Replies to post #18462 on Addax Petroleum (fka AXC)

[Krombacher]

hi kingpindg,

So ssc brings up a very good point. He says that while Addax did get purchased for approximately $8 billion (Canadian dollars), Addax had some producing properties, which presumably ERHC does not. As a result, Addax can garner about $8 billion while ERHC cannot.

But does ERHC have producing properties or not? And if so, how would ERHC's properties compare to that of Addax?

So first, I need to figure out how it might be possible for ERHC to have such properties. And I have to figure out whether this correlates to the PPP discovery that ERHC has revenues of probably around $1.5 million to support a payroll of at least $400k.

I think the clue is in the MOU they had signed with Starcrest.

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/01/19/948432/0/en/ERHC-Energy-Inc-Signs-Memorandum-of-Understanding-with-Starcrest-Energy-Nigeria-Limited.html

This was signed around the time that the press release was sent out which was on January 19, 2017.

Now if we look at the court documents, we see that the contract with Total wasn't signed until October 17, 2017. But could Starcrest and ERHC have known of Total's interest and ultimate contract 9 months prior?

Well, looking at the court documents some more, we see that there was, prior to the signed contract, an NDA with Total as early as June 5th, 2017.

Looking a little deeper and we see that the offer is being discussed on July 6th of the same year along with an MOU with Total around that same time.

So we can conclude that there HAD TO HAVE BEEN discussions with Total BEFORE June 5th, for there to have even been an NDA signed.

But unfortunately, this is also around that time that a Kosmos deal was allegedly agreed to.

So it is difficult to tell if Starcrest might have entered into the MOU on the basis of a Total deal or a Kosmos deal. Which was it privy to?

Well, the PR for the Starcrest MOU might offer some hints.

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.

So clearly, it's not only that ERHC is interested in Starcrest assets, but Starcrest wants to get involved in ERHC's assets.

So I doubt that their interest would be in an Kosmos controlled EEZ block 4, since 100% of that interest would have gone to Kosmos, with nothing for Starcrest to participate in.

But...under a Total contract, Starcrest might certainly be interested in EEZ Block 4, and if Total is also interested in the JDZ (as the teaser on the JDZ seems to indicate that Total is, plus the fact that Total picked up adjacent non-ERHC blocks), then Starcrest might also be interested in the JDZ.

They wouldn't be interested in Kenya or Chad, because quite frankly, Starcrest mainly operates in the gulf of guinea on primarily Nigerian properties.

We also know that Emeka Offor is definitely on the board of Starcrest:

http://www.starcrestng.com/index.php/about/our-team

We know that Starcrest has OML 40 through its joint venture in Elcrest.

It owns 45% of 55% of OML 40 or about 25%. That means of the 30,000 bpd, Starcrest gets about 7,500 bpd.

But it may be as high as 50,000 bpd now, given that wikipedia says that they intended on growing it that large in about 4 years, see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_Delta

It also has OPL 242, but no info I could find on its production numbers.

And it also has OPL 291, but also no info there.

It would be EXTREMELY interesting if Total was interested in OPL 242 and OPL 291...because then we'd have a clear understanding that Starcrest is all about collaborating with Total.

But let's examine the Starcrest MOU PR some more. Clearly, if ERHC was about to garner Total uncontested in court...then the Starcrest MOU would've turned into a major deal. But so long as Kosmos was contesting the Total deal and litigating, the Starcrest deal had to remain on hold.

But we know that just because the MOU tolled passed the deadline, does not mean that a deal could not still be done. After all with Offor on the board of Starcrest...we had a friend and ally there to keep the deal front and center.

Interestingly, it may very well be that Starcrest did purchase a bunch of ERHC shares back when the reverse split happened...thereby giving Chrome/Offor a large stake in ERHC that way. Who knows? Certainly, there were plans of some kind of merger with Starcrest anyway...given the MOU was in play.

And ... if Starcrest has revenues of 7,000 bpd through Elcrest...and Starcrest and ERHC have joined forces, giving ERHC a small stake, say 1% stake in that...

Then 1% x 7,500 bpd x $60 per barrel x 365 days a year = $1,642,500 a year in revenue.

This jibes pretty closely with a payroll of at least $400 k plus expenses that would be associated with executive employees.

It all then comes together nicely.

ERHC's revenue must be coming from Starcrest. That's the big missing piece in the equation.

So here's the BIG question. How similar was ADDAX to what would be a Starcrest/ERHC combination?

Could it be that if Addax fetched about $8 billion dollars, then so too could ERHC if it were somehow combined with Starcrest per the deal?

Krombacher

[Krombacher]

Elcrest which is the joint venture between Eland and Starcrest also has OML 17 (see page 139). They have already done 1 year of OML 17, which would be 2019... given the period covered by the Seplat report you posted.

So by now that's 2 years of OML 17.

So maybe Elcrest sends revenues from OML 17 to Starcrest which then sends some revenue over to Erhc... which then has allowed Erhc to get two PPP loans.

Krombacher