Replies to post #132871 on ERHC Energy Inc (ERHE)

[redinvest]

DG, thanks for the clarification. I, for one, understand it better.

Red

[YankeMike]

Nice post RC! It seems pretty clear to me.
Mike

[magicatlast]

Deg, thanks tremendously for your inquiry and post re SOL. I have saved it for future repost should this issue be raised again.

Magic

[Opus X]

Thanks DG (and Dan obviously) for your efforts to better define this situation!

Opus X

[TopShelf]

Thanks DG, That one post cleared up quite a bit for me at least. I was always under the impression that after the 5 years, it was over. But that is not the case apparently. It always appears to stay open if they like. The only thing is , is that they can only go back 5 years. And tomorrow, they can go back one day less than they can go back today.

It is a rolling 5 years. It is NOT 5 years. Even after say 3 years, it can still be a 5 year period. Just a different 5 years period.

At least we can be comfortable I assume that there has been no wrong doing in recent history, so we are in a clean period of the last 5 years.

[dat_51or]

Degen,

Thanks for reposting DKs reply to your email. Very helpful and informative.

The next year is going to be a rocket ride (upward) for ERHE, IMO!
dat

[Art2004]

Degen, this is a truly excellent post.It covers the SOL clearly and rather completely. Excellent job in questioning Dan K and reporting,

Dan K. does state the the US government has not applied for a statute of limitiations extension as Spec had posted.

It can be deduced that any events prior to
June 23, 2003 are now outside the 5 year window of the SOL. This would cover all the treaties or agreements between ERHC and Sao Tome on JDZ and EEZ rights.

The government could act on events after that date, but according to Dan, ERHC is not aware of any recent US government activity regarding the company.

I hope this satisfies the concerns of all of the IHub posters.

Good regards,

Art

[Pepsiman2001]

Great DD degen, thanks. eom