Replies to post #267 on ERHC Energy Inc (ERHE)

[balance_builder]

ERHC...Gigwoof.....I couldn't agree more that zero dilution would be preferable over the 2.5% dilution we have felt in the last year. However, we have to keep in mind that this co has zero revenue, and has little to no revenue since Emeka Offor took it over in February of 2001.

The 10K should prove to be interesting this week. IMHO, our CEO almost made it sound as if it could/would include award news. His references to a good 10K were:

"As evidenced by the latest agreement with Pioneer Resources in Block 3 and various other corporate issues, we have had to spend a great deal of time in the development of the business at this very crucial time. In expecting every one of these initiatives to bear fruit and, since time was of the essence in regards to all of these initiatives, the management felt it wise to pursue them as aggressively as possible."

and......

"We expect both current and prospective shareholders will react favorably to its contents."

It should be a good week for us ERHC'ers. I'm convinced this stock will prove out to be very profitable for long term holders. I think if an investor were to put a ruler on top of the two spikes we've seen, it would be a pretty accurate forecast of the next 3 years of ERHC's direction. B. Morgans last report of ERHC and partners bidding "confidently" spells success to me. The political influence of Emeka Offor will continue to enhance our long postitions. (IMHO of course).

[monkeytrots]

Gigwoof -

Offor made multiple Form-4 and Form-5 Filings where the share totals listed for both Chrome and Offor were 366 Million shares, direct and indirect appropriately. There were no footnotes on those filings stating that they were including 'warrantable shares' or 'option shares' (that had not yet been exercised) in those totals. Those totals, according to both the Form 4 & Form 5 instructions indicate that ACTUAL SHARE OWNERHSIP is to be listed - both direct and indirect. Indirect ownership is NOT from unexercised warrants, nor is it from unexercised stock warrants.

With me so far ?

OK - (and yes, Offor has subsequent to my post filed yet another ammendment to his 'actual' ownership totals) - now -

There is no discussion that on both the Form 4 & Form 5 Filings, transactions and totals of shares on 11/10/2004 reached 366 Million shares (again, strictly according to the SEC filings).

What is the mechanism whereby Offor could have possibly reached a holding of 366 Million shares ? Open Market purchases ? Not with the volumes that have traded all year long, and the limitations of insider/greater than 10% holders trading per month. Not without a SINGLE filing in the year (absolutely required) that indicated such purchases going on.
Private buys of shares ? Again, not possible without having violated SEC filing regulations on sales and purchases by insiders AND 'greater than 10% holders'. Those filings are required for ANY CHANGE IN HOLDINGS. None of those filings had been made through the year.


The only reasonable conclusion from those Form 4 & Form 5 filings were that sometime in November, in a filing that had not yet been made, was that 104 million new shares had been issued, either cheap warrant or option exercise being the most reasonable avenue of issue.

Now, gigwoof - are you going to remove this post, or allow it stand as reasonable discussion ? My last post, made and removed today, was certainly reasonable, and did not attack balance-builder. Yes, It did question him, and challenged him. But there was no name calling in it. The same can not be said of balance builders post to me.

[monkeytrots]

gigwoof -

'Monkeytrots, this is IHUB, not RB, if you believe BB and I are wrong and can substantiate why, the burden is now on you to elaborate.'

Yes, this IS Ihub - not RB. And reasonable discussion is the founding principle of this board.

Anyway that it is cut, the SEC FILINGS for ERHC, to be generous, are full of errors. Numerous errors. That is evidenced by their own filings. Carelessness, Incompetence, or deliberately misleading filings that are being forced to be corrected by the SEC ? Any of those three possibilities are equally possible and reasonable explanations for what is being seen in ERHC filings.

Quoting from a pre-14 (as balance attempted to use for his 'proof') is not kosher. Why ?

The reason that the 'pre' is on that filing is because the SEC slap that restriction on the 14 filings. That pre is slapped on by the SEC because the SEC have, themselves, determined that the filing is deficient.

BTW: I have been 'here' a lot longer than either yourself or BB - so I am quite familiar with what IHub is all about. The
sarcasm really was beneath you, gigwoof.