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.
farrell, I believe you mean to be looking for PR from Shell. But you are right, they have not released anything yet, either.
https://www.shell.com/news-and-insights/newsroom.html
Did you see my earlier post from another source? It included video of the PSC signing event.
.
Three…
Sorry, Snaye, but there is just not enough information available for me to even venture a guess as to how much ERHC might receive. Heck, I'm not even convinced that ERHC still has the right to receive anything, international caveat emptor notwithstanding.
.
OK, Krom, you got me. My recollection was wrong.
They only received $4 million for Block 11. The $700K that you are recalling is the sales price they agreed to take from Kosmos for Block 4.
Net cash provided by investing activities during the year ended September 30, 2016 was $3,991,906, a change of $3,766,284 from cash provided by investing activities of $225,622 for the year ended September 30, 2015. The change in cash used in investing activities was primarily due to the increase in proceeds from sales of EEZ Block 11 interest in oil and gas concessions of $4,000,000 for the year ended September 30, 2016.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/799235/000114036117002243/form10k.htm
And we previously discussed how the amount owed on the taxes (somewhere in the $600K range, to my recollection) was a paltry sum in comparison to the perceived worth of Block 4, so why didn't someone just pay it rather then risk losing the block.
.
Tela Non article on Shell and Block 4
The Anglo-Dutch oil exploration company acquired 85% of participatory interests in block 4 of the exclusive economic zone of São Tomé and Príncipe. The state of Santo got the remaining 15% right to participate.
The production sharing contract for oil block number 4 was signed last week. Shell positions itself as the main oil company operating in the Exclusive Economic Zone of São Tomé and Príncipe. São Tomé and Príncipe has 9 oil blocks awarded and Shell is present in 5 blocks, namely 6, 10, 11, 13 and 4.
Andrew Hepburn, Shell's Director General for São Tomé and Príncipe and Suriname was the one who signed the contract on block 4 with the São Tomé state.
"It is in our interest to continue investing in São Tomé and Príncipe. More prospecting studies will be carried out, which will lead us to the goal of exploring oil here in São Tomé and Príncipe," he said.
The National Petroleum Agency is confident that Shell will find black gold, because it is a company with technical and financial evidence.
"Shell has demonstrated this, it has the technical and financial capacity to exploit oil," said Álvaro Silva, Executive Director of the National Petroleum Agency.
The state institution that manages the oil dossier, praised the commitment of the oil company Shell in the search for black gold in the territorial sea of the country. "We are convinced that of the various blocks that Shell is part of here in São Tomé and Príncipe, the oil company with the most blocks in the country that we have successes in the near future, and that our country will finally enter the world of oil-producing countries," he pointed out.
The signing of the contract for sharing the production of block 4, allows the state coffers to raise financial resources, through the signing bonus.
https://www.telanon.info/economia/2024/06/30/44892/petrolifera-shell-participa-em-5-blocos-de-petroleo-de-stp/
.
If I recall correctly they got something like $4.5 million for Block 11. If they do get something for Block 4 it should be more than that just because more is known about the potential of the EEZ now.
.
Well, as I said originally, I look forward to learning what ERHC received in any deal.
.
Could you provide a link, please, to these Presidential public announcements regarding Block 4? I was never able to find any reports on any local STP news outlets.
Thanks.
,
I’d be surprised if anyone besides Petrobras becomes a partner on Block 4.
.
So much for Aramco. I look forward to learning how ERHC was “respected”.
São Tomé and Príncipe - Shell signs contract to explore oil block number 4
The British oil company, based in London, acquired 85% of the participatory interests in block four of the exclusive São-Tomese economic zone.
The production sharing contract provides for the payment of a subscription bonus in favor of the archipelago.
https://rtpafrica.rtp.pt/noticias/sao-tome-e-principe-shell-assina-contrato-para-explorar-o-bloco-de-petroleo-numero-4/
.
Thanks, Krom, but I should have been more clear.
I was hoping you could provide a translation for the video imbedded in the page. Certainly not a word-for-word transcript (although that would be great), but maybe a summation of the key points Mr. Silva and/or the narrator are making.
TIA, again.
.
Hello, farrell and thanks for the link.
That appears to be a post by the Saudi National Competitveness Center that was liked by Mr. Silva. The gentleman in the picture with the Arab (Saudi?) gentleman looks to be Ahmed Samir Saleh, the Egyptian Minister of Trade and Industry.
http://www.mti.gov.eg/English/aboutus/aboutminister/Pages/ministerscv.aspx
However, the fact that Mr. Silva is watching Saudi Arabian happenings could imply there is some smoke to the Aramco rumors.
.
Krom, would you mind translating? The blurb makes it sound like they are getting a little frustrated with Shell, et al.
TIA
São Tomé and Príncipe – ANP-STP marks 20 years with the guarantee that there is oil in the country
The archipelago has oil and oil companies operating in the country's Exclusive Economic Zone must intensify prospecting work.
The executive director of the National Petroleum Agency, Álvaro Silva, said this during the presentation of a documentary about the oil industry in São Tomé and Príncipe.
https://rtpafrica.rtp.pt/noticias/sao-tome-e-principe-anp-stp-assinala-20-anos-com-a-garantia-de-que-ha-petroleo-no-pais/
.
At one time they briefly owned three wells on two leases in Texas. They have since sold two of those wells and, according to state records, the remaining well has produced only one (1) barrel of oil over the past two years. So no one is getting rich there.
.
Four…
Thanks, Krom.
Would love to see some updates from the company or in the media.
.
RKT, I see where you are coming from now.
Yes, I am aware that Kosmos assigned a litigation value of $500M to Block 4 but my question is where does this new phraseology "richest block" come from. I don't think it relates to that Kosmos valuation because a $500M deepwater block would hardly be worth pursuing since each well costs more that $100M to drill these days.
.
I do not recall that. Do you have a link?
Thanks.
.
You’ve put it in quotes twice now so I have to ask.
Who is it that has proclaimed Block 4 as “the richest block”?
Thanks.
.
OK. Thanks for the info.
OK, spitballing. Got it.
Thanks.
And, don’t worry, I’m waiting. Shouldn’t be too much longer before we know something, either way.
.
Perfectly serious, but your concern is noted.
OK. Since farml’s information is typically secondhand, do you know if his “curveball” post re: Block 4 is legitimately sourced?
Or is his curveball more just spitballing?
.
Link? Thanks.
Link, please, to any credible source that refers to Wen Shone Shiau as the “Elon Musk of Asia”.
Thanks.
.
Link, please, to Wen Shone Shiau being a billionaire.
Thanks.
.
Thanks for the article,Krom.
Unfortunately, I don’t see anything we didn’t already know other than, maybe, that Block 10 looks to be the next block to be drilled, for those who hadn’t already surmised that from other sources.
.
Am i reading it correctly? They are saying they are going to try to get to NASDAQ or NYSE without doing a R/S? That is great to hear, although I won't hold my breath on the them getting off of OTC.
.
Five...
How do you know that the assignment agreement does not officially bind Total to ever perform work on a block to prove that block is "in production" better than a PSC when over half the agreement is redacted?
Do you even have a working definition of "in production" to qualify either the PSC or the assignment agreement as meeting the criteria for "in production"?
The discussion was about completion (or lack thereof), not termination. I never said that I assumed the agreement was terminated.
And how can an assignment agreement with another company, no matter how qualified, that does not officially bind said company to ever perform any work on a block prove that block is “in production” better than a Production Sharing Contract? That just does not make sense.
Fun scenario, and I do agree with your last statement.
.
ERHC never got an extension on Block 11 because they never requested one. They sold out to Kosmos long before any extension would have been needed.
When Oranto was designated as Operator for Block 3 in a PSC did they get an extension? Apparently, yes, since they completed Phase I in 2015 and only had two years under the PSC to complete Phase II. To get from 2017 to November of 2023 they had to have been granted at least one extension. And since it is doubtful they were given one six year extension, they were likely granted more than one.
So the assumption that Oranto needs to have a “qualified operator” signed on to participate in Block 3 in order to get an extension is not supported by the evidence.
.
Section 4.1 of the ERHC/Total Assignment Agreement reads...
4.1 Condition Precedent
Completion is subject to the fulfilment (or, where permitted, waiver) of the following conditions (“Conditions”):
(a) receipt of all requisite written approvals and consents from the Competent Authority of the Deed of Assignment;
(b) notification by Assignee that it has obtained the authorisation of Total SA (I) on the transfer of the Transferred Interests under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and (ii) to become a party to the PSC for Block 4; and
(c) execution and entry into full force and effect of a PSC in respect of Block 4 either:
(i) between (i) Assignor (or Assignee in cased Assignor has assigned and transferred remaining rights and interests in Block 4 to Assignee pursuant to Clause 4.7), (ii) Assignee and (iii) DRSTP represented by ANP-STP; or
(ii) in the case of the Farm-In Alternative between (I) Assignor and (ii) DRSPT represented by ANP-STP.
In the event that a Condition precedent is not satisfied or waived by the Longstop Date, any Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement in accordance with Clause 4.8 at any time by written notice to the other Party. By mutual agreement of the Parties in writing the Longstop Date may be extended for another period to be agreed by the Parties.
Discussion:
Condition (a): something confirming that this condition was met would likely only be included as part of a SEC filing, as Kosmos did with Block 11 (see below). As we know, ERHC is not filing and Total has filed nothing related to EEZ Block 4. Additionally, there is no evidence that any interest in Block 4 has ever been transferred to Total. Conclusion: condition (a) has not been met.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1509991/000155837016005628/kos-20160331ex101065573.htm
Condition (b): a document of this nature would likely not be made available for public viewing. Conclusion: neutral.
Condition (c): the only official mention of a PSC for Block 4 is the ANP-STP invitation to Shell to negotiate such a PSC. If ERHC/Total/STP had executed a full force and effect PSC for Block 4 then STP would have had no reason to run their bid process on Block 4. Conclusion: condition (c) has not been met.
So, with two out of three conditions being unmet (although it would only take one), it is my conclusion that the Assignment Agreement has not been completed.
I welcome any evidence to the contrary.
.
Oranto did not declare themselves the operator on the block, they were designated as the Operator in a contractual agreement between themselves and STP. And they were a perfectly capable operator in getting Phase I accomplished. And I could be wrong about their reasons for going to xrimlinger. Maybe they feel they could be the technical operator but they just want to share the financial risk of drilling a deep water well.
Why didn't ERHC think of that? Maybe they did. After all, they were designated as the Operator on the Block 11 PSC (see below). Maybe ERHC wanted to enter into a PSC for Block 4 but STP refused until they paid their taxes due on Block 11.
28.1
ERHC ENERGY EEZ, LDA is hereby designated as the Operator under this Contract to execute, for and on behalf of the Contractor, all Petroleum Operations in the Contract Area pursuant to and in accordance with this Contract and the Petroleum Law.
https://www.resourcecontracts.org/contract/ocds-591adf-3122094392/view#/search/operator
As to the conditions to completion of the ERHC/Total Assignment Agreement. I will try to address them if I get time later today.
.
CLEARLY, unless you can show otherwise, Oranto is the Operator per the PSC. The purpose in their going to xrimlinger was to help them secure a partner that has the technical and financial wherewithal to help them complete Phase II of the PSC (drilling a well) because they cannot do this on there own. If and when they do find such a partner then the PSC will likely be modified to name said partner as the Operator on the block.
As to your second request, the ERHC/Total portion of the 400 page document is not able to be copy and pasted, or I would have done so. But you can easily go and read the conditions and if you would like to prove they have been met, feel free.
.
By "not completed", I mean not completed. See page 213 of the 400 pages (page 10 of the ERHC/Total agreement), Clause 4.1, Conditions Precedent, where it begins by saying, "Completion is subject to...".
As to Block 3, as I mentioned previously, the PSC establishes the Operator on the block, and from the Oranto PSC we see that Oranto is named as Operator on Block 3.
28.1 ORANTO PETROLEUM-STP, Limited is hereby designated as Operator under this Contract to sign, for and on behalf of the Contractor, all Petroleum Operations in the Contract Area under and in accordance with this Contract and the Petroleum Law.
.
You are certainly free to assume what you want but the problem with your assumtion is that, while Total would certainly be a qualified operator, the Assignment Agreement does not make Total the operator of the block. Heck, it's not even a "completed" Assignment Agreement so it doesn't even make Total an official participant in the block.
And, although the STP/ERHC agreement does not specifically call for a PSC, a PSC would be an agreement between ERHC and Sao Tome and, hopefully, someone else that would designate the Operator as well as the working interest percentages in the block.
But, there is a silver lining to my assumption. If a PSC starts "production" then ERHC should not lose JDZ Block 2 on October 1 because they are a party to a PSC on that block.
As for Oranto, again, yes they do have a PSC on Block 3. For a long time now.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174003361
.
,
Again, there is nothing in the original agreement between STP and ERHC that provides for the extension of ERHC's rights on the block in the case that ERHC were to sign an agreement to transfer interest in the block to another party. The only provision in the original agreement that addresses extension is the following:
6.3 On the expiration of the term of this Agreement, if ERHC have Working Interest in all or part of any Block in production, ERHC's corresponding rights in the said Blocks shall continue as long as those Blocks are in production.
So what is debatable is, does the signing of a PSC effectively place a block "in production"? I am now of the opinion that it does and so that would be ERHC's only hope of extending their rights on Block 4. Assuming they do still have those rights as of now, which is also debatable, IMO.
.
OK. Thanks. I guess I will remain undecided.
.
OK, thanks. I will see if I can find it on Friday.
If I can remember.
.