Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Source oil:
https://geoexpro.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Geo_Expro_v21i01_web.pdf
Krombacher
You're 100% correct, in my opinion
Krombacher
You said I was demented.
Are you qualified to diagnose dementia?
If not it's defamation.
Krombacher
According to xrimlinger.com, the adjacent block 3 is equivalent to 20 cents a share of ERHC. According to Kosmos litigation block 4 it's worth 17 cents a share.
That's before oil prices rose and before we discovered that block 4 has "source oil" from which flows the oil into the other blocks.
You're probably looking at north of 20 cents just for that block from Shell. They can EASILY do a dividend of a penny or two from 20 cents and that alone could result in a short squeeze into the dollars.
But the real money is the JDZ, which Oranto equivalently values at 80 cents a share for its 100% block in the JDZ which is equivalent to five 20% blocks that ERHC has.
I think Shell will buy block 4 and Total will buy the JDZ properties. That's why I prefer there to be one announcement for both Shell and Total simultaneously to achieve maximum damage to the short sellers.
Nothing delusional in the above assumptions and facts.
Krombacher
Neither you nor ssc have a psychiatric background to diagnose whether I have delusions or diagnose pathological lying.
Hence it's defamation.
If shorts still have any money after this, I will pursue them in court for defamation.
Krombacher
I think short sellers are living in the past and gaining false comfort from the share price.
That's normal behavior though due to the loss aversion they're experiencing.
But they will lose everything.
Krombacher
Dude, look at the volume!
No one is selling so the shorts aren't covering.
Shorts need to work way harder at trying to bullshit about tax loss selling (in May!?!?) because even in the last week of December at a price of $.000001 when tax loss selling would've produced the greatest tax loss, volume was still ZERO.
WHAT ARE THE SHORTS GOING TO DO?!?!?!
I guess you should go hard at work at placing clown emojis on posts... maybe that will work?
Or... wait for the short sellers' financial demise.
Muhahahahaha
Krombacher
If there's been an extension granted as I believe is the case...
Then there's no point to a count down, except, I guess if ERHC still exists on the deadline, then it means that there's been an extension. But I think we will likely have at least the Shell deal announced before then... followed by a Total deal. And if management does this intelligently, they'll announce both simultaneously.
Krombacher
How do you know that the assignment agreement does not officially bind Total to ever perform work on a block to prove that block is "in production" better than a PSC when over half the agreement is redacted?
Do you even have a working definition of "in production" to qualify either the PSC or the assignment agreement as meeting the criteria for "in production"?
What makes no sense is that STP didn't wait until Sept to pick up the block without the fuss of an international caveat emptor if there were no extension. Hence, it's logical that there is an extension. Whether ERHC got it with the assignment agreement, a stealth PSC, or some other means, logic dictates they got it.
Krombacher
I've been waiting 18 years.
It takes that long to become a billionaire.
But, you won't become one if you throw in the towel because you broke down in the home stretch.
Yes, ERHC has been quiet... but for good reason, a gag order.
And thank goodness for that gag order... thanks to it, shorts assumed the worst and sold us all very cheap shares.
Krombacher
In your own quote it says that if any condition is not met then any party may terminate but it doesn't say that the agreement is terminated automatically.
In other words, any party to the agreement has the option to terminate if a condition is not met, but that doesn't mean they necessarily will terminate it.
So, I would not conclude that the agreement is "incomplete" if a condition isn't met. I would only conclude that the possibility exists that the contract can be terminated if one of the parties wants to terminate it, if a condition is not met.
But let's say your assumption is correct and the contract was terminated after ERHC presented the assignment agreement to STP and got its extension because it proved it signed on a credible operator with this contract and that was enough to prove they're "in production" better than a PSC of self declared / self designated operators can.
So the sequence of events in this hypothetical scenario would go like this:
Step 1 - assignment agreement is signed with Total and presented to STP for extension
Step 2 - extension is granted
Step 3 - some conditions in the agreement are not met
Step 4 - Total elects to terminate the contract even though it doesn't have to
Step 5 - ERHC has no operator so STP is upset and ERHC doesn't pay taxes on Block 11, further annoying STP.
Step 6 - STP can't wait until end of Sept when the block would otherwise expire because it already granted ERHC its extension.
Step 7 - so STP starts a bidding process on block 4
Step 8 - ERHC issues an international caveat emptor causing the bidding process to fail
Step 9 - STP gets smart and decides instead to invite Shell into a PSC
Step 10 - Shell and ERHC cut a deal brokered by STP as the middle man
Step 11 - Total still wants the JDZ assets
Step 12 - With the block 4 issue resolved, Total moves forward on the JDZ assets
Step 13 - ERHC shorts are screwed.
The above is hypothetical.
Krombacher
Oranto was "designated" by whom? By Oranto. So that's the same as declaring themselves operator... so you're splitting hairs.
When ERHC was "designated" as operator for block 11 in a PSC did they get a license extension? Nope.
When Oranto was "designated" as operator for block 3 in a PSC did they get an extension? Nope... not until last November.
So your assumption that you need to be designated as an operator on a block to get an extension is false and maybe that's the reason ERHC didn't do it for block 4.
Krombacher
I'm not going to get others to wait for a second announcement.
I think the smarter way is to convince erhc to time the announcements together.
You should read more carefully what I wrote.
Short sellers accused erhc management of being "Nigerian scammers" for many years. This shall not be forgotten in the strategy to inflict maximum financial pain on the shorts and end the practice of naked short selling out of Canada. A higher purpose must be served here not just making investors into billionaires.
Krombacher
The "anything is better than nothing" attitude is exactly what the short sellers want.
I pray that ERHC withholds any information on a Shell deal until they also can announce their Total deal, because people like you will bail to short sellers prematurely on a Shell announcement.... and not wait for a subsequent total announcement.
I can't give you more courage but maybe management could time the announcements to your benefit after all.
Krombacher
So just so we get this straight.
You're saying Oranto is the operator but doesn't have the know how and skills and money to be the operator and so it advertised on xrimlinger.com so that it can partner with someone who does have those skills and capital, who would then ultimately become the operator. But because it claimed to be the operator in the PSC, it's CLEARLY the operator.
Why didn't ERHC think of that? But, you don't address the fact that Oranto didn't get its extension until last November and not when the PSC was signed.
CLEARLY, if ANYONE can simply declare themselves as operator in a PSC, even if they're not qualified as an operator, then the requirement to be "in production" cannot be simply met with a PSC in order to get an extension because declaring yourself an operator when you're not can't be taken seriously.
You have not proven that the conditions weren't met so you cannot claim that the assignment agreement is incomplete.
Thank you,
Krombacher
Dude,
CLEARLY Oranto was not the operator because xrimlinger.com. please work harder to use your logic on this. What is the logical purpose of listing the properties on xrimlinger.com, if not to locate an operator?
Please list all the conditions that "completion is subject to" and provide links that prove that completion was not achieved and name the terms that were not met for the contract to be deemed complete.
If you cannot do this, then you cannot claim that there was lack of completeness in my opinion.
Thanks
Krombacher
Meh.
Krombacher
P.S. see? I can actually waste one of my three daily posts with a simple "meh", that's how confident I am that the shorts lost this game.
What do you mean by "not completed"? The assignment agreement was signed by both parties and both parties initialed every page. Looks complete to me.
If Oranto has a PSC then who's the operator in that PSC?.The fact that they were advertising the block on xrimlinger.com tells me that they were seeking an operator, because they didn't have one.
So I think your assumption that a PSC is needed to extend the block is wrong. The correct assumption is that an operator is needed. I think Oranto got its operator back in November when they got an extension and that's why block 4 is no longer on xrimlinger.com.
You need an operator not a PSC to get the extension, or else Oranto would've gotten the extension back when they had the PSC and not back in November.
Your assumptions are simply not as logical as my assumptions, in my opinion.
Erhc had an operator with the assignment agreement with Total and therefore got its extension on the block. It may be that Total could've decided to back away, but the extension was already in place and Sao Tome couldn't do anything about it. They couldn't even wait until the end of Sept to get the block on expiration of the license, because the license was already extended.
They invited Shell when they realized that ERHC wasn't giving up the block with the international carat emptor and after their bidding process failed due to the international caveat emptor.
Shell will now do a deal with Erhc.
The above is my opinion.
Krombacher
If Offor was "violating" SEC disclosure requirements because he had to due to a gag order from a state judge who takes primacy over SEC regulations per the 10th amendment of the Constitution (I'm not a lawyer), then that's not actually an allegation, because it complies with the law.
I'm disappointed in your response. I was hoping you'd do the honorable thing and shoot yourself in the foot more than that. You didn't say you didn't "believe" that Offor was a billionaire. You stated it as a fact. Therefore, you were defamatory. Please reinstate that "fact" so that you may be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Can you try? Be honorable
By the way, the reason I'm not searching for your statements regarding a reverse split and bankruptcy is that I don't have to really do it, since I'm pretty sure longs have won this thing. I guess I'm lazy.
Krombacher
Did you not say that Offor is not a billionaire?
I need you to reaffirm this before the statute of limitations on your defamation of Emeka Offor tolls.
If you keep ignoring the question, it's going to be harder to sue you for defamation if you're passed the statute of limitations.
So please stop ignoring the question so that we can extend the tolling.
Krombacher
Again, there's nothing in the original agreement between STP and ERHC that provides for the extension of ERHC's rights on the block in the case that ERHC were to sign a PSC either.
So why is it that you can take the liberty to assume that a PSC means the block is "in production", but I can't do the same with the Assignment Agreement with an operator who would do the producing?
Seems like a double standard that you're applying.
And how did Oranto get an extension in November on its block 3? Did they have a PSC? Back then?
Krombacher
Reread what I said about what happens at maturity. If the convertible note isn't converted into shares, because no more shares can be issued if the shares outstanding reaches the share authorized limit and the company refuses to do a reverse split so more shares can be printed, then the debt must either be paid off at maturity or the company simply defaults on the debt.
The convertible debt is not secured by collateral so there's nothing to repossess.
Upon default, the creditor can try to chase the debt in court or simply write off the debt as bad debt.
It's been so many years now since maturity that the issue has been resolved and the debt has been vaporized.
As for the expiration of ERHC's rights on the blocks, they're supposed to be expiring at the end of Sept for both the EEZ and the JDZ UNLESS the rights have been extended by the signing of the Total assignment agreement found redacted in the 400 page document. Whether you also need a PSC to extend the license is debatable.
So for all we know, the licenses have already been extended. This makes sense to me because Sao Tome wouldn't have started a bidding process on block 4 and risk confrontation by an international carat emptor. Instead, they would've waited until the end of Sept to pick up the expired licenses and start the bidding process at that time. I think they didn't do that because the license was already previously extended by Total.
In any event, we should know at the end of September if all of ERHC's assets have expired or not.
But it also makes sense that now that Shell has shown interest in Block 4, by being invited to a PSC on the block and with source oil believed to be in that block, that we'll likely have some sort of deal with Shell preceding an expiration, if there even is an expiration.
Krombacher
You just made my point.
If the reverse split was in January 2016, then your past came after that in July 2016.
So you predicted bankruptcy OR another round of toxic debt, which your prediction came after the first debt issued, after the reverse split and after the second debt issuance... and your prediction never came true
But it doesn't matter because you've predicted a second reverse split many times and you were wrong, but I have no desire to hunt for those posts of yours.. it'll cost me another monthly subscription to do that search. You're also dodging the fact that you said Offor is not a billionaire.
I haven't seen the gag order so it may or may not preclude an annual meeting. But if it does, then that's the reason we haven't had one.
Krombacher
Without a link, your quote could have come after the first issuance of convertible debt.... and knowing you, that's the reason you didn't provide one.
But so far, you attack only the character and don't have much of a logical argument on anything.
I've rebutted and debunked all the nonsense regarding the issuance of more convertible debt or convertible debt still on the balance sheet. Maturity dates and the lack of a subsequent reverse split debunks it.
Shorts really want a reverse split, dilution, and a dumping of shares in the market so they can exit and escape their fate, but that's wishful thinking on the part of the shorts.
Shorts are simply screwed. That's all it is.
Krombacher
I didn't say the convertible debt had expiration dates, I said they had maturity dates, although I can see why you might be confused.
The maturity dates are known from the financials and have long since matured for several years now. There is no new convertible debt since the last financials because they would have to do a reverse split first in order to issue new debt and they haven't done that.
You're also wrong about the "annual" shareholders meeting. A careful reading of the bylaws and articles stated that an "annual" Shareholders meeting is only held if it is called, but there's no obligatory language requiring the company to call one. So the "annual" Shareholders meeting is not really annual but only initiated if called.
So all is in order. Besides, you can't call a shareholders meeting under a gag order anyway.
Krombacher
I never said the covid PPP was an ongoing revenue stream, but they had to demonstrate revenue for two years running in order to get PPP funds two years in a row. To get the amount they got, I estimate that they had to prove they had annual revenues of $1.6 million for each of the two years. I also speculate that if they made $1.6 m in each of the two years to qualify for the PPP covid funds, then it's very likely they've been making this revenue in non covid years as well.
You don't seem to know how to read your own quote.
The quote doesn't say "if ERHC actually finds a partner, working capital will be needed"
It says, "Erhc's ability to exploit existing and prospective opportunities will depend on its ability to raise the requisite financing to meet its working capital needs" which it can only do by finding a partner.
I don't lie, you just don't understand what constitutes a lie because you yourself lie so much. For example, you claimed Offor is not a billionaire and you claimed there would be a second reverse split. None of this was true.
Krombacher
SSC,
you said, "erhc doesn't need funding because they can't find anyone"
How does that work? The opposite is true, if ERHC doesn't find anyone, then they would need funding because finding someone brings them funding.
You think I've been changing my story? Really? I think I've been fairly consistent and I've posted all the things you've been wrong about including Offor not being a billionaire, there being another reverse split, and the list is long.
Be that as it may, this is not a contest about who can be consistent or who can print shorted shares to keep the price down...
... this will ultimately be about the fundamental value of ERHC's blocks.
And when it ends, we will know who wins. But it hasn't ended just yet. I know you desperately want to call it, but you can't because it ain't over. But soon it will be. And most longs will wait for it. That's why shorts can't cover as much as they're desperate to do so. If the outcome is as I believe, shorts will suffer, as they deserve to. It is what it is.
Shorts had ample warnings since Day One. But instead of believing in what I had to say, they chose to call me a liar falsely.
They will pay dearly for that mistake.
Krombacher
You said that if the need for additional capital arises, then a reverse split and convertible debt is back into play.
But we haven't had one in nearly a decade. So by inference, you must be saying that ERHC does not have a need for additional capital all these years... probably because their PPP application implies they had $1.6 million in revenue annually, since they got the PPP funds twice and to get them they must show revenue. I'm guessing the Starcrest merger went through and that's where the revenue comes from. Starcrest is also partly owned by Offor. And they had an MOA with starcrest just prior to the gag order going into effect.
If Offor owns the vast majority of voting shares then why would he bother taking the company private? To save on SEC filing fees? They already save that thanks to the gag order.
I guess I'm not following your logic as to why Offor would bother going private. What would be the advantage of that? And management likely owns significant shares. If Offor could buy shares behind a gag order, then so too can management.
Krombacher
Let's say I hypothetically agree with you for the sake of argument (although I don't agree about raising the shares authorized because that requires a change in the articles and bylaws, and a change there is rare. Usually they would just do a reverse split to lower the shares outstanding and keep it below the shares authorized so they can then print shares if they wanted to dilute shares with convertible debt)...
... but let's say Offor could easily issue preferred shares and the like. Why would he do that when he could just issue a simple dividend. If he owns the vast majority of voting shares, then he's not really sharing the total dividend payout much.... the vast majority of the dividend payout by ERHC would go to him anyway.
Add to this fact that a dividend payout is more TAX EFFICIENT than any other form of payout, why wouldn't Offor choose the most logical path of least resistance and just give himself a dividend rather than embark on all manner of nonsense, even if that nonsense was legal?
What you're failing to grasp is that neither Erhc nor Offor has to make any dividend payment to shareholders of shorted shares. Why would Offor care? That's not his problem.
The shorts have to deliver the dividend payment to the owners of the non voting shorted shares not Offor and not ERHC. That's the short seller's problem not Offor's.
If Offor is getting nearly all of the dividend issued because he owns nearly all of the voting shares, then that's going to be far more TAX EFFICIENT than trying to pay himself a bonus or preferred dividend, etc.
He or his financial advisors would be idiots to ignore that.
And to those who think there's still convertible debt on the balance sheet, you are forgetting that convertible debt, if not converted into shares, has a maturity date. Once the debt is mature it must either be paid or it is defaulted on. After a default, the parties would have to try to collect via courts, and that hasn't happened either. After a while, the debt is simply written off by the debt collector, if it's deemed uncollectible. By now, that convertible debt has long been removed from the books and no new convertible debt can be issued without a reverse split, and no reverse split has occurred, so no new convertible debt has been issued. The debt has been vaporized.
Krombacher
I'm not pretending to miss the point.
It's an idiotic point.
If Offor has controlling interest as I believe, of course, he could do lots of things.
But from an accounting perspective, my point was that ERHC could not issue any convertible debt when the shares outstanding almost equals the shares authorized UNLESS they do a reverse split.
In almost a decade since the last reverse split, the company has not done one, despite that YOU falsely predicted that they would.
Why would they? Especially if Offor already took advantage of the cheap prices after the last reverse split to buy shares behind a gag order? (Which is an assumption on my part) No need to do another one. And so long as he was following a judge's order in the form of a gag, then it's legal because the gag takes primacy over the SEC, as we know by the tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution (but I am not a lawyer)
Or how about you answer THIS question: why on earth would Offor want another reverse split to buy convertible debt if he already owns the company?
Clearly, he wouldn't and that's a way to deduce that he already does own all the shares he wants to own.. the fact that they didn't do another reverse split tells you that Offor doesn't want one or need one.
More in line with what Offor would want as a shareholder is a dividend that pays him while short sellers pay a dividend to our shorted shares ownership.
And you can't hide a reverse split. Everyone would see their share count change if they attempted one. So don't give me some nonsense about them secretly doing one.
And they can't secretly issue convertible debt when the shares outstanding equals the shares authorized, either.
Krombacher
Dude that's the most circular logic yet.
So let's get this straight.
Offor wants control so he
Step 1: owns a controlling interest in the company
So that step 2: he can force a reverse split so the company can issue convertible debt
So that step 3: he can use the convertible debt to own a controlling interest in the company?!?!?
Why would he do steps 2 and 3, if step 1 already gets him control of the company???
Wouldn't he be better off using his control to issue himself a dividend when the company is able?
Then, shorts would pay the same dividend on all the shorted shares as well.
Offor would kill two birds with one stone. The company would pay his dividend AND the shorts would pay our dividend.
Krombacher
They can't issue more convertible notes because the shares outstanding is practically equal to the shares authorized.
They would have to do another reverse split. Since they never did, more shares can't be issued through convertible debt.
If Offor wanted control of ERHC, he would simply buy more shares, which I believe he did while gagged.
Krombacher
The international caveat emptor tells us that block 4 is legally in ERHC's hands.
Stp tells us that Shell was invited to enter into a PSC.
Logic tells us that Shell must therefore remunerate Erhc for the block and bid more than Total.
The 400 page document says Total was assigned the block.
Lots of facts.
Krombacher
4 parties in the potential agreement
1) Sao tome
2) Shell
3) Total
4) ERHC
and possibly 5) Kosmos.
That's a lot of cats to herd into an agreement. So it takes time.
But should be "any day now"
I measure days in "African days" ... they take longer than Canadian days due to their proximity to the equator
December 31 came and went. No one took a tax write off despite that we had 5 zeros and the write off would've been substantial. Volume was zero during the tax loss period in December.
I wonder why that is?
Because when investors bought all those shares from short sellers they knew short sellers would be buying them back for dollars later.
Milk the shorts!
Krombacher
Hahaha. The volume with the exception of one 500k share day has been ZERO for weeks. Who do you think is buying it?
Shorts shouldn't be worried about new purchases.
They should be worried about paying a penny dividend on shorted shares or delivering Total shares to shorted shareholders. And, of course, they should be worried about the short squeeze not by every day buyers but other short sellers buying to escape what's coming. Why aren't existing shareholders selling, as the zero volume proves is the case? That's the bigger question still.
But that was a very funny post.
Krombacher
I think it was this one:
https://buzznigeria.com/sir-emeka-offor-biography-and-net-worth/
Or one like it.
I recall posting a credible link in the last couple years, but I let my ihub subscription expire so I cannot search for it. I also remember rubbing ssc's figurative nose in that link at the time.
But he is a billionaire.
Krombacher
Bullshit.
You claimed Offor wasn't a billionaire in u.s. dollars.
Total lie and defamation at that.
Krombacher
Everything in your post is a lie.
There are consequences to lying.
You will be taught that soon enough.
Krombacher