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.
Anyone interested in hearing PN (and others) speak on June 28 can now do so for free...
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/energy-poverty-africas-energy-transition-and-the-global-energy-economy-tickets-360556583447?aff=erelexpmlt
.
Looks like the next pump is here...
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2022/06/21/2466101/0/en/Verus-Signs-Distribution-Agreement-in-Florida.html
.
If I knew when drilling would end I would sign up for the seven day trial around that time but, it could end tomorrow or eight days from now.
Just kidding. With the MarineTraffic phone app you can get 24 hour special access for any ship for $0.99. So I splurged.
Doesn’t say if they found oil, though, so not that special.
.
Thanks, Krom. At great personal expense I have acquired the latest lat/lon for Maersk Voyager…
Latitude 0.58938
Longitude 7.912
which I believe puts it at the same spot that you last reported when you said it had stopped.
.
He he…gag order.
Good one.
.
I’d be very surprised if they could do that without any industry watchdogs (I.e. Upstream) finding out.
.
Don’t believe anyone ever said it was in an ERHC block, but it is taking place in a block in the STP EEZ so is of interest to ERHC shareholders.
.
That's longer than the 50 days Graff-1 reportedly took to drill. They must be going deeper, like Venus-1X, or have had some issues (like Venus 1X) or maybe both.
And although the position info on Maersk Voyager has not been updated since April 24th, your point is well taken. If Voyager had moved off location to port somewhere we would have known.
Thanks, ND9.
.
Nicely stated.
Pete speaking again at the end of the month, and anyone can listen in for a mere $100. Needs to update his bio a little.
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/energy-poverty-africas-energy-transition-and-the-global-energy-economy-tickets-360556583447?aff=erelexpmlt
.
Thanks for the discussion, I learned a lot about arbitration that I did not know before.
Good luck to you, and all longs here, as well.
.
A Final Award does not change a Partial Award. From the ICC Arbitration Rules (emphasis mine)..
Article 2: Definitions
In the Rules:
.
.
.
(v) “award” includes, inter alia, an interim, partial, final, or additional award.
and
Article 35: Notification, Deposit and Enforceability of the Award
1)
Once an award has been made, the Secretariat shall notify to the parties the text signed by the arbitral tribunal, provided always that the costs of the arbitration have been fully paid to ICC by the parties or by one of them.
.
.
.
6)
Every award shall be binding on the parties. By submitting the dispute to arbitration under the Rules, the parties undertake to carry out any award without delay and shall be deemed to have waived their right to any form of recourse insofar as such waiver can validly be made.
In other words, Partial Awards are final with respect to the portion of the arbitration they decide. A Final Award decides any claims not decided by Partial Award (any claims not withdrawn), fixes the costs and, yes, ends the matter (the arbitration) with finality.
https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/rules-of-arbitration/
.
The 8K says that the arbitrator found that ERHC was the legal owner of 100% of EEZ Block 4 as of October 17, 2017. It says nothing to ownership after that point in time.
.
Arbitration proceedings begin when one party (the Claimant) makes a claim or claims against another party who may then make their own claim or claims. Clearly the Total v. ERHC arbitration involved mulitple claims otherwise the arbitrator would have had no need to point out that the Partial Award did not address all issues and claims. And, we only see the claims you mention in the Partial Award because they were the only claims that the arbitrator did address.
Again, we do not know what all of the claims in the arbitration were because we cannot see Total's complaint or ERHC's response. They may have been minor in comparison but they were "claims", nonetheless. And it was those claims that the 8K refers to as withdrawn, IMO, because the entire purpose of the 8K was to inform about the Total v. ERHC arbitration.
.
The Total v. ERHC arbitration, itself (the subject of the 8K), involved more the one "claim". From the Partial Award...
30. Of the matters finally decided by this Partial Award, two are by consent, and two are decided following my consideration of the Parties’ submissions and exhibits. This Partial Award decides nothing more than those issues and claims.
What all of the claims were we don't know because we do not have access to Total's Complaint.
https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-total-e-p-activites-petrolieres-v-erhc-energy-inc-partial-award-wednesday-15th-august-2018
.
But where do they talk about “and entities”? They do not.
Where does it say that Kosmos was a party to the litigation addressed in the 8K? It does not.
1.An arbitration holding in London, England, under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce, between a foreign multinational and ERHC Energy Inc. (together the “Parties”)...
.
And therein lies the problem. Not only was Kosmos not directly mentioned in the 8K, they were not even alluded to, as was Total. So anything having to do with Kosmos has to be "read into" the 8K.
That is what leads me to say that there is still no definitive proof that the reported result of the Kosmos v. ERHC arbitration case does not still stand.
.
I like discussing topics relevant to ERHC.
Thanks.
.
Great. Would love to see the convincing evidence you have found.
.
Yes, I recall those posts. The problem with the Jus Mundi information is that it only has documents that were also available in the 400 page document. Likely because these were the only documents that ERHC and Kosmos and ERHC and Total agreed to release per the confidentiality agreements related to their arbitration proceedings.
There is nothing on that Jus Mundi website that provides any confirmation of what has happened with Kosmos relative to Block 4.
.
Possibly a deal of some sort was worked out. Just need to see if that is the case.
Thanks.
.
Still waiting for firm evidence that Kosmos’ reported win over ERHC in their London arbitration regarding EEZ Block 4 has been nullified. Maybe it has, but there in no definitive proof of that, IMO.
Disclosure: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a shareholder in Kosmos Energy. Any interest in Kosmos is purely related to ERHC.
.
First off, let me compliment you on your ability to whip out these formatted, colored posts so quickly. Very impressive!
My comments/adjustments to your comments in bold green...
Thanks, RKT, your input is noted, however, I will continue to discuss what I feel needs to be discussed on this ERHC Energy discussion board.
Fortunately for you, though, I have no time to continue the discussion today. I will be back tomorrow, though, to try to clear up today’s inaccuracies.
.
The ruling said, because you did not address all of the pleadings (the gag order being just one of them) I, the Judge, deny your motion for a ruling on the pleadings.
I see nowhere in the ruling where it says address the gag order or go to trial.
.
As I understand it, no trial date would be set (not sure these proceedings actually have trials) until all pre-trial motions are exhausted.
The real question is why has the Judge not ruled in the motion for summary disposition. Maybe it just takes time. If I recall correctly, the ruling on the motion for a ruling on the pleadings took over a year.
.
The question was answered before...
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=163504063
.
How about they just establish some sales history here in the States before they try to take on the world.
.
ERHC can mention Total in relation to the Kosmos arbitration and/or Harris County lawsuit because Total is not a party to either of those proceedings.
Total can only not be mentioned in relation to the ERHC/Total arbitration proceedings related to EEZ Block 4. If the two parties have a separate agreement whereby Total is providing ERHC funding to pay its litigation expenses, then that agreement can and should be disclosed to shareholders.
.
Sorry, I was just being all-inclusive with my "third party" because funds may not necessarily have come from Total. I, perhaps, should have said something more like...
"Revenues (or liabiliites or whatever) increased due to reciept of funds from Total (or Offor or name of litigation-finance firm or whoever) to pay litigation expenses".
.
Not necessarily a “new” motion, but a newer motion nonetheless. A motion for summary disposition, just as the Judge suggested…
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/apdocuments/3-19419-2021-04-16-divisions-motion-for-summary-disposition.pdf
.
“Changing the labels of accounts to hide things…”? Don’t believe I said they should do any such thing.
.
Yes, but I’m saying that redactions are not necessary in the filings because they can structure the language the same way as they did in the 8Ks. If there are no redactions then Krom’s concerns are no longer an issue.
OK, please explain why you think that is the case. I’m all eyes.
.
So the Judge denied the motion on the pleadings because the Division did not address the pleadings. That is not dismissal of the proceedings.
And the Judge basically told the Division that they might be better off filing a motion for summary disposition, which is what they did.
.
Thanks. I now realize that my thinking was off the other day and ERHC will not need to redact anything or file for Confidential Treatment. They could file with all of the financial data in full view (because numbers alone say nothing) and then in the notes say, for example...
"Revenues (or liabiliites or whatever) increased due to reciept of funds from a third party to pay litigation expenses".
and
"Expenses increased due to payment of litigation expenses".
And in the "Legal Proceedings" section, they could say just what they said in the 8K. Something lke...
"ERHC Energy BVI Limited (“ERHC BVI’) was involved in a contentious arbitration with an international oil company (hereinafter “IOC”) before the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”)."
If the 8K didn't violate the gag order, then neither should that.
.
Looks like it. I couldn’t find any evidence to support the existence of Flörd as a company except that lame website with some photoshopped products. And the site just happens to be housed by an Icelandic hosting service that is notorious for scam websites.
.