Mongo why do you contiuously bash the stock if you own shares? That seems a bit disingenuous to me.

Anywhere between $250 million and $1 billion

Actually PSC signings will be an impetus. Drilling in Block 1 will be an impetus. NEEZ could be an impetus.

We dropped 50% because the stock got pumped prior to awards and never should have been at that level.

Stockhocker, the impetus before was awards. Now there is no impetus. Drilling will be an impetus.

"EP's are notorious for drifting downward when they are in between wells/news. ERHE is in this same boat."

That is exactly right. I have seen it happen with a number of other oil stocks including EGY. When the drillbit isn't turning the money will go elsewhere. Regardless of the balance sheet or how great future prospects are.

Mongo you used that acronym three days ago. You should know the answer. Remember? It was the day you got all frustrated when Iasked you this simple question:

Mongo are you an ERHC shareholder?

P.S. And why wont your cohort monkeytrots answer the question?

Stockhocker if there wasn't a deal on the table to be carried to first production wouldnt they need alot more that $1.4 million in cash over the next 12 months?

IMO this is a nice clue as to the direction they are going in ie being carried to first prodcution. Overall Im fairly pleased with the report.

"THE GOOD:

As of June 30, 2005, the Company had $1,416,054 in cash and cash equivalents and working capital of $827,453, an amount believed to be sufficient to fund working capital obligations for the next twelve months."

Go to www.cohenresearch.com and read the report on GlycoGenesys.

GLGS a report just recently came out predicting a 2005 price range of $6 to $11 a share. Right now its around $1.15. Read post 35401 on GLGS yahoo message board for a nice overview of the stock. IMHO this stock is going to soar sooner rather than later.

How many shares of ERHC do you own Monkeytrots?

GLGS will be relasing "interim" results of a trial this month. Why would they release interim results if the results were negative.

Also its a biotech stock in the hottest sector, Oncology.

GLGS, trial results out within three weeks. Very low float with 20 million shares. Market cap around $20 million. No overhead resistance. Share price around $1.20.

GlycoGenesys, Inc. Provides Update on Corporate and Clinical Plans Going Forward
Monday August 8, 9:17 am ET


BOSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 8, 2005--GlycoGenesys, Inc., (NASDAQ: GLGS - News), a biotechnology company focused on carbohydrate-based drug development, provided a corporate update on its cancer clinical trial programs for GCS-100, its pipeline expansion strategy and the expected timelines for its drug development programs.
SUMMARY

Today the Company announced:

The addition of a site to its initiated Phase I/II multiple myeloma trial;
Plans for its Phase I/II clinical trial in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL);
A more detailed clinical development plan and timelines for GCS-100 in solid tumors and bloodborne cancers;
Efforts to establish a long-term funding relationship in 2005 to help fund its clinical trial programs and pipeline expansion
UPDATE ON 2005 GCS-100 CANCER PROGRAM

The Company's clinical program positions it to pursue approval in two indications for unmet medical needs in cancer (multiple myeloma and CLL) and starts the international regulatory process for GCS-100. This is in addition to the Company's continuing solid tumor program. The Company may also choose to apply for Fast Track designation in the U.S. for one or both bloodborne indications in the future.

Solid Tumors

GlycoGenesys' Phase I dose escalation trial for patients with advanced-stage solid tumors is enrolling patients at the sixth dose level (200mg/meter squared) planned under the protocol. This trial is currently being conducted at three clinical sites: Sharp Memorial Hospital, Clinical Oncology Research, in San Diego, California, the Arizona Cancer Center in Tucson, Arizona and the Arizona Cancer Center - Greater Phoenix Area in Scottsdale, Arizona. The Company plans to disclose preliminary results from this trial later this month.

A Phase II trial for treatment of solid tumors is planned for initiation in the second quarter of 2006. The study will be designed with the assistance of the Company's experienced Scientific Advisory Board. Preclinical efficacy studies, pharmacokinetic analyses and tumor assessment data from the current Phase I study will be carefully considered to determine the specific tumor types, dosing regimen and likely combination therapy strategy. If results of the Phase II trial are supportive, the Company plans to initiate a Phase III trial in the fourth quarter of 2007.

Multiple Myeloma

In collaboration with Dr. Kenneth Anderson and Dr. Paul Richardson of the Dana- Farber Cancer Institute, the Company designed a Phase I/II trial to study GCS- 100 in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma both alone and in combination with dexamethasone, a standard chemotherapy in multiple myeloma. This is the first clinical trial combining GCS-100 with another therapy. Dexamethasone was chosen because in vitro tests have shown GCS-100 in combination with dexamethasone to have an additive effect allowing for lower dose levels of both GCS-100 and dexamethasone to be used.

The trial was initiated at the Dana-Farber in April 2005 and is enrolling patients. The Company recently initiated a second clinical site, the Lucy Curci Cancer Center in Rancho Mirage, California. It anticipates adding three more sites to expedite patient enrollment of the trial. The Company's clinical trial timeline calls for this trial to be completed in the third quarter of 2006.

Assuming favorable data in the Phase I/II trial, a Phase II study is planned to begin in the third quarter of 2006 and be completed in the first quarter of 2008. This study will be designed to enable the Company to expand to a pivotal trial if supported by an interim review of the data. If needed to demonstrate clinical significance, a Phase III trial is planned for initiation in the third quarter of 2008.

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

The Company is pursuing CLL as an indication based on promising preclinical data including a new discovery recently presented at the prestigious 9th International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma by Dr. Finbarr Cotter of Barts Medical School in London. The first CLL clinical trial is planned to begin in the third quarter of 2005 in the U.S. with sites in the United Kingdom to follow. The protocol for this study was written in collaboration with Dr. Finbarr Cotter, Dr. Jennifer Brown, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Dr. Archie Prentice, Chairman British Committee for Standards in Haematology. The Company anticipates this trial will be completed in the third quarter of 2006. Pending review of the data, a pivotal Phase II/III study may be designed. This Phase II/III trial is projected to be initiated in the fourth quarter of 2006 with enrollment expected to be completed in early 2008.

PIPELINE EXPANSION

The Company is working to expand its pipeline by leveraging the potential of GCS- 100 and its analogs and by in-licensing with the goal of filing three new INDs by early 2007. Utilizing its lab in Cambridge Massachusetts the Company is conducting research on developing an orally administered version of GCS-100 and plans to file an IND for an oral formulation of GCS-100 in the third quarter of 2006. In addition, GCS-100 has shown activity in the area of angiogenesis and the Company was recently granted a patent on its use to control angiogenesis. The Company plans to work on analogs of GCS-100 in diseases in which angiogenesis plays a role with the goal of filing an IND for a non-oncology indication in the first quarter of 2007. The Company intends to out-license this analog. Finally, the Company is seeking to in-license an oncology compound with the goal of filing an IND on this compound in the first quarter of 2007.

COMMITTED TO ESTABLISHING A LONG-TERM FUNDING RELATIONSHIP IN 2005

The breadth of the Company's current trials as well as its clinical trial and pipeline plans warrant consummating a strategic funding during 2005. The Company is actively pursuing a dual track: a partnership with another pharmaceutical or biotech company, or a relationship with fundamental, long-term investors, either of which will provide long-term funding. The Company believes a strategic funding would likely benefit shareholder value, further validate its technology, and provide additional resources to conduct an expanded clinical trial program and develop its pipeline. The clinical trials planned to begin later in 2005 and pipeline development will be undertaken in conjunction with a strategic funding. The timing and/or success of these efforts cannot be predicted or assured but the Company is committed to achieving this goal expeditiously.

About GlycoGenesys, Inc.

GlycoGenesys, Inc. is a biotechnology company that develops and licenses compounds based on glycobiology. The Company's drug candidate GCS-100, a unique compound to treat cancer, has been evaluated in previous clinical trials at low dose levels in patients with colorectal, pancreatic and other solid tumors with stable disease and partial response documented. The Company currently is conducting a Phase I dose escalation trial to evaluate higher dose levels of GCS-100LE, a low ethanol formulation of GCS-100, at Sharp Memorial Hospital, Clinical Oncology Research in San Diego, California and the Arizona Cancer Center in both Tucson and Scottsdale, Arizona. In addition, GCS-100LE is being evaluated in a Phase I/II trial for multiple myeloma. Further clinical trials are planned for 2005, 2006 and 2007. Further information is available on GlycoGenesys' web site: www.glycogenesys.com.

Safe Harbor Statement

Any statements contained in this release that relate to future plans, events or performance are forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, risks of product development (such as failure to demonstrate efficacy or safety), risk related to FDA and other regulatory procedures, market acceptance risks, the impact of competitive products and pricing, the results of current and future licensing, joint ventures and other collaborative relationships, risks relating to raising sufficient capital to fund the Company's operations, developments regarding intellectual property rights and litigation, and other risks identified in the Company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings. Actual results, events or performance may differ materially. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as the date hereof. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly release the results of any revisions to these forward-looking statements that may be made to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact:
GlycoGenesys Inc.
John W. Burns, 617-422-0674
Senior Vice President and CFO
or
Rick Pierce, 617-422-0674
VP of Business Development
or
The Ruth Group
Investors:
John Quirk, 646-536-7029
or
Media:
Janine McCargo, 646-536-7033

Well regardless of how high the price runs today the main thing is that all of the buying will knock out some of those shares that were available for sale by people like Mongo trying to depress the share price. The more that big block of shares is chipped away at the better.

Prophetti how does cornering Mongo and making him out to be the fraud that he is make him my buddy. Get a clue.

Prophetti how am I an ERHE board basher. I own many more shares than you and just purchased more yesterday. Stop being so paranoid.

OT: That is a lame response. The bottom line is this. Nobody on this board ora any message board should ever believe a word that is written from anyone who wont disclose whether they are a shareholder or not.

Obviously you have something to hide so you have no credibility and should never be trusted.

Guys you might want to keep an eye on GLGS (Glycogenesys). It is creeping up and only has a market cap of around $15 million and is trading at $1.25 a share.

They released a PR yesterday which stated that they will be releasing "interim" results of a Phase 1 Dose Escalation Trial in patients with Solid Tumors this month.

Why would they release interim results if the results were negative?

The drug GCS-100 is in a unique, first in class, drug based on carbohydrate chemisty in the Cancer arena. And as you know cancer is the hot area in biotech. So far the drug has a very good side effect profile which is half the battle.

If the results are positive this stock would soar. And results should be out within three weeks.

Stockhocker thanks for that great info. I will start asking some of the oilmen on stock message boards that I frequent some more indepth information on reserves and what it takes for a reserve to be classified as proven.

Probable Reserves

"Prove he still has them after filing the form or STFU."

My, my, my, getting a little testy tonight aren't we Mongo? I dont recall you ever using such language.

So lets get to the real point.

Are you a ERHC shareholder?

ANSWER THE D_MN QUESTION

Are you a shareholder of ERHC Mongo?

I agree. I thought Gigwoof's post on Offor gave another angle that should be looked at and considered. If you are secure in your ability to invest then you should want to see both sides of the coin.

The best part of this PR is the following in regards to the Dose Escalation Trial.

"The Company plans to disclose preliminary results from this trial later this month."

GlycoGenesys, Inc. Provides Update on Corporate and Clinical Plans Going Forward
Monday August 8, 9:17 am ET


BOSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 8, 2005--GlycoGenesys, Inc., (NASDAQ: GLGS - News), a biotechnology company focused on carbohydrate-based drug development, provided a corporate update on its cancer clinical trial programs for GCS-100, its pipeline expansion strategy and the expected timelines for its drug development programs.
SUMMARY

Today the Company announced:

The addition of a site to its initiated Phase I/II multiple myeloma trial;
Plans for its Phase I/II clinical trial in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL);
A more detailed clinical development plan and timelines for GCS-100 in solid tumors and bloodborne cancers;
Efforts to establish a long-term funding relationship in 2005 to help fund its clinical trial programs and pipeline expansion
UPDATE ON 2005 GCS-100 CANCER PROGRAM

The Company's clinical program positions it to pursue approval in two indications for unmet medical needs in cancer (multiple myeloma and CLL) and starts the international regulatory process for GCS-100. This is in addition to the Company's continuing solid tumor program. The Company may also choose to apply for Fast Track designation in the U.S. for one or both bloodborne indications in the future.

Solid Tumors

GlycoGenesys' Phase I dose escalation trial for patients with advanced-stage solid tumors is enrolling patients at the sixth dose level (200mg/meter squared) planned under the protocol. This trial is currently being conducted at three clinical sites: Sharp Memorial Hospital, Clinical Oncology Research, in San Diego, California, the Arizona Cancer Center in Tucson, Arizona and the Arizona Cancer Center - Greater Phoenix Area in Scottsdale, Arizona. The Company plans to disclose preliminary results from this trial later this month.

A Phase II trial for treatment of solid tumors is planned for initiation in the second quarter of 2006. The study will be designed with the assistance of the Company's experienced Scientific Advisory Board. Preclinical efficacy studies, pharmacokinetic analyses and tumor assessment data from the current Phase I study will be carefully considered to determine the specific tumor types, dosing regimen and likely combination therapy strategy. If results of the Phase II trial are supportive, the Company plans to initiate a Phase III trial in the fourth quarter of 2007.

Multiple Myeloma

In collaboration with Dr. Kenneth Anderson and Dr. Paul Richardson of the Dana- Farber Cancer Institute, the Company designed a Phase I/II trial to study GCS- 100 in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma both alone and in combination with dexamethasone, a standard chemotherapy in multiple myeloma. This is the first clinical trial combining GCS-100 with another therapy. Dexamethasone was chosen because in vitro tests have shown GCS-100 in combination with dexamethasone to have an additive effect allowing for lower dose levels of both GCS-100 and dexamethasone to be used.

The trial was initiated at the Dana-Farber in April 2005 and is enrolling patients. The Company recently initiated a second clinical site, the Lucy Curci Cancer Center in Rancho Mirage, California. It anticipates adding three more sites to expedite patient enrollment of the trial. The Company's clinical trial timeline calls for this trial to be completed in the third quarter of 2006.

Assuming favorable data in the Phase I/II trial, a Phase II study is planned to begin in the third quarter of 2006 and be completed in the first quarter of 2008. This study will be designed to enable the Company to expand to a pivotal trial if supported by an interim review of the data. If needed to demonstrate clinical significance, a Phase III trial is planned for initiation in the third quarter of 2008.

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

The Company is pursuing CLL as an indication based on promising preclinical data including a new discovery recently presented at the prestigious 9th International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma by Dr. Finbarr Cotter of Barts Medical School in London. The first CLL clinical trial is planned to begin in the third quarter of 2005 in the U.S. with sites in the United Kingdom to follow. The protocol for this study was written in collaboration with Dr. Finbarr Cotter, Dr. Jennifer Brown, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Dr. Archie Prentice, Chairman British Committee for Standards in Haematology. The Company anticipates this trial will be completed in the third quarter of 2006. Pending review of the data, a pivotal Phase II/III study may be designed. This Phase II/III trial is projected to be initiated in the fourth quarter of 2006 with enrollment expected to be completed in early 2008.

PIPELINE EXPANSION

The Company is working to expand its pipeline by leveraging the potential of GCS- 100 and its analogs and by in-licensing with the goal of filing three new INDs by early 2007. Utilizing its lab in Cambridge Massachusetts the Company is conducting research on developing an orally administered version of GCS-100 and plans to file an IND for an oral formulation of GCS-100 in the third quarter of 2006. In addition, GCS-100 has shown activity in the area of angiogenesis and the Company was recently granted a patent on its use to control angiogenesis. The Company plans to work on analogs of GCS-100 in diseases in which angiogenesis plays a role with the goal of filing an IND for a non-oncology indication in the first quarter of 2007. The Company intends to out-license this analog. Finally, the Company is seeking to in-license an oncology compound with the goal of filing an IND on this compound in the first quarter of 2007.

COMMITTED TO ESTABLISHING A LONG-TERM FUNDING RELATIONSHIP IN 2005

The breadth of the Company's current trials as well as its clinical trial and pipeline plans warrant consummating a strategic funding during 2005. The Company is actively pursuing a dual track: a partnership with another pharmaceutical or biotech company, or a relationship with fundamental, long-term investors, either of which will provide long-term funding. The Company believes a strategic funding would likely benefit shareholder value, further validate its technology, and provide additional resources to conduct an expanded clinical trial program and develop its pipeline. The clinical trials planned to begin later in 2005 and pipeline development will be undertaken in conjunction with a strategic funding. The timing and/or success of these efforts cannot be predicted or assured but the Company is committed to achieving this goal expeditiously.

About GlycoGenesys, Inc.

GlycoGenesys, Inc. is a biotechnology company that develops and licenses compounds based on glycobiology. The Company's drug candidate GCS-100, a unique compound to treat cancer, has been evaluated in previous clinical trials at low dose levels in patients with colorectal, pancreatic and other solid tumors with stable disease and partial response documented. The Company currently is conducting a Phase I dose escalation trial to evaluate higher dose levels of GCS-100LE, a low ethanol formulation of GCS-100, at Sharp Memorial Hospital, Clinical Oncology Research in San Diego, California and the Arizona Cancer Center in both Tucson and Scottsdale, Arizona. In addition, GCS-100LE is being evaluated in a Phase I/II trial for multiple myeloma. Further clinical trials are planned for 2005, 2006 and 2007. Further information is available on GlycoGenesys' web site: www.glycogenesys.com.

Safe Harbor Statement

Any statements contained in this release that relate to future plans, events or performance are forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, risks of product development (such as failure to demonstrate efficacy or safety), risk related to FDA and other regulatory procedures, market acceptance risks, the impact of competitive products and pricing, the results of current and future licensing, joint ventures and other collaborative relationships, risks relating to raising sufficient capital to fund the Company's operations, developments regarding intellectual property rights and litigation, and other risks identified in the Company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings. Actual results, events or performance may differ materially. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as the date hereof. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly release the results of any revisions to these forward-looking statements that may be made to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact:
GlycoGenesys Inc.
John W. Burns, 617-422-0674
Senior Vice President and CFO
or
Rick Pierce, 617-422-0674
VP of Business Development
or
The Ruth Group
Investors:
John Quirk, 646-536-7029
or
Media:
Janine McCargo, 646-536-7033

I just took a 5 step program to overcome my anxiety over proclaiming whether I am a shareholder or not.

Let me try this Balance.....

"I too am an ERHC shareholder"

Hey that was pretty easy.

Al,

Thanks for the response. The IMF will always be very conservative in their comments regarding production schedules. So I would be very surprised if production in the Sao Tome EEZ is that far off. Probably more like 2009 imo. Having said that, production is not going to drive ERHC's share price anytime soon. But reserves will. Reserves are a major metric in evaluating an oil companies worth.

There is a difference between drilling exploratory wells and production wells. The ERHC consortium will be drilling exploratory wells sometime in 2006 in the JDZ imo. If those wells are succesfull then ERHC will have some reserves that they can book and that is what will really drive share price.

To give you an example, TGA has a $400 million market cap on reserves of only 9 million barrels.

ERHC/Pioneer said they are going after 250 million to 750 million barrel targets in Block 2 alone.

Mulitply that by 5 blocks in the JDZ. And you can see why many expect ERHC to have a market cap well north of a billion once the drilling begins. And that doesnt even include the Sao Tome EEZ.

So in sum, I wouldnt get too caught up in production as that is too far off. But reserves are a different story.

AL the IMF says 2012 for what? Production in the Sao Tome EEZ?

Maestro, I wont tie up the board with nonsense. I realize it makes the whole board look bad when that starts happening. So I will keep things professional and keep things in check.

Sincerely,

The Idiot (rotflmao)

maestro, I hardly think me asking him 5 questions over a 2 month period constitute tieing up the board. If you dont like it you can go play in traffic. I wasnt planning on carrying on the dialogue much futher. Just periodically asking him 1 question isnt hurting anything.

Why is it everytime I have Mongo cornered someone tries to come to his rescue and take him off the hook?

Mongo its not totally irrelevant. The fact that you wont answere the question would lead one to believe you have an ulterior motive. The possibility of someone having an ulterior motive is very important when trying to evaluate given information in a post.

Are you a shareholder?

Mongo correct. He is a shareholder and I am a shareholder. Are you a shareholder?


(3 days after posting this I am still waiting for the answer. ANSWER THE QUESTION MONGO.)

"If lucky we will see oil in 2007, production in 2009. My best estimation."

Idcc so you dont buy into the 3 wells in one year scenario by Noble? Me thinks you are being a bit too pessimistic. Once PSC's are signed I would expect three wells to be spudded from the time of PSC signing in Block 4.

Nwtf I was just messing around. Balance that was interesting information from Pioneer. It would be great if it were something.

It kind of correpsonds to my earlier question which is would ERHC consider trading in some minor percentages in Sao Tome EEZ for example to Pioneer for a minor percentage in a property which is already producing and has reserves. It would fill the gap that ERHC currently has and make the balance sheet look much better in the short run.

Great post from Larry on RB.

These "conspiracy" theories are just getting way out of hand and is doing more damage to the stock than good. First we have the rancho conspiracy that accuses red of controlling the price and now we have ANOTHER idiot who throws his .02 in about Offor doing all kinds of illegal things the SEC would frown upon. Can we just all take a step back and start using some logic? Those who have been involved in the otc know how things work and it's a very simple concept. When the buying volume dries up, the mm's will continue to walk the price down UNTIL they find the level where buying picks up again. No, it's not fair but that's how they make money and this stock is one of the easiest examples to illustrate how they work. When we have had some buying come in, they raise the price in a hurry and then when it dries up they drop the price right back down on very little selling. Now once you understand how they work you can apply some logic to what has happened here. All of us have been looking for one specific person or group to blame when our expectations for this stock fell apart and it's time to realize that it was not 1 specific entity that caused it but rather a combination of several factors.

In order to understand, let's go back to the first day after awards were announced. 30 minutes before the open level 2 started jumping up showing some heavy buying interest and we all thought a buck was gonna happen after the first 15 minutes and then 5 minutes BEFORE the open after there had been some trades going off at .845, level 2 just totally collapsed. In all my years I have never seen anything like it. In order for this to have happened, there had to be a very large sell order placed that all the MM's saw. This sell order had to be enough to overwhelm what must have been some good buying pressure. I contend it was FAB who started it cause at that price range they made a very healthy profit and that's what banks do- make money, not count on "what if" situations. They could have placed an order to sell 50% of their shares and it would have been enough to cause that opening drop. After that, we had the snowball effect. Several longs have a nice profit locked in and took money off the table. Several short term investors were over extended. Several day traders counting on a big pop saw it was'nt coming and got out quick. Also if you go back in this companies history you'll see several people had large chuncks of shares and when you combine all these factors, you get a stock that lost half it's value even though it in reality is more valuable now than ever before. It's obvious to see that over the last few weeks the selling has dried up, but the buy volume is pretty much non-existant and this type of trading keeps us in this .38 to .41 range. I think we all need to step back and start applying some common sense and logic when dealing with ERHC. The notion that Offor is keeping the price down is insane! He has much more to gain by building a solid mid-major oil company, than by playing games. Some of us can see what's coming, some of us are to frustrated to wait and some are just to plain dumb to see it. Week's back a few of us stated we believed Offor would get us into the NEEZ and were ripped by a few "know it alls" on this board and as we will see shortly, those few know nothing. I aplogize for the long post, but it's time to gain some proper perspective about ERHC. We have a gold mine here and it will take time to "dig it out" but I believe those willing to wait another 3 or 4 months will be very happy.

Thanks stock have a good one.

Stockhocker and others. What I have always wondered with ERHC is. Why wouldnt they trade small percentages of rights in the Sao Tome EEZ for example for some percentages in producing properties that are already owned by Noble and Pioneer? That would be a quick way to bring in some revenues and have some reserves on the books.

Stockhocker I just wrote a very long winded reply to your post and accidently erased it. I dont feel like retyping the whole thing.

But basically what I said was you are probably an accountant so you were taking the phrase "fair valuation" a bit too literally. So my comment is basically what do you think the market cap of ERHC should be right now?

IMHO it is a difficult question to answer because a wide range of potential market caps could be justified. Those that argue that a market cap of $250 million is correct could make a legitimate argument as could those that would argue for a $1 billion market cap.

Those that would argue for a lower market cap would probably compare ERHC to other oil companies. For example Pioneer has a $5 billion market cap on sales of $2 billion as well as enormous reserves. Does ERHC justify a market cap that is 1/5th the size of Pioneer right now? IMHO no. ERHC has no reserves and no revenues so it does not justify a market cap that is 1/5th that of Pioneer.

Does ERHC deserve a market cap that is significantly higher than small cap oilers like TGA and EGY who are making money hand over fist and have growing production and growing reserves? Probably not. TGA and EGY have market caps around $300 million with stellar balance sheets, huge cash flow etc. Although both are light in reserves with only around 9 million barrels.

Thats why I say that I wouldnt consider ERHC cheap with a $300 million market cap when you consider the market caps of other successful oil companies in the industry.

However, I do completely understand the counter argument for a higher market cap and could buy into that as well. ERHC has been awarded perenctages in blocks with high impact targets that dwarf some of the other companies that were mentioned above. And that doesnt include the enormous rights in the Sao Tome EEZ.

The bottom line is ERHC is in such a unique situation that it makes it very difficult to price. So I guess i could be persuaded either way.

I do feel that signed PSC's will help the share price. Additional percentages in the NEEZ would help the share price. More information on our relationships with Noble and Pioneer ie first carry will help the share price. Block 1 drilling if positive would help the share price.

But what will really drive the share price will be a drilling schedule and first oil in our own blocks. Once ERHC can establish some reserves then there will be a metric whereby ERHC can be directly judged against other oil companies. And that is when I would expect the share price to really take off (provided they find oil in the magnitude that is expected.) It is then than ERHC could justify a market cap that is 4 to 5 times higher than stocks like TGA and EGY because they will blow them away in reserves.

And imho the smart money will recognize that and get in early before this happens. So those are my random longwinded thoughts on the issue. lol

Stockhocker what market cap do you think is a fair valuation? Then I will answer my question.