Replies to post #61753 on ERHC Energy Inc (ERHE)

[Pepsiman2001]

Balance,


While I agree with the supply/demand scenario in theory, the reality is that Chrome would have to give up some of its ownership for this stock to really fly. Liquidity is part of the equation when it comes to institutional ownership. Low liquidity due to the buy in candidate and or chrome hemming up a large percentage of shares won't work in the long run. Other then that, it sure seems like there are some exciting times ahead for our little minnow. We have been waiting long enough.

[umbra]

It's an interesting scenario Balance and one you've given a lot of thought to. But alas, it is only a scenario. It is quite pointless for any of us to create scenarios but that's what we do because of our hopes and wishes. Most scenarios are "make me feel good" ones with a few "doom and gloom" ones tossed in just to spice the sauce.

I have gone so far as to borrow (not institutionally but from private sources) against my contractual long term retirement benefits so as to be able to purchase more shares of ERHC. Most financial types would consider that to reflect total lunacy. Perhaps they are correct but I've done it anyway. My goal before year-end is to be holding seven-figure volume of shares but that goal will naturally be a function of the vagaries in pps. When I shared my intentions with these sources, they were shocked but I think in a good way as I wouldn't be surprised if some of these people come in themselves for a "piece of the action".

Let's see.

[rheddle]

Morning Balance,

You certainly piece together the potential scenario well and I can tell you have spent some serious time thinking about how it could all come to fruition based on available information, scenarios that are possible / likely and board chatter.

The only point about a buy-in that I would raise concerns the timing of any buy-in and also the point relating to valuation that has been hammered out on this board recently - i.e. a) how to put precise valuation on what you have when you don't know exactly, or b) just get the deal done for a value that seems reasonable based on what may be there.

If a) needs to be found out before a deal can be done, then we have a wait on our hands.
If b) is what will happen, then we have company executives on our side and the buy-in partner's side who are willing to take a gamble - but hey: they all gambled on the JDZ in the first place based on what is expected to be down there, so there is at least some information to work with.

There is nothing wrong in theory with a gample, as long as ERHE shareholders get an equal half or better half of the deal. The other camp's shareholders would be thinking the same thing, so executives from both camps would risk seriously annoying their shareholders that have high hopes for the JDZ.

Maybe it would be possible to put a clause into a buy-in deal that guarantees that if the find is smaller / larger than the level at which the deal is struck, then cash would change hands to compensate the party that got the short end of the deal once the oil reserves have been accurately estimated. Even this though, would not be very satisfactory for shareholders, because each party's share holders would go a couple of years with no real idea of their stock's true valuation.

I still view a buy-in difficult to put in place, but I suppose I just don't know how it would work exactly.

One thing I do agree with is that there seems to be something bubbling at the moment and we also seem to be making good progress at putting the raid behind us.

Let's hope so, as it would be good to see us raise anchor next week !

Have a good weekend, R

[jdubs]

Balance- I'm with you. I'm also curious about the Anadarko/Kerr McGee deal and how (if at all)it ties in with the JDZ overall picture. JDubs