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.
"and which the Nigerian gov. would not support nor co-operate"
- Of course not, they are the ones taking the bribes. What point does that made saying they deny it?
These are all legitimate claims you keep ignoring and fighting, but the fact remains that the US Govt is investigating this manner and can do as they please to a US company.
The following clearly indicates that Sao Tome does have problems with ERHE and would like them investigated for irregularities and bribery. Still don't know why this board is pretending this is not happening and that the stock has cut in half since....
4th July
ERHC Eyes Fixed On JDZ Business Interest Amid U.S. Probe
By Bassey Udo, Energy Editor
ERHC Energy, the Houston-based independent oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) company in the Gulf of Guinea, said over the weekend that it would not be distracted from its focus to pursue its business interests in the Nigeria-Sao tome and Principe Joint Development Zone (JDZ) despite the ongoing probe of its activities in the area by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Early this year, a top official of the Sao Tomean Justice department criticized the award of some oil blocs under the 2004 Nigeria-Sao Tome Bid Round particularly the provisions of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) which granted ERHC preferential rights in all the blocs by virtue of existence in the area prior to the 2001 treaty establishing the JDZ.
The official alleged largescale irregularities, including bribing top Sao Tomean government and Petroleum Ministry officials and called for probe by the US department.
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.
in connection with the Department's investigation into questions surrounding the Company's The JDZ rests approximately 200 kilometers off of the coastline of Nigeria and the island nation of Sao Tome & Principe, and is adjacent to areas where there have been several large petroleum discoveries
" Our moderator has said bashing is not allowed on this board. I suspect myself and others think you are about to cross that line. "
- I am not sure what you mean by bashing is not allowed, or why you consider anything I have said as bashing. I have remained civil even after people have attacked me personally. I have been consistant in my views on this stock, at least for the most part, depending upon any new information I learn. However, I am more than willing to change my mind on issues as I learn more, and I understand that to be the primary purpose for message boards such as this one.
If bashing means to "not ignore all negative aspects that factor into a stock price" than you can probably label it bashing. But I don't know how else you can do so. Discussions of stocks that are strictly one sided and only praise a company, regardless of investigations of wrongdoing, is not a discussion board. It is a useless pumpers board. Is that what this board is and wants to remain?
Lastly, I have stated several times (they may be deleted now) that I see this as a double up or nothing stock play. If you just take the double up part into account, that matches the useless hyping character I think you are all looking for. So maybe you are better off simply taking the positives from my post and that may be acceptable to what you want to hear.
Again, best of luck, you seem a very bright person with lots of knowledge on these subjects, and I truly hope I can learn from you.
maestro,
it is your choice of what you want to believe, but I respectfully disgree. And I think there are and were numerous smart investors that felt the same way as me and sold out accordingly. If they sold out above 41 cents, they made a wise move, because they can buy back in at that price right now.
"Your fear is irrational and you are obviously incapacitated by that fear. Close your eyes. Take a deep breath. Relax. Have you ever tried yoga or meditation? It might help."
- Thanks for thinking of me, but my "fears" are rational, as proved by the 50% drop in share price. For instance, if you had sold at 90 cents without fear of the investigation, then bought back in now after these "fears" have been factored into the price, you would own more than twice as many shares as you do now. So that is more than "rational". Additionally, I appreciate your advice on yoga and meditation, but I am far from uptight or worried about anything, so your attempts at personal attacks are going nowhere and serve no purpose. Just worry about yourself and the missed chance you had to own twice as many shares as you do now.
alwright,
You clearly just want to fight for some reason, but I will answer your question:
"AND for us that bought at $.28 and lower..guess we were right?? OR at .40??"
Well, if you bought at $0.28 and sold now, you have a good profit, but whether it was worth it or not depends upon how long you have held it and what you would have invested the money with had you not invested in ERHE. The same goes for $0.40 at this time, though you would have almost no profit, which leads me to think there were better options.
But most importantly, I think we are talking about the 50% drop since the investigation. If you bought at a dollar, you are down more than 50%, and I consider that a bad investment, whether it goes back up or not. And I consider the investigation the key reason for the drop in share price. That is why I have stated that I think the price has factored in the possibility of problems due to the investigation.
Seriously, alwright, why would investors sell off to 50% of the previous share price if this wasn't a valid concern. You continue to ignore this. That is your problem, not mine.
Thanks Rocky, appreciated. Will try to look it over during the weekend.
And Maestro- you are making assumptions about my investing which are totally unfounded. I have no "fear" as you say. I keep about 25% of my stocks in small cap "riskier" stocks. I do ample research before investing, but am willing to take risks. I consider all investing a matter of putting your money in the best choice of investment- sort of a competition between alternatives. I would not be on this board if ERHE were not a consideration. I think it has great potential and have stated such. My "head in the sand" comments are not and were not directed to you, but to anyone (including you) that does not feel there is a possibility that ERHE could be a total loss due to the investigation. I believe I have been clear about that, but my writing is not always perfect. As for the statement that ERHE may never again be this cheap, you could be right, and you could be wrong, I am not sure I agree with you on that for the many reasons I have already stated. But one thing is for sure, there are posters that felt that way when it was at a dollar, and they were certainly proved wrong.
Best of luck to you.
"First, giving yourself the 007 moniker obviously means you have a vague distorted view of reality and your place in it."
- Dont you worry about my name, and let's keep this board on subject as MBA requests
"Secondly, you have argued with most of the people on this board whom IMO have given solid evidence behind their allusions while you give none."
- I have clearly stated my opinions which are fully supported by news of the investigiation and the stock price cutting in half. My arguments are rock solid.
"Thirdly, you have repeatedly contradicted yourself, not just as I have pointed out but also as MBA and others have pointed out."
- There have been zero contradictions in my statements, and it has already been shown that your inability to understand English leads to your errors. Get a clue.
"Fourthly, you give vague references to things you never support (eg. I am from further South than you, but I can't tell anyone where that is. Afterall, I am 007 and someone might be after me."
- I have not been vague, you didn't ask me where I am from. You made a wrong statement using wrong assumptions, and you are wrong on this issue.
"Finally, you are simply a jack _ _ _ ! "
- Again, let's stick to stocks and not make this personal, I have not done such to you. If you don't agree with my opinions, so be it, but there is no reason to call names like that. You need to grow up.
Oilman 57,
You appear to be the most sensible poster on this board. You do not let your position dictate how you look at the good and bad of the stock. I wish you luck and appreciate your honesty.
Maestro,
Since you are asking for my opinion:
ERHE is up YTD. It is up that same amount, but that is also its yearly low. It is down over 50% from its yearly high. And it is roughly even from a year ago. Those are the facts, now to the opinion.
Why is it up so much? It is up from Jan 01 because of the potential of oil, which at this time looks promising. That is the issue on the plus side. That is, IMO, the reason the stock went up to a buck. Once it went that high, however, their offices were raided. They are under investigation. and now, since that time, the stock is down more than 50%. That drop is due to worries about the investigation, IMO.
You have various issues wanting to push the stock both up and down, just as you do with all stocks. You understand this, I am sure. But to claim that there is not resistance and negative weight on this stock, all while it is off 50% from its yearly highs, is ludicrous IMO. Again, like sticking your head in the sand. The price has remained relatively steady at these levels, and new on the positive or negative side is likely needed for a big move that will hold.
That is my honest opinion, maestro.
Wrong, I am from further South than you, no matter where you are from in Texas, and I was born a natural US citizen.
Your geography is as bad as your English.
I am from further South than you, bayfish, if you are from Texas. That is all you need to know.
"Regardless of my understanding of your English, you are the one flip flopping.
First you state the warrant is absolutely the reason the stock dropped, then you state that there is just a slight chance the warrant could affect the price. "
- You clearly don't understand what is being said. I am stating the price has already been affected and it is the reason the stock dropped. The slight chance you are referring to, I assume, is that there would be a major punishment of ERHE.
"And now in your last post you state that anything less than 50% could be called slight? "
- No, that is not what I said. I said "not likely" is less than 50% and "likely" is more than 50%. I did not use slight in these terms. Likely is a word that can distinguish between more or less than 50%, and that is how I used it.
"Now I am from an oil family. In Texas we call ourselves oil trash and for the most part are proud of it. And in the oil patch close to 50/50 is a good thing and not a slight chance.
Being from Texas (5th gen) my English may not be as keen as yours but I know I am an oilman and do not just title myself one. "
- And I believe you, and for all I know, you are the best oilman ever. But you clearly should not be arguing symantics if you are not even using actual quotes and completely misunderstanding their meaning.
"That one is easy.
OBO-1 and recurring doubt as to what is in the JDZ coupled with negative publicity from the search warrant.
But in my opiniom more of the downturn has t do with Chevron tightholing information than with any other reason that has been brought before this board."
- And I disagree. I do not think it is coincidence that the price dropped at the time of the search warrant. You at least acknowledge that it has something to do with it, whereas other posters ignore the possibility altogether.
Of the things you mentioned, only one thing changed at the time the price went down, and that is the investigation. That is evidence of effect. And I believe the search warrant negatively effected the share price, I have stated such, I have stated that it is now factored into the share price (and why I think it could easily double provided no illegal activity occurred). To refute this is absurd in my mind and is like sticking your head in the sand. Of course, that is your choice.
There is no conflict in the posts bayfish. Could means they could. I do not see where it says "would". Those are different words you are plugging in.
Keep searching bayfish, but there is no conflict in my statements. "ownership can be nullified"- it would say "will" be nullified if it was a sure thing. It would say "likely to be nullified" if I thought it was more than 50-50. not likely means less than 50%.
Of course, they are all opinions.
And the posts to which I responded were claims that there was "NO" chance they could.
I retract nothing and hope this clarifies your poor understanding of English.
MBA,
Why has the stock dropped so much since the investigation if the chances are less than 1%? You have continually ignored that question.
Rocky,
No, I cannot cite any examples and would also appreciate if anyone else can. And I think you have a great response and it is appreciated. I still think that a view of the treaty would be necessary to make an educated guess on what could happen. If there is specific language outlining punishments and violations, which I would think there are, this would be the best indicator we could get (more so than other cases that may or may not be similar in nature).
Let's not mix up my posts, I do not think it is likely, I simply think it is possible. Many here state the chances are ZERO, and that simply cannot be the case. In a scenario where there is just punishment, the amount of punishment could or could not have a significant bearing on earnings. Again, I think this COULD be outlines in the treaty???
One last point of interest is directly related to ERHE and not the treaty. ERHE being a US company is at the whim of the US govt, and they carry the power to punish as they please for infractions. The "Spitzer" ERA and assault on companies that do illegal acts is not friendly right now due to World Coms and Enrons. And yes, I do think companies like this have a bearing on unrelated instances like this.
I appreciate your sensiblity to a valid question which I attempted to answer my best.
That is and was the point in this whole debate. IMO it is obvious that it CAN happen. I do not state that it is likely, but that it can. Anyone that doesn't believe this to be a possibility is hiding their head in the sand. If it wasn't possible, there is almost no risk to this stock. And from what I gather from every poster, this is clearly a risky stock.
Nice to see some form of honesty and logic on the board.
MBA,
"The chances of ERHE going from 44 cents to zero is slim because of the fact they have already been awarded percentages in blocks of the JDZ with full carry PSC's to bring home huge income should they hit oil as expected."
- You have now gone from no chance to slim chance. You are starting to understand.
Do your job, MBA, and delete the irrelevant posts like you do with my relevant posts. You keep saying talk stocks, I have, yet you delete mine because you don't agree with what they say. They you leave others that attack the poster. One sided to say the least.
Actually, instruct, you are much closer to what I am saying than you realize. Of course, since you keep deleting my posts, it is hard for anyone to understand.
The stock price has already considered the investigation. That is what I am saying. If the investigation does nto turn up a serious offense, stock price has potential to double on that scenario alone. Irregardless of oil or no oil.
As for no downside? I find that statement ridiculous. There is always downside and only a fool does not consider the downside. Most downsides are not even thought of before they happen. But one that is clearly a potential downside is the investigation. That is why the stock price cut in half already. And the downside potential for all stocks is always zero.
Ask your friends at Enron and Worldcom about these issues. These were much more conservative and well respected stocks before their downfall. But ignoring these possibilities and acting like they are not there is a joke, and you know it.
BOb,
I am not denying that ERHE may have done work for their rights. However, I am stating that they are being investigated for improprieties in their dealings. The question is to what degree did they do wrong and is it a punishable offense. I simply don't think the investigation would be happening at all if there was not at least some evidence of wrongdoing. Ignoring this is your right, but do so at your own peril. The stock has cut in half since this time, I fully believe they are related and am quite surprised this is not consensus.
Fair enough opinion Bob. I am guessing, if that is what you believe, that you think the raiding of their offices and the related investigations are totally bogus and unfounded? They are simply being persecuted for no reason? That is laughable if you think such.
Improprieties may be petty and not worth their trouble, but I highly doubt they would be wasting time on this stuff if there wasn't something there. That is plain old common sense.
"Myself, I'm going to continue to hold and let the story play out. ERHE is a classic double (maybe several times) or nothing spec. The pps will do what it's going to do, and there's nothing I can do to affect it, so I'm not going to get caught up in the endless unverifiable theorizing."
- That is what I said, Lone CLone. I see it as a double or approaching zero. As for unverifiable theorizing, some is that and some has verifiable evidence in support of it. If adverse news comes out and the price then falls, you cannot PROVE that is the reason, but you can make an educated assumption.
Bob,
Are you stating that you don't think ERHE could have serious problems IF it is deemed there were illegal payments / bribery?
You can all say what you want, bash or not bash, the FACTS in the matter are:
The stock price cut in half because of this investigation into ERHE
The stock has not recovered since that time
The stock is half its yearly highs, which were at the time the investigation began
The US has the power to do what it wants to ERHE if they have been acting illegally, regardless of Nigeria desires
The US still has other big money companies in the area where it would make no difference if ERHE were punished accordingly
Only the hypsters on this board are ignoring these facts. You have the right to do so. You also have the right to lose all your money.
As I already stated, I think it is likely to double (if they are cleared) or approach zero (if they are not).
That is all REALITY, a place you want to ignore. LOL.
And the alleged improprieties, as I understand, are between ERHE and the Nigerian Government. Do you not understand that? Payoffs for rights? Does this not make sense to you?
Nigeria is a small and very very poor country, if others want to make sure they are acting ina legitimate fashion, than there is nothing they will be able to do about it. It is that easy. Their statements are meant to say that they did nothing wrong, they are being defensive because they know it could be very bad for them. I would think you are bright enough to understand this.
The Nigerian Government would have no need to respond if they did not think there could be repurcussions. And of course they are going to deny it, just as payoffs are denied in the US before the person is proved wrong and goes to jail.
In addition to these points, it is likely the agreements have verbage covering illegal activities. Could you post a copy of the agreements if you have them? Anyone? It would be interesting to see what they say in there.
One thing is for sure, and MBA, keep putting your head in the sand about it.... This stock is cut in half since the improprieties were alleged and the offices were raided. Other investors were smart enough to know this could cost ERHE their business and chose not to risk anymore and get out. ERHE was brutally affected by this scandal for good reason, and to act like it is not a negative or could not further effect this stock price is ignorant, and that is being nice. It is very possible, even very likely, that ERHE will suffer extreme consequences and the stock will go down even more than the 50% since this happened.
Keep your head in the sand all you want MBA, but the stock price since that time tells the true story.
MBA, you are welcome to your opinion, I am welcome to mine. Clearly Nigeria does not want to go back on them, they get income. But small poor countries have little control over their destinations, it is sad but true. Only time will tell on this, but you have no bearing on what will happen, that is fact. You can keep stating so until you are blue in the face, but your opinion is worthless and has no relevance on the outcome.
It is very clear that improprieties are very possible, if not likely. The stock is WAY DOWN since that time for a good reason. You can stick your head in the sand and ignore this, but this is fact. Statements by the local government is worthless, they are the ones being accused.
Are you trying to insinuate that it is extremely doubtful that payoffs were not prevalent in reaching these deals? Please state so if that is what you intend to say. It will also make my rebuttal very easy.
LOL.
Great post Lone Clone.
This hits on exactly why ERHE is so depressed right now. If people were sure they did no wrong, the stock would be double its current price. Great thought regarding its potential stock increase if no improprieties are found. On the other hand, MBA's posts that no agreements could be changed are incorrect IMO. If a company is found to have done something illegal (paying bribes to get their contract) their ownership of those rights can be nullified.
I see ERHE doubling or approaching zero in the next year and a half, with most of the movement in a short time period.
In no way shape or form do I think the US will do (or would do) that, and i have not indicated such. I agree with you in everything you said. It is whether the US can, and that is it. The original statement was that they cannot, and there is plenty of evidence and proof from the past that they can.
Why would they (US) in Nigeria? It wouldn't make sense. US wants oil from places outside the Middle East, plain and simple.
As far as I am concerned, nothing else needs to be said. Everyone here knows the US has the power to renegotiate anything they care to renegotiate, and the power to push their agenda upon Nigeria. They do not need to now, they want the area explored, it is that simple. If you don't agree, your are welcome to state so, but I consider you wrong if that is the case.
I did. Your point?
Do you disagree with anything I said in my last post?
mba,
No matter what you think or say, it will not influence how or whether the US deals with the Nigerians. I guarantee they are not intimidated by Sir Emeka Offor any more than they are intimidated by Emeka Okafor. My disagreement with your statement has significant factual and true past support to be more than possible. Saddam was not our shoeshine boy and was much much more powerful than Offor, with much much more oil to "Offer". So let your ruffles relax a little bit.
That being said, the US will do what is in their best interests, as they always do. Right now, their best interests seem to be exploring this region, especially in light of Iraq issues. The US wants to find oil in other places so they don't have to rely on the Middle East as much.
Once (and if) oil is being produced in that region, the US will figure out how to benefit from it, whether through their own Corporations or through controlling the region in some fashion.
If you do not think this is a likely possibility, I think you are only voicing opinions meant to hype ERHE, which seems the likely case.
I disagree with one part of your statement, and that is that the "USA has zero power to reverse this agreement."
The USA has the power to do whatever they want, and they have proved they will do whatever they want, for better or for worse.
Sure you all have seen this, just in case....
__________________________________
With the Bush administration sealing alliances in Africa to ensure the continent becomes a leading supplier of oil to the United States a number of leading American figures have personally involved themselves in African petroleum projects. This personal aspect to American oil diplomacy in Africa appears to have led to irregularities that were long tolerated by the authorities. But now Washington appears intent on cracking down.
William Jeffersons Lobbying in Gulf of Guinea. A Democrat legislator from Louisiana, William Jefferson, has been under investigation by the FBI since last year for allegedly accepting bribes from firms looking for introductions in Africa, a continent he regularly visits. A warrant authorizing the search of Jeffersons Capitol Hill office talked of eight cases of potential bribery. Africa Energy Intelligence understands several cases involve oil groups seeking to establish themselves in Equatorial Guinea, Congo-B, Nigeria and Sao Tome; Jefferson frequently met the leaders of all four nations.
Indeed, the representative traveled regularly to the continent, particularly to Equatorial Guinea in 2000 with executives from Shaw Global Energy Service and CMS Energy, and to Congo-Brazzaville in 2002. He toured the Gulf of Guinea more generally in 2004, visiting Sao Tome, Equatorial Nigeria, Nigeria and Cameroon. That trip was sponsored by Global Energy, an oil company once headed by former Irish prime minister Albert Reynolds. Global Energy won a concession in Nigerias offshore last year but had to abandon it because it was unable to pay the front-end bonus.
ERHCs Mentors. In addition to Global Energy, another small American firm, ERHC, was in contact with Jefferson through its lobbyists in Washington. Controlled by several American businessmen and Nigerias Emeka Offor, ERHC holds stakes in several licenses in the Joint Development Zone between Nigeria and Sao Tome. The companys offices in Houston were raided by the police on May 4. We understand the operation was linked to the FBI investigation into Jefferson. When rifling through ERHCs papers, the investigators seized all of the groups communications with politicians in Nigeria and Sao Tome.
ERHC also works with the former American ambassador to Nigeria and ex director of the West African affairs office at the State Department, Howard Jeter. He joined ERHCs board last year.
Andrew Youngs Oil Connections. However, EHRC is not the only company involved in African oil that Jeter is associated with. The former diplomat is also executive vice president of GoodWorks International, a consultancy and lobbying firm headed by the former American ambassador to the United Nations, Andrew Young. Very close to Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo (several of the Nigerian leaders children visit the Young family in Atlanta), Young has ties with a Nigerian oil company, SunTrust Oil. He isnt mentioned among the groups stakeholders in papers filed by Sun Trust with the Corporate Affairs Commission in Nigeria, but Carlon Master, GoodWorks president, works closely with the companys Nigerian shareholders.
Sun Trust owns 30% of the Umusadege field which contains no less than 16 reservoirs and is considered one of the countrys most promising marginal fields. Umusadege is located on the former OML 56 block which Total relinquished in 2001 and which the Nigerian go
Do you have a reason for stating this?
rocky,
IMO, the office raid is the primary catalyst for the stock price decline with ERHE. Everything else was already factored in.
"I, for one, am very confused about what you're trying to "uncover" here. Read the SEC filings and press releases, then google ERHE. No one here can tell you anymore (for certain) than what's in those."
- I know it cannot be revealed "for certain", but I sure would hope that this board is able to give more information than simply reading SEC filings and press releases. There really would be no need for any boards if that was truly the case.
" And, I'm really not sure why you think anyone here (moderator or not) should tell you their specific plans for their investments. "
- I only asked specifics of one person who reveals that information without being asked, and that is mba. I do not expect anyone else to do such if they do not want to. But if somebody is going to post their average stock price of purchase and days when they buy, I don't think questions relating to that are out of line.
"Quite probably, ERHE is just not the stock for you."
- Possibly not, but I am not afraid of risky stocks. I simply do not have them as my sole retirement funds. I have emerging markets, China, International, and many small caps.
I am simply trying to get a feel for the risk reward on ERHE, whether the short term is more likely to go up or down or maybe lack of movement for a while. I agree that investors wil wait to see what happens with the raid before jumping back in, and right now, I think that is the correct play.
Thank you again for your feedback.
Thanks Manti- that is what I thought about XOM, jsut wanted confirmation. What I don't understand is why the stock price would fall so much if the "less risk" answer is as you say. What you say makes sense, but I get the feeling that something else is going on here that isn't being covered. I don't see any explanations regarding ERHE huge stock decline that seem to correspond with the answers.
Cheers and thanks,
TFA,
I have tried replying, but my messages are being deleted by MBA. Hopefully you will see this and respond.
First, thanks for the answers. Follow up questions:
Why do you think there is less risk than a year ago? Is it because the price of ERHE stock is lower, or is there another reason. Anything to do with successful drilling?
What is the best source you have found regarding successful drilling, and how do you know if they are reliable. I clearly see opposing views of that subject on this board.
I agree that exxon has less upside / reward. However, since they are also exposed to this area, do you think it could give them a significant boost? What kind of effect on their num bers could it have? Clearly it is less risk, as well.
Thanks again TFA, appreciated.
mba,
I also sent Matt an email. I would have replied privately, but am unable to do so.
mba,
Thank you for answering. Can you tell me why my previous posts were deleted please.