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.
The Kosmos map would not show Block 4 unless they were officially in Block 4. Just as you will see no map from Total claiming interest in EEZ block 4.
Someday, maybe one or both will have such a map.
.
.
Problem is, the 8-K says nothing about documents being presented to the JDA. They (Oranto, ERHC, Foby) are working on a JOA for Block 2 (have been for over 5 years now), and ERHC is having discussions regarding the future of Blocks 3 and 4. Is anything really being accomplished?
.
I can only guess that he was responding to a question about EEZ Block 4. He provided an answer that was consistent with the map on the Kosmos website, which he linked in his email.
.
The same way shares were sold previously, in the now “abandoned” offering. The question is…is it (was it) a violation of SEC regulations to do so?
.
What documents are before the JDA (I assume you meant, instead of JOA)?
And while the players in Block 2 weren't named, it is not a secret. Unless you think that Total bought out Oranto's 65% or Foby's 5%, with no announcement of such a transaction having been made. More stealth?
.
.
Nope. Restricted share count did not change so it wasn’t management shares.
.
More likely it is whoever purchased 200M 1-A shares last week doing the selling.
.
Thanks, Krom. Unfortunately, not from Charest but from Kosmos' investor relations guy who appears to just be looking at the map which, of course, says that Kosmos is not in Block 4 because they never have been, officially.
And they may never be, officially. But the 8-K does lead me to believe that haggling is still going on between Total and Kosmos over Block 4, with ERHC's related fate still TBD.
.
Agreed, NDT. That is what I was trying to convey with "IMO".
Krom, I can't even begin to speculate on that. Why did they choose to file the 2018 and 2021 8-K's when they did? Who knows.
As I said before, best we can hope is that this time it realy is the start of more constant information flow.
BTW, Linda Uwams signed those previos two 8-K's, as well, so not even new news there.
.
OK, I look forward to seeing the DC emails and hope that you are correct that we are on the verge of receiving positive news.
Thanks, Krom.
.
I would love to see a screenshot of the correspondence with Daniel Charest, both question and response, regarding Kosmos, ERHC and Block 4. Maybe that will give me the evidence that I am looking for to believe that Kosmos is out of the Block 4 picture.
.
Except that it is not new news since those words are not from the 8K filed yesterday, but from the 10-Q filed on August 14, 2017. All the 8K does is tell us that they are still discussing it with the JDA, not that anything has come from those discussions.
.
I comprehend the term finality just fine. What I don't comprehend is how anyone can think that the 8K you refer to addresses anything other than the litigation (LCIA arbitration) between Total and ERHC.
Until I see something that clearly states or shows that Kosmos is no longer interested in Block 4, I will continue to believe that the are.
p.s. The article from the first link in my post is dated after the 8K you refer to and says that Kosmos is still in the picture.
.
.
It should be common knowledge to any regular on this board that Kosmos won their arbitration over ERHC, but here are four links, for your referrence.
As we revealed, in 2017, ERHC signed sales agreements for similar parts of this block, including the operatorship, first with Kosmos then with TotalEnergies (AI, 03/03/20). Both buyers took ERHC to court; Kosmos in the US and TotalEnergies in London. Both courts confirmed each company's rights on the block, but neither company has taken any steps to claim them.
https://www.africaintelligence.com/central-africa/2022/09/09/shell_galp-s-drilling-on-block-6-may-kickstart-negotiations-over-block-4,109811258-art
According to our sources, ERHC recently lost its London arbitration against Kosmos Energy over Block 4 in Sao Tome and Principe (AEI 837).
https://www.africaintelligence.com/central-africa/2019/10/22/jon-cappon-takes-charge-of-kosmos--legal-fight-for-block-4,108378344-art
Total victory for Burns Charest client [Kosmos] after multi-day arbitration proceeding in London.
https://www.burnscharest.com/our-team/daniel-charest/
Represented Kosmos in a dispute over rights to conduct oil and gas exploration in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of São Tomé and Príncipe. Oversaw dual-track litigation in the ICC and Harris County. Secured preliminary injunctions in both jurisdictions, summary judgment on liability in Harris County, and a complete victory at the ICC, including attorneys’ fees.
https://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/professionals/slifer-leelle-b.html#experience
.
Hello, Opus. As previously posted, the JDZ information in this 8K is the same as was stated back in 2017 and gives us nothing new. Until there is new news, it is old news.
And I agree it is good to see some communication from the company and, hopefully, it does mean something is happening. However, if I went back to the board postings around the time of the 2021 8K I could probably find posts saying that the timing of that 8K meant something was about to happen so I will reserve any enthusiasm until something actually does happen.
.
Except it looks like they did not discuss financial reporting, rather diversity and inclusion requirements reporting for companies listed on London stock exchanges.
https://www.downthewireblog.com/2022/05/diversity-inclusion-reporting-for-listed-companies/
.
There were two disputes in arbitration, one resolved in favor of Total and one resolved in favor of Kosmos. Using the language, "issues and fallouts of dispute resolution", tells me that the Kosmos win is still causing problems. There would be no continuing "issues and fallouts of dispute resolution" if the fight over Block 4 had been resolved with finality, IMO.
.
Where does it say that "new operators" have come into ERHC's JDZ blocks? Block 2 has had three companies with working interests since Oranto came into the block in 2017 (Foby Engineering being the third). I say it is old news because they said, essentially, the same things in 2017.
"In July 2017 the Company announced the signing of a new Production Sharing Contract (PSC) on Block 2 of the Nigeria-Sao Tome & Principe Joint Development Zone (JDZ). ERHC has a 30 percent working interest under the PSC. ERHC is currently working to conclude the Joint Operation Agreement (JOA) for the Block."
And,
"ERHC is currently working with the JDA toward new operating partnerships in respect of JDZ Blocks 3 and 4 (with the intention of negotiating new PSCs for those Blocks)."
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/799235/000137647417000241/erhe-20170630.htm
.
Tried to tell you all that Kosmos was still gumming up the works on Block 4. So much for the matter being ended with finality.
The JDZ info is old news, really.
Good to see some communication, though.
.
200 million added to the outstanding share count. That probably explains yesterday’s volume.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/SRMX/security
.
It was always my belief that the POS(s) needed to be qualified before shares could be sold, but I’m no expert so didn’t know for sure.
.
Interesting. Shares were sold under these unqualified and abandoned (in the SEC’s opinion) POS’s. Is that going to be problematic?
.
Can you say off topic?
Link please to ERHE owned property in Namibia. Thanks.
No block ERHC is involved in, that’s for sure
Please take these off topic posts to the appropriate board. Thanks.
.
A true POS day, indeed. But will $0.00025 be low enough.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/841533/000119983523000057/form1a.htm
.
PN is scheduled to not speak about ERHC Energy again tomorrow, for anyone interested.
AfricaEnergyFutures Webcast| Thursday, 19th January 2023| 10am
This edition spotlights "Financing Fossil Energy and Energy Infrastructure through the accelerated deployment of decarbonization technologies".
The WebCast enables engagement on the critical issue of energy poverty in Africa and the global energy transition in a manner that generates solutions, promotes investments in the African oil and gas business value chain against the backdrop of the dynamics of the global energy market, especially the changing US policy environment.
Africa is faced with critical issues of financing, technology and local content development as well as human capital development in a global industry even as the International Oil Companies divest, and global financial institutions are not keen on investing. The Webcast is informed by continuing advocacy for a just energy transition premised on the notion that there is energy poverty in Africa and achieving net-zero in petroleum production operations is the practical pathway for emerging African energy economies who speak about an energy mix and believe it is just and equitable for Africa to create economic prosperity from its proven reserves estimated at over 150 billion barrels of crude and over 500 trillion standard cubic feet of gas.
Guest Speakers:
- Anibor Kragha, Executive Secretary/CEO, ARDA
- Mr Jude Kearney, Chair, Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory Committee, US EXIM Bank, Managing Partner, ASAFO and Co (US) LLP
- Dr Peter Ntephe, President/CEO of ERHC Energy
- Amy Henry, CPA, Founder Eunike Ventures, Member TIE Houston Board
Participation Profile:
-National Oil Companies
-Independent Petroleum Producers in Africa
-Energy Technology Ventures
-Regional and Global Oil and Gas Professionals
-Think Tanks, Research and Development Institutions
-Alternative Financial Services Firms
-Professional Services Firms: Law Firms, Management Consulting Firms,
- Professional and Industry Associations
://youtu.be/FiC3xdIOR84
Ah, OK. Thanks, facts.
When did they say the were going to be attending CES 2023? I missed that.
.
Opus, I believe the Block 4 PSC in principle is the PSC that both Kosmos and Total wanted to make changes to per their agreements with ERHC found in the court documents.
As for Block 11, this is all that we were told...
Further value consideration dependent on whether exploration (i) proceeds through seismic to drilling of wells and (ii) results in a commercial discovery and production. (page 48)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/799235/000114036115045382/form10k.htm
Whether that "value consideration" is milestone payments or royalty payments or something else remains to be seen.
.
While the STP government remains mum regarding the Block 4 stealth PSC , here is some positive news on Block 11 where ERHC still retains some future consideration.
In response to the request of Shell, the Government decided to extend, for another year, the first phase of the exploration period of the Production Sharing Contract for oil, in Block 11 of the Exclusive Economic Zone, says the statement from the Council of Ministers.
https://medafricatimes.com/29465-the-government-of-sao-tome-and-principe-fixed-the-price-of-rice-at-20-dobras.html
.
Krom, I believe that if you carefully read the pages of the document from which this paragraph was taken, you will see that the “claimant” in this instance is Kosmos and not Total. Additionally, the PSC referred to is a proposed PSC that Kosmos wanted ERHC to present to STP in hopes it would become the final PSC.
But, take heart. Total also had a proposed PSC that they wanted ERHC to present to STP, as well. Unfortunately, as far as we know, neither company’s PSC has ever been presented to STP because a final PSC with the government of STP would not be subject to any gag order and it would have been announced by STP, at the very least, IMO.
.
LCIA arbitration is a private process, and the LCIA Arbitration Rules have strict confidentiality obligations, which apply to the parties, the arbitrators, and the LCIA itself. Unless all parties agree, any documents relating to the arbitration, the award, and the outcome will not be made public.
https://www.lcia.org/frequently_asked_questions.aspx
.
And just how did we determine this, exactly?
So you agree then that there was no U.S. gag order issued in 2019, which was the point of my original post.
Also, this is an interesting statement, "...appeals would have over turned Kosmos's motion...". There is no way of knowing how the Texas Court of Appeals would have ruled.
.
That Order No. 6 comes from the London Arbitration where, yes, Total was the claimant.
The Harris County judge did not stand by the LCIA rules for confidentiality because she ordered ERHC to produce the documents.
And we will never know whether the Texas Court of Appeals would have upheld the LCIA rules or the Harris County judge's ruling because the Appeal was dismissed when Kosmos dropped the Harris County lawsuit.
.
Kosmos is referred to as the "claimant" in the Harris County court case in ERHC's response to the SEC.
5. From October 2017 however, ERHC was subjected to debilitating, convoluted and resource-draining litigation by a U.S. based company group whose securities are also registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
6. In a suit, cause# 2017-71987, before the 157 th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, the said adverse claimant sought and obtained temporary restraining orders preventing ERHC from dealing with or in any way transacting on ERHC's prime asset, to wit, the rights to an oil and gas exploration block in the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome & Principe (hereinafter "EEZ Block 4").
7. The temporary restraining order prevented ERHC from monetizing its prime asset, EEZ Block 4, which would have guaranteed ERHC the resources to continue to meet its obligations without exception, including but not limited to timeously filing its periodic filings.
8. The claimant also obtained a sealing order, restraining any disclosure of the litigation by the parties, which effectively prevented ERHC from making any disclosures regarding the litigation for fear of significant court sanction.
.
Again, there was no gag order in London instituted by Total.
And that's what I said. Kosmos was trying to get ERHC to disclose materials from their London Arbitration with Total, and the Harris County Judge ordered ERHC to produce those materials. ERHC then filed an appeal to get that ruling overturned.
.
.
The "claimant" referred to in ERHC's response to the SEC is Kosmos. From point number 6.
6. In a suit, cause# 2017-71987, before the 157th Judicial District Court of Harris County,
Texas, the said adverse claimant sought and obtained temporary restraining orders
preventing ERHC from dealing with or in any way transacting on ERHC's prime asset, to
wit, the rights to an oil and gas exploration block in the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome
& Principe (hereinafter "EEZ Block 4").
.