the Company and the DRSTP reached the 2001 Agreement, witnessed by the FRN which replaced the 1997 Agreement and suspended the arbitration process. In July 2002, the 2001 Agreement was embodied in a Consent Award issued by the arbitrator as a result of the satisfaction of several conditions, including the ratification of a treaty between the FRN and the DRSTP relative to the JDZ between the countries, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2024.
The 2001 Agreement gave ERHC rights to participate in exploration and production activities in the EEZ and the JDZ. Since the 2001 Agreement replaced the 1997 Agreement, the Company relinquished its rights arising under the 1997 Agreement including any interest it had in STPetro.
The 2003 Option Agreement gives ERHC rights to participate in exploration and production activities in the JDZ in exchange for relinquishing its rights to participate in exploration and production activities in the JDZ granted under the 2001 Agreement. ERHC received the following rights under the 2003
Option Agreement:
ERHC may exercise options to acquire fractional working interests in six (6) of the nine (9) blocks that have been announced by the JDA will be available for bidding in the JDZ. A block is an area designated as an individual unit for exploration or production of crude oil and natural gas. These options must be exercised in sequence and are subject to certain restrictions of choice. Additionally, the amount of signature bonus that is payable by ERHC to acquire these working interests is zero in four (4) blocks. ERHC must pay its proportionate share of any signature bonuses in two (2) blocks. Specifically, the percentages and signature bonuses payable in each option pick are as follows:
ERHC Choice 1
15
%
$
0
ERHC Choice 2
15
%
100% of 15% of the total Signature Bonus
ERHC Choice 3
20
%
$
0
ERHC Choice 4
30
%
$
0
ERHC Choice 5
25
%
$
0
ERHC Choice 6
20
%
100% of 20% of the total Signature Bonus
Pursuant to the 2003 Option Agreement, ERHC agreed to relinquish the following rights previously granted under the 2001 Agreement:
•10% of the DRSTP share of all Profit Oil received from operations conducted in the JDZ.
•5% of the DRSTP share of all Signature Bonuses paid by contractors operating within the JDZ.
•A 1.5% overriding royalty interest in all the production of crude oil and natural gas in the JDZ.
•The option to acquire up to a 15% working interest in up to two blocks of the Company’s choice in the JDZ.
8
However, ERHC retained under the 2001 Agreement the following rights to participate in exploration and production activities in the EEZ subject to certain restrictions: (a) right to receive up to two blocks of ERHC’s choice, and (b) the option to acquire up to a 15% paid working interest in up to two blocks of ERHC’s choice in the EEZ. The Company would be required to pay its proportionate share of the signature bonus and all other costs related to the exploration and exploitation of the blocks in the EEZ. The above is only a brief summary of the terms of the 2001 Agreement and the 2003 Option Agreement and such summaries do not purport to be complete and are qualified in their entirety by reference to the text of the 2001 Agreement and Option 2003 Agreement, respectively (any and all related documents). The 2001 Agreement and 2003 Option Agreement have been filed with the SEC and are available on the SEC’s web site at www.sec.gov.
http://sec.freeedgar.com/displayHTML.asp?ID=2305145
I can't find the link right now, but something I found interesting re: the college funds ERHC set up. The article indicated that ERHC was partnering with Sao Tome in building an oil educated country. Since they had no oil experts at the time in STP, they were going to pay for kids way through college to help build the knowledge for their country.
Maybe it was a bunch of bull by the reporter and the govt officials who were just wanting bribes. However, I envisioned two small, underdogs thinking they were going to take on the world of oil.
Anyway, just a random thought on this Saturday afternoon.
This is also old news, but helpful to someone like me that's fairly new to ERHE. It has a short history of ERHE up until last year.
ERHC Energy chosen to work leases off Nigeria and Sao Tome
by David Ivanovich
04-06-05 An obscure Houston oil company cleaned up in the bidding for some potentially lucrative blocks off Nigeria and Sao Tome and Principe. ERHC Energy has been awarded equity stakes in five different blocks in West Africa's oil-rich Gulf of Guinea, in waters believed to hold more than 11 bn barrels of crude.
"ERHC is now in league with the big boys," said Phil Nugent, an ERHC investor. But the bidding process run by Nigeria and Sao Tome and Principe’s Joint Development Authority has been mired in controversy, helping to spark a political crisis in the tiny, turbulent nation.
ERHC, controlled by a wealthy Nigerian businessman, began talks with Sao Tome and Principe’s government about a possible oil deal long before other companies would give the twin-island nation a second glance. Those roller-coaster negotiations were marked by corruption accusations, international arbitration and threats of arrest. But eventually the outfit with no experience in the offshore was granted preferential rights in the offshore acreage of the two countries' joint development zone.
Realizing ERHC could open the door to waters where they might make a blockbuster discovery, US independents Devon Energy, Pioneer Natural Resources and Houston's Noble Energy agreed to team up with the virtual unknown.
Timeline
A short history of ERHC Energy:
-- 1986: Colorado-based Regional Air Group Corp. is formed. The company later evolves into an environmental cleanup firm known as Environmental Remediation Holding.
-- 1996: The company reinvents itself again as an oil and gas producer.
-- 1997: ERHC officials explore oil opportunities in Sao Tome and Principe, an island nation off the West African coast.
-- 1998: ERHC helps establish a state-owned oil company in Sao Tome and takes a 49 % stake in the entity. What's now ExxonMobil provides technical assistance and earns its own special rights.
-- 1999: The deal collapses. ERHC CEO Geoffrey Tirman accuses Sao Tome’s lead negotiator ofdemanding bribes. The government cries "sedition," and Tirman is forced to flee.
-- 2001: Nigeria and Sao Tome sign a treaty to create a joint development zone. Tirman sells his stake to wealthy Nigerian businessman Emeka Offor, who negotiates a new deal. ERHC moves its headquarters to Houston.
-- 2002: Sao Tome’s new president, Fradique de Menezes, again demands a new agreement.
-- 2003: ERHC successfully negotiates current agreement. De Menezes acknowledges Offor made a $ 100,000 campaign contribution. A coup attempt in Sao Tome fails.
-- 2004: ERHC teams up with Pioneer Natural Resources, Devon Energy and Noble Energy to bid on three offshore blocks.
Source: Chronicle research
And a Devon-Pioneer-ERHC consortium won a 65 % stake and was named operator of the development zone's Block 2, while a Noble-ERHC alliance was awarded rights to explore the much-sought-after Block 4.
Devon, Pioneer and ERHC also will be minority partners in a block operated by Houston-based Anadarko Petroleum, while ERHC will enjoy stakes in two other blocks. Like ERHC, super-major ExxonMobil had preferential rights to claim stakes in two of the offshore blocks. But the Irving-based company decided not to exercise those rights.
The bid results were controversial because the winners weren't always the parties that had initially agreed to pay the highest upfront payments, known as "signature bonuses." Anadarko, for instance, had agreed to pay a $ 90 mm signature bonus for the rights to explore for Block 4, while Noble-ERHC had agreed to pay only $ 57 mm. The Noble-led group was then asked to submit a new bid to match Anadarko's proposal.
Likewise, the Devon-led group was asked to submit a new bid to match a higher bonus offered by an Indian oil company.
A statement from the Joint Development Authority announcing the winners, said the winning signature bonus for Block 4 was $ 90 mm and the winning bonus for Block 2 was $ 71 mm.
Stung by accusations of corruption, the Joint Development Authority issued a statement, noting: "Other details pertaining to the commercial and technical aspects, including the work program, ... were given due consideration during the exhaustive bid evaluation process."
Sao Tome and Principe’s prime minister, Damiao Vaz de Almeida, abruptly resigned, accusing the government of signing deals with companies "of doubtful credibility and inadequate technical ability," it was reported.
Source: Houston Chronicle
Rambus, is this a translation that went haywire or do you think the reporter is confused?
"ERHC, which has a Nigerian, Chief Emeka Offor, as Chairman, is already holding equity stake in Block-1 in the zone with ChevronTexaco as operator. It also has stakes ranging between 15 and 60 percent in the recently awarded Blocs 3, 4 and 5.
But, ERHC in a statement said it is cooperating with the US department in their investigations, saying an agreement was reached recently for the Sao Tome department of Justice to return to it the complete copy set of all documents it seized during the May 4, 2006 search of the ERHC's Houston office."
No, no special access. You can sign up for an account here:
https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?court_id=00idx
There is no charge to get access, however, you are charged .08/page for every page of the document that you view (not just the pages that you view in the document). The kicker is that every time you "search" or click on a different subheading, you get charged. (History/documents is where I've been getting this information.) They only charge after you've accrued $10 in charges.
The last 2 documents I posted (which are last two under erhc's case) have no charges associated with them. Not sure why and first time I've seen that. So, if you want to check it out without really incurring any fees (just .08 for searching for ERHC), then this might be helpful in figuring out your way around.
Let me know if you have any questions and I'll try to help.
Glty.
Manti, I also thought the judge was making a strong statement here that he really wants to uphold ERHE's attorney/client privilige. It could just be standard in all motions re: this, but to me it soounds as if he's issuing a veiled warning to the DOJ that he wants this to be clean.
"Although the Court determines the Government’s proposed taint team procedure will sufficiently protect any potentially privileged documents, it echoes the sentiments voiced in Grant and reinforces that its decision “is based upon the expectation and presumption that the Government’s privilege team and the trial prosecutors will conduct themselves with integrity.” Grant, 2004 WL 1171258, at *3.6
Actually, Maestro, in the govt's response they said that ERHE is indeed the target.
It's on page 12 about 1/2 way down but I can't copy here. It basically says something like "ERHE is not an innocent bystander - we are investigating whether they bribed foreign officials."
Yes, but I think that since ERHE filed this and a final judgement has been rendered, we won't see anything further unless ERHE files something else. Otherwise it will all be conducted under the "sealed" DOJ case. Again, my very inexperienced opinion. Anyone else?
Final Judgement:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
In The Matter Of The Search of 5444
Westheimer Road Suite 1570,
Houston, Texas, on May 4, 2006
§§§§
Misc. Action No. H-06-238
FINAL JUDGMENT
As the Court has denied ERHC Energy Inc.’s Motion for Return of Property,
To Enjoin Government Review of Seized Documents and Computer Images Pending
Judicial Review, and To Unseal Affidavit in Support of Search Warrant (Document No.
1), the Court hereby
DISMISSES ERHC Energy Inc.’s Motion for Return of Property, To Enjoin
Government Review of Seized Documents and Computer Images Pending Judicial
Review, and To Unseal Affidavit in Support of Search Warrant (Document No. 1).
This is a FINAL JUDGMENT.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 6th day of July, 2006.
__________________________
DAVID HITTNER
United States District Judge
Here are footnotes to this document:
1ERHC, in its motion, avers that the Government refuses to give it copies of the
documents taken. The Government, in its response to the motion, indicates that the
parties, subsequent to ERHC’s filing of the motion, resolved this dispute, and ERHC has
received copies of the documents.
2A substantial part of ERHC’s argument is that the Government’s proposed taint
team review of the documents will not sufficiently protect the attorney-client privilege.
Although closely related to ERHC’s argument that it is entitled to return of certain
materials, the Court will discuss the validity of the Government’s review procedures
separately.
3 Originally, the Government proposed that the taint team would review only those
documents previously identified as potentially privileged. It has since offered to have all
seized materials, including the imaged hard drives, reviewed by the taint team.
4 Although the Fifth Circuit decision in In re Search of Law Office did not directly
involve the use of a taint team procedure, the court discussed the procedure without criticism.
341 F.3d at 407-09. The Court notes, however, that neither party cites a Fifth Circuit case
either directly approving or disapproving the use of the procedure.
5Specifically, the taint team shall be composed of an attorney and an agent not
otherwise involved in the investigation or prosecution of the case. The taint team shall
review all seized documents and imaged hard drives and segregate any potentially privileged
information. The taint team shall notify ERHC once it identifies all potentially privileged
materials. All privileged materials shall be returned to ERHC. The taint team shall notify
ERHC of its determination that a potentially privileged document is not privileged. ERHC
may challenge this determination to the Court before such time the potentially privileged
document is disclosed to the trial team.
6 The Court’s approval of the taint team procedure should in no way be interpreted
as foreclosing ERHC from, if applicable, filing a motion to suppress at a later time. See
In Re Search of the Scranton Hous. Auth., 2006 WL 1722565, at *6 (“if counsel for the
movant believes that any documents retained by the government are in fact privileged, a
motion to suppress the use of that evidence may be appropriate after an indictment is
returned.”).
7The Court notes it has reviewed the affidavit forming the basis of the search
warrant in camera.
Unsealing the Affidavit
ERHC asks the Court to unseal the affidavit forming the basis for the search
warrant.7 It asserts it cannot challenge whether the Government established probable
cause necessary to procure the warrant without viewing the unsealed affidavit. It further
avers that the Fourth Amendment protects its right to examine the affidavit forming the
basis for the search warrant. ERHC requests that the Court adopt the reasoning of other
circuits and require that the Government demonstrate a compelling interest to keep the
affidavit sealed. See, e.g., In re Search of Up North Plastics, Inc., 940 F. Supp. 229 (D.
Minn. 1996) (“The government must make a specific factual showing of how its
investigation will be compromised by the release of the affidavit. . . .”).
ERHC’s argument fails to give sufficient weight to the Fifth Circuit opinion in In
re Grand Jury Proceedings, 115 F.3d 1240 (5th Cir. 1997), wherein the court
recognized that no Fourth Amendment right exists to access a sealed affidavit before indictment. Moreover, although the Court disagrees that a showing of a compelling
interest is required to keep an affidavit sealed in this circuit, it concludes that the
Government has, through its sealed submissions to this Court, demonstrated it has a
compelling interest in keeping the affidavit sealed and that its investigation would be
jeopardized if the Court unsealed the affidavit. Accordingly, the Court declines to
order that the affidavit be unsealed at this time. Given the foregoing, the Court hereby
ORDERS that ERHC Energy Inc.’s Motion for Return of Property, To Enjoin
Government Review of Seized Documents and Computer Images Pending Judicial
Review, and To Unseal Affidavit in Support of Search Warrant (Document No. 1) is
DENIED. The Court further
ORDERS that the instant action is DISMISSED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 6th day of July, 2006.
__________________________
DAVID HITTNER
United States District Judge
Other courts have upheld the use of taint team procedures. See, e.g., United
States v. Grant, No. 04 CR 207BSJ, 2004 WL 1171258 (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2004).4 In
United States v. Grant, the court approved the use of a taint team procedure similar to
the one proposed at bar where the members of the taint team would not be involved in
the prosecution, and the defendants would have the opportunity to object to any
privilege determinations made by the taint team. Grant, 2004 WL 1171258, at *1.
Thus, any such unresolved privilege issues would ultimately be resolved by the Court.
Id. The Grant court reasoned that such review procedure did not prejudice defendants
because the Court would resolve any disputes before materials were turned over to the
prosecution team. Id. Moreover, the court opined that “permitting the Government’s
privilege team to conduct an initial review of the documents will narrow the disputes to
be adjudicated and eliminate the time required to review the rulings of a special master
or magistrate judge. . . .” Id. at *3.
After examining the facts of the instant case and the Government’s proposed taint
team procedure, the Court will permit the Government to commence reviewing the materials through use of the proposed taint team procedure.5 In so holding, the Court
recognizes that other courts have questioned and/or rejected the use of the taint team
procedure. See In Re Search of the Scranton Hous. Auth., No. 04 Misc. Nos. 318-322,
2006 WL 1722565, at *5 (M.D. Pa. June 22, 2006) (citing various cases questioning or
rejecting taint team procedures); see also In Re Search Warrant of Law Offices
Executed on March 17, 1992, 153 FRD 55 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). The Court nevertheless
determines that such procedure will allow expeditious review of all seized documents,
will allow the Government to continue with its investigations, and will nevertheless
allow the Court, at ERHC’s request, to resolve ultimate privilege disputes before any
potentially privileged materials are disclosed to the prosecution team. Although the
Court determines the Government’s proposed taint team procedure will sufficiently
protect any potentially privileged documents, it echoes the sentiments voiced in Grant
and reinforces that its decision “is based upon the expectation and presumption that the
Government’s privilege team and the trial prosecutors will conduct themselves with integrity.” Grant, 2004 WL 1171258, at *3.6
With respect to the second factor, the Government does not contest that ERHC
has a need or interest in the documents sought.
In an attempt to show irreparable injury, ERHC makes broad generalized
arguments and appears to argue that the Government’s seizure of potentially protected
documents constitutes irreparable harm per se. However, ERHC fails, beyond general
allegations, to show how it will be irreparably harmed if the Government fails to return
the requested materials. Such vague arguments and assertions that seized items are
subject to attorney-client privilege cannot, without more, demonstrate the requisite
showing of irreparable injury. See In re Search of Law Office, 341 F.3d at 414.
Fourth, ERHC asserts that the instant motion is the only avenue upon which it
can procure return of the requested items. According to the Government, however,
ERHC has received copies of these materials. Moreover, as will be discussed further,
the Government will return any documents that are actually privileged after it has made
a privilege determination.
Based on the foregoing, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the
ERHC’s claim for pre-indictment return of property prior to privilege review and denies
ERHC’s requested relief.
Government Review of Potentially Privileged Materials
The Court’s determination that ERHC is not entitled to return of its potentially privileged documents does not end the Court’s inquiry. ERHC also asks the Court to
prevent the Government from reviewing any potentially privileged materials until the
Court has approved a procedure for determining which seized items are subject to the
attorney-client privilege. ERHC takes issue with the Government’s proposed taint team
procedure for reviewing potentially privileged materials. Instead, it proposes that the
Court appoint a special master to review all seized materials, and return to ERHC any
privileged materials before allowing the Government to continue its investigation.
The Court will begin its analysis with an examination of the Government’s
proposed taint team procedures. A taint team, composed of a Department of Justice
attorney and an FBI agent, neither of whom are part of the prosecution team, will review
all the 118 seized boxes of materials, including the eight boxes segregated and identified
as containing potentially privileged materials.3 The taint team will notify ERHC once
it has identified all potentially privileged documents. At that time, all privileged
documents will be returned to ERHC. The taint team will retain all potentially
privileged documents it concludes are not actually privileged. In such instances, ERHC
will have the opportunity to challenge the taint team’s privilege determination in Court
before the documents are given to the prosecution team.
FED. R. CRIM. P. 41(g). The Fifth Circuit recognizes that the district court may
entertain a “pre-indictment motion for return of property if the government callously
disregarded a search warrant victim’s constitutional rights.” See United States v. In re
Search of Law Office, Residence, and Storage Unit Alan Brown, 341 F.3d 404, 409
(5th Cir. 2003). In Richey v. Smith, 515 F.2d 1239 (5th Cir. 1975), the Fifth Circuit
laid out a non-exhaustive list factors a court should consider when deciding whether or not to exercise pre-indictment jurisdiction over a claim for return of property. The
factors a court should consider include: 1) whether the Government displayed callous
disregard for constitutional rights; 2) whether the movant has an individual interest or
need in the property; 3) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury without
return of the property; and 4) whether the movant has an adequate remedy at law. Id.
at 1243-44. Recently, the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed that a party moving for preindictment
relief under 41(g) must, at the very least, make a “substantial showing of
irreparable harm.” In re Search of Law Office, 341 F.3d at 414.
ERHC avers that the Government unlawfully seized the documents and the
imaged computers because these items contain information subject to the attorneyclient
privilege. Applying the above noted factors, the Court declines to exercise
jurisdiction over the claim and accordingly declines to order the Government to return
these materials before conducting a privilege review. First, ERHC has not shown
callous disregard by the Government. The items recovered from ERHC’s offices were
taken pursuant to, and within the scope of, a search warrant issued by a United States
Magistrate Judge. See Hunsucker v. Phinney, 497 F.3d 29, 34 (5th Cir. 1974) (finding
no callous disregard for constitutional rights because the conduct under attack was
taken pursuant to a search warrant). Thus, the Court finds no callous disregard for
ERHC’s constitutional rights.
documents. The FBI nevertheless seized these materials.
The Government asserts that, prior to executing the search warrant, FBI agents
received instructions to segregate any documents potentially covered by the
attorney-client privilege. According to the Government, eight of the 118 boxes were
segregated because they contain potentially privileged material. As will be discussed
later, all the documents and imaged hard drives are to be reviewed by what the
Government calls a “taint team” composed of a Department of Justice attorney and an
FBI agent.
On June 9, 2006, ERHC filed the instant motion asking the Court to, inter alia,
order return of the documents seized and enjoin governmental review of the documents
and computer hard drives seized until the Court determines an appropriate review
mechanism that would protect any potentially privileged materials. ERHC further
requests that the Court unseal the affidavit forming the basis for the May 3, 2006,
search warrant. The Government opposes all requested relief and asks the Court to dismiss the action.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Return of Privileged Documents and Imaged Computer Drives
ERHC seeks an order directing the Government to turn over all potentially and
facially privileged paper documents.2 Moreover, it seeks return of all imaged computer
hard drives. ERHC directs the Court to Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, which provides:
A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by
the deprivation of property may move for the property’s return . . . . If it
grants the motion, the court must return the property to the movant, but
may impose reasonable conditions to protect access to the property and its
use in later proceedings.
Two more documents posted and I can copy these right here. First one is considered an "opinion" (I haven't read yet but I think it means Judge's opinion). Next one is "Final Order".
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
In The Matter Of The Search of 5444
Westheimer Road Suite 1570,
Houston, Texas, on May 4, 2006
§§§§
Misc. Action No. H-06-238
ORDER
Pending before the Court is ERHC Energy Inc.’s Motion for Return of Property,
To Enjoin Government Review of Seized Documents and Computer Images Pending
Judicial Review, and To Unseal Affidavit in Support of Search Warrant (Document No.
1). Having considered the motion, submissions, and applicable law, the Court
determines the motion should be denied, and the action should be dismissed.
BACKGROUND
On May 3, 2006, a Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) special agent
applied for a search warrant for the offices of ERHC Energy Inc. (“ERHC”), located
at 5444 Westheimer Road, Suite 1570, Houston ,Texas. A United States Magistrate
Judge in the Southern District of Texas, after reviewing the special agent’s thirty-nine
page affidavit, which is currently under seal, signed the search warrant. The warrant
authorized seizure of numerous categories of evidence and further authorized imaging
of computers. On May 4, 2006, the FBI executed the search warrant, seized 118 boxes
Thanks, that is a good one.
Here is treaty governing JDZ however it does not clearly oultine anything in re: this situation.
http://www.nigeriasaotomejda.com/