ERHC Energy Inc (ERHE)

[kingpindg]

How do you know that the assignment agreement does not officially bind Total to ever perform work on a block to prove that block is "in production" better than a PSC when over half the agreement is redacted?

Because only STP can authorize work on a block in their EEZ and they do that through a Production Sharing Contract. This is why "execution and entry into full force and effect of a PSC in respect of Block 4..." was a condition for completion of the Assignment Agreement.

Do you even have a working definition of "in production" to qualify either the PSC or the assignment agreement as meeting the criteria for "in production"?

No, I don't. That is why we are having this discussion. Originally, I thought that "in production" meant the block had to be producing oil. Then you said something (can't remember what now) that made me think that having a PSC on the block could be good enough.

I will offer up that the STP/ERHC Agreement, while not specifically defining "production" does say, "Any words terms or phrases used herein shall be interpreted m accordance with their generally accepted use by the international petroleum industry". Unfortunately, getting a precise definition of "production" proves difficult because (via Google search) some definitions include exploration as part of production, while most seem to want to differentiate between the two phases. However, I did not see one definition that said production begins when two companies enter into an assignment agreement.

I do agree that it is difficult to make any sense of what is happening with Block 4, which is why we can only speculate as to what is going on.

Oh, and I almost forgot...


.