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.
EagleSurvivor - the graphics grab ya !
Very appropriate - and a tribute to those that deserve respect.
TRADING - not investing. And lest anybody confuse the two - I'm sure the moderator will be able to sort out their mistake quickly.
To quote a source:
"Trade originated with the start of communication in prehistoric time. Trading was the main facility of prehistoric people, who bartered goods and services from each other. Peter Watson dates the history of long-distance commerce from circa 150,000 years ago.[1]"
Has it really changed much since then ? *w*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade
The preferred shares have a conversion ration of 1000 common shares for 1 preferred share. The prefs also have a par value of $0.01, and an issuance price, to qualified private investors (since the prefs can not publicly trade) of $1.00 per share.
The majority of the companies operating expenses since the shareholder contested proxy takeover of this company in Aug 2002, have come from the sale and issuance of the preferred shares.
From the most recent 10Q:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/355300/000035530005000038/q0305.htm
As of September 12, 2005, the Corporation had 214,059,750 outstanding Common Shares and 5,830,357 Series "A" Preferred Shares entitled to vote.
That means that there are effectively 6,044,416,750 common shares issued. That is correct: 6.04 Billion effective common shares have been issued for this company.
From the latest 10K for the end of year 2004:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/355300/000035530005000028/ka22004.htm
NOTE 6 - Preferred Stock
The Board of Directors passed a Corporate Resolution that reads, "Pursuant to and in accordance with Article 2.13 of the Texas Business Corporation Act of the State of Texas the Company does hereby certify that, pursuant to the authority conferred on the Board of Directors by the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation, and pursuant and in accordance with Article 2.13 of the Texas Business Corporation Act of the State of Texas, said Board of Directors, pursuant to unanimous written consent dated December 9, 2002, duly adopted a resolution providing for the authorization and issuance of 5,000,000 shares of "Series A" Convertible Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value per share (the "Series A" Preferred Stock). At the annual shareholders meeting held on October 15, 2004, the shareholders approved an increase in the total number of authorized "Series A" convertible preferred shares with a $0.01 par value to 10,000,000. As of December 31, 2004 and 2003 there were 5,238,984 and 4,150,495 shares outstanding.
Each share of "Series A" Preferred Stock outstanding shall at the sole election of the holder be converted into fully paid and non-assessable shares of Common Stock of the Corporation at a conversion rate of 1,000 shares of Common Stock for each share of "Series A" Preferred Stock. The holders of the issued and outstanding shares of Preferred Stock shall have the equivalent of 1,000 Common Stock votes for each share of "Series A" Preferred Stock.
If all preferred shareholders wanted to convert, the Company would execute a reverse stock split which has already been approved by the shareholders at the annual general shareholders meeting held on October 15, 2004.
During the year ended December 31, 2004 a total of 1,088,489 shares of preferred stock was issued and recorded at the rate of $1.00 per share as approved by the Board of Directors. The shares were issued for salaries and directors' fees and other Company obligations.
============================
Monkeynote: The previous management of AIGI employed numerous pump and dump techniques on this company. The current management have cleaned up the act, and are firmly committed to truthful communications with shareholders through their SEC FILINGS, corporate website, and PR's. The day of the pump and dump for this company are O V E R ![/b}
It is unfortunate that this board started off last year with a couple of people yammering about get rich quick horse hockey.
That is not acceptable behaviour on InvestorHub.
The BEST SOURCE of information for this company, as for ANY other public company traded in the United States is:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=&CIK=ende&filenum=&State=&SIC=&o....
The corporate web-site is:
http://www.endevcoinc.com
Nope, didn't forget.
... and cash, pay VERY close attention to this risk qualifier from the 10-K ...
If the Company is unsuccessful in raising money in the financing, it will be unable to pay its financial commitment under any production-sharing contract that will RESULT IN ITS DEFAULT.
Guess I'm not the only one that needs to 'read on'. *w*
And please, oilman and all the rest of you, spare us the standard mantra about these statements only being 'boilerplate'.
They are NOT boilerplate. Those statements are IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES that investors should HEED. Speculators, traders, and gamblers need no warnings - they are free to igore anyting except the price of the stock.
hmmm, cash2blow - that is pretty hard to reconcile to their CAPITALIZED statement of required risk disclosure.
THE COMPANY WILL LIKELY BE REQUIRED TO RAISE MONEY TO FUND ITS FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS PURSUANT TO ANY PRODUCTION SHARING CONTRACTS.
So, cash - which statement is correct ?
Oh, I get it, they are going to BORROW money from their partners - (source of funding), not get carried.
That is the ONLY possible, LEGAL way to reconcile those two statements.
Isn't it, cash2blow ?
Please note also, cash2blow, that the 'going concern qualification' is BACK IN the 10-K. Maybe John Malone learned his lesson from somebody about taking a 'So, sue me' attitude from his AIGI escapade - which, btw, is still pending in court.
Before you remove this post, chcr and balance, ya better note that everything in this post, including the statement about Malone and Bailey PLC, is absolutely accurate, is documented by both SEC filings and by Texas State District Court filings.
THE COMPANY WILL LIKELY BE REQUIRED TO RAISE MONEY TO FUND ITS FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS PURSUANT TO ANY PRODUCTION SHARING CONTRACTS.
When, and if the Company enters into a production-sharing contract, it will likely be required to fund its financial commitments. The Company will have to raise money in an equity or debt financing to meet its financial commitments, and to date it has no firm commitments for such financing. If the Company is
unsuccessful in raising money in the financing, it will be unable to pay its financial commitment under any roduction-sharing contract that will result in its default.
Hmmmm - sounds like something monkey was telling folk here many moons ago - in posts that were removed almost instantaneously from this 'investors' hub board. There were several people here claiming that erhe would have 'a full carry to first oil'.
Nice to see you are always so correct about the oil-biz, oilman.
Have a New Year.
MonkeyT
The money, THISDAY gathered, was placed in fixed deposit account with Hallmark Bank by JDZ but could not be produced on demand. Nigeria and Sao Tome and Principe shares the resources in the JDZ. While Sao Tome and Principe holds 40 per cent of JDZ, Nigeria owns 60 per cent.
Apparently, at least one or two posters prefer the phrase 'trapped in the bank' from the previous paragraph in the news release.
The words 'could not be produced on demand' are far more serious.
http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id=32813
Mongo - and they ARE available. Already set up and approved in the 'charter' of the company. What is even more dangerous is that, with none having been issued, none of the 'rights' of the preferred have been defined. Since offor controls the company with his effective majority share interest, he could set the pref rights at anything. An example or two: Super voting rights, conversion option of 10,000 to one, required loan payments for the 'preferred' share money, and so on. Those are fairly typical OTC 'uses' of preferred shares.
You are 100% correct, mongo. Those shares CAN BE extremely dangerous to the common shareholders.
Recognizing that issue is a basic part of standard due diligence.
Gigwoof - my hat is off to you.
Hopefully, your post will be left alone by the current board censors, because it is well worth reading - for anyone that has followed your posts previously.
maestro - the company does not claim any of those 'financing options' in the 10Q they just filed. They claim that available cash is sufficient for the next 12 months.
Your speculation is way out of synch with anything that the company is willing to put in the form of an SEC filing.
Of course, I state that the company's contention of 'sufficient cash' available is ludicrous on the surface.
It is interesting that you agree with my evaluation of that contention, and feel it necessary to point to 'other' alternatives, assertions that the company itself is unwilling to make.
redinvest - Monkey, MonkeyTrots, or MonkeyT - are the names by which I respond. Your attempt to just lump myself and Mongo together is a familiar, albeit amusing, technique.
Again, I appreciate the compliment - but you have the wrong complement.
But, come on, can't you come up with better schtick than the tired old 'paid basher' routine ?
One could just as easily point out that ALL the posters that are 'positive' on erhe are self-admitted paid promoters - ie. pumpers.
Their pay being obvious - coming from any increase in the stock price. Note that statement carefully - an increase in price, not value.
Thanks for reading, and chuckling with me, Red.
Ciao,
MonkeyT
Mongo - good catch re: OS discrepancy. Thank-you. em
Ruby, I am monkey. Not mongo. You replied to my post, but addressed the reply to 'Mongo'. Although I am flattered, it does help to keep the posters straight.
nwtf - good for you. It was no surprise to me at all.
There have been quite a few that have contended otherwise,
and all my posts rebutting them have been pretty well removed.
I have also rebutted those that claim there will be any possibility of production on line in less than 5 years. In fact, a post to that effect was removed today.
if true, PSC delay == no drilling this year.
LOL - that last deletion. When good information is highlited, and put in context, with the 'approved' source's own words being brought to bear ... It appears that good analysis of the same is to be feared.
manti - agree - that is a very good read.
Of particular interest -
About 100 deepwater rigs are currently drilling. About half the fleet is engaged in development work – drilling wells to develop existing fields. The other half is looking for new oil. For discovery to equal consumption all 50 rigs must find 2 large offshore fields, of a billion bbls each, every year. The current success rate is less than half what is needed.
From a discovery point of view, many more offshore wells need to be drilled than we are drilling now. As a trader, watch the construction of offshore rigs. At present, there is little or no construction, but a building boom should start by Q1 2006. Rigs take 2-3 years from purchase order to drilling. Oil takes another 5-10 years from discovery to extraction. Rig count will have little to do with oil supplies in the near term, but will affect the longer term.
The war on Iraq and conflicts over oil in Central Asia will determine the near term price of oil. The remaining giant fields in these areas contain enough cheap oil to hold down oil prices for another 10 years. These fields are land-locked in politically unstable areas. Governments tend to view oil as a strategic resource, and have been maneuvering to gain control of this oil, and prevent others from gaining control, since 1900. Political unrest in Georgia, Chechnya, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and countries around the eastern Caspian Sea all relate to oil supplies and pipeline routes. For an overview of this conflict read “The New Great Game” by Lutz Kleveman.
The first highlite is self-explanatory.
The second highlite is subtle wording - 'contains enough to hold down' - not 'will hold down'. Big difference. I partially disagree with the authors statement in that sentence - but feel no need to elaborate on the whys and wherefors. It is an obvious personal conclusion of the author - one on which he does not bother to elaborate - not a fact.
All of that post was true, and well written. Those that can actually read and fully comprehend will find a lot of invaluable insight in that post - and will proceed accordingly.
That being said, the 'oil/gas' side of the story is easily understood - but is only a small portion of that which is required for proximal topic understanding. There is much more involved here.
manti - agree - that is a very good read.
Of particular interest -
About 100 deepwater rigs are currently drilling. About half the fleet is engaged in development work – drilling wells to develop existing fields. The other half is looking for new oil. For discovery to equal consumption all 50 rigs must find 2 large offshore fields, of a billion bbls each, every year. The current success rate is less than half what is needed.
From a discovery point of view, many more offshore wells need to be drilled than we are drilling now. As a trader, watch the construction of offshore rigs. At present, there is little or no construction, but a building boom should start by Q1 2006. Rigs take 2-3 years from purchase order to drilling. Oil takes another 5-10 years from discovery to extraction. Rig count will have little to do with oil supplies in the near term, but will affect the longer term.
The war on Iraq and conflicts over oil in Central Asia will determine the near term price of oil. The remaining giant fields in these areas contain enough cheap oil to hold down oil prices for another 10 years. These fields are land-locked in politically unstable areas. Governments tend to view oil as a strategic resource, and have been maneuvering to gain control of this oil, and prevent others from gaining control, since 1900. Political unrest in Georgia, Chechnya, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and countries around the eastern Caspian Sea all relate to oil supplies and pipeline routes. For an overview of this conflict read “The New Great Game” by Lutz Kleveman.
The first highlite is self-explanatory.
The second highlite is subtle wording - 'contains enough to hold down' - not 'will hold down'. Big difference. I partially disagree with the authors statement in that sentence - but feel no need to elaborate on the whys and wherefors. It is an obvious opinion, not a fact.
All of that post was true, and well written. Those that can actually read and fully comprehend will find a lot of invaluable insight in that post - and will proceed accordingly.
stockholder, of course it does, an 8-K.
Doesn't a buyout offer require a filing?
Mongo - EXCELLENT link, thanks.
And the first paragraph of that article bears quoting also, as being extremely legitimate Due Diligence aka. 'DD' ...
At fiscal year's end last September, nearly 10 percent of the company's stock was controlled by Nigeria's First Atlantic Bank. The bank was issued the stock to settle a lawsuit against the company's chairman, Nigerian billionaire Emeka Offor, and his various business interests, including ERHC. First Atlantic, seeking repayment of a $57 million loan, had accused Offor of fraud.
And no one really knows, yet, whether all the great expectations will prove true.
Direct Quote from: PFC Energy
http://www.pfcenergy.com/press/2005/0315_Rodgers.asp
Offor did not buy his shares in the "30's, 40's, or 50's".
He got all his shares at 0.20/0.175 or below.
That is well documented in the SEC filings.
On the erhc blogspot removal, below is a subset of the Terms of Service of the blogger.com site. Joe Shea did, with malice and intent, violate the terms of service of that site. That is why his blog has been removed.
12. MEMBER CONDUCT Member is solely responsible for the contents of his or her transmissions through the Service. Member's use of the Service is subject to all applicable local, state, national and international laws and regulations.
Member agrees: (1) to comply with US law regarding the transmission of technical data exported from the United States through the Service; (2) not to use the Service for illegal purposes; (3) not to interfere or disrupt networks connected to the Service; and (4) to comply with all regulations, policies and procedures of networks connected to the Service.
The Service makes use of the Internet to send and receive certain messages; therefore, Member's conduct is subject to Internet regulations, policies and procedures. Member will not use the Service for chain letters, junk mail, spamming or any use of distribution lists to any person who has not given specific permission to be included in such a process.
Member agrees not to transmit through the Service any unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or harmful material of any kind or nature. Member further agrees not to transmit any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation. Attempts to gain unauthorized access to other computer systems are prohibited.
Member shall not interfere with another Member's use and enjoyment of the Service or another entity's use and enjoyment of similar services.
Pyra may, at its sole discretion, immediately terminate Service should Member's conduct fail to conform with these terms and conditions of the BTS.
13. INDEMNIFICATION Member agrees to indemnify and hold Pyra, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and employees, harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys' fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of Member's use of the Service, the violation of this BTS by Member, or the infringement by Member, or other user of the Service using Member's computer, of any intellectual property or other right of any person or entity.
14. TERMINATION Either Member or Pyra may terminate the Service with or without cause at any time and effective immediately. Pyra shall not be liable to Member or any third party for termination of Service.
Should Member object to any terms and conditions of the BTS or any subsequent modifications thereto or become dissatisfied with the Service in any way, Member's only recourse is to immediately discontinue use of the Service.
Upon termination of the Service, Member's right to use the Service and Software immediately ceases. Member shall have no right and Pyra will have no obligation thereafter to forward any unread or unsent messages to Member or any third party.
Full Terms of Service available here:
http://www.blogger.com/terms.g
Mongo - good post.
The board censor has already removed it, however.
And has allowed the original LIBELOUS POST from rancho to stand.
LOL -
Aaah, that's nice. We all get passionate from time to time and that's good. It's COMPLETELY OK to disagree with someone here BTW as long as one explains why, doesn't work off hidden agenda or payrolls, and stays civil. Glad to have to here, keep your ear to the oil pipe and let the board know what you hear!
OoooKkkk. You bet. Everybody needs a little humour in their lives.
Thanks for that bit, Gigwoof.
PS: If somebody's agenda is hidden, Then how do you know they have an agenda ? Or is it more correct to state that if the board moderators declare that somebody has a hidden agenda, then they are not welcome here ?
I know you can clear that up for me, gigwoof.
TIA - thanks in advance,
MonkeyT
No, bb - I was referring to several other publications, including the Houston Chronicle - where 'shareholders' with absolutely no other connection to the company ( as far as publicly filed documents state) were quoted as primary sources of info about the company.
But you are welcome for the opportunity my post afforded you to repost and rehash just a couple of the old "PR's" that oilman claimed 'have not been issued every other day.'
I appreaciate the documentation of the fallaciousness of oilman's post.
Ciao,
Monkey
BB - 13 years is PROBABLE.
And don't attempt to state that I said it was 'ridiculous'.
I said no such thing, and stand by my estimate.
13 Years to first oil IF ERHE were to be awarded a block, IF they were to drill, IF they were to find commercial hydrocarbons, IF they can take it to production - AND IF they keep paying their cash calls on time so they don't get taken out of the blocks.
I don't believe that this company can do all that.
Oh, and BB - you STILL exclude the 6 years exploration time - and through implication, (comparing it to the Amerada Hess GOG block of '14 months' to first oil) have very directly indicated you believe that 'oil has already been found'. So consider yourself shown where you stated it.
Gigwoof - Minimum verses Probable. em
First Oil min. 7-10 years. 13 years is probable.
Monkeytrots is the name. Not mongo.
At least get the NAME correct.
And the EXPLORATION PHASE always has to be included in the project timetable. YOU keep claiming that oil has 'already been found.'
OIL IS NOT FOUND UNTIL THE DRILLBIT TURNS TO THE RIGHT, and a COMPLETION TEST IS SUCCESSFUL. And it took XOM 6, read it, SIX YEARS to get to that point.
There has not been a SINGLE WELL DRILLED in the JDA or JDZ.
You may wish to rewrite the rules of physics, and reality - but saying it doesn't make it so BB.
But, I WILL give you credit for one thing -
You have finally admitted that a minimum of a "SEVEN YEAR" (7 yr) timetable from discovery to first oil production is a more reasonable time scale; which is precisely the timetable that your last post laid out.
XOM - 1999 discovery - 2006 estimated first production.
Just as I stated in my original post.
Thank-you.
check the facts out - CEIBA field -
NOT ultra-deep water, like the JDZ - water depths of 2,165-2,621 feet. ( JDA _ water depths 1,000-2,000 METERS == 3,280 - 6,562 FEET ).
http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/ceiba/
And, just for your info - Triton Energy no longer exists.
It was bought out long ago by Amerada Hess.
Reserves of CEIBA - estimated 300 Million - and this estimate is AFTER several years worth of production history.
The Field is MUCH closer to shore than the JDA/JDZ blocks.
http://www.guineequatoriale-info.net/info/news_oil.htm
And the FPSO is moored in 100m of water, only about 4.5 miles from the successful wells (yes, there were a busted well or two).
http://www.oilonline.com/news/features/oe/20010101.Speculat.29.asp
NOTE: A 100m (328 feet) mooring depth for an FPSO will NOT be possible in the JDA. Not by a VERY LONG SHOT.
It was very misleading for the industry to label this as a 'deepwater first' - it was not. It is shallow water production facilities tied to deepwater wells. There is a HUGE distinction in costs, and timings.
Also - the 14 months was time from completion of the first Exploration well - which HAPPENED TO HIT - not from the time of the PSA/PSC leasing award of the tract to Triton.
Just keeping the FACTS straight and honest. It really helps if one knows the oil biz - first hand.
It is my firm opinion that the XOM field previously mentioned and documented, 13 years from start to first oil, is MUCH MORE representative of the JDA case than the CEIBA field that BB talks about.
That post is pure pump, and has no basis in fact.
There is no 'free carry'. Exploration and Development costs
will definitely have to be met, along with non-signature bonus
taxes, titles, license fees, etc. that will be accrued.
Guaranteed. Read the SEC filings. It is spelled out.
LOL - very true to form.
BPH - 13 years to first production for XOM ERHA field.
A partial answer to 'when will the first well be drilled.'
Look at the history in the area - not the claims that are made.
How many wells ? - Take a look at the ERHA field - that should start to give you a feel for this type of play. Links below.
That's right folks - 13 years.
LMBO !!!
1993 - Licensing round
Dec, 1999 - announcement of DISCOVERY WELL by Exxon
est 2006 - first production.
Read it and learn.
http://www.federalism.ch/FTP-Mirror/summer_university_03/week_2/Nigeria-EIU.pdf
http://www.oilonline.com/news/features/oe/20000701.Next_Meg.66.asp
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=ERHE&read=25516
Why ? His question was very straight forward.
This RB post sums up the most current events quite succinctly.
By: Mongo1071
15 Apr 2005, 11:38 AM EDT
Msg. 23893 of 24083
(This msg. is a reply to 23877 by walldog0.)
Jump to msg. #
Walldog...define 'something bad'.
XOM taking a pass was not bad according to you.
Offor refinancing the note and then getting paid off a few short weeks later to the tune of about 100 million shares was not bad.
Offor settling a lawsuit for 60 million shares was not bad.
Low bids on each and every block that ERHE bid on was not bad.
Ali's little episode of forgetfulness at the SH meeting was not bad.
An O/S of close to 710 million shares is not bad.
No independent directors is not bad.
Zero revenue is not bad news.
Just what would be something that is actually 'bad' in your esteemed opinion?
Mongrel
Dadd - here is the Legal dictionary for 'perfect':
ERHC has unperfected preferential rights.
per·fect1 (`pər-fikt)
adj.
Entirely without fault or defect: as
1. Satisfying all requirements (failed to make perfect tender)
2. Free from any valid legal objection Valid and effective at law (having perfect title to the property) compare imperfect
per·fect2 (pər-`fekt)
vt.
To complete or put in final conformity with the law: as
1. To make (an appeal) ready for transfer to an appeals court by satisfying procedural requirements
2. To put (one's security interest) in a position or status having priority over subsequently perfected security interests or unperfected security interests by taking statutorily prescribed steps to give notice esp. by filing a financing statement or taking possession of the collateral (was the first creditor to perfect its security interest in the debtor's collateral, and, thus, was the first in priority for the collateral - Commercial Bank v. Pride Furniture, Inc., 877 P.2d 1222 (1994)) compare attach -vi To make something (as a security interest) complete, in conformity with the law, or valid against third-party claims per·fec·tion (pər-`fek-shən)
n.
Eg. Unless ERHC is able to perfect their preferential rights in the JDZ, they will not have any valid claim to any exploration or production from the JDZ.
QED.
Actually - Dadd - you are incorrect. The preferential rights of ERHC have NOT been validated, and that is according to the 10K and 10Q filings of the company. The rights are unperfected, and if ERHC fails to perfect those rights, the company has no value.
That is what the SEC FILINGS of ERHC state.
The use of the word 'validated' is use of misleading words, making an implication that the COMPANY in it's own SEC FILINGS does not attempt to imply.
Please stop the hyping.
val·i·date Audio pronunciation of "validate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vl-dt)
tr.v. val·i·dat·ed, val·i·dat·ing, val·i·dates
1. To declare or make legally valid. == perfect.
2. To mark with an indication of official sanction.
3. To establish the soundness of; corroborate. See Synonyms at confirm.
Synonyms: confirm, corroborate, substantiate, authenticate, validate, verify
These verbs mean to affirm the truth, accuracy, or genuineness of something. Confirm implies removal of all doubt: as in the company MUST perfect it's rights in the JDA - if the company fails to perfect it's rights, it has no asset of any value.
prophetti - the monkey wrench has already been thrown.
Just remains to see what the fallout really becomes.
I think this one looks much better -
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=XEC&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
No big losers in that one, no matter where one may have bought in.
Course, if you got the belly for it - you could always trade and maybe come out ahead - but the two year chart says that one should probably wait till around Sep to buy in.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=ERHE.OB&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
XOM.
Hardly, oilman. That's called 'what if'.