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.
Easy to prove if such a person felt compelled to substantiate as there are forms required to be filed . Those are a matter of public record. And those that take substantial positions without bothering to file risk legal action against them. Interested parties can easily look this up too.
Sneak - you might not be far off on that thinking but, and indeed there are some making attempts at such moves. But before it goes mainstream, keep in mind companies and countries contemplating such a move to tie oil to a crypto currency would have to deal with the US Government and the Fed. Right now the oil markets are primarily denominated in US Dollars (hence the name "Petro-Dollar" we are all so familiar with since the early 70s) but that said, this is being tested by the Chinese with the Petro-Yuan contract that recently started trading in China and the "Petro" crypto currency that VZ is trying to launch since they are stuck in the death spiral vortex of hyper-inflation at the moment. Those that have attempted to stray from the Petro-Dollar in the past have met with resistance in terms of sanctions and military actions (think Iraq and Libya to name a couple off the top of my head). But the world is changing...
Yes, and I know that sounds pretty lame too. Reminds me a lot of that joke my aunt used to tell me "If a stock didn't go up - don't buy it!" Which of course pre-supposes you are extremely clairvoyant or otherwise able to see through all the non-sense and avoid the lemons.
Perhaps to offset a position in another stock that has a healthy gain associated with it for the sake of minimizing capital gains taxes? About the quickest and most straightforward reason I can see at this point.
An opportunity for Larry to jump on ASAP!
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3355310-chevrons-gorgon-lng-faces-inquiry-delay-carbon-capture-project
If they are having problems with injecting it as planned perhaps they can switch gears and do something more useful with it! I get the sense that this sort of thing might just sound a lot like that which Rocard was hinting at with Gazprom.
And I respect your position as well. It takes all kinds of different viewpoints and perspectives to make a market - whether here in penny land or on the big boards.
I do agree with your point about not casting history aside. And there are those that do learn from it. Also keep in mind - history does not always repeat itself (particularly if management teams learn from their mistakes). If you would allow me to share a more personal example, I can tell you that my family lost a lot of money when General Motors and their parts supplier Delphi Automotive were run through the agonizing wringer of bankruptcy several years ago. Do I trust those management teams? Not really. Did I invest in those organizations again when they reorganized and went public again to have another go at it? Nope absolutely not - I had that once bitten twice shy mentality so I opted for just about any other alternatives for our capital. But did that really crappy part of those companies respective histories stop those new "Johnny Come Lately" investors who took the leap of faith to invest in the "new and improved" companies when they went public again? No, [so far] both sets of investors in those new companies have fared much better than the previous set of investors did - because so far history has yet to repeat itself in those situations.
I do appreciate your perspective and like reading your comments if for no other reason than to try to get both sides of the argument. As I said, it takes all sorts of view points and perspectives to make a market; if one party sees opportunity where someone else sees excessive or undue risk, they sell and the other party will buy and vice versa.
I think things could start getting a bit more interesting around here. These guys have publicly announced targets and have been executing on them. Positive first steps in my opinion.
Or perhaps they are simply working to carve out a niche and trying to get positioned so as to establish the company as a player in the market, at just the right time - to capture a slice of what will be a very big pie - in what can only be described as a significant technology upgrade roll-out cycle. Everybody knows that each journey begins with that first step, followed by another and another until you reach your destination. Given what we have seen here with recent contracts awarded and revenues increasing, it might give one some pause for thought as to whether their motivations are as nefarious as you suggest here.
Here's a little light reading for you:
http://www.lightwaveonline.com/articles/2018/01/at-t-plans-to-expand-reach-of-5g-at-t-fiber-and-g-fast.html
https://www.fiercewireless.com/special-report/mallinson-5g-to-eclipse-but-not-eliminate-fiber
Krom - Is This What You Were Hinting At Earlier?
- with respect to your comments on "vaporizing" the debt?
Found a link to this article mentioned on another board, it refers to changes in clearing stock originating from Convertible Debentures (i.e., Toxic Notes). Seems that Friday the 13th was some sort of trigger date for this.
https://www.thebasilelawfirm.com/single-post/2018/04/12/THE-FRIDAY-THE-13TH-CONVERTIBLE-NOTE-MASSACRE
Hmmmm...., makes one wonder when the statute of limitations will sunset all of these issues and what the chances are of hanging on until that point in time without common shareholders going completely bust once and for all? Just a thought. Not a pleasant thought, but a thought nonetheless.
Fuel Cells in 2017 Are Where Solar Was in 2002 - a somewhat interesting read for a slow holiday week.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/fuel-cells-in-2017-are-where-solar-was-in-2002?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+greentechmedia%2Fnews+%28Greentech+Media%3A+News%29#gs.sHulVKM[
"Significant cost reductions seem plausible, given that the key components in fuel cells tend to be low-volume specialty materials. In the case of the PEM technology used by both Toyota and Plug Power, the platinum catalyst and carbon fiber gas diffusion media are unique to the sector. At current volumes, overhead costs per unit for suppliers’ fuel cell divisions remain significant. As production increases, these costs can be spread across more product volume, bringing costs down independent of process and technology improvements -- which, of course, continue."
"PEM fuel cell technology is the first technology to begin to scale, with reason to believe solar industry-level learning rates could apply for several more years. The novelty of the materials used in other fuel cell technologies suggests that these too could achieve aggressive learning rates, if they find sustained growth."
Oh darn it! There are not too many folks that are wildly (or even mildly) optimistic these days about forward prospects of the company and I was hoping that there was a slight chance you were becoming at least mildly optimistic based on your tongue in cheek comments. I guess you saw right through my sarcastic comments too. Oh well, since there is not any real demand for shares these days, for better or worse, we are all effectively handcuffed to the company. I think it's going to be dead money for quite a while unless there magically turns out to be a catalyst somewhere out there that sparks a change.
I see you are considering raising some cash by selling bridges these days. You have undoubtedly been mulling over my offer to sell you my shares at my original cost basis. If you get any takers on that bridge deal, I still have those ERHC shares that aren't going anywhere available to sell you as I indicated earlier. ;)
Have I got a deal for you MTO! OK then - since you are in such an optimistic mood today, perhaps I can interest you in buying my shares so you can sit on them until that (maybe) day comes along? And since you are so exuberant, enthusiastic and bubbling over with this new found optimism, perhaps you will buy them from me for the same price I paid for them way back when? Undoubtedly A great deal for you! (and from what I see it's probably an even better deal for me...)
;)
MTO - a lot of us are invested in this Company and find ourselves firmly locked in it at this point in time. There is not sufficient buying interest in it to allow folks to simply get out - much less with any real hopes of doing so at higher prices that might allow them a chance to break even or generate a positive return on this "investment."
Does anyone have any ideas for some sort of shareholder led catalyst to change the current circumstances? I recall that Krom had some ideas along these lines a few years ago as to how the holdings might be "managed" without a management team.
I doubt it, unless you already are a millionaire based on some other investments. But you could find yourself really missing that hundred bucks! There is something called buyers remorse - this can occur when it dawns on you that there is an opportunity cost in allocating resources in one area and you later wish you had allocated them someplace else. For instance, buying stock in a company where it's going to be dead money when you could have taken your wife out to a nice steak dinner somewhere.
Perhaps you're suggesting they'll be in the "state of confusion"?
Best wishes for a speedy recovery! If it helps I can tell you modern medicine has this one pretty well figured out. My aunt went through the same thing more than 40 years ago and her ticker is still working great!
Is this what you are alluding to (at least sort of anyway) in your post of the chart?
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/doublebottom.asp
Thanks for the reply MTO. I both agree and disagree with some of the points you raise. First, you indicate disagreement with the article when in fact the excerpts were from several articles which were essentially saying the same thing. Interestingly, there is another article out today on World Oil that is again saying the same thing the other articles suggested - offshore deep water drilling is on the rebound. In my experience in the industry, the key factor to viability of deep water drillers has always been the day rates they charge the oil companies. When oil prices were over $100 the day rates just kept going up, up and away. Since prices have slumped so too have their day rates. This is in fact one of the things (coupled with the fact they seem to have a lot of debt to service) that has made the deep water drillers lousy investments in their own right at the moment. So to that end, while things may not be real rosy as far as their current earnings may go, I do agree agree with you that the deep water drilling industry will be around for a while to come. Now in so far as whether this in turn signals any sort of a real possibility that we will see activity in the ERHC blocks we have a common interest in here on this board, I agree with you that any sort of revival in deep water drilling may not necessarily equate to positive news that will magically save EHRC. But then again, most of this discussion came about as one of those "never say never" sort of responses by a number of folks here. I see that a lot of the discussion here dwells only on the points of disagreement without taking the time to acknowledge the places where we agree. As we all know, shareholders have received absolutely zero news from the management team to indicate anything that would raise our hopes in the JDZ.. So from this standpoint I am not inclined to get my hopes up about it, but not willing to write it off completely either as they still theoretically pull a rabbit out of their hat. But as you mention, given their track record that might be in question too. I guess that really makes this a speculative name in the space.
Thanks for the reply MTO. I both agree and disagree with some of the points you raise. First, you indicate disagreement with the article when in fact the excerpts were from several articles which were essentially saying the same thing. Interestingly, there is another article out today on World Oil that is again saying the same thing the other articles suggested - offshore deep water drilling is on the rebound. In my experience in the industry, the key factor to viability of deep water drillers has always been the day rates they charge the oil companies. When oil prices were over $100 the day rates just kept going up, up and away. Since prices have slumped so too have their day rates. This is in fact one of the things (coupled with the fact they seem to have a lot of debt to service) that has made the deep water drillers lousy investments in their own right at the moment. So to that end, while things may not be real rosy as far as their current earnings may go, I do agree agree with you that the deep water drilling industry will be around for a while to come. Now in so far as whether this in turn signals any sort of a real possibility that we will see activity in the ERHC blocks we have a common interest in here on this board, I agree with you that iany sort of revival in deep water drilling may not necessarily equate to positive news that will magically save EHRC. But then again, most of this discussion came about as one of those "never say never" sort of responses by a number of folks here. I see that a lot of the discussion here dwells only on the points of disagreement without taking the time to acknowledge the places where we agree. As we all know, shareholders have received absolutely zero news from the management team to indicate anything that would raise our hopes in the JDZ.. So from this standpoint I am not inclined to get my hopes up about it, but not willing to write it off completely either as they still theoretically pull a rabbit out of their hat. But as you mention, given their track record that might be in question too. I guess that really makes this a speculative name in the space.
Hi Seek - I'll chime in with some more (hopefully - useful) information that might add something to the discussion. As you read this keep in mind that each project will have their own unique geological, financial and economic considerations that the exploration team will have to consider on its own merits. As you point out there are deepwater wells being drilled now (not by ERHC) and it would stand to reason that those have been deemed to make economic sense given that specific Company's own internal capital budgeting program and their own specific financial risk tolerance. Will ERHC be able to find other such companies willing to farm out some of our deepwater acreage? Time will tell - but I don't think many are holding their breath waiting for it at this point (if for no other reason than the fact oil has dropped below $50 and there is concern of a recession looming ahead for the economy.
Here are some excerpts from recent Seeking Alpha articles of interest addressing the issue of offshore exploration and production that include comments on deepwater drilling.
"HES claims that the lowest cost segment of its portfolio is the offshore segment. Obviously, not all offshore assets are made equal and Bakken has higher costs than most areas of Permian and Wattenberg basins; nonetheless, for HES, offshore is less costly than Bakken."
https://seekingalpha.com/article/3646796-hess-claims-offshore-oil-cheaper-shale
"Oil prices have experienced a significant decline over the last year. Since reaching highs of close to $120 per barrel, prices have fallen significantly to roughly $50 per barrel. This significant decline in prices has greatly affected the deepwater sector."
"Deepwater drilling has long been minimized. The main reason for this is because of the more significant cost attached to extraction of the oil. However, even with the recent oil prices crash, oil prices have been trending upwards over the past decades.
With the desire for new sources of oil, deepwater drilling is starting to become more economic. Major oil companies are starting to look to invest billions of dollars in deepwater drilling."
"Conclusion
Deepwater drilling is an expensive source of production. However, deepwater oil is also extremely expensive - more expensive than other forms of oil.
Still, the world is needing more oil in the future. The overall world oil demand is expected to increase over the coming decades by a significant amount despite the conventional oil the world is so used to running out.
As a result, deepwater represents a significant market with significant growth potential."
https://seekingalpha.com/article/3231866-deepwater-oil-huge-growth-potential
"Deepwater oil has recently become economically and technically feasible. As a result, deepwater production is expected to grow by 250% from now until 2030."
"...[D]eepwater production has grown to more than 5 million barrels today. By 2030, this is expected to increase by another 250%, showing the strength in the deepwater markets.
As a result of the growth, the deepwater markets are the next major source of oil growth."
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4035313-deepwater-drilling-next-major-source-oil-growth
Me too. Small world.
...and they are not the only major energy company actively pursuing such solutions either!
Amen to that! This line of discussion is getting a bit silly now. I did not elect anyone to represent me or otherwise express or present my views for me here on this board. I am very capable of speaking my own mind and saying what's on my mind if I want my viewpoint to be heard. The country's liberty and many freedoms, including our freedom of speech are really wonderful in this regard aren't they?
SEC filing requirements are a matter of fact - not opinion. I can tell you 5% is the reporting threshold for those not familiar with the law and regulations established by SEC. Here is a summary that explains it better:
http://www.investmentfundlawblog.com/resources/investments-by-funds/acquiring-5-publicly-traded-company/
Now if you are referring to Zata's claim to own 20 million shares as being something one might consider "a matter of opinion", I won't take exception to your statement. Of course he could be blowing smoke up our shorts with that number and we will either find out when he a) properly reports, or b) gets fined and/or incarcerated for illegal activities. I hope he is being straight with us as I sort of like reading his posts and beyond this I have no reason to doubt his claims. I simply asked the question.
And at what point do you need to file with the SEC on your holdings...?
They may not be the only ones trying to race to a workable solution on a number of levels. The question is which method or approach will they finally select? Other oil companies are working on some of the same challenges and all seem to be looking at somewhat different methods to get there for various applications envisioned including those that were hinted at by EcoMike. Of course the other alternative choices in approach some of the other players may be exploring could simply be be due to the patents that MVTG has established already for their methods - it'd seem foolish to tread all over it if protected. But also keep in mind that if someone were to encroach upon it that would be something defendable - in most such cases the party doing the encroaching is "encouraged" to simply license the technology to avoid litigation. To your point - in any case you can clearly see an interest by more than one of the deep pocket energy companies to pursue a lot of this sort of technology; suffice it to say there's a lot a stake to encourage them to do so.
https://sciencesprings.wordpress.com/tag/carbon-capture/
http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2016/08/09/co2-sequestration-can-work-and-salvage-some-energy-too/ (note the name of the doctoral candidate graduate student and the company that has sponsored his work).
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601402/exxon-has-a-clever-way-to-capture-carbon-if-it-works/
Meaning? Are you speaking metaphorically here? Suggesting about to get "freaked out" maybe or just implying they flip their newly acquired stakes in order to lock in their meager short term profits?
Most oil companies have pretty rigorous security provisions in place so on the face of it, that would not appear to be anything out of the ordinary - standard practice for the industry.
Now with respect to the notion that an entity or entities might be gobbling up small incremental chunks of the company at some point one or more of these entities may well trigger a reporting threshold and have a legal obligation to report. It is when they fail to do so, at such a point in time, they've committed an illegal act and would be subject to prosecution. Absent any information to tell us that any one of these parties is amassing such large (reportable) positions in company stock, we have to assume there is no such concentration of shares being accumulated by any one or more parties. If they are and said parties are not reporting the large concentrations you allude to that changes the dynamic a bit but of course how would we know if they were not forthcoming with timely reporting? Seems to me that it is that if there are multiple parties doing what you suggest and they are all failing to report, it would not likely be an oversight but one might then surmise such actions would have a deliberate purpose aimed at manipulating the market for the stock and defrauding the other shareholders through such subterfuge. And when it is a coordinated effort by more than one individual there's a good chance the Feds would take an interest in looking at it from an organized crime (racketeering) perspective. But we have not seen evidence of that yet have we?
Your point about internal rates of return on new projects is well taken. And based on what you stated, it seems like a very high cost of capital to invest to recognize such a nominal return. Is there more to that story than the shareholders are aware of? Hard to say as no one has told us much of anything about it.
Regarding the dilution; there is a very old idiom that says "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Many will remember G.W. Bush's gaffe in trying to deliver that as a punchline in a speech some time ago.
You had me wondering for a few moments...
There are plenty of things that ERHC can do to turn this around. But the best options don't necessarily involve throwing the current shareholders under the bus again and again. There are other avenues for raising capital - they will just need to farm out some of the assets they do have to work with. They have had some success at it but I think they can do better. A lot of the US shale gas properties are rapidly depleting these days and at some point the big boys will turn their attention to onshore and offshore prospects that offer better longevity and lower lifting costs.
Doubtful as a reverse split by itself it would not change the company's operating capital nor would it fundamentally change the business prospects and chances of striking oil. With that said, it would however, possibly allow management to continue to attempt to raise capital by turning to the vulture loan sharks out there hawking their costly convertible debentures and upon conversion issue more diluting stock - ultimately driving the stock price further into the toilet.
I'd love to see it - but what's the catalyst that will spark such a turnaround?
The only trouble with that notion is that while we can all agree that they are "cheap" today relative to where most of us originally bought in, there is not a lot telling us that is a circumstance that will change anytime soon. Organizations that lack transparency face a double edged sword in this respect. And you know the recent history as well as anyone, as ERHC began to drill in Kenya there was always the possibility that we'd strike oil and that yielded a bit more short lived speculative interest - but that is now in the rear view mirror. The reality is that we are no longer seeing those same sorts of catalysts to turn this share price higher. This might make one think that while the shares are "cheap" now - unless something changes - but there is also the possibility the price will get even cheaper.
I am constantly reminding my colleagues that most investors want not just a return ON their investment - they also wish to see a return OF their investment. I think Cowboy's point about shares being cheap needs to be put into context, sure we might as well get'm while they are cheap - because there might not be a market for them at all if things don't change. And that going concern statement should be a great big clue for all of us.
I do respect your opinion and insights, but, I also think everyone can agree that this has been and will continue to be a bumpy road.
Now with respect to your observations on Starcrest, I have been thinking about that situation myself. The fact is that we DID see news that they intended to do something with them (regardless of whether they are funded well enough to do so or not there WAS an MOU issued and publicized) and this was publicly stated for the benefit of the investing public's attention. And since Starcrest is associated with Chrome (and we all know this means SEO) it occurs to me that they could be the entity scooping up shares - and perhaps conveniently - without feeling the need to go through the motions of any Federal filings. I was going to ask Middy about his thoughts on this when this occurred to me earlier and it dawned on me that there was discussion about Chrome in the past not being very punctual with their filings. And we know they had a sizable stake before the toxic debt spiral the Company recently went through and throughout its course we had a lot of buying interest by all those hoping to do well with the Kenya well and it was all neatly packaged under the umbrella of the dilution insurance meme that was all the rage here for a while.
And basically my question was going to be aimed at whether an earlier filing (or in the case of an individual or entity that did not really see the need for filing but still amassed a sizable stake [and thus simply did not bother to do so]) would somehow exclude someone from having to refile for their re-establishing a percentage position by adding more shares? For example say there was an entity that controlled 40% of the Company and after the toxic convertible debt spiral they no longer held a controlling interest. If they were to buy a lot more shares to re-established a prior percentage position (because they too suffered from the dilution) is there any reason for anyone to believe they would get a pass on filing because there were only trying to get back to where they were (or for that matter hold even greater control than they did before)? I had not considered that possibility before but it has crossed my mind as we are not really seeing anything to indicate who is owning/controlling all those newly issued shares.
Maybe they see such an effort as simply making up the lost ground and making the effort to regain their controlling interest which was formerly made known - but they would be doing so at bargain basement prices - and it could easily slip notice of the investing public. Is this the sort of thing you were contemplating as well?
I think that answer is pretty obvious isn't it? They need the cash to survive and hopefully fight another day and it would appear that their ability to raise cash in other ways - in this particular operating environment - is very limited at this point. As the recent filing shows, they are in arrears with respect to the cash calls on the last well(dry hole) they drilled with CEPSA ("Company is in significant arrears of cash calls relating to the company’s proportionate share of drilling costs [beyond operator-carried expenses] on the Tarach-1 well in Kenya Block 11A." [[ https://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=11871816 ]) and raising cash is extremely important right now. Having sufficient capital to fund on-going operations is absolutely critical to ANY organization.
Now with all of that said, it certainly doesn't sit well with many of us (LT shareholders) to be thrown under the bus in this fashion (i.e., watching the value of our investments evaporate like this). The question that a lot of people have at this point is can management pull a rabbit out of their hat of magic tricks to turn things around before the "going concern" warnings ("dependent on raising additional capital to fund ongoing exploration projects and ultimately on attaining future profitable operations") lead us permanently to a point of no return. And keep in mind that this set of circumstances comes at a less than optimum point in time as it seems we are in the midst of an oil glut that is just now beginning to show cracks in the overall energy market. Heck, it's even affecting Exxon ( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-22/exxon-cuts-reserves-record-33-bilion-barrels-oil-crash-finally-takes-toll ) (this is essentially saying that given current market conditions a LOT of Exxon's previously booked reserves are essentially "dry holes" as well as they won't be economical to produce in the current price environment). I'm not saying it's impossible (there ARE sources of funding out there, but management will have to turn over a lot of stones to find them) - it should be clear that it won't be a walk in the park.
I for one really did not like to see the use of the convertible debentures by the Company as more often than not they have led to the toxic death spiral for other little companies and this fact was widely described and discussed by many of the more informed members of this board since about the time it began.
As the number of shares outstanding increases so do the number of shares tied to the required SEC reporting thresholds. Even so, its still hard to imagine that all those shares being flipped are still being spread thin enough among all the holders (old and new) such that no one is yet required to report per the SEC rules. Do we really have that many "new" minnow shareholders? Do we have accumulators out there interested in wrestling control of the Company from the LT shareholders and they are simply not reporting for the purpose of stealth and surprise? (Que the dramatic music
That's true, but their ability to do so depends on the depth of the market - particularly with respect to orders on the bid side of the bid/ask platform. Wouldn't it also make sense that the volume they have put up on the ask side (especially due to the toxic nature of the convertible debentures) has simply exhausted the buying interest? We both know this stock ain't an Exxon! That's why we're trading down in the stinky pinkies.
Middy - do you really think it's shareholders bailing out as opposed to a continual dribble of the toxic CD conversions being sold out to any takers large or small(mostly small in the case of recent trading)?
I don't think we are done with that yet. Any thoughts?
There's a news release out showing the Company reported a 4th quarter net profit of $81 million and Earnings of $0.42 per diluted share.
"For the fourth quarter of 2016, the Company recorded net income of $81 million compared to a net loss of $58 million recorded in the prior-year quarter."
This was from the SEC 8-K filing.
http://archive.fast-edgar.com/20170209/AIAZF222Z222H2Z2222E22ZKB7RQZT229W92