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.
Lots of back and forth bashing and trashing that serves no useful purpose here. Management has told shareholders nothing, as there is nothing available to share (yet). Might be helpful to revisit some of the public information ERHC management has provided in the frequently asked questions (FAQs). Some folks might find it useful to reflect and focus on some of the things they HAVE told us. For the interim though its been obvious for quite some time this is now a caveat emptor issue and that gray market expert stocks are difficult if not impossible to trade - some just like to keep repeating the obvious. I guess we just have to tolerate it until news of some sort becomes available.
FAQs
Interesting excerpt from link above:
"Q. Does ERHC have interested companies looking at our assets?
A number of interested companies are examining our assets and our plan is to monetize a portion of our Chad and EEZ assets to raise funds. We are in talks with prospective partners for the Chad Blocks, several of which have visited the data room where we are confidentially making available technical information about our assets. Additionally, several credible deepwater operators have visited the data room established jointly by the National Petroleum Agency of São Tomé and Príncipe and Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) as a repository for the existing seismic and related technical data on the EEZ. When we have an agreement in place, we will notify shareholders."
And of course the cautionary statement section at the end of the FAQs has a LOT of cautionary statements regarding the FAQs, including this:
"A discussion of the risk factors that could impact these areas and the Company’s overall business and financial performance can be found in the Company’s reports and other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These factors include, among others, those relating to the Company’s ability to exploit its commercial interests in the JDZ and the Exclusive Economic Zone of São Tomé and Príncipe, general economic and business conditions, changes in foreign and domestic oil and gas exploration and production activity, competition, changes in foreign, political, social and economic conditions, regulatory initiatives and compliance with governmental regulations and various other matters, many of which are beyond the Company’s control. Given these concerns, investors and analysts should not place undue reliance on these statements. The Company expressly disclaims any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statement to reflect any change in the Company’s expectations with regard thereto or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any of the above statements is based."
What I find interesting is that the FAQs say on one hand that management will notify shareholders when and agreement is in place, yet on the other hand the very last sentence of the cautionary statement section "expressly disclaims any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statement to reflect any change in the Company’s expectations with regard thereto or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any of the above statements is based" - statements which on their face are difficult to reconcile.
I feel a "patience young grasshopper" Kung Fu (ref -TV show) sort of quote coming in response.... ( Patience Grasshopper - Kung Fu show ) LOL 😜
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/erhc-energy-inc-signs-memorandum-210100997.html
Under terms of the MOU, the parties will explore joint participation in Nigerian oil and gas exploration and production opportunities, as may be mutually agreed. ERHC expects to enter into additional agreements with Starcrest in due course. The parties are currently in discussions over specific projects and investment opportunities in the parties' respective assets.
This was from 2017 and indicates more joint participation as mutually agreed. This predates the gag order, but it occurs to me someone might take the position that no further press release would be necessary as they already told the public they would enter into more joint efforts "as mutually agreed." They could point to this and say we already told you.
Is anyone watching the Canadian "Bullboard" on Stockhouse.com? There are the occasional posts about Canadian investors there, blah, blah, blah. But what caught my eye was a post on May 7th about a "curveball" I had not read anything about it here so I thought I would call it out and see if anyone has any more info or thoughts on this?
https://stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard?symbol=erhe
"someone threw a curve ball , president just called a meeting to decide what to do with block 4 . Major energy companies of the world are invited . jmho"
Your thoughts are very close to the possibility I raised earlier. JACA-1 (non-commercial - thin oil shows) indicating presence of working petroleum system could be drilled updip to a large reservoir in adjacent block. Others folks on this board have seen similar situations with other wells drilled by other companies. But you’ll also recall I said it’s important to wait on finding out what the seismic indicates.
Nothing wrong with being cautiously optimistic.
Krom - did anyone here see the seismic data and interpret? Just because JACA-1 itself is not commercial does not mean adjoining block is a dud. In fact it could very well be just the opposite,
The language in the PR says this JACA-1 well itself is not commercial but also notes presence of oil.
Anyone that’s worked around the oil patch knows a lot depends on the geology. I’ll bet others on this board are aware of circumstances where drilling has only confirmed the oil is exactly where the geological team has predicted based on their interpretation of the field formation. Have they drilled updip of a commercial find with this JACA-1 well? Exploration wells are just that - exploration; great when it yields pay on the first try but the data it yields is also extremely valuable as well - particularly if it is useful to confirm the team’s interpretation of seismic data.
In other words, since it’s not here in commercial quantities will they find it’s drained downhill into Block 4 into a great big reservoir in the adjoining block?
It’s silly to speculate one way or another without really understanding ALL the factors the geological team is looking at across this entire field.
Just my two cents.
Thanks - a few more nuggets of info in that I had not seen yet!
:)
Point taken.
"The Cliffs Board of Directors has authorized a new share repurchase program for the Company to buy back its outstanding common shares. Under the share repurchase program, the Company will have ample flexibility to buy up to a maximum of $1 billion worth of shares, via acquisitions in the open market or privately negotiated transactions. The Company is not obligated to make any purchases and the program may be suspended or discontinued at any time. The program is effective today and does not have a specific expiration date."
While they clearly made the program effective today, the question then comes down to when will they step in and start buying shares back?
I hadn't considered the fact that the article would drive our pellet prices up - interesting observation.
This afternoon a lot of stocks are trading nervously on the news of a potential incursion into Ukraine by Russia. I heard CNBC say that the prices of oil company stocks were moving up as a result.
It occurs to me that if there really is to be a military action of any scale that involves the US (or its allies) that gets ramped up in ANY fashion, the call for production of defense equipment will be justified once again (likely at the expense of the US taxpayer...). What does it take to make a lot of these defense related vehicles and equipment? Steel of course. Yet the price of CLF sure does not behave like this might happen.
Maybe the reality of this will sink in over the weekend.
They announced a one billion dollar share buyback effective immediately from what I saw of the earnings announcement. Share buy-backs serve as a sort of dividend to the shareholders insofar as it uses company funds to buy shares which in turn benefits shareholders as share price goes up.
Any thoughts? Comments?
Hope you are right on this one too Tamtam!
Yes indeed - that would really be something!
There is a lot more to agree with in your thoughts than there is to disagree with. But that said, while I do agree with the basic premise you have articulated, whether we want it to happen or whether we think they will be successful in the longer term up to and beyond 2050 is not the issue I raised. The point I was making was that this IS something that THEY are focusing on in the moment, here and now today. And to the extent that it may impact their capex budgeting allocations - it may impact timing for us. This was to mean or otherwise suggest that we have patiently waited for quite a while now for all this to play out favorably for ERHC investors and it might be reasonable to expect it'll be necessary to be patient and sit on our hands a bit longer.
I am obviously not such a fan of that sort of outcome, but ERHC is only one company and this same set of circumstances can also be expected to impact a lot more companies with a lot of exciting prospects than simply the ones with ERHC this board focuses on.
As far as I am concerned there is not really a good substitute for the energy density we currently find in oil. And I think this notion is very much aligned with your points and observations suggesting we will not reach a 100% electric driven world any time soon.
Rather than address the main part of your question regarding "WHO WOULD BENEFIT?" maybe we can have some discussion around the assumption built into the second part of your question about recovery instead?
We are all aware of the state of the energy market today and how the economic shut down imposed on seemingly everyone nearly everywhere effectively stifled demand and indeed most would be eager to see the markets bounce back to where we were before that inconvenient interruption. But while we were distracted by COVID inspired lock downs and had our attention diverted elsewhere, a lot of the energy companies have quietly begun their transitions from being International Oil Companies (IOCs) to International Energy Companies (IECs) and in the process seem to be moving quickly to endorse UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Many of the UK/European companies have already jumped on that bandwagon (Total among them) while the big American IOCs have sort of resisted the so called energy transition so far.
Why do I bring that up? Because it sure seems to have a bearing on what any sort of recovery will look like for energy investors everywhere and more specifically how it all shakes out will obviously have an impact on potential suitors for ERHC given the fact that there is a hope/expectation built into the narrative here on this board that we are just waiting on some sort of a deal to be consummated.
What I am seeing with the strategies of the UK/European oil companies is that they are altering their capital expenditure strategy and beginning to shift their investment mix, slowly at first, over to alternatives that by 2050 will allow them to meet the SDGs and make good on their "net zero" commitments. Some of this will be aimed at achieving low carbon intensity and ultimately meeting their forecasts/commitments on emission projections involving scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. Let's just say this is a complex and fairly ambitious undertaking.
If you go to the Total website and start reading through their ambitions and commitments you will see a statement that hints at their new strategy of "concentrating on low break-even projects" and then you will want to ask yourself if you are confident that drilling ERHC's block would fall neatly into that sort of strategy. If it does then that is great news for all LT investors on this board, if not - it may change some of our thinking with regards to timing. Maybe you see it the same or a bit differently?
Here is the link to the page if you want to read it - https://www.sustainable-performance.total.com/en/our-challenges/climate#strategy these are the specific paragraphs I read and quoted from:
"3) AVOID EXPENSIVE OIL, REDUCING EMISSIONS AT OUR FACILITIES AND PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE BIOFUELS
The Group foresees a long-term stagnation, or even a decline, in the demand for oil and is, therefore, concentrating on low break-even assets.
Additionally, Total is taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions from its operated facilities and a dedicated task force bringing together different skills in the Group was set up in 2019. The Group has set itself a target of cutting GHG emissions from its operated oil & gas facilities from 46 Mt of CO2e to less than 40Mt of CO2e between 2015 and 2025.
Improving the energy efficiency of the facilities is an essential part of this effort. The Group aims to improve its energy efficiency by an average of 1% per year over the 2010-2020 period, at a time when exploration is becoming increasingly complex..."
I agree that it might not necessarily be their fault. But at this point "it is what it is" and the end result is there are still a lot of unknowns for shareholders. Regardless, the little bits of information that has been made known to those on this board (thanks to the resourceful sleuthing and cooperative information sharing and communication among numerous posters) does provide a hint at something positive that may come of the current situation. At the very least there seems to be something interesting here every day even if just a rehash of earlier info.
The only potential unknown in my view relates to the issue associated with how/where they secured the funds and under what terms that they are not disclosing to shareholders. As you have noted on several occasions it is coming from somewhere. But given the current situation where they are not reporting anything, we are left in the dark as to what arrangements are/were being made that allowed survival as we might know it today. This means existing shareholders have difficulty making informed decisions.
You will recall that before they stopped reporting (at the time we were going through the reverse split(s) resulting in huge quantities of new shares coming to the market) existing shareholders were excessively diluted. And dilution insurance (while definitely not something characterized as bankruptcy insurance) helped keep shareholders whole if they invested more to protect their percentage of ownership, and actually may have helped to some extent - but without knowing what/how arrangements for financing have been made - it puts a huge question mark over the extent to which existing shareholders might participate if something positive were to materialize. That said, all the things that are being surmised with the bits and pieces of information that are being identified, do seem to point to something that might be more than a little positive for existing shareholders. Time will tell. Someone once said - "good things come to those who wait."
This company just keeps chugging along but its stock price is barely getting started yet. As governments around the world work towards mandating alternative fueled vehicles this Company will very likely do quite well. As things pick up it is reasonable to expect the stock price to stretch its legs and reach for (and perhaps even exceed) previous highs.
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/sustainable-transport-and-fuels
It will be interesting to see if that level I identified earlier as minor resistance that the SP pushed through today will hold up as support at the end of the day?
Anyone seeing the minor resistance at $8.20? This seems to date all the way back to July 1997. From there it looks like clear sailing up to $13.14 (April 2006) and then $16.42.
This could get exciting.
Interesting. I had not heard about this before. Care to elaborate?
"This is going to change where they can't borrow shares to sell for so many days. Central banks will crash and go insolvent. The gold standard will be returned maybe sooner than later."
Good news or bad news for Total? You decide. According to information that was published at Defense One today, it appears that Turkey is about to send troops to Libya. One has to wonder if any of the MRO blocks were given away to Turkey in this instance (I wonder [but you may not] as they note towards the end of the story that Ankara signed a deal with the Tripoli government that would give Turkey drilling, pipeline and other maritime rights over an expanded portion of the Mediterranean Sea between the countries).
In any case, the point in raising the observation is that if things heat up there in terms of civil unrest and/or military action, I would not be surprised if Total puts this on the back burner for a while. And if that were to be the case, then perhaps they might just have more immediate interest in focusing their attention a bit more urgently in such a way that they accelerate the time tables on the other offshore prospects of interest to this group!
https://www.defenseone.com/news/2019/12/the-d-brief-december-11-2019/161819/
"Turkey says it might send troops to Libya "to stop the Russian-backed forces now closing in on Tripoli," the New York Times reported Tuesday. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan made the remarks twice in the past two days,
Why Turkey? "[B]ecause of its rivalry with the Emirati-Egyptian-Saudi bloc in a regional cold war, [Ankara] has become the only significant military backer of the Tripoli government," the Times writes.
Why now? "Over the last three months, Russia has transformed Libya's simmering civil conflict by deploying large numbers of fighters in what increasingly appears to be a determined push to help [Libyan militia leader Khalifa Hifter] capture the capital." Hifter's latest assault, "launched April 4, left his forces stalled for more than five months on the southern outskirts of the city." But with Russian support, that assault has a new momentum. As a result, "Over the weekend, they captured most of the neighborhood of Salah el-Deen, one of their biggest gains in months."
Worth noting: "Erdogan has more at stake, though, than stability in Libya," the Times reports. And his remarks about intervening with troops in Libya "come just days after Ankara signed a deal with the Tripoli government that would give Turkey drilling, pipeline and other maritime rights over an expanded portion of the Mediterranean Sea between the countries. That set off outrage from Greece and Europe, but gave Turkey a new financial stake in the Tripoli government." Read on, here."
And of course - there are FINRA firms that fail to report properly (e.g., in a timely manner) as well. There was some discussion of examples of FINRA governed firms that failed to do so properly in earlier posts and links to articles that profiled the fines imposed on those firms for failing to abide by the FINRA rules. The system in place is not without its flaws.
No one can disagree with the notion that for every instance where there has been a buy there has to have been a seller.
I have found that meanings are in people most of the time as opposed to just the words they choose to express themselves. I have seen that one person may use a phrase or wording to express one thought and it comes across as something entirely different to another person. Quite often these perceptions are shaped by each individual's own personal knowledge and experience.
In describing the idea of no one selling, I get the sense that we are talking more about the ideas relating to capitulation rather than a few small simple buys and sells in this name. I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that there has been no significant volume upon which sellers could step in and unload shares, but by the same token there was not a large supply of shares on the offer that they'd have been able to buy if they really wanted to.
It seems to me that the panic selling is over and now that we are on the grays the opportunities are different than before.
Might be interesting to refresh our memory on what the term "capitulation" involves as there are some important lessons that can be learned here with respect to what is going on:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitulation.asp
Note what is said about the last group of buyers - "When the last group of buyers sees their positions declining, fear starts to creep into the market. As prices continue to fall, buyers who purchased earlier start to sell their positions to salvage remaining profits or limit losses."
I think we are beyond that in this issue, what you see are those last buyers firm in their analysis and confident that better times are around the corner for them and they are simply unwilling to sell their shares at a loss. One reason might be because even if they were, it is unlikely there would be sufficient volume to support it. And of course there is always the flip side of that coin to consider - and that folks is what makes a market. In this case, the market has been extremely weak as highlighted by such low volumes and the overall direction of share price(i.e., last few years = downtrend, short term trend? some would argue that going from .0001 to .0002 is a 100% gain so this must be a positive up trend - its all relative isn't it?).
So what happens when you pull your certs and then trading miraculously resumes due to no revocation occurring and then the broker won't take back your certs? No reason to believe your broker won't take back the certs he sends you. Actually, delivery of the certs is very common for some folks. I have an aunt who taught me a lot about stocks when I was younger and she was the type that insisted on all her certs being delivered upon purchase and she would then send them back upon sale. The common delivery used to be 3 days. But back in those days commissions were quite high and people did not trade very often as the commissions made for some rather large break even points if you were trading small lots. Now I think it(deliver time) is referred to as T+2 if I am not mistaken. The point is you have some time to make what they refer to as a "good delivery" of the shares.
3) when we go private the form and look of the certs might change. I believe this occurs at the transfer agent who has record of who has certs.
Not sure on that point and not sure that it much matters.
4) I called my broker and he told me my certs are in my name not street name.
That would be unusual. From what I have heard all the stocks you leave on account with a broker are in street name. They go to your name when they prepare the certs to send you in that T+2 timeframe.
5) I don't know how much of this process is real vs. mythology
Sure would push the issue though wouldn't it?
And other thought on this - if we are indeed headed towards being a private company, this means we will no longer be trading on a public exchange (and let's face it there has effectively been no real significant trading in this name for a long time now) and we would therefore collectively have no real need to keep these shares in street name with our respective brokers. The point being is that one way or another holding the share certificates now vs later won't make a big difference for those still holding.
No idea - but here is a little thought exercise building off your earlier theory of brokerage firms going bust with respect to covering in this name when that occurs. If you want to test your thesis of short sellers I think it could be done by having all those individuals in the smallish circle of trust who hold their shares closely (in street name within their accounts - where they are available by the brokers to loan out to short sellers) to simply offer all their shares for sale at something reasonable like for example $150/share (Don't give me grief for the price pulled out of thin air - it has no basis in anything sort of reality other than the fact that if met would probably make a lot of happy longs :) ) - would it ever fill? probably not and no one would really care because that is not the point of this thought exercise). To continue with this example, if they all woke up one morning and decided to list their shares for sale this would mean their shares would no longer be available in the brokers inventory of shares (in street name) to loan out and in theory could prompt buy in notices to the evil short sellers.
Alternately, the longs could simply request the stock certificates and have the shares removed from street name - both actions would seem to have the same effect, the brokers would no longer have the needed inventory to loan them out. The last thing the brokers want to do is be on the hook for the losses the short sellers would incur during the ensuing short squeeze. You have made mention of that in earlier e-mails but there was never any discussion of this aspect.
This first part of the thought exercise above seems to have conflicting accounts of how that would play out with respect to the idea of simply offering the shares for sale might (or might not) work out. As this first excerpt below discusses, just offering them for sale has no impact, but the author does acknowledge that requesting the stock share certificates from the broker DOES accomplish this.
As several articles mention including the articles linked below, you must request a certificate of your stock shares in order to be in possession and keep them yourself from being borrowed (i.e., rather than your broker holding them in street name that would allow them to be readily available to be loaned out).
"Most brokers do not do this because the make a percentage for the transaction. Otherwise, with a fully funded account you can collect these interest rates/rebates yourself. Your broker is the holder of your position and reserves the right to loan your shares at any given time. This is written in your brokerage agreement and if not readily available you can give them a call."
"Setting a high limit order gives the clearing firm or third party that your broker may or may be under contract with the ability to see where your position will possibly be sold and gives them the opportunity to continually sell and buy back, some times hundreds of times in a matter of minutes, your position. With high frequency trading this often happens from algorithms or a “black box”."
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-putting-a-high-limit-sell-order-will-prevent-shorts-from-borrowing-your-shares
And this one "the brokerage firm has the right to call any short seller to return the shares at any point. In this case, the short seller will have to return the shares to the brokerage firm by purchasing them on the market, regardless of whether they end up incurring a loss or a profit based on the current market share price."
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/lendersellshare.asp
If there is little to no short selling going on in this name there is going to be no epic short squeeze. But on the other hand...
Thoughts?
Then again - perhaps not. Your assumption seems to attribute all of that downward move to their losing the battle in court. I think you will find it’s more likely attributed to the down draft of the overall market for energy names. But with that said, even though I might not agree with you on the thesis that it’s 350mm more, the original number Kosmos assigned to the value - and stated in court documents - would still seem to have merit. With the way I have seen these things play out in the court system in other matters it is obviously in their best interests to exercise the due diligence necessary to substantiate their claim before they offer the data before the courts. To me this signals that their geo-tech professionals had reviewed available information and made some sort of credible technical assessment before assigning that valuation to it.
In short, I would be more comfortable accepting that 500mm estimate on its face than the 850mm notional value you are hinting at.
In response to your last question, please consider this point raised on another unrelated board a few months ago. The issue you raised involves fiduciary duty to shareholders and by law is the same for every company and their respective management teams.
“I interrupt this board with an important message from the "Legal Information Institute" of Cornell law school.
Quote:
Fiduciary Duty
Overview
When someone has a fiduciary duty to someone else, the person with the duty must act in a way that will benefit someone else, usually financially.
The person who has a fiduciary duty is called the fiduciary, and the person to whom the duty is owed is called the principal or the beneficiary. If the fiduciary breaches the fiduciary duties, he or she would need to account for the ill-gotten profit. The beneficiaries are typically entitled to damages.
Duty of Loyalty
The duty of loyalty means that all directors and officers of a corporation working in their capacities as corporate fiduciaries must act without personal economic conflict. As the Delaware Supreme Court explained in Guth v. Loft, 5 A.2d 503, 510 (Del. 1939), “Corporate officers and directors are not permitted to use their position of trust and confidence to further their private interest."”
Your theory raises another wrinkle that would need to be addressed. IF Total were to offer to buy out the Company as so many here are hoping for, what if it doesn’t involve any cash whatsoever? Say they made an all shares exchange offer to all ERHC holders of record (i.e., so many shares of Total for so many shares of ERHC). If all sorts of unreported short shares exist THAT would certainly be interesting to watch get sorted out.
That is correct.
Below is a link to an article in the journal that speaks to it. You can see videos on YouTube if you use search term Abqaiq drones. There are a number of reports picking this up now. Fortunately no injuries were reported. Suspect oil markets in general shoot higher as you suggested.
Almost makes on wonder if the very public dismissal of Bolton influenced the decision to attack at this particular time? He was always viewed as a hawk as opposed to a dove and KSA is still a solid ally of the USA. If the Iranians perception was that we were somehow weakened it may have emboldened them to strike. Geo-politics of oil just moved up a notch in significance to all players.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/drone-strikes-spark-fires-at-saudi-oil-facilities-11568443375
I don’t believe that was Oldoil’s number, I’d bet that he like many of the rest of us remembers that was the value put on it by Kosmos as a matter of record in our legal system as they were pursuing the legal action against ERHE. Exactly how did they come up with that number to establish value? I don’t think anyone is exactly sure, but one would have to surmise they had to put at least some credible technical effort into quantifying it if they were to have any hope of prevailing in their legal case (which of course in hindsight we now know didn’t occur but not due to anything relating to their method of valuation).
Context is everything isn’t it?
And by not reporting (good or bad news ) we will not know for certain. I understand that this increases the risks for shareholders who bought in good faith while the company was current with reporting, but it doesn’t mean I (or others) particularly like it. It is what it is.
Going dark as they have is also one way they keep themselves entrenched in their management roles. I’ve watched a number of other instances over the years in this industry where management teams have been bounced out of their roles entirely, or stayed employed by paying off [think of the term being “greenmailed” by] activist investors who threatened to remove them and break up the company (think back to Unocal and how much it cost them to send the corporate raiders away, but in the end they essentially did the same thing the raiders would have done [broke it up themselves and merged the remaining reserves into CVX] but while this resulted in many jobs lost, it gave the management team precious time to arrange their golden parachutes). I’d hate to see this management team feather their nests at further expense of the rightful owners of the company - the shareholders of record.
By not reporting they are acting as though they are running a private company- but even private companies exercise corporate governance and hold management accountable for results. Investors in private companies worth being part of do inform shareholders.
By going dark they are opting to operate outside the established market they are registered in - in effect, they are turning their backs on the market - perhaps believing they can go it alone without new outside investment from market participants. But whether or not they tap the capital markets again to raise capital they still owe a duty to the shareholders - and not just a select few - all of them.
Regardless of how they choose to operate, they are accountable to their shareholders and obligated to operate within the boundaries of the law.
OK - point taken. But also bear in mind that this management team owes a fiduciary responsibility to it’s owners - the shareholders. While the Whiff of a fart in Kenya might offend the sensibilities of someone from that culture, this is still a US listed company and there are rules that govern which must be followed regardless of how individuals might “feel” or how sensitive they may be to criticism. The longer this company stays dark the less we investors can know and understand what it happening with our investment so as to make informed decisions. Sure they may wish to hide in the cover of darkness and not divulge info, but there are those that would argue “what are you hiding?” and raise the question as to whether those that do trade in the stock on information not made public are perhaps trading on insider information. And of course there are others that may be prompted to buy in if they see the company is turning a corner with better prospects ahead that make it worth investment consideration.
The sooner they get current on reporting the better.
Thanks for the advice. But I’m not so concerned at this point as I’m still long and comfortable waiting til buy out or oil. I was merely highlighting that because if my broker is doing this I am certain others are as well. And with so many investment choices out there the average investor that would encounter such a circumstance might simply look elsewhere to allocate his investment dollar or rebalance their portfolios. Generally not worth the effort to swim so hard against the current. Some might think “the juice isn’t worth the squeeze” to put it another way. This is what I meant with respect to the status of a non reporting microcap having a greater influence in the ability to generate significant volume in this name than the fact it is tightly held.
Now if those holding so much stock can persuade management to come current with reporting that might cast this investment in a completely different light. And I really think that if just this single factor were to change it might lend more credence to the constant chants we hear about listening to the message of the market. On one hand those guys pushing that message are correct - today the market for this stock is sort of restricted or limited; at present stock prices and daily volume are not so wonderful, but interestingly it (stock price) IS moving to an extent off the bottom (and I’d note that this may well be without all those other market participants that might otherwise wish to load up and go a long for a ride). Yet, on the other hand, if it were otherwise unrestricted (I.e., all brokers not restricting their clients), the message of the market might be more meaningful. Until then the fact remains that this is currently a very limited market, when some brokers have a “hands off you can’t touch this” view it will dissuade a lot of potential buyers. Will that change soon? I hope so. But hope is not much of a strategy Is it?
I just hope these guys aren’t “flying dark” like this (not reporting) in an effort to pull any shenanigans that would ultimately not serve the best interests of this company’s owners - its shareholders. But unless or until they get current we will never really know for sure what is going on and whether this company will make the comeback of the century.
Its a non-reporting company. Hard to say more about it than that in a lot of respects. I could not buy more if I wanted to as my broker won't allow purchase of non-reporting micro caps like this. However if the reporting situation should change so that what is going on is more transparent, things might be different and the message of the market might be more meaningful. There are a number of folks on this board that would have you believe that the volume is so low because so many shares are locked up in the strong hands of a small group of investors. I think while that may be somewhat true to an extent, I also believe that the non-reporting problem has a larger impact on the volume being traded in this name.
What happens in the overall oil market is important as understanding it can also help identify how the market participants make their bets in terms of their longer term capital budgets. The offshore projects are often longer term projects requiring huge capital investment. Would the fact that off shore producing companies are being hurt less in this market downdraft than the on shore companies influence their investment stance going forward? You bet. When we see off shore producers not losing market cap at the same rate as the on shore producers this can provide some useful insight for those trying to read the tea leaves as to what happens going forward, as it reflects the mood of those respective investors.
Is it possible for the tiny minnow we have here called ERHE to get swallowed up by a whale as they place their bets going forward for long term capital budgeting? One would certainly hope so judging by the banter going on back and forth on this board. And the fact there seems to be activity in the surrounding blocks by these larger players seems to hint that such an outcome is not impossible. I would venture to say that many here would not hesitate to tell us that it is not only possible but probable.
Agreed. But as a matter of fact it also failed to mention that it was the price of ERHE you were referring to either. So I chose to address the price of oil prices falling which is just as relevant and more timely; the price of ERHE stock has already fallen ([old news] its been down for a long time), the context provided by price of oil in the overall market is more recent (i.e., "price is "falling"" and that is current this week).
And of course it was a seque that allowed for discussion of a connected and related thought regarding an observation made in one of the financial news broadcasts relating to the current state of the oil markets with respect to offshore oil production. Given that the ERHE properties ARE offshore this development and contrast in pricing is important and from my view point that makes it very relevant.
You are correct that oil prices are falling. So are iron ore and other commodities as well. In fact just about the entire market took a dump on the news of China's retaliation to Trump's additional tariffs.
As you know it takes all kinds of buyers and view points to make up a market. Watching CNBC today and heard their analysis about the recent drop in oil prices and the observation they made about oil companies seeing their prices down so much against the backdrop of the oil commodity price drop. CNBC anchor Brian Sullivan said something to the effect that oil companies in general are down over 50% off their high against a $51 oil price this week and this is actually a lower price for oil company stock against a $31 dollar handle we saw in the last down turn. The point he was making is that oil companies are less expensive now than they were then.
The other point he made in that same report was to observe that while oil companies in general were down over 50% he contrasted that with the offshore segment of O&G which is apparently down only 46%.
So that sort of observation might suggest that the market is less fearful of the offshore production than they are on-shore.
Hmmm.... Who do we know with offshore exploration properties available?
Many possibilities to contemplate. Even one more -
Buy up the Company then team up with BP and Total...