Replies to post #132946 on ERHC Energy Inc (ERHE)

[Krombacher]

DG, good questions. Large fine vs. small fine. I doubt it will be all or nothing, but if it is then your two posits of 1) and 2) lead me to believe that there will likely not be a fine IF TRUE.

If the two posits are NOT true, then the fine will probably be based on precendent...which unfortunately means large fine.

But the discussions over the weekend have convinced me that it won't be all or nothing. So there will probably be a nuissance settlement vs. fine.

So now the million dollar question is how big is the nuissance settlement? I would say probably smaller than lawyers costs of arguing it in court but larger than a few million dollars. Maybe on the order of $12-15 million.

Would this mean dilution? No. Will it mean a smaller cash balance that might hamper the company's activities? Possibly.

Remember that a nuissance fine is NOT an admission of guilt on the part of Erhc.

Krombacher

[Art2004]

Degen, agreed. After an initial overresponse to ERHC with the ABC investigations for 1. an assumed tie in with the jjjefferson case which was not found and 2. prodding by a few of the US
Big Oil companies on the US to take action against ERHC,

it appears sthat the DOJ/SEC/ IRS have backed off and decided to treat ERHC farily.

There will probably be no charges brought and hence no fines at all.

Let's acccept Dan Keeney's explanations at face vallue.

1.
For any event before June 22, 2003 that Statute of Limitations have tolled. This includes all formal contracts with Sao Tome of JDZ and EEZ rights.

2. The US government has requested no extensions up to the present and it is doubtful any will be requested. There has been no invetigative activiy in over a year re: ERHC.

If an extnsion were requested now, it could only apply to events more recent than June 23, 2003.

Why can't Krombacher accept the facts?

Why does he persist in making up punishments for non-charges against ERHC?