ERHC Energy Inc (ERHE)

[Julius Erving]

Denial works in fascinating ways.

Often it ends in absurd 'wordgames' to cover up a very clear bottom line.

As frequently stated by longs, Offor calls the shots and has always called the shots. Public records show that his percentage ownership has ranged from more than 50% all the way down to single digit percentages over the years, yet he was able to call the shots. So much for any actions that prove he now owns 50% or more of the shares.

A wordgame, because If Offor is calling the shots anyway, then why did he ever take the trouble of buying ERHC shares? If he is, and always has been, in charge of ERHC no matter how many shares he has, then how does that work IF oil is hit, and he hasn't got shares? Who is going to transfer their valuable shares freely over to him then? And why would they? Would you? Is he going to threat people to hand over shares, is that what you’re suggesting? And is it worth it to him (criminal behaviour), since he could have bought hundreds of millions of shares for next to nothing (he is already a millionaire)? Common sense cannot be bullshitted, obviously.
By the way: If Offor is calling the shots anyway, owner or no owner, then why isn’t he calling the shots at TOTAL S.A. or Royal Dutch Shell?
There is only one way to be able to call the shots anywhere, and that is by ownership via shares. The rest is a Maffia narrative. Dude… come on. Do we really have to have this discussion? You only want ownership in the first place, if you can profit financially from that company-ownership at some point in time.

Give me one example of a company anywhere in the world where the person calling the shots is not the person who will financially profit from any future gains from that very same company! I'm almost wetting my pants laughing... looking at a 'cornered cat'. (Shorters are ‘for the birds’ is what Krom would say here, but that is Krombacher).

Clearly Offor is having the final say on everything erhc regardless of how many shares he owns and outside shareholders have no say about it, don't know how many shares he owns, and have no idea what transactions have taken place over the last 2 years. And they continue in the dark going forward.

Badog, can I have your view on this quote above please? Do you agree, I would LOVE to hear your view on this one. And that's an understatement. Would you confirm this with the remark "Exactly!" again?

e realm of faulty logic, how can owning huge positions in a grey market, triple zero, facing revocation, non-reporting company add to anyone's credibility?

Others told me right away that they understand what I meant, but I'm certainly willing to elaborate, for those that didn't:

If one owns a huge position (shares) in a (any) company (anywhere in the world), then people in general don't find it peculiar at all if one is spending lot's of time following that very same company, for years, on a daily basis. But, on the other hand, if one claims not owning a (huge) position or having financial skin in a company anywhere on the world people in general get 'wary' about the message conveyed.

Offor is only protecting ERHC because he currently has a huge position in ERHC. He is not protecting this ERHC investment because he has currently NO huge ownership in ERHC! That is of course the only thing that matters. It is of course irrelevant if his ownership part was (briefly) diluted at some point in time. What IS important is that he had to increase his ownership again IF he wanted to be able to protect his ERHC investment again (via the litigation trajectory, amongst others), AND financially profit from that ERHC ownership in the future. Duh.

Otherwise the interesting question would come up: who is currently owning all those ERHC shares, and why are "Offor and friends" protecting those shareholders? Do you have a suggestion? A straw man? And why is this a better option for "Offor and friends"? Looking forward to your explanation.

Then another quote from post 340482:

Look at the sp dude

This has been address convincingly in extreme detail, reread please. Even others have chimed in: "So why the fight over a block and for whom did they fight it? Simple. Offor and friends are trying to protect their investment(...)"

But feel free to keep looking at the share price, but it is not considered true DD. Your looking at market perception. That isn't always aligned with true value and/or potential.

Thats the problem for ERHC and oil...many misguided leaders trying to wipe out fossil fuels. If...and by the time ERHC ever had any oil revenues oil could be toast.

Oil Experts have claimed that fossil fuels cannot be wiped out yet by at least two decades, so don't worry about that. Otherwise they wouldn't be drilling in Ofshore Guyana right now, the new hotspot in the world.

So again, we are full circle here.

True DD.