Fishdog-

Just to fill in the picture for me, who do you think will become buyers upon withdrawal of the DOJ investigation, and what do you think they are afraid the DOJ, or their stigma, can do to EHRE now? TIA.

Any idea why

/NOT FOR RELEASE, PUBLICATION OR DISTRIBUTION IN OR INTO THE UNITED STATES, AUSTRALIA OR JAPAN/

is always in the Addax releases? Am I missing something obvious?

OT:lovemelongtime-

As a matter of fact, a Vulcan brain transplant would be my fondest wish. LOL.

claudealain-

While I would dispute that "..humankind is not any longer...." is attributable largely to speculation, you allude to speculation that is verifiable. "What if I try tasting that animal that has been killed by a forest fire?" and thus migrate from eating raw to cooked meat, is not the same as "What if EHRE is buying (or merging with, or whatever) a much larger company?".

And as to EHRE being a speculative investment, the meaning of the word is in that usage is quite different, that being "crapshoot" until the holes are drilled in the ocean floor.

oil-cowboy-

To label 'unverifiable' (and I believe that is an accurate assessment)is not to discredit. In addition, I read the (unverifiable) speculation and keep asking myself what possible help it provides in assessing ERHE as an investment. Certainly no one would use ..if...may.. as a reasonable basis for future expectations and invest or sell acoordingly. One poster has referred to the speculation as 'fun'. I personally can't understand that, but to each his own, and it's the only valid reason I can see for it.

texasspeculator-

No fight intent here either - just my best attempt at discussing what IS. And I think you're right - in general, the worst of us here at Ihub/EHRE would be among the best in many other locales.

texasspeculator-

I suspect you're misreading my subsequent posts to the thread, or perhaps I am misinterpreting Lugheads1957's "I considered it before I wrote it. I had no problems with it". My assumption of his meaning of "it" was the obvious hypocrisy in his post that I originally commented on, NOT the post itself. And the 'no problems' with hypocrisy was what I was agreeing with. I haven't come across too many other people that don't 'have a problem' with hypocrisy, and that's who the 'many' was referring to.

Has it been apples and oranges? Regardless, I would not consider three posts "pushing an issue".

I think you give them too much credit.....

Nor do I. However, many do.

Lugheads1957-

"...self-appointed police..."???

"...sell-and-move-on stuff got childish years ago..."???

"...AGREE WITH ME OR GET LOST is not exactly what I like to see..."

You might want to consider if you're being a bit hypocritical in your thinking......

exceo-

Do you think the qualifying first part of amj's sentence:

"..to those who think they have dead money here, sell and move on..."

applies to you? If not, why are you assuming the "sell and move on" is directed at you? On the other hand, if it does apply, I find it hard to imagine anyone arguing with the logic of the statement.

OT

"1. Violence is not harmless entertainment"

Absolutely true, but I'm guessing you are really saying the DEPICTION of violence is not harmless. I really have to insist that, to a sane mind, it is harmless. One does not restrict the sane to accommodate the insane - many other (appropriate) remedies are available.

Our culture ENCOURAGES violence? I'd sure like to hear your rationale for that one.

And by the way, "...hand guns are ususally used to shoot people." - I think you'll find that incorrect, no matter which way it's interpreted.

OT And then again, perhaps, and hopefully, not.

Access to harmless entertainment should not be restricted for the vast majority of us that can tell the difference.

exceo-

From what I can tell, old or not, we're all stupid as far as comprehending Oily's posts.

And I suspect the situation will continue in that vein.

texasspeculator-

Many thanks for posting that Buffet quote. I've always felt uneasy with the concept of general diversification, and it's good to have such clearly stated support of that from a solid source.

lovemelongtime-

Thanks for the pointer, but I guess I'm still missing what makes it obvious that the SP is being manipulated. By the way, I hope it is, because, assuming manipulation, someone somehow holding it down, as opposed to inflating it, is the only thing that seems to make sense at this point.

lovemelongtime-

Kindly elaborate - SP manipulation is obvious from what (happenings, facts, etc)?

Sure would be veeeeeeeery nice, wouldn't it? But then, with lucky guys like us, how can it miss? LOL.

Jim Long-

I don't have any worries about my shares in EHRE. However, maybe that's because it's my play money involved.

My whole point is that the "knowns" have a far-from-zero chance of producing NOTHING of value to the company. The ones that could have an effect are probablistic at this point, not known "knowns"; the seismics don't guarantee anything, and OBO1 has "hydrocarbons", not necessarily reserves. There's no really applicable close environment to extrapolate from, re: the seventh heart operation.

I have no doubt that SEO harbors significant "knowns" that the rest of us, for the most part, are unaware of. But I would not base any of my decisions on what to me, are unknowns.

Jim Long-

Okay, youve been here seven or eight months longer than I have, but I very much doubt anything that happened then has not been reiterated since.

As far as "knowing", perhaps you do, but sitting smug with that statement is just not enough. The three "knowns" that have not "whizzed by" me are (1) the GOG has proven oil (2) 3D indicates deposits are probable(!) (3) OBO1 hit hydrocarbons. None of these "knowns" validate that EHRE has, or will have, true value - and perhaps that needs clarification, I'm only talking about such value-supporting "knowns". Please, very briefly, just indicate a few of the other "knowns" you're talking about.

Jim Long-

You got the "faith" part right. IMO that's all we have at this point.

Personally, I have no belief in either SEO knowing a little or a lot. If there's evidence to support either, it's whizzed by me.

Jim Long-

Remember, though, that "..he knows, as well as anyone possibly can" can still be knowing next to nothing about real, existing assets - just a SWAG, so to speak.

Turns into a bluffing match in that case.

There has been a fair amount of comment about the results of OBO1, including a significant percentage containing negativity. I am having a hard time understanding any reason for negativity whatever.

A link was posted recently to an article that said Ghawar's first seventeen or so wells came up dry, and a last ditch well finally produced. OBO1 produced documented hydrocarbons as the first well.

To reiterate, how can any not-totally-dry results from OBO1 be the least bit disappointing?

Please provide a substantiable example of decei(p)t on IHub. My guess is you can't. You might first consider that two facets are involved - distortion of the truth, and intent to mislead.

That broken record is getting reaaaaaally tiresome.

Your constant reiteration of the same old tune just shows you don't realize that your rules and their illogical corollaries don't apply to anyone but yourself.

*AT LAST*, membership in an exclusive circle! LOL.

Enjoyed it as well.

Lugheads1957-

The proverbial "Beating the subject to death" nears quickly, so let me just say I do not think book value is an appropriate price, but it is far more appropriate than that the "..hopes of investors.." assign to it.

I think it's obvious the "ocean floor ...results" you refer to are the only valid factor in determining a justified share price. And my money - in the form of EHRE shares - is on a positive result.

Lugheads1957-

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe your implication is that "the (alll-knowing) Market" correctly assigned a value in the $.90s to ERHE SP, and now has CORRECTLY diminished that SP to the low $.40s because of "DOCUMENTED" news. And you have no problem with that valuation.

I do have enormous problems with that valuation. "The Market" that you assign such omniscience to is largely comprised of those lucky myopic lemmings that haven't found the cliff to throw themselves off yet. EHRE valuation is, at this point, wholly based on fantasy. There are virutally no hard assets - about a nickel a share, last I looked.

That's my problem with "the Market says it all.".

Lugheads1957-

Yeah. Right. "The market says it all. Each day. Clearly."

Like it did when we were in the $.90's.

LOL

balance-

I agree completely - no worries here, but nonetheless your comforting outlook is appreciated. My point was that it is always prudent to be prepared for the unexpected, inasmuch as such a relatively absurd-sounding thing is possible.

Random_K9

Strassenheim-

It would behoove us all to prepare for our respective voices to be heard if the company's plans turn out not to our liking. And by "heard" I mean "listened to". However, I see no avenue toward such an end, whereas it sounds like you do. If you would, please enlighten me as to what you have in mind to be heard in a manner that has some chance to affect the outcome. TIA.

Random_K9

badog-

If your perception tells you that even ONE poster belongs to the group of "those of you that actually put your belief and faith in a message board poster such as Oilphant, Umbra, AngryAsian, Meridian, etc.", then the basis for all your conclusions is open to serious question.

(I of course exclude anyone who knows the named gentlemen/ladies personally and also knows them to be reliable sources. Even then, though, FAITH?????)

Lieutenant Kije-

Your presented conclusions are cascadingly dead wrong.

Except maybe the part about money being treated somehow. That part is unintelligible.

I know someone with the belief he knows the absolutes will enjoy everything about their existence, evenings included....but I guess stating a meaningless "nice polite reasonable guy" signoff to someone you don't know leaves a sweet impression, so - enjoy your evening.

Art2004-

Precisely the apparent contradiction that most caught my eye as well.

Perhaps just extremely bad writing? Certainly raises skepticism, no matter the reason.

But I still think the article smells much fishier than any previous "upstream staff" work.

Edit - Apologies, never mind the below, I didn't recognize the headline for the article on upstreamonline.

Forgive my skepticism based on how that alleged Upstream article was written, but if there was a link to it in any post, I missed it - and searching for "Starcrest" on the upstreamonline site doesn't bring up anything that matches - nor do, as far as I could see, the home page and the Africa subpage.

Can anybody help me resolve my conflict? TIA

upon trying to read post 82232:
"Message is private, ignored or otherwise inaccessible."

Something new on IHUB? Or just my first run-in with it?

antlizzie-

Last I heard there was significant thought that the decision to tax trusts would be beaten down due to broad impact, and may never happen. Has it become more certain as of late?

In addition, the number of years I had seen for tax exemption of existing trusts, if the tax is indeed instituted, was 5 years. I would appreciate any confirmation of your 4 year number.

Magic-

Now that you mention it, there may have been something pre-Cambrian........

Oliphant, that looks YUMMY.

Makes me regret I've never been proven wrong. LOL.