ssc
10 hours ago
Well, let's look at it thru the eyes of someone stuck with 400 million shares for 4 years who has created hundreds of other bullish speculations which have never come true.
According to someone like that, a "like" from erhc's ceo means his company has hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues, has not disclosed "a huge oil discovery" in EEZ block 4, is acting as an agent for Shell Oil, has acquired assets all over Africa, is about to make an announcement on Christmas Day 2024 that will destroy all short sellers, will be paying a dividend in March 2025, and is involved in deal making in Cuba, Madagascar and Angola. Of course, not a word about any of this has ever been publicly disclosed to erhc shareholders, nor have required SEC financials and ownership disclosure information been released for more than 7 years. So do I call all of those assertions baseless? I do. Do I believe the desperate, delusional claims that all these material events have taken place but are kept secret and shareholders have been kept in the dark for 7 years while suffering 99% losses in their investments because of a gag order or new narrative NDA? I do not. And no one, particularly erhe's largest shareholder, has been able to provide anything fact-based to support those desperate claims.
ssc
12 hours ago
Odd that a request for a CEO to inform shareholders about what is going on with their company after more than 7 years of silence is viewed by dickran as a negative and some type of sketched headed short seller plot. The refusal to communicate with shareholders and continued non-reporting is indicative of just how much erhc management cares about its investors and is the main reason for erhe shares maintaining their Expert Market, Caveat Emptor List, Skull & Crossbones, near zero existence for so many years.
What is not odd is another baseless claim from erhe's largest shareholder and known liar about short sellers when, after issuing thousands of such lies, dickran is still unable to prove any erhe short positions exist.
Meanwhile, the debunking of dickran's recent illogical "speculation" based on no available information approaches. For anyone who missed it, dickran predicts "the destruction of short sellers" by Christmas 2024 and, after that asinine rant fails to materialize, "EEZ block 4 drilling results plus an erhe dividend" in March 2025.
And coming as no surprise to anyone, dickran is already beginning the twisting, squirming attempt to slink away from those "speculations" with his/her newest narrative regarding what he/she claims will be new erhc collaborations in Cuba, Sonogal and Madagascar all without any word about this being released to shareholders. Apparently the dark blanket of dickran's gag order assertions extend all around the world.
Krombacher
17 hours ago
Subject: Exploring ERHC's Potential Collaborations in Madagascar and Cuba: A Comprehensive Update
For those following ERHC Energy’s developments, two exciting frontiers are drawing attention: Madagascar and Cuba. Both regions present significant opportunities, and recent discussions, including insights from ERHC CEO Peter Ntephe, provide clues about potential collaborations and strategies. This post aims to summarize these developments comprehensively for both seasoned and new followers.
---
Madagascar: PetroMad and the Bezaha Concession
Overview
Opportunity: The Bezaha Concession in southern Madagascar is highlighted as a “highly prospective giant hydrocarbon frontier” by Farmout Angel.
Key Features:
Ambatry Prospect: Estimated 1,173 MMBO (mean) in place.
Planned Exploration: PetroMad is seeking investment for a 3-well drilling program with the possibility of acquiring 3D seismic data before drilling.
Oil Characteristics: Southern Madagascar’s oil is lighter, enhancing its marketability.
Peter Ntephe’s Comments
In response to an inquiry on LinkedIn, Peter clarified:
PetroMad is Not a Subsidiary: While PetroMad is independent, Peter mentioned that there are "customarily a lot of alliances and cooperation arrangements in seeking farmouts of acreage, particularly in frontier provinces.”
Implications: This statement strongly hints at ERHC exploring or engaging in some form of collaboration with PetroMad. Such alliances could range from technical partnerships to financial support, leveraging ERHC’s expertise in frontier regions.
Strategic Fit for ERHC
Frontier Focus: Madagascar aligns perfectly with ERHC’s strategy of targeting high-potential, underexplored regions.
Collaboration Potential: Partnering with PetroMad allows ERHC to expand its footprint into a new region while sharing risks and costs.
---
Cuba: Melbana Energy and Block 9
Overview
Opportunity: Melbana Energy is seeking partners for Block 9 Onshore Cuba, targeting 5,000 BOPD by 2028 with a high prospective resource of 734 MMBO.
Peter Ntephe’s Engagement:
Peter’s engagement with a "like" on a Farmout Angel post about Block 9 raises speculation about ERHC’s potential interest.
This block, in the Gulf of Mexico (but within Cuban territory), represents a major opportunity for development.
Sonangol Connection
Historical Ties: ERHC has collaborated with Angola’s Sonangol in the Gulf of Guinea. Speculatively, Sonangol could have divested its stake in Block 9 to focus on African assets, with ERHC stepping in as a logical buyer.
Strategic Expansion: If ERHC acquired this stake (directly or indirectly), it would mark a significant geographical expansion beyond Africa.
U.S.-Cuba Relations
Regulatory Challenges: While U.S. companies face restrictions in Cuba due to the embargo, ERHC could circumvent these issues through:
Non-U.S. Subsidiaries: Operating via a foreign subsidiary to comply with U.S. regulations.
Partnerships with Non-U.S. Entities: Collaborating with companies like Melbana to engage in Cuba.
---
Why These Opportunities Matter
1. Strategic Diversification: Entering Madagascar and Cuba demonstrates ERHC’s intent to diversify its portfolio, reducing dependency on African assets in the Gulf of Guinea.
2. Frontier Potential: Both regions are underexplored with significant hydrocarbon prospects, offering high-risk, high-reward opportunities.
3. Strengthened Alliances: Collaborations with entities like PetroMad or Melbana could position ERHC as a key player in emerging markets.
---
What to Watch For
Announcements: Keep an eye on official updates from ERHC, PetroMad, and Melbana for confirmation of partnerships or stake acquisitions.
Farmout Angel Posts: These posts often contain valuable clues about ongoing negotiations and opportunities.
Regulatory Developments: Changes in U.S. or Cuban policies could impact ERHC’s ability to operate in these regions.
---
Conclusion
ERHC’s potential involvement in Madagascar’s Bezaha Concession and Cuba’s Block 9 represents an exciting chapter in its evolution. While concrete details remain scarce, Peter Ntephe’s statements and actions suggest significant behind-the-scenes activity. These developments could position ERHC for long-term success in high-potential frontier regions.
For shareholders, this is a time to stay informed and connected as ERHC navigates these promising opportunities.
Krombacher
ssc
1 day ago
Your attempt to justify 7 years and counting of erhc's non-reporting is illogical and contrived. As I have pointed out numerous times, information can be redacted, confidential information can be excluded, the SEC provides written procedures on how to handle such situations. And your suggestion that a gag order or NDA would say insiders can accumulate as many as all erhc's shares without disclosing such trades is not believable.
Regarding deadlines and moving goalposts, my position is clear and has never changed. Unlike yours, it's deadline doesn't move. I face the truth and have the courage to be judged on it every day. My position: I say current common shareholders will never receive $8/share or more for their shares (dickran's epic short squeeze claim). I say current common shareholders will never receive $2.50/share or more for their shares (dickran's "billionaire maker" share price). Not open ended, like you. No twisting or squirming, like you. No "absence of proof is not proof of absence", like you. No "it's not a lie if YOU SAY you believe it", like you.
So as I said last week, what will the new "speculation" be on April Fools Day? lmao. Why not drop all the bs and admit that if erhc ever reached its prior market cap high around $750 million, it would be a miracle and you and all your dilution insurance followers would ecstatically accept 25 cents/share? Your claims of $7.5 billion to as much as $24 billion and more erhc market cap are 10 year old greed and hubris driven nonsense.
Just stop the hype, stop the unrealistic "speculation", stop the lies about gag orders and huge short positions. I'm not fooling myself thinking that will happen. My prayers are that a deal actually gets done that will end all this nonsense with finality.
Krombacher
1 day ago
Title: SSC Misunderstands Belief, Speculation, and Reality (Again)
---
1️⃣ “Not a Lie If You Believe It” – The Core Concept
> SSC’s Attack: "Not a lie if you say you believe it."
Response:
Belief is Not a Lie: A lie requires intent to deceive. If you believe something to be true, it cannot be a lie. Even if it turns out to be incorrect later, it was still spoken with sincerity.
Example in Everyday Life: If someone says, "I believe it will rain tomorrow," and it doesn't rain, were they lying? No, they were incorrect, but they didn’t lie.
Religious Parallel: I believe in God. You may not. But does that make me a liar for saying "God exists"? Of course not. Belief, faith, and conviction are not lies, and anyone arguing otherwise is being intentionally deceptive.
SSC’s Double Standard: If SSC’s argument held weight, every weather forecaster would be branded a liar the moment the forecast changes.
---
2️⃣ NDA, Gag Orders, and Filings
> SSC’s Attack: "Still no example of a gag order preventing a company from filing and preventing insiders from disclosing inside trades."
Response:
SSC Misunderstands How NDAs and Gag Orders Work:
NDAs exist to protect material non-public information (MNPI) during deal negotiations, and gag orders prevent disclosure of certain court-related information.
Companies don't file half-finished deals in SEC filings. They file after the deal is final, not during negotiations.
Examples:
Elon Musk's Twitter buyout: No daily updates were given during negotiations because they were bound by confidentiality agreements.
Microsoft’s Acquisition of Activision: The market didn’t know until the deal was announced.
Logical Flaw in SSC’s Argument: If ERHC is under a gag order, as they have claimed, then of course it wouldn’t file specific details. If SSC wants them to violate a court order, that’s legally absurd.
Insider Trading and Ownership Reporting:
SSC’s claim that gag orders prevent filings related to ownership is false. Companies can still report ownership if not tied to material, non-public events.
Ntephe and Offor's silence may be legally required. SSC assumes silence = deception. But in reality, silence often occurs because public disclosure is legally restricted.
Bullet Response:
Gag orders and NDAs exist to protect MNPI and deal negotiations.
No company announces deals during negotiations; announcements only happen after finalization.
Microsoft, Twitter, and other examples prove that disclosure comes only after deals are done.
---
3️⃣ ERHC’s Filings and the 7-Year Critique
> SSC’s Attack: "Delayed filing doesn’t mean delayed for 7 years."
Response:
"7-Year Delay" Argument is a Straw Man:
Nobody claims that filings should be delayed for 7 years. The reality is that if a company is under court-imposed gag orders, confidentiality agreements, and NDAs, it can't disclose what it’s legally barred from disclosing.
The SEC case against ERHC was dismissed. You can't demand that ERHC "fix" something that a court dismissed as legally irrelevant.
If ERHC files while under a gag order, it risks breaching securities laws, disclosure regulations, and NDAs.
SEC Precedents for Delayed Filings:
In some cases, companies delay filings during acquisitions, bankruptcies, and gag orders.
SSC ignores the reality that confidentiality agreements override SEC rules on "timely disclosure".
Why Isn’t ERHC Filing?
SSC claims there is "no example" of a gag order or NDA causing a 7-year delay, but the reality is he's asking ERHC to violate legal protections.
If ERHC were to file incomplete filings, SSC would be the first to scream "fraud!"
Bullet Response:
Filings aren't delayed arbitrarily. If confidentiality agreements exist, the company can’t disclose material info.
SSC demands illegal disclosure. He wants ERHC to file before the deal is done.
If ERHC’s SEC case was dismissed, then ERHC is not legally compelled to address past filings.
---
4️⃣ The "Truth Test" for Christmas 2024 and March 2025
> SSC’s Attack: "If it doesn’t happen, will you admit you were wrong?"
Response:
I’ve Always Been Transparent: I’ve been clear with my Christmas 2024 and March 2025 timelines. If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it. But what about SSC?
SSC Won’t Provide His Own Timeline: If SSC is so confident, why won’t he offer a timeline of his own? The answer is simple: he’s scared of being proven wrong.
Christmas 2024 and March 2025 Are Testable Dates: Unlike SSC, I put my predictions out there. SSC, on the other hand, hides behind “if, maybe, possibly” language.
Deal Timelines Follow Logical Milestones: Deals are often finalized around year-end or Q1. This isn’t wild speculation — it’s standard deal closure logic.
Bullet Response:
I have set public deadlines (Christmas 2024, March 2025) for ERHC’s major announcements.
If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it. If SSC is wrong, will he admit it?
SSC refuses to offer his own timeline. That’s cowardice.
---
5️⃣ SSC’s Inability to Understand Short Squeezes
> SSC’s Attack: "Watch ERHC’s share price. It’s closer to zero than to $8/share."
Response:
Short Squeezes Defy "Value" Logic:
GameStop was a $5 stock that shot to $483.
AMC ran from $2 to $72.
If SSC believes short squeezes follow “value logic,” then he clearly doesn’t understand the mechanics of a squeeze.
SSC’s Self-Contradiction:
SSC insists there are no short sellers.
But then why does he argue so hard against the squeeze narrative?
If SSC didn’t think there were shorts, he wouldn’t care. But he cares. A lot. Which proves there’s a reason for him to be worried.
GameStop Proves It Can Happen:
If GameStop can hit $483 from $5, then why is it "impossible" for ERHC to hit $8?
Answer: It isn’t impossible.
Bullet Response:
GameStop hit $483. AMC hit $72. If it happened there, it can happen here.
SSC's constant panic about short squeezes implies he's directly affected.
Short squeezes aren’t about “value.” They’re about supply and demand imbalances.
---
6️⃣ Final Bullet Summary
Belief is not a lie. Belief requires sincerity, and lies require intent to deceive.
NDAs and gag orders exist to protect material non-public information.
If ERHC is under a gag order, disclosing filings prematurely would be illegal.
GameStop hit $483/share. ERHC hitting $8/share is not “impossible.”
I’ve provided timelines (Christmas 2024, March 2025). SSC provides none.
SSC is scared of the squeeze. His constant focus on ERHC shorts proves it.
---
The Real Test of Courage
I’ve provided my timelines. I’ll admit it if I’m wrong. But will SSC admit it if he’s wrong?
Spoiler alert: He won’t. He’ll shift the goalposts and act like nothing happened.
Unlike SSC, I’m not afraid to attach deadlines to my claims.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
Christmas 2024 – Game On. March 2025 – Game Over.
We’ll see who’s still standing.
Spoiler alert: It won’t be the shorts.
Krombacher
ssc
1 day ago
Wow, dickran and bot new record for length of twisting squirming denial and claiming all the dollars/share, epic short squeeze bullshit is true but can't be proven because of NDA and confidentiality agreements. A delayed filing doesn't mean delayed for 7 years. Withholding info about a deal does not mean not doing any filings at all. And still no example of a gag order preventing a company from filing and preventing insiders from disclosing inside trades, or preventing a 5% or greater shareholder from complying with SEC ownership laws. Yet dickran claims all these thing while unable to prove any of it - for 7 years. That is not speculating, it's lying. dickran purposely confuses confidential information being withheld from filings (which the SEC provides clear instructions on how to do) with making no filings at all (which erhc has failed to do for over 7 years; erhc even stopped filing the document telling shareholders their filings would be late).
I'll happily and fairly watch dickran's new Christmas 2024 and March 2025 jackpot deadlines, and readily accept what the truth tells me when those dates come and go, just as I have with all the other "speculations" about dollars/share dickran has been making for so many years now. If they come true, I'll accept it. I won't "move the goalposts", but we all have a good idea of who will if they prove to be 2 more debunked claims added to the endless pile of dickran bullshit. Everyone can watch and see how dickran handles the Christmas and March servings of the truth. Everyone can watch erhe share price and clearly see the truth about whether it is closer to dollars or zero, just as erhe shareholders can check their accounts for an erhe dividend to see how truthful dickran's dividend claim is. Not rocket science here - the truth is clear to see for those who don't twist it, don't try to hide it, don't cower and lie when faced with it, don't claim something is "not a lie if you say you believe it".
Krombacher
1 day ago
Title: SSC's "Truth Test" Backfires – Facts, Logic, and History Win Every Time
---
1️⃣ The NDA/Confidentiality Agreement “Challenge”
> SSC's Claim: "Can you provide even 1 example of an NDA preventing a public company from complying with SEC filing regulations?"
Response:
SSC Confuses Compliance with Strategy: NDAs don’t prevent a company from filing, but they often delay disclosure of material information under specific legal protections.
Industry Practice: Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A) deals are almost always subject to confidentiality agreements, and news is released only after the deal is finalized. Ask any M&A lawyer.
SSC's Flawed Logic: If SSC were correct, no company under a confidentiality agreement or NDA would ever comply with SEC rules. Yet, companies regularly withhold disclosure under Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure).
Reality Check: Gag orders, NDAs, and confidential agreements exist in nearly every M&A deal. If SSC claims this doesn't happen, he’s ignoring how 99% of acquisitions are announced only after finalization.
Example from History:
Elon Musk and Twitter: The Twitter buyout was discussed behind closed doors under an NDA, with limited market disclosure until finalization.
Microsoft’s Acquisition of Activision: No SEC disclosures were made until the deal was signed, even though negotiations happened long before the public announcement.
Private Equity Transactions: Major oil and gas companies often negotiate deals under NDAs, and the SEC does not demand daily "play-by-play" filings of ongoing negotiations.
Bullet Response:
NDAs don’t prevent filings; they allow for delayed disclosure under SEC rules.
SSC ignores the role of Regulation FD and M&A deal rules.
Elon Musk (Twitter) and Microsoft (Activision) both followed the same process.
---
2️⃣ The “Truth” Test (Christmas, March 2025, $8/share)
> SSC's Claim: "I will accept what the truth tells everyone, will erhe's largest shareholder and known liar find the courage to do the same?"
Response:
Patience, SSC. Patience. Unlike SSC, the rest of us understand that markets are forward-looking. Major oil and gas deals don’t operate on the "day-by-day" nonsense SSC preaches. They operate on strategic timelines, patience, and confidentiality.
Christmas 2024 and March 2025 are clear, testable milestones. Here’s why it’s a bold and fair projection:
Timelines Are Common in M&A: When mergers or joint ventures are in progress, market participants analyze strategic periods like end of year (Q4) or end of Q1 for big moves.
Logical Rationale for March 2025: If SSC can identify a better timeline for potential announcements, let him do so. But for now, the evidence for Q4 2024 and Q1 2025 is strong based on standard deal-making logic.
My Position Is Publicly Testable: Unlike SSC, I’m transparent with my timeframes (Christmas 2024, March 2025). If SSC is so sure, why doesn’t he offer a date of his own?
Bullet Response:
Q4 (Christmas) and Q1 (March) are common M&A event windows.
ERHC’s moves align with known industry timelines for announcements.
---
3️⃣ "Show Me the Money" – $100M+ in Funding
> SSC's Claim: "That ERHC has received hundreds of $millions?"
Response:
PPP Loan as Evidence of Revenue: Let’s get this straight:
The U.S. Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) only granted loans to companies that could prove payroll costs, typically tied to revenue.
This means ERHC was able to prove sufficient cash flow to receive PPP support.
SSC ignores this fact because it destroys his argument. If ERHC was cash-strapped, they wouldn’t qualify for PPP.
Beyond PPP – Deals Bring Cash: Deals, especially forward contracts, also provide upfront cash inflows. Just because ERHC doesn’t release its bank statements to SSC doesn’t mean cash hasn’t been received.
Bullet Response:
PPP Loans require payroll proof and cash flow records. ERHC qualified.
Deal structures often provide cash inflows through upfront payments.
SSC ignores inconvenient facts like the PPP's verification process.
---
4️⃣ “Done Deal Buyout” Critique
> SSC's Claim: "That ERHC has a done deal dollars/share buyout?"
Response:
Legal Reality – NDAs and Gag Orders: Gag orders and confidentiality clauses are standard in buyout deals. When Microsoft bought Activision, there were months of silence, just like we see with ERHC.
Buyout Silence is Normal: Companies under buyout negotiation are legally bound to remain silent to avoid market manipulation. This is Securities Law 101.
Hypocrisy Alert: SSC asks for "proof" of the buyout, but proof requires disclosure, which would violate the very NDAs he claims don’t exist. SSC’s logic is self-contradictory.
Bullet Response:
Gag orders and NDAs legally prevent companies from revealing deal details.
SSC asks for "proof" of the deal while ignoring that proof cannot be legally disclosed.
---
5️⃣ "Epic Short Squeeze to $8/share"
> SSC's Claim: "That ERHC will reach $8/share in an epic short squeeze?"
Response:
Learn from GameStop (GME) and AMC:
GameStop (GME) ran from $4 to $483/share.
AMC surged from less than $2 to $72/share.
Did either of these moves have anything to do with company "fundamentals"? No. It was a supply-demand short squeeze, the exact scenario SSC fears.
ERHC’s Unique Setup:
SSC thinks no shorts exist, yet he consistently offers the very tactics a short-seller would use.
If no shorts exist, why does SSC fight so hard to discredit the short-squeeze argument? If there are no shorts, it shouldn't matter to him.
Backstop concept: If a backstop forces shorts to cover, the spike could be rapid. T+3 settlements ensure that.
Bullet Response:
GameStop hit $483. AMC hit $72.
ERHC has short exposure. Why else would SSC panic?
Backstop and forced buy-ins create T+3 short-covering events.
---
6️⃣ Exposing SSC’s Short-Seller Playbook
> SSC's Tactics:
Demand Proof of Everything While Providing None:
SSC demands proof of a buyout, NDA, and short positions — yet he provides zero proof that short interest doesn’t exist.
If you claim shorts don’t exist, prove it, SSC.
Downplay the Role of Market Forces:
SSC knows about GameStop, AMC, and how short squeezes happen.
He dismisses the possibility of $8/share, but if that’s impossible, how did GameStop go from $4 to $483?
Bullet Response:
SSC asks for proof of shorts, but he offers zero proof that shorts don't exist.
GameStop hit $483. SSC can’t explain why ERHC couldn’t hit $8.
---
Final Points
Speculation is not a lie. SSC confuses them intentionally.
Gag orders, NDAs, and confidentiality agreements exist in every M&A deal.
PPP loan qualification proves cash flow.
SSC offers no proof of his claims while demanding impossible proof from others.
Short squeezes are real (GameStop, AMC) and $8/share is reasonable.
Unlike SSC, I provide logic, precedent, and industry standards. SSC just provides doubt, and insults. Watch the calendar for Christmas 2024 and March 2025.
The truth will reveal itself.
Let’s see if SSC can handle it.
Krombacher
ssc
2 days ago
Nothing new in your latest cut and paste ramblings, except I did notice you are now claiming an NDA can prevent a publicly traded U.S. company from complying with SEC filing regulations. Can you provide even 1 example of that ever happening or are you lying again?
Regarding your question about accepting the truth, of course I will as I have said and as I have done all along. The truth is black and white when it comes to the incredible, "billionaire maker" claims you have made about erhc. It is easy to see if they have come true or not - just look for company announcements or, easier yet, at erhe's share price. So again I ask:
Which of your "truths" are you referring to?
That Ntephe will release news by Christmas 2024 that destroys erhe short sellers?
That block 4 drilling results will be released and erhe dividend announced by March 2025?
That erhc has received hundreds of $millions?
That erhc has a done deal dollars/share buyout?
That erhc will reach $8/share in an epic short squeeze?
I can accept the truth, can you? Before you regurgitate the PPP, gag order, Game Stop bullshit, let's remind everyone how clear and simple truth is - watch what happens by Christmas; watch what happens by March 2025; check the share price everyday and decide if it is closer to zero or $8, closer to zero or $2; erhe shareholders, watch your account for a dividend check; continue to wait for proof any erhe shares are shorted or that a gag order (or the new excuses of NDA and confidentiality agreement) is able to prevent a public company from doing required SEC filings.
The truth about all these dickran claims is available every single day. For years, the long running dickran favorites have been false and continue to be. His/her latest Christmas and March 2025 claims will soon be judged. I will accept what the truth tells everyone, will erhe's largest shareholder and known liar find the courage to do the same? Or will the twisting and squirming continue?
Krombacher
2 days ago
SSC’s Misunderstanding of Speculation, Facts, and Lies Exposed
SSC continues to confuse speculation, lies, and truth in a way that exposes his agenda and weakens his credibility. Let’s set the record straight.
🔍 1️⃣ Understanding Speculation vs. Lies
Speculation is not a lie. It’s a reasoned projection of possible future events based on logic, experience, and available information. Every public company does it during earnings calls when they issue forward-looking guidance. Are CEOs "lying" when they provide revenue projections? No. It’s standard practice.
By SSC's logic, any speculation about a future event is a lie. If that were true, every stock analyst, CEO, and financial forecaster would be a liar. But in reality, speculation is a key driver of the market. It fuels investment decisions.
If SSC wants "certainty," he should wait for history books, not participate in markets where forward-looking thinking drives the future.
---
🔍 2️⃣ SSC’s Mischaracterization of My Points
SSC attempts to discredit me by misrepresenting my statements as "lies." Let’s address each of his talking points directly:
✅ "News by Christmas 2024 that destroys ERHC shorts"
Speculation? Yes. But baseless? No.
ERHC has a history of strategic silence. This is not a guess; it’s observable.
Companies often time major announcements near the end of the year for maximum impact on financial calendars.
Logical Reasoning: If ERHC intends to take action on shorts, they would likely choose a moment of maximum market impact.
SSC’s Weakness: SSC has no alternative hypothesis. If he thinks it’s not Christmas, then when does he believe major announcements will be made?
✅ "Block 4 drilling results will be released by March 2025"
Industry-Standard Timelines:
Offshore deepwater drilling has a timeline, and anyone familiar with oil & gas exploration knows that 3-6 month windows are standard.
Projecting a March 2025 result is not "wild speculation." It’s a reasonable extrapolation from past drill schedules.
SSC's Hypocrisy: SSC offers no counter-date. If SSC claims my March 2025 timeline is wrong, then what is his date? He won’t offer one, which proves his position is not constructive.
✅ "ERHC has received hundreds of millions of dollars"
PPP Loan Proof:
ERHC qualified for a PPP loan. You don’t get a PPP loan without proving payroll requirements.
The payroll alone implies substantial revenue, and since ERHC operates globally, it's logical to conclude that significant cash flow supports its payroll.
SSC conveniently ignores this because acknowledging the PPP loan would validate my point.
Where is SSC's proof to the contrary?
✅ "ERHC has a done deal dollars/share buyout"
Speculation? Yes. But plausible? Absolutely.
Deals in the oil & gas sector are frequently confidential and subject to NDAs.
Why do companies impose confidentiality agreements? Because buyouts are negotiated behind closed doors.
What about gag orders? SSC claims gag orders don't exist. Then explain why ERHC fought to avoid disclosure to the SEC.
SSC Demands Evidence Where Evidence is Legally Prohibited. If SSC wants Ntephe to violate an NDA, then SSC is suggesting ERHC break the law.
✅ "$8/share short squeeze"
Short Squeeze Mechanics 101:
Short squeezes don’t follow “value” logic. Look at GameStop (GME) and AMC — they surged to irrational heights because of forced short-covering under time constraints (T+3).
ERHC has massive naked short exposure. If they’re forced to cover, $8/share isn’t far-fetched.
SSC knows this but pretends “squeezes” only happen in meme stocks. History says otherwise.
SSC's Flawed Logic: If SSC thinks $8/share is impossible, let him explain GameStop's surge to $483/share.
---
🔍 3️⃣ SSC’s Contradictions and Deception
SSC claims I "lie" by speculating. But let's expose his contradictions:
Contradiction #1:
SSC claims ERHC hasn’t received "hundreds of millions," but the PPP loan requires proof of revenue.
So which is it, SSC? Did ERHC provide proof of revenue to qualify for PPP, or did they somehow scam the U.S. Treasury?
Contradiction #2:
SSC demands proof for everything, yet he provides no evidence for his own claims.
He says ERHC won't have a buyout. Where's your proof, SSC?
If SSC can demand proof of every speculation, then I can demand proof of his claim that shorts don't exist.
Contradiction #3:
He says ERHC can just “release information” despite gag orders. But anyone in finance knows that companies can't violate court-ordered gag orders or NDAs.
If SSC worked at any legitimate company, he would know that NDAs are a standard part of every buyout process.
---
🔍 4️⃣ Why SSC is Panicking
Here’s why SSC is pushing this hard:
Short Seller Tactic #1: Discredit the Source
SSC calls me delusional and "known liar." This is a classic tactic — discredit the messenger, avoid the message.
Short Seller Tactic #2: Demand Proof While Offering None
SSC demands that I "prove" speculation is valid. But speculation does not require proof.
If SSC wants to disprove speculation, he needs to offer counter-evidence, not sarcasm.
Short Seller Tactic #3: Downplay Short Squeeze Potential
He mocks $8/share. But GameStop and AMC did the same thing.
If SSC was around during GameStop, he’d be screaming, “This stock is overvalued at $10!” … and it still ran to $483.
SSC is scared of the squeeze, and that’s why he has to mock it.
---
🔍 5️⃣ Final Points
Here’s the truth:
Speculation is not a lie. It’s market logic.
SSC demands "proof" while offering no proof himself.
The PPP loan proves ERHC had to demonstrate revenue.
GameStop's squeeze shows $8/share is mathematically possible.
NDAs and gag orders are real. ERHC isn't the first company to be under one.
If SSC believes everything must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, he should stay away from the stock market, where speculation drives every single investment.
If SSC can't explain GameStop’s $483 surge, he certainly can’t argue that ERHC can't hit $8/share.
This is why shorts are panicking. They know that when ERHC reveals its next move, they have no way out. T+3 comes for them all.
Krombacher
Level up your trading with our powerful tools and real-time insights all in one place.
Ask ADVFN Intelligence (AI)
BearRickPunch
7 hours ago
sideeki
9 hours ago
Homebrew
13 hours ago
MnymanJ
2 days ago
Hot Features
Premium
