The problem here is the definition of survival. Yes the company survived (barely, with almost no cash and shares maxed out) but long time positions did not. Shares purchased at .30 or higher did not survive because of management putting the company in a position where toxic debt and massive dilution were the only means of survival. With 3 billion shares o/s and only a partial carry for one, maybe two wells, 30 cent shares will never show a big profit. As it stands, shares will be lucky to ever see a penny, and reaching 10 cents would be a miracle.
So ERHC has survived so far by throwing its long time investors overboard. As things deteriorated, this was the only option. Those who have chosen to establish a new position at sub-penny prices are now hanging on and defending management with hopes of making a profit from these lower levels. Whether they will depends on if/when the need for significant additional fund raising occurs and from what levels.
The constant disagreements here, imo, stem from the wide gap between those who look at the past, what might have been, and what has been destroyed, vs. those with sub-penny positions hoping for a lottery ticket. One side believes the price won't go much lower and will experience a run up into drilling; the other painfully realizes the dreams of $1, $3, $14 share price died a toxic death.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
