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.
I didn't look at the numbers, either.**
The options/warrants expired without being exercised...
When options/warrants are issued, earnings per share are calculated on a fully diluted basis (i.e. all options and warrants have been exercised and shares have been issued) and vice versa once the option/warrants expire.
Thanks for that article, HP.**
2 years.**
J. If they weren't going forward...
You'd have already lost your ass.
For the record...
I think you maybe mixing up swingingK with myself regarding the birdies.
What if CVX did like XOM?...
Retain a percentage of royalties.
They are kinda hard to hide, huh?**
In case you haven't noticed in past financial statements...
ERHC has had 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock authorized and unissued forever.
I ain't skeered.
LOL, what part of public offering confused you?...
Or, maybe you don't understand the difference between "public offering" and "private placement"?
The public offering means everyone will have the chance to not have thier ownership diluted. That is all any shareholder can reasonably ask for. The company cannot be faulted for any shareholder not being in a position to buy more shares when they are offered.
The best news to come out today is...
That the company will still be domicilled in the U.S.
Court rejects U.S. bid to keep drilling moratorium
Associated Press
July 8, 2010, 6:17PM
NEW ORLEANS — A federal appeals court on Thursday rejected the federal government's effort to restore an offshore deepwater drilling moratorium, opening the door to resumed drilling in the Gulf while the legal fight continues.
A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled soon after an afternoon hearing in a lawsuit filed by companies that oppose the drilling ban. The moratorium was struck down June 22 by U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman.
The Interior Department argued the moratorium was necessary while it studied deepwater drilling risks in the wake of the BP oil spill. Government lawyers asked the appeals court to let the temporary drilling ban stand until the 5th Circuit ruled on their appeal of the lower-court ruling.
A spokeswoman for the Interior Department did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Justice Department lawyer Michael Gray argued Feldman abused his discretion when he overturned the moratorium, which halted the approval of any new permits for deepwater projects and suspended drilling on 33 exploratory wells.
Lawyers for several oilfield service companies that sued to block the moratorium, including Hornbeck Offshore Services, said the Obama administration has failed to show that the government would suffer "irreparable harm" if the drilling ban if lifted.
Two of the 5th Circuit judges seemed to disagree about who should be shown more deference: Feldman or Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who imposed the moratorium.
"We give deference, as you should, to what that court has done," Judge Jerry E. Smith said of Feldman's ruling.
Judge James L. Dennis said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar "is entitled to a lot of deference" when the court evaluates whether the moratorium should be allowed to stand. Dennis partially dissented in the ruling, saying that he would have let the moratorium remain in place.
"Why are we in a position to second-guess the secretary on whether or not there's a threat of irreparable harm?" the judge asked at the hearing.
Dennis said he was satisfied that Salazar's decision wasn't arbitrary or irrational, but he wanted to hear more from the Interior Department about why a six-month moratorium was needed.
The 5th Circuit's Thursday ruling won't be the final word. Judge W. Eugene Davis said the three-judge panel is likely to hold a hearing on the merits of the appeal in late August or early September.
After Feldman overturned the moratorium on June 22, Salazar announced he would issued a new, refined moratorium that reflects offshore conditions. Justice Department lawyer Michael Gray told the judges that he didn't know when Salazar would issue the new moratorium.
"The secretary is looking at a new decision based on new information," Gray said. "It is not tied to this court's decision."
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a vocal critic of the moratorium, observed the hearing from the courtroom gallery. Outside the courthouse, Jindal said a second moratorium would further chill plans for drilling in the Gulf and lead to thousands of loss jobs.
"The federal government not being able to do its job is not a reason for thousands of Louisianians to lose their jobs," Jindal said.
John Cooney, a lawyer for the companies, said the drilling ban is a "one-size-fits-all device that keeps everybody out of the market."
"The industry leader is treated the same way as the industry laggard," Cooney said.
Catherine Wannamaker, a lawyer for several environmental groups that support the moratorium, said another spill would compound the devastation already suffered by the Gulf Coast fishing and tourism industries.
"The harm is just too great to let this go on without a full safety review," she said.
I'm riding this horse into the ground.**
Plain and simply...
Many posts that violate one of those rules have been left up..............not that I'm complaining, mind you.
ERHC is dead in the water for 3 more months. One moderator is too many for this board in the mean time.
Nobody will outbid Petrobras for those rigs.**
If you received an email from a Spec29...
You have been corresponding with an imposter.
I did reply to your post several times, however.
I doubt if anyone knows the extent of damage...
to the well bore with certainty. What we have currently is conjecture/suspicion only.
Not a blowout, just a "kick"...
Meaning a sudden burst of pressure from gas in the hole.
Similar to what happened to the Deepwater Horizon in the GOM except the Deepwater Horizon couldn't handle or keep the pressure under control due to the mud being replaced with seawater in the casing.
"why did it take only 5 months to drill these wells."...
Because they were only looking for data and not oil.
Anyone who believes they drilled deep enough to find oil or that they were actually looking for oil is....!!!!!
You do a reverse split and you will most likely...
end up with 28.5k shares worth $.241.
Ain't seen nuttin' better than this...
I'm loving it...
I plan on converting my IRA into a Roth very shortly.
Go look up Colorado law...
And to add to that, they can get around the preemptive rights by issuing shares for properties in non-cash transactions.
Did you get your answer to this question?...
It is a matter of law.
I can't give you a definitive answer...
I'm not an attorney and Colorado law has differing rules that apply to companies that were incorporated prior to 1959 and 1994, I believe.
In some instances, shares return to "authorized and unissued" status and the preemptive rights do apply. I just don't have enough info to make that determination.
You would only have one choice for no dilution...
If you currently own 1% of the outstanding shares of a company, you must buy 1% of any new shares issued to prevent dilution of your current ownership.
Good luck "wit dat" when you don't have an income stream...
and you have no background that proves you can run such an operation at a profit.
Let me make something clear to you...
To move to the AIM, no new shares.
To acquire a marginal field when you have no money, you have to issue new shares to raise capital.
Preemptive rights are a matter of law...
and they have absolutely nothing to do with moving to the AIM.
Preemtive rights only apply to new shares of a corporation.
Shareholder Preemptive Rights...
Pre-emptive rights give existing shareholders the right to buy any newly issued shares from the Corporation before it is sold to outside third parties. This protects existing shareholders by allowing them to retain their percentage of ownership in the company. Disadvantages of pre-emptive rights are that they may cause long delays in the sale of shares, and that they may discourage sophisticated institutional investors from investing because they may get a smaller proportionate share of the Corporation than they want when the pre-emptive rights are exercised.
Any "new" shares will have to be offered on both exchanges...
Like I've said before, I don't believe that will apply to the currently authorized but unissued shares.
Current shareholders have the "pre-emptive right"...
to purchase any new shares before those shares can be offered to the public or placed by private placement.
ERHC currently has ~900 million shares authorized with ~725 million shares issued and outstanding. I do not believe the pre-emptive right would apply to the 175 million share difference from the current shares authorized.
They're going to have to get past pre-emptive rights...
holders first.
Talking to yourself is not healthy!**
If you had any credibility at all...
someone might care what you think.
And I believe it was your Queen that said it best...
"It is not the creation of wealth that is wrong, but the love of money for its own sake."
"To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukaemia with leeches."
"The problem with socialism is soon you run out of other people's money."
I like the sound of this little gem and what it implies...
"The Company would be responsible for its proportionate share of exploration and exploitation costs in the EEZ blocks,’ Ntephe added."
RSD would push CVX & Total down a notch.**
If you're worried about who posted it first...
try this link:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=35637014
Granted, I didn't post the rig name nor did I know the rig name before either of you posted it. It doesn't change the facts or circumstances.
I was posting "play by play" on five rigs before that....all confirmed by Addax in subsequent PRs or interviews.
At the end of the day, I doubt many on this board give a flying flip about who posted what info first, LOL.
We just want news!
How many holes you want me to punch in that arguement?...
It would probably take me about a sentence.