Follow up on the Newstar (ERHC) McInnis lease.

Looks like Newstar and Mamerow settled the issue without need of a hearing, which leads me to believe that Mamerow provided Newstar at least a portion of the compensation that they were seeking. So, perhaps, PN and SO have a few more dollars to split among themselves.

Shareholders will continue to be kept in the dark, in all likelihood.


https://apps.rrc.texas.gov/portal/s/case/500cs00000PH2a7AAD/detail



.

RKT, I would think that was just inaccurate reporting. The writer was likely told that Kosmos had advanced to Phase II of the PSC which is the initial drilling phase so reported that Kosmos was drilling. We know, however, that they have yet to actually put a drill bit in the ground. All they have done is request (and receive) years of extensions as they wait for whatever.

.

If, on the off chance, ERHC does still maintain some upside in its legacy licenses, then Total's moves in 2024 could be looked at as good news for the EEZ. For the JDZ, not so much.

In São Tomé and Principe, TotalEnergies signed an agreement in 2024 to acquire from Agência Nacional do Petróleo (ANP-STP) a 60% interest with operator status in the STP02 offshore exploration Block. A 3D seismic survey is planned for this Block in 2025. TotalEnergies also obtained a 3-year extension on Block STP01 (55%) and announced to the authorities its withdrawal from Blocks JDZ-7, 8, 11 in the joint development zone between São Tomé and Principe and Nigeria.


https://totalenergies.com/system/files/documents/totalenergies_universal-registration-document-2024_2025_en.pdf



.

True.

Thanks. I am well aware of the current state of the company.



.

While I agree that they are not acting like a real company at the moment, I would point out that it has been 9 years since their first, and only, reverse split and 7 years since there has been any growth in the outstanding share count due to that RS so I'm not sure that argument is valid.


.

Not sure what difference it makes but, again, the Block 4 PSC was signed in June 2024, six months after ERHC announced the ICE.


.

The 5G modem has been authorized by the FCC. Now if only the could produce it en masse.

https://fcc.report/FCC-ID/2ACARGX500G



.

As I said, when invited to join the SPV, I prefer to make my own decisions regarding my investments and will continue to do so.

However, to put your mind at ease, I will let you know that I do not intend to ask anything about any agreement that may or may not exist between Shell and ERHC.

So I will let the poster I asked, Peter J, respond, and if he wants to tell me to find the address on my own, I will respect that.



.

Peter J, what email address did you use to contact Shell IR? 
Thanks.

.

That timeline is incorrect.

In October 2023 STP issued an invitation to anyone to express interest in 85% of Block 4. In December 2023 ERHC issued their CE. In March/April (cannot recall exactly) STP invited Shell to negotiate a PSC for 85% of Block 4 and in June the PSC was signed.

So the question is, what happened between March/April and June 2024. Did Shell and ERHC reach some kind of agreement, or did Shell tell them to pound sand. That is what we are hoping to possibly learn from whatever response Peter J might receive from Shell IR.


.

badog, I agree with you. If they have a confidential deal, with anyone, then Shell IR should never have even mentioned it, but what they said was that "the terms of the agreement" were confidential and not the agreement itself. So...they should be able to clarify, at least, what agreement they are referencing; an agreement with ERHC or the PSC with STP.

As I said, hopefully their reply to Peter J's follow up will do just that.


.

While it's possible that Shell IR is referring to the PSC when saying "the agreement", I don't think we can accept that with 100% certainty. Especially since the question asked addressed ERHC and not STP.
Hopefully, Peter J gets a response to his follow up inquiry that does give clarity either way.

.

Thank you for this, Peter J.  Two questions.
1. Have you followed up? Perhaps a strategically worded question like, "May I ask, for clarity, are you referring to the agreement between Shell and ERHC Energy?"
2. How quickly did Shell IR respond to your email? That might help determine if it was indeed lazy IR because I would not expect some IR lacky to know of a specific confidential agreement in a company as massive as Shell without having to do some  legwork.
Thanks, again.


.

I agree that Shell would not have signed the Block 4 PSC if they were not 100% certain that there were no ownership issues. It is possible that ERHC was offered and accepted some cash rather than potentially ending up with nothing while litigating themselves into bankruptcy. After all, I doubt PN is funding his own travel expenses and apparently Lynda (at least) is still on the payroll so there is some money from somewhere. I am just highly skeptical that there is some contingency based deal that will one day give ERHC any percentage interest in Block 4.


.

The PSC has been available for months and, while I am no lawyer, I've seen nothing in it that shows that the STP 15% is meant for anything other than the benefit of STP. 
http://www.grip.st/docs/DT-235-Peoductin%20sharing%20contract%20block%204.pdf

Now, could ERHC end up with some of Shell's interest? I suppose it's still possible, and I'd certainly be elated if that happened, I just don't believe it's probable.

.

Agreed, STP doesn’t need to keep ERHC’s participation in Block 4 a secret. Therefore, had ERHC exercised its option to obtain a 15% working interest in Block 4 (yes, the option was for working, not carried, interest), the Block 4 PSC would show Shell with 85% and ERHC with 15% (or possibly Shell 70%, ERHC 15%, STP 15%). Since it does not show that we can only conclude, until proven otherwise, that ERHC did not exercise its option on Block 4.

And the caveat emptor secures nothing. It only tells us that ERHC believes they have have interests in Block 4 to protect. It would be up to the legal system to determine whether or not that is actually the case.

Additionally, as long as ERHC's stock remains registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, they are under the same obligation to disclose material information as they ever were. They can choose not to meet that obligation but they are not relieved of the obligation.


.

So you are saying that STP is keeping ERHC's participation in Block 4 a secret from Shell and will spring it on them at the "right time"? Sorry, but I don't buy that.


.

OK, maybe ERHC is choosing not to follow the rules by not announcing material events as they happen but what reason would STP have to "play along" and sign the PSC and hold the 15% for ERHC?

Also, why would ERHC need to exercise their option for 15% if they controlled the rights to 85% of the block in the first place?

"**all indications suggest they did—**" (play their cards right)? All they did was issue an the caveat emptor indicating that, as of December 2023, they believed they still had the rights to 85% of Block 4. We have no idea what played out after that except that Shell ended up with 85% of Block 4 and ERHC is known to have 0% of Block 4.


.

ERHC's 15% options were available to them under the unique agreement that they had with STP and not under a PSC. As far as anyone knows, that agreement expired on October 1, 2024. Additionally, under the terms of that agreement, ERHC was required to exercise their option(s) on a block prior to the signing of a PSC.


.

It may be that Shell, as the operator, will be handling the actual Block 10 drilling duties, e.g., lining up the drillship, etc. We will just have to wait on further information.


.

Peter J, I prefer to discuss the company and not other posters.

Thanks for the Shell report, Krom.
I see that, in the relevant section where they discuss the acquisition and divestiture of licenses, they do not name any specific block(s) no matter the country. Based on that, I'm not sure that any special significance can be tied to STP Block 4 being unnamed.


.

In case there is still anyone around who may be interested in actual company related news, here is something.
There is some drama going on with the remaining Texas lease/well. Details can be found at the following link...

https://apps.rrc.texas.gov/portal/s/case/500cs00000PH2a7AAD/detail



.

Source?

So I went back and read PN's reply to your inquiry on LinkedIn and was reminded that it said nothing to confirm a partnership between ERHC and Petromad. In typical PN fashion, it was a word salad that could be interpreted to mean a number of different things, or nothing at all.

And no confirmation of a partnership between ERHC and Pertomad means no confirmation of a "partnership" with Farmout Angel.

All, IMO, of course.



.

OK, I'll have to go back and refresh myself on what he said there

But that is one, maybe, partnership. You mentioned partnerships. Can you name another known partnership?

Thanks.



.

Would love to know more about the partnerships you mention in your first bullet. 
Any details you could provide such as partner names, ERHC's role in the partnership and, most importantly, what ERHC receives of value from the partnership would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.



.

I don't see a report section, unless you mean "Download Archived Data". Also, those coordinates you show are for Sao Tome Island. Block 4 would be next to Principe Island, something more like 1.7N, 7.6E.


.

I believe you can look at the historical data by clicking on the scroll buttons next to "WEEK" at the bottom of the page. Scrolling left takes you to the prior week, and so on. You can even change "WEEK" to any number of days or go into "Advance Mode" and you can go as low as every 10 minutes.

As I said, I scrolled daily back to January 1 and did not see any red dots in the EEZ.

Interesting tool, though. Thanks for posting.



.

Krom, I am unfamiliar with that website. Can you post a picture of what you are seeing? I ran through every day since January 1 and did not see any red spots in the EEZ area but, as I said, I'm not exactly sure how to use that site.

Thanks.

There was some discussion regarding ERHC and Wellpoint back in 2021 and, according to AEI, they did work together back in 2017 on one of the long past efforts Wellpoint mentions on their website. It's just not clear that Wellpoint is doing anything today. A google search certainly comes up empty.


https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=163084681&txt2find=wellpoint


You are likely getting yourself all worked up over nothing, but that's just IMO so carry on.



.

My take: It looks like the government of Sierra Leone tried to do something good for their citizens by creating a website where they could make appointments with government officials directly. However, it looks like someone has since taken over the domain to create a content aggregation website with the help of AI.

Conclusion: Unfortunately, again, nothing to see here regarding ERHC.


https://statehouse.gov.sl/state-house-sierra-leone-introduces-the-appointment-portal-to-efficiently-connect-the-public-with-government-officials-at-the-presidency/

https://appointments.statehouse.gov.sl


.

Thanks, but I'm not sure about all that. All I did was follow a trail that Krom provided.

And I'm glad he did. From what could be seen in the Google search, it might have been something. Turned out to be old news but was worth looking into, IMO.


.

No, no Tri Cascade. Just think the "Vos" name is a little too coincidental for it not to be the e-bike.

And, yes, I'm aware of the rest. This my, somewhat, rhetorical question.


.

VosX e-bike? How could that not be Tri Cascade's e-bike.  
But will Max be able to produce and sell it?

Hey, Krom. I replicated your search terms and the Google link worked fine for me.

Unfortunately, it returns a document from 2008 and the blurb in the Google search is taken from a paragraph addressing a decision to take away ERHC's 15% interests in JDZ (not EEZ) blocks 5 & 6. Here is the full paragraph...




Thanks for bringing something to discuss and don't be a stranger.


.

It is clear from his words (to me anyway) that he is saying that they still have assets in the JDZ. What is unclear is, when he says "São Tomé and Principe", does that also mean the EEZ.

But, I do agree with you that, unless Total makes a commercial discovery in their new blocks (which they seem to be in no hurry to drill), the JDZ wil continue to be unattractive.

Could this be a "Christmas surprise"?

Not sure if it will be enough to "destroy the shorts", but in this newly released interview that took place in November, PN says (in so many words) that ERHC still has interests in the JDZ. Any interest in the EEZ remains uncertain.