*You* said it.

LOL!

So what you are saying is that when you have a question you ask those that can provide an answer. That seems more effective than stomping your feet until someone else make the effort.

How much money should they spend on frivolous PR's that mean nothing??? This week, next week... it makes NO difference! At the end of the day they got whatever money they got and will spend it in the most efficient manner to advance their properties and attract a partner that will reduce/eliminate the need for additional fund raising. That is what they have said they would do since this fund raising began.

As shareholders we are in sit and wait mode... and the wait could be grueling for the impatient.

JMHO.

A couple is 2, a few is 3-5, several is 6 or more.

And that several was qualified with "at least".

The wait between now and the first Kenyan wells will be the hardest.

Yep, the followers here, not necessarily shareholders, have the power to force the company to sell unexplored assets... unexplored assets.

A lot of effort seems aimed in that direction.

I think an understanding of the phrase "material event" eludes you.

The definition isn't always what you think it should be.

Theri overall commitments in Chad and kenya are in excess of $100M. They already told us that. Of *course* there will be more fund raising.

I agree with that *completely*. I'm thinking we'll see some creative placement at a higher price after the announcement of a partner to operate Chad and/or Kenya. I would rule out that placement being with the same operator that they sign with. That fits in with several of the fund raising options they are considering.

Maybe Sinopec sets a hook in the minnows mouth by taking a stake?

Who knows?

Nothing we didn't already know, but it's interesting to see an audience for our minnow outside of the I-hub community...

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/200555-qualitystocks/1117601-erhc-energy-inc-erhe-solidifies-oil-and-gas-development-profile-in-republics-of-kenya-and-chad

Why Kenya Is The Hottest Oil Venue In Africa - Interview With Maxwell Birley...

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1118031-why-kenya-is-the-hottest-oil-venue-in-africa-interview-with-maxwell-birley

I agree completely with that last statement. That's why the drama over Offor's participation was so annoying. If there was a need for promotion to insure success, promotion would have occured.

The lack of promotion told me the success was known ahead of time. If this thing turns out unsuccessful I admit I will be baffled.

Honestly? I would consider Chrome not participating a disaster and they would be liable for fraud charges given their support statement. As for the "S" word and Ntephe, I would say yes, but with the understanding that "S" stood for survival. I don't agree with any plan that means closing the doors and making our positions worth zero.

Let me ask you an honest question since I answered yours, if your distrust of management is anywhere near the level you indicate, why on earth did you participate in the offering?

or 20 days of a feeding frenzy, who knows?

Oooooh noooooo! Not the "S" word from an offering participant!

Seriously though, the numbers will come in when Stock Transfer notifies ERHC on what the participation was. That could be hours, days, or weeks.

My guess is we will hear around the middle of next week, but that's a complete guess.

A suggestion for the basher/pumper saga...

Modify the site so that if someone ignores a poster, that poster can't see the posts of the person ignoring them. That way, if a large portion of the boards membership ignored a pumper, a basher, or whoever, the offending poster would see a dead board with no posts. Problem solved. No audience.

A change like that would moderate the hype and armaggeddon crowds and lead to a world class discussion board, IMO. That alone would offset the loss of posting traffic caused by the "auto ignore". I've been told that this idea would promote group-think. I disagree. If there is only one thing that can be learned from message boards, it is *no* group ever agrees. That concern isn't supported by reality. I think I-hub should consider the traffic that would *DRAW* to their boards instead of worrying about the number of posts, no matter what the quality.

I can see this making all of I-hubs boards self moderating, without the need for moderators and admin overseeing moderators.

But I would put a 30-60 day expiration on *all* ignores. IMO they should do that now. Hey, we all flip out now and then, no need to make an iggy permanent. If a poster is over-the-top hyping to the point that people ignore them, they see no posts to respond to. If a poster is beyond armaggeddon negative to the point that people ignore them, they see no posts to respond to. If they are just beating the keyboard because they are awake and it is annoying, they see no posts to respond to. After 30-60 days, they can speak their mind again.

It would teach messageboard edicate and tame some of the emotional outbursts that can happen. State your case, positive or negative, and discuss it and support it rationally. People won't ignore anyone doing that.

Another benefit is it eliminates the accusations of censorship that frequently gets thrown at moderators. There is no "one" person that can push the button.

And, the best reason for this idea, it eliminates the drone of repetitive posters, positive, or negative. Incessant repetition has been an ongoing and unsolved problem for I-hub.

Just a thought. It's a table change and a couple query changes, the user interface remains unaffected... no big deal.

A potential solution for the basher/pumper saga...

Modify the site so that if someone ignores a poster, that poster can't see the posts of the person ignoring them. That way, if a large portion of the boards membership ignored a pumper, a basher, or whoever, the offending poster would see a dead board with no posts. Problem solved. No audience.

A change like that would moderate the hype and armaggeddon crowds and lead to a world class discussion board, IMO. That alone would offset the loss of posting traffic caused by the "auto ignore". I've been told that this idea would promote group-think. I disagree. If there is only one thing that can be learned from message boards, it is *no* group ever agrees. That concern isn't supported by reality. I think I-hub should consider the traffic that would *DRAW* to their boards instead of worrying about the number of posts, no matter what the quality.

I can see this making all of I-hubs boards self moderating, without the need for moderators and admin overseeing moderators.

But I would put a 30-60 day expiration on *all* ignores. IMO they should do that now. Hey, we all flip out now and then, no need to make an iggy permanent. If a poster is over-the-top hyping to the point that people ignore them, they see no posts to respond to. If a poster is beyond armaggeddon negative to the point that people ignore them, they see no posts to respond to. If they are just beating the keyboard because they are awake and it is annoying, they see no posts to respond to. After 30-60 days, they can speak their mind again.

It would teach messageboard edicate and tame some of the emotional outbursts that can happen. State your case, positive or negative, and discuss it and support it rationally. People won't ignore anyone doing that.

Another benefit is it eliminates the accusations of censorship that frequently gets thrown at moderators. There is no "one" person that can push the button.

And, the best reason for this idea, it eliminates the drone of repetitive posters, positive, or negative. Incessant repetition has been an ongoing and unsolved problem for I-hub.

Just a thought. It's a table change and a couple query changes, the user interface remains unaffected... no big deal.

A suggestion for the basher/pumper saga...

Modify the site so that if someone ignores a poster, that poster can't see the posts of the person ignoring them. That way, if a large portion of the boards membership ignored a pumper, a basher, or whoever, the offending poster would see a dead board with no posts. Problem solved. No audience.

A change like that would moderate the hype and armaggeddon crowds and lead to a world class discussion board, IMO. That alone would offset the loss of posting traffic caused by the "auto ignore". I've been told that this idea would promote group-think. I disagree. If there is only one thing that can be learned from message boards, it is *no* group ever agrees. That concern isn't supported by reality. I think I-hub should consider the traffic that would *DRAW* to their boards instead of worrying about the number of posts, no matter what the quality.

I can see this making all of I-hubs boards self moderating, without the need for moderators and admin overseeing moderators.

But I would put a 30-60 day expiration on *all* ignores. IMO they should do that now. Hey, we all flip out now and then, no need to make an iggy permanent. If a poster is over-the-top hyping to the point that people ignore them, they see no posts to respond to. If a poster is beyond armaggeddon negative to the point that people ignore them, they see no posts to respond to. If they are just beating the keyboard because they are awake and it is annoying, they see no posts to respond to. After 30-60 days, they can speak their mind again.

It would teach messageboard edicate and tame some of the emotional outbursts that can happen. State your case, positive or negative, and discuss it and support it rationally. People won't ignore anyone doing that.

Another benefit is it eliminates the accusations of censorship that frequently gets thrown at moderators. There is no "one" person that can push the button.

And, the best reason for this idea, it eliminates the drone of repetitive posters, positive, or negative. Incessant repetition has been an ongoing and unsolved problem for I-hub.

Just a thought. It's a table change and a couple query changes, the user interface remains unaffected... no big deal.

ROTFL @ fingernailsoup!

Sinopec was the operator. Sinopec chose the drilling locations. Had Sinopec scored, people would be praising ERHC management for their successes. Perhaps the blame doesn't rest with ERHC management and sits squarely in the category of bad luck?

Those of us that placed too large a bet on the outcome, and I am definately in that category, should look in the mirror.

If ERHC was trading at $14 and had a billion barrels of reserves from a huge JDZ score people would not be condemning management.

It seems to me that folks should be mad at the JDZ, not managment.

"Stupid rocks, why couldn't you have had oil?"

My point was exploration takes time, whether it be in the JDZ, or now in Chad and Kenya... and there is no guarantee oil will be found.

That's all I meant in that post.

This boils down to trust... period. *DO* we trust Ntephe and Offor? *CAN* we trust Ntephe and Offor?

If the result of this offering is a success and shareholders profit from it, then we can. If it goes any other way this could go sub penny. It is what it is....

We either trust or save ourselves.

(FWIW, that was the last 2 months posts in a nutshell)

Yep, it could be months or years before any meaningful "exploration" starts in Chad or Kenya. We all knew (or should have known) that before investing. Each of us has made our decisions based on our expectations of the outcome.

That's the stock market. You place your tokens on the table and hope you are right.

Blaming someone else for where you chose to place your tokens isn't right.

Why do some feel that not raising funds and closing the doors is a preferable option?

That makes no sense to me.

Unbridled hype is what got investors to buy this stock in the 0.90's. Thankfully we haven't seen any unbridled hype since the JDZ pre-drilling days 5 years ago.

Any discussion about whether Chrome participated partially, fully, and/or oversubscribed, is a waste of board space. The offering will close in 4 days and we will have our answer.

Anything more than waiting for that to happen is drama for the sake of drama.

Yes. It was. I was attempting to demonstrate why any thoughts of the offering not being successful are illogical. Let me repost the whole post to keep my word in context...

ERHC has publicly stated that it used a rights offering to raise funds so that its shareholders could avoid dilution by participating. Does that sound like a company that plans to dilute its shareholders with a private placement any time soon?

Of course not.

Someone posts a hypotheical negative scenario that isn't even logical, and suddenly ERHC is a "pure scam" based on it.

It's comical.

If I were the CEO of a company and I initiated a rights offering to raise funds from shareholders that have ridden "a tough road" with the company, I would be damn sure that the results would meet the company's immediate needs and the participating shareholders would be rewarded for their support.

Anything less than a successful fund raise would show a complete and total absence of market understanding. I believe the company is focusing its limited resources toward a successful outcome. The absence of "pump" during the offering period is a very good sign. It shows that they aren't desparate and willing to say *anything* to "milk" shareholders... and it shows that this thing was likely "in the bag" from the start.

IMO, Offor takes 98-99% of the offered shares and the full $18M+ will be raised.

I'll leave it up to TOB to decide if he wants to post a link. You are the one most concerned about a supposed lack of communication, yet you seem least motivated to find the answer for yourself.

For once can't you look something up that *you* don't believe?

Do your own research, I'm busy!

Talk to the SEC, they made the rule.

I hope you didn't think that I was concerned that you were berating ERHC in any way. Nothing you posted implicates ERHC in any way. They are a victim of circumstance, and as a victim the harm was negligible. As shareholders of ERHC, the harm was negligible as well. The document shows that the scammer did not make money; therefore the shareholders did not lose money. As a scam it failed... good. That it was a scam is now known... good. It was a manipulator trying to manipulate... he failed, and he still got busted.

It's all good.

We need more cases in this area and more posts about them. Manipulation needs to stop. Everyone that puts money into the stock market needs to do their DD and place their "bets" based on that DD. Using fear tactics and pump tactics for personal profit is deplorable. Years from now these tactics will be equated to and legally treated as prostitution, IMO.

Your posting history may be the strangest I have *ever* encountered. Do you work for the SEC or a law firm whose specialty is Class Actions against stock manipulation?

Another manipulator bites the dust. Thanks for posting that.

The bird is in the marinade right now to soften it up.