Dear Ms. Dauble:
In a recent story on ERHC Energy, your staff writer quoted a WSJ story correctly but that story failed to report a key element of the overall story, and as a result, our shares of this company have dropped more than 20 percent.
Chip Cummins failed to report in a March WSJ commentary that while, as he reported, the attorney general of Sao Tome and Principe issued a report asking for an investigation of ERHC by the DOJ, SEC, etc., he failed to report that the governments of both countries, in a Feb. 9 statement available at www.nigeriasaotomejda.com, had formally rejected the report.
The story of this report is fascinating. It was conducted by a man who has trained most of the top corporate counsel in the oil industry at the University of Tulsa School of Law. His name is R. Dobie Langenkamp, and if you check, you will find that he is a member of the Energy Law Institute advisory committee. That committee has more than 11 corporate counsel for our rivals for the oil-rich Blocks 2, 3 and 4 on its Executive Committee, and Langenkamp himself has ties to Judy Pensabene, who is the Chief Counsel for the Senate Energy Committee and is married to Greg Pensabene, the Executive VP for Governmental Relations and chief lobbyist for Anadarko Petroleum, our principal rival for Block 3.
Meanwhile, the Senate Commerce Committee's hearings on bribes paid to Equatorial Guinea officials by Exxon, Chevron, Devon, Noble and others -- all of those named here were either rivals or partners of ERHC as the blocks of the Nigeria-Sao Tome Joint Development Zone were being awarded -- have been stalled for three years.
The timing of the search warrant served on ERHC is extremely suspicious, since it follows the discovery by Chevron/ExxonMobil in Block 1 of a reservoir I will estimate at 1.6 billion barrels, much of which is in ERHC Energy's Block 2. In short, they are trying to use the judiciary, as they used the Sao Tome AG, to get us out of the picture now that we have been awarded so much equity in the blocks they wanted so badly.
What I justifiably fear is that having Chip Cummins' story on hand, future writers about ERHC will repeat the same error, as this latest May 5 DJ story on ERHC did, failing to note the highly political nature of the Sao Tome AG's probe and its rejection by the highest officials of both countries for its finding that there is no evidence against ERHC and because there were substantial factual errors in the report. At least 2,000 investors have suffered substantial losses in ERHE shares as a result of Dow Jones' failure to include in both stories this one simple caveat: "The probe report was 'rejected in its entirety' by both governments on Feb. 8, 2006."
I hope you will not allow this erroneous reporting about ERHC Energy to persist, and to that end I have spoken to the author of the report, and his editor, Tony Snow, and his supervisor, who called me on behalf of Mr. Snow and hung up on me when I asked the spelling of her name.
Please do me the favor of advising me of any action that may be taken by Dow Jones to correct this serious and costly error.
ERHC On The Move
May 14, 4006
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Correction Of May 5 Dow Jones Story Asked
Tonight I sent the following letter to Jennifer Dauble (firstname.lastname@example.org), an executive at Dow Jones, regarding the May 5 story the agency did on the search warrant served on ERHC Energy: