SSC, your insistence on labeling everything you disagree with as a "lie" is a weak attempt to distract from the valid points raised. Let’s clarify a few things for the sake of the truth:
First, your attempt to debunk my statement about Offor receiving shares directly from the company is futile. It is a known fact that Offor bought convertible debt from ERHC, which he later converted into shares. Those shares were issued directly by the company—this is how convertible debt works. It’s not some grand mystery or conspiracy. Offor's shares didn’t come from the open market; they were part of a legitimate financial arrangement between him and the company. Whether you choose to acknowledge this fact is up to you, but the truth doesn’t depend on your agreement.
Also, you conveniently mock the idea of "toxic debt" while ignoring the fact that Offor was one of the convertible debt holders, as was clearly shown in ERHC’s financial filings. So when you deride these convertible debt deals as "toxic," you're in fact mocking Offor’s own financial involvement with the company. Once again, your narrative doesn’t hold up when confronted with documented facts.
Regarding the ERHC-Starcrest merger, I am not presenting speculation without basis. The MOU deal for Starcrest was, in fact, press released, and it's public information. This isn’t some wild guess; it’s a matter of record. The market may not have fully absorbed the significance of that MOU, but it’s there for anyone willing to do their research. If you choose to ignore official releases, that’s on you, but don’t accuse me of making things up when the evidence is out in the open.
Furthermore, Offor also owned shares of ERHC through Chrome Energy, another of his ventures. Given the MOU between ERHC and Starcrest, it’s reasonable to speculate that a merger between Offor-owned companies like ERHC and Starcrest is part of a broader strategy. Why? Because if Offor is willing to merge one of his companies with another per the MOU, then it’s entirely grounded speculation that Offor could do the same with Chrome Energy. Such a move would allow Offor, a billionaire who is 65 years old, to create a favorable exit strategy by merging with a major player like Shell or Total. This would be a perfect path for someone of his stature to transition into philanthropy, a common goal for billionaires at that stage of life. This speculation isn’t wild—it’s based on Offor’s business patterns and the logical progression of his ventures.
As for your repetitive insistence that I’m "squirming out" of the Block 4 timeline, I’ve been clear from the beginning that March 2025 is my estimate based on available data, which includes timelines and possible developments. I never stated it as a guarantee, but as speculation rooted in logic. You seem to confuse an estimate with a promise, which only demonstrates your lack of understanding of how business projections work. If drilling is completed earlier or later, it will be due to circumstances beyond anyone's control, not because someone "lied."
Regarding the Caveat Emptor status of ERHC, it’s true that ERHC has only been on that list for a few years—not decades, as you point out. I never claimed the Caveat Emptor status has been around for decades; I referred to your obsession with ERHC, which seems to span decades. Regardless, the Caveat Emptor list today clearly restricts trading to the Expert Market, which should raise serious questions about your interest in continuing to post here with such dedication.
You seem obsessed with denying the existence of short selling, despite the well-known fact that short-selling of OTC stocks is legal in Canada, which is why I suspect you might be Canadian. I’ve pointed this out multiple times, yet you ignore it while insisting there’s "no evidence" of shorting. The lack of transparency around short positions in OTC stocks doesn’t mean shorting isn’t happening—it just means it’s harder to track. Your refusal to address the short-selling dynamics in this context is telling. The fact remains that there are forces working to depress ERHC’s stock price, and short sellers are a likely part of that equation.
As for the ERHC share price, it currently sits at $0.0006 with 3 billion shares outstanding, giving it a market cap that nowhere near reflects the true value of ERHC's assets and potential. The market cap is wildly disconnected from the underlying assets, including valuable rights in oil blocks and other opportunities, which you conveniently ignore in your assessments. This undervaluation is a result of suppressed trading and the current limitations placed on the stock. If you truly believe the company has no value, why do you spend so much energy trying to discredit it?
To conclude: You may continue dismissing facts and labeling them as "lies," but that doesn’t change the reality of the situation. I’ve laid out logical explanations for why I believe what I believe, and I stand by those points. If you can’t provide better evidence or reasoning for your counter-claims, then your accusations of "falsehoods" will continue to fall flat.
Krombacher
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
