kingpindg
4 days ago
Well, didn't have to look long for a big clue for the first drillship in the list, Stena DrillMAX. Apparently there was news out there, I just wasn't looking for it properly.
Stena Drilling is pleased to announce the award of a campaign with KE STP Company B.V. and BG International Limited Suriname Branch, subsidiaries of Shell PLC (Shell) for the Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) Stena DrillMAX.
The Shell campaign, which is expected to start in second half of the year, comprises two firm wells and 2 optional wells.
https://www.stena-drilling.com/stena-drillmax-contract-award/
.
Vyper2002
1 week ago
07:10 AM EDT, 06/06/2025 (MT Newswires) -- Petrobras (PBR) is targeting Africa as its main development region outside Brazil, Reuters reported Thursday, citing Chief Executive Magda Chambriard.
The company has secured preference in buying nine offshore exploratory blocks from Ivory Coast, while Nigeria, Angola, and Namibia have indicated they are interested in working with Petrobras, Chambriard reportedly said.
The company is already implementing its plans in Africa and is looking to start drilling in the island nation of Sao Tome and Principe this year, according to Chambriard.
Petrobras is also targeting to explore India's coast, participating in an upcoming oil block auction, Reuters reported, citing Chambriard.
ssc
2 weeks ago
So if I read you correctly, your affidavit to the SEC would look something like this:
I, guerguerian dickran, stuck with close to 400 million shares of a company that stopped complying with your regulations more than 7 years ago, stuck with six figure losses in this worthless stock that is on the Caveat Emptor List, and desperately trying anyway possible to cut my losses, do solemnly swear under oath and penalty of perjury the following:
1) I believe there are huge erhe short positions even though I can find no proof they exist, except of course for the sketch of a head I made, created a fake Facebook account for, and claim to be erhe's largest short seller.
2) I believe poster SSC is a large shorter of erhe stock, lives in Canada and, in spite of the failure of erhc to find oil and all the subsequent years of mismanagement by erhc insiders, is responsible for the share price remaining near zero, even though I have no proof to support any of this.
3) I believe erhe is worth dollars/share even though it trades near zero and no one wants to buy it.
4) I believe Emeka Offor owns all the erhe shares even though there are no records in the SEC database to support this.
5) Under penalty of perjury, i swear that a lie is not a lie if you say you believe it.
6) I have a friend named Howard who I know will get after you if you don't initiate an investigation into all these things I am alleging but have no proof for.
7) Though this might look like a prank or the ramblings of a madman, I swear I am serious and I have consulted with the other dickran who fully concurs and is actually responsible for half of this nonsense.
If this is off the mark, would love to see the things you would be willing to swear to. Other than cut and paste chatbot generalities, not a single one of your "speculations" is backed by proof. When I call them out as lies, you even admit you have no proof and label it all speculation. Just more desperate, deceitful, despicable dickran.
Krombacher
2 weeks ago
Ah yes, the familiar panic when someone mentions the word affidavit. It always hits a nerve.
But let’s clarify a few things for those watching—and maybe even for the SEC, if they’re browsing.
An affidavit isn’t where speculation lives.
It’s where speculation transforms into sworn testimony, under penalty of perjury. And the purpose isn’t to prove a crime—it’s to initiate discovery, compel subpoenas, and justify investigation. A sworn affidavit, submitted to the proper authorities, is the starting line for SEC enforcement actions.
Let’s lay it out:
You say there are no shorts.
Then why has someone with “no position” posted thousands of times across multiple boards over the years, fixated on a stock that trades at $0.0001? Why the obsession?
You say there’s no synthetic float.
Then open the books. Let the SEC reconcile beneficial ownership records across brokers, transfer agents, and DTC positions. You won't—because you can’t.
You dismiss FTDs because ERHC has none.
Good. That’s not the only way manipulation occurs. The SEC’s own 2023 Risk Alert warned of "mismarked tickets, locate failures, and offshore abuses of short-sale rules"—especially in thinly traded OTC stocks. Synthetic exposure can be created through internalization, omnibus account abuse, and borrowed-share misreporting—all trackable if subpoenas fly.
Here's what SEC Enforcement actually states:
> "A pattern of misleading statements, high-frequency short sales, or sales without proper locates—even when routed through foreign intermediaries—can result in civil or criminal enforcement actions."
— SEC Division of Enforcement, Short Sales Compliance Memo
And remember, SEC doesn’t need a confession. They need:
Blue sheets showing sale origin
DTC/NSCC reconciliation data
Broker-dealer locate lists
Omnibus breakdowns by beneficial owner
Time-stamped audit trails via CAT/OATS
Now here's the part you’re most afraid of:
➡️ Affidavits trigger subpoenas.
➡️ Subpoenas force disclosure.
➡️ Disclosure leads to enforcement.
And as for the claim “no short exists,” then let’s test that.
Let an affidavit name the individual. Let the SEC verify. Because:
🧠 If the affidavit is wrong—you walk free.
🧠 But if it’s right—even partially—you’re looking at market manipulation, perjury, and potential obstruction.
SEC Rule 10b-5 applies just as much to lies told to cover up short positions as it does to lies told to inflate price. If you're on the wrong side of that, anonymous usernames won't protect you.
So laugh about “affidavits” all you want.
But when the paperwork lands, you’ll find out this isn’t a game.
Krombacher
ssc
2 weeks ago
Wow, "affidavits". You must be compiling quite the war chest lmao. Sketched head you swear is erhe's largest short seller, synthetic nonsense no one can prove exists, claims of Offor owning all the erhe shares though no SEC filings to support them, insider info from Dr. Gus, spv that doesn't exist, African Queen buyer that never bought, done deal buyout that never got done, lies about short sellers, who they are, where they live, lies about cease and desist orders and libel suits, direct line to "Howard", and a documented record of lying about everything from erhc's "new paradigm" to false claims about erhc's transfer agent, with thousands of examples that can't be squirmed away.
Considering an affidavit is by definition: a sworn written statement of facts, made under oath or affirmation before an authorized person, such as a notary public. It's essentially a formal, legally binding declaration that something is true, and it can be used as evidence in legal proceedings, what will yours include? The requirements of facts and truth rule out just about everything you have ever claimed about erhc. But be sure to swear your claims about ssc and short selling are true. While you are free to promote all your falsehoods here, keep this fact in mind: Lying in a sworn affidavit, or under oath, is a serious offense known as perjury. It can lead to criminal charges, imprisonment, fines, and a permanent criminal record. While it would be appropriate to see you convicted of perjury, I'm sure you won't swear under oath to any of your bullshit, instead continuing to hide under the veil of "speculation".
Krombacher
2 weeks ago
Ah yes, the classic “shorts would’ve covered by now because .0001 is the bottom” argument. Cute—if we were living in a rational market.
But let’s actually examine what you're saying.
1. "Nobody would stay short at .0001"
False.
People don’t stay short at .0001 voluntarily. They stay short because they can’t cover—either due to a lack of supply, legal exposure, or synthetic positions created long ago that have no matching long. Just because something should have been closed doesn’t mean it was. Look up the concept of a trapped naked short—the position might be off the books but still active in practice.
2. FINRA shows zero shorts
Yes, and do you know why? Because you’re looking at legally reported positions, not hidden exposures through offshore prime brokers, omnibus accounts, or internalized fails that never make it to the tape. OTC markets are notoriously opaque. That's not speculation—that’s a known structural flaw in the system and has been documented by GAO reports and SEC enforcement actions.
3. “The price is already at .0001”
Right—because when there's unlimited counterfeit supply, price discovery is broken. The point isn’t “someone’s shorting it today”—it’s that someone may never have bought to close a naked short created years ago. No covering, no buying pressure, just perpetual weight on the stock. That’s what synthetic overhang does.
4. Derp-de-Derp
Congratulations—you’ve graduated to emoji-based market analysis. But while you’re laughing in all caps, understand this:
The absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Billions of shares can be counterfeited without a single FTD showing up.
And if just one name is uncovered during discovery or investigation, it’s game over.
So while you chuckle at .0001, keep this in mind: stocks that are manipulated the hardest also have the most violent re-rates when the dam breaks. And yes—sometimes it starts with one voice refusing to shut up.
Enjoy your memes.
Some of us are preparing affidavits.
Krombacher
Homebrew
2 weeks ago
All this from somebody who thinks there are shorts at .0001 🤣😂😅
Since you don't understand the basic concept of shorting, the idea is to sell short, then buy back at a lower price.
Since it's already at the lowest price, nobody would stay short, waiting for it to go lower than .0001
Shorts would have covered YEARS ago, thus why FINRA has shown ZERO shorts for years.
Derp-de-Derp.
ssc
2 weeks ago
You cannot be serious:
especially when the stock’s trading behavior defies logic
You and your minions are trying to convince people that a triple zero price and no buying interest for a company that stopped complying with SEC regulations, has not held a shareholder meeting in more than 7 years, is banished to the Caveat Emptor List and the Expert Market, has admitted it lacks the capital to attract a partner, and keeps shareholders mainly in the dark somehow defies logic? Your method for valuing stock is as ridiculous as your sketched head short seller stories. But no surprise, it's what everyone has come to accept as normal for erhe's largest stuck shareholder.
Krombacher
2 weeks ago
Appreciate your take, rkt989, and you're absolutely right that U.S. brokers have a responsibility to vet securities and ensure delivery. But in practice—especially in the OTC world—things get more complicated. Let me clarify a few key points and add context to your experience:
---
✅ You're right about broker liability post-T+3
Once a trade clears and settles, the receiving broker accepts risk, including exposure to improperly located or non-existent shares. That’s part of their fiduciary and operational burden. But this is where things get interesting:
---
🚨 Omnibus accounts and prime broker networks can obscure real share ownership
Most retail trades (especially in illiquid OTC stocks like ERHC) do not settle directly between buyer and seller. Instead, they route through layers of intermediaries—clearing firms, prime brokers, market makers, and omnibus accounts. In these structures:
Multiple customers are pooled under one name (the broker).
Netting occurs internally, meaning no real shares may move.
The appearance of ownership is maintained on brokerage platforms, even if the clearing firm never received actual shares.
In other words: brokers appear to settle, but that doesn’t guarantee clean share integrity.
---
🧾 DTCC and CNS don't verify "real" shares per se
The Continuous Net Settlement (CNS) system at the DTCC allows firms to delay delivery or roll obligations forward—particularly in low-volume, hard-to-borrow stocks. This practice opens the door to persistent, undocumented synthetic shares.
---
🧪 The SEC has seen this before
This isn’t theory—it’s documented:
In the Overstock.com case, prime brokers were found to create synthetic longs through FTDs and internal mismatches.
CMKM Diamonds had hundreds of billions of phantom shares circulating.
In Global Links Corp., the entire float was sold multiple times over in a single day.
---
❗️ Your ERHC example proves the point
The broker refusing to transfer ERHC shares says a lot. They weren’t comfortable verifying ownership history. That’s not because something’s necessarily wrong with your shares—but because they know how murky the OTC trail can be. Once they accept the transfer, they become the liable party, and many brokers don’t want that risk with caveat emptor stocks.
---
🧠 Final thought
Just because a brokerage shows shares in your account doesn’t mean the system has clean records back to the certificate level. That’s the illusion of settlement, and it’s exactly what some hedge funds and rogue market makers have exploited for decades.
We’re not blaming individual brokers or alleging fraud across the board—we’re saying the architecture of the system allows persistent distortion, particularly when regulators look the other way.
Krombacher
2 weeks ago
Appreciate your civil tone, iwondertoo. But just to clarify—FTDs were only one of several examples I mentioned when outlining how synthetic or excessive share structures can arise in microcap stocks. The notion that “a fail to deliver ends with the transaction being canceled” is an oversimplification, and it’s important to understand how real-world practices deviate from textbook assumptions—especially in the OTC.
Let me break it down:
1. FTDs Are Often Rolled or Masked
FTDs don’t always result in canceled trades. In practice, many FTDs are rolled forward or netted out internally—especially in omnibus accounts or by prime brokers. The buyer may see shares in their account, but delivery never occurred. SEC cases have confirmed this behavior, particularly in illiquid stocks.
2. Synthetic Shares Can Arise Without FTDs
Even if no current FTDs exist, synthetic shares can still be created through:
Internal netting at broker-dealers
Omnibus account imbalances
Long positions shown in brokerage accounts without real locates
Legacy mismatches from years ago, never fully unwound
In these cases, the ownership illusion persists even though the official float hasn’t expanded. This isn't speculation—it has occurred in documented cases like CMKM Diamonds, Overstock.com, and Global Links Corp.
3. The SEC Has the Tools—If It Chooses to Use Them
As discussed, the SEC can:
Subpoena beneficial ownership records
Examine broker-dealer books
Investigate clearance mismatches at the DTCC
Trace internalized trades within prime brokers or foreign affiliates
This doesn’t require belief in conspiracy—just recognition that not all trades settle cleanly, and some firms have incentives to cover it up quietly rather than face regulatory scrutiny.
4. It’s Not Just About FTDs
You’re right that FTDs alone don’t prove anything. But the point is broader: multiple mechanisms exist that can distort the true share count, and the SEC has admitted as much in past enforcement actions. The burden of proof shouldn’t rest entirely on retail investors when transparency mechanisms are deliberately opaque.
---
Respectfully, it’s not illogical to question market mechanics that have a long and well-documented history of abuse—especially when the stock’s trading behavior defies logic for long stretches. I welcome genuine skepticism, but the concerns here are not baseless.
Krombacher
iwondertoo
2 weeks ago
I hold to my belief that you cannot identify who bought the nonexistent shares, even assuming that they exist. Quite frankly, since Krom was buying while new shares were coming on the market and were being "short" until they cleared, maybe he has the "illegitimate " shares. And will be most unhappy to discover that. Or, maybe those ones Offor supposedly bought were all naked short, so he doesn't really have them?
At any rate, it was mentioned that people would be unhappy to find out they held naked shares and I don't see a way to differentiate so long after the fact
I also believe it is easy enough to add up shares and know if they are short, and they report they are not.
ssc
2 weeks ago
All this focus on short selling you can't prove exists, threats of SEC investigations of those who don't agree with your made up bullshit, assertions about "hundreds of anonymous complaints" which you also can't prove exist and which defy logic as you claim to know who made them even though they are anonymous, and not a word about erhc deals, partnerships, or activities.
Looks like someone is purposely trying to deflect from asinine predictions about July or August delivering the catalyst to take erhe to dollars/share. What will the new narrative be after August? Will claims of collusion with "Howard" replace the fake insider info "Dr. Gus" ruse? Or will the focus remain on made up lies about short sellers and SEC investigations as the share price continues to expose the truth?
Krombacher
2 weeks ago
Respectfully, Iwondertoo—this isn’t how the system works, and it’s important to get the facts right.
You're correct that most stocks today are held in street name through brokerages and that physical certificates are largely obsolete. But that’s precisely what makes synthetic share creation easier, not harder, to hide or track.
Let me clarify a few key points:
---
📉 “There is no such thing as a counterfeit stock”
There absolutely is. The SEC, FINRA, and even court rulings have acknowledged this in the form of unauthorized, unsettled, or naked short positions, which can and do result in more shares showing up in brokerage accounts than exist on the official shareholder register.
These aren’t counterfeit in the traditional sense—but they’re phantom shares created through failures-to-deliver (FTDs), abuse of internalization in omnibus accounts, and derivatives (when available), even in OTC markets.
In fact, the SEC's own rulemaking history on Regulation SHO and the Threshold List was specifically designed to combat this issue.
---
🧾 “Everyone who owns stock is easy to account for”
Not true when you consider:
Omnibus accounts aggregate the holdings of many investors behind one name (e.g., “Cede & Co.” or a foreign custodian)
Internalization by prime brokers allows them to pair long/short positions without external borrow or delivery
Fails-to-deliver data shows that many “owners” may be holding IOUs, not real shares
The transfer agent may show 3 billion shares issued, but the NSCC/DTC and broker-dealer level may reflect more than that held in customer accounts. Only a forensic share count—subpoenaing books from every brokerage—would reconcile that.
---
🧨 “Brokerages won’t risk selling what doesn’t exist”
In theory, yes. In practice, market makers are allowed to short without locate under bona fide market-making exemptions, and broker-dealers often rely on internal risk models to net out exposures. And yes, some have been fined or sued for overextending.
Remember: client positions are promises. The SEC has sanctioned firms for misleading statements to clients about whether they actually owned the underlying shares. In cases like Overstock.com, they uncovered massive failures to deliver disguised through rolling strategies.
---
📉 “Short selling = insiders dumping restricted shares”
That’s a misconception. Sales from insiders require Form 4 filings and legend removals. Short interest comes from borrowed shares or naked positions, not insiders slowly selling restricted stock (which often requires Rule 144 compliance and holding periods).
If the short volume had merely been insiders selling over time, there would be corresponding Form 4s or 144s, and it wouldn’t explain why ownership appears to exceed the float at certain brokers.
---
🔍 Final Thought: The SEC can figure this out—if it chooses to
They can subpoena blue sheets to see who sold what and whether it was borrowed
They can demand beneficial owner data from omnibus custodians
They can trace FTDs and matched orders across broker-dealers and prime brokers
And yes—they can find out if short sellers, including ERHC’s most vocal detractors, lied about their position
It’s not easy. But claiming “no short exists” because the system is opaque is like saying a crime hasn’t been committed because you haven’t dusted for fingerprints yet.
---
Bottom line: Real shares may be scarce even when broker screens say otherwise. And the SEC has both tools and precedent to prove it—especially when someone who publicly denies being short turns out to be holding the match.
Let’s not pretend the system can’t be gamed. It can. And when it is, someone always ends up holding the empty bag. Just ask Overstock. Or Sedona. Or CMKM. Or DBMM.
Just don’t assume silence or complexity means innocence.
iwondertoo
2 weeks ago
For a buyer, there is no such thing as a counterfeit stock. Unlike cash, they are simply a digital asset, anymore. If someone was out there selling stock certs that were counterfeit that would be different, but certs seem to be a thing of the past and you seem to be referring to stock purchased through a brokerage, anyway. In which case everyone who owns stock is relatively easy to account for and the SEC should have no problem identifying how much stock is sold, owned and in float or not distributed. The fact that the powers that be say there is no short should be verifiable by them. And anyone who owns stock is entitled to any dividend or other distribution. Which is why brokerages will not risk the loss by selling stock that doesn't exist. Most 'short' transactions are people who own non float shares selling them into the float. Which is why there hasn't been reported short here for a few years, now. If short activity increases, again, you can be sure that management is, once again, sticking it to the shareholders. Imo, of course
Trade like a pro: Leverage real-time discussions and market-moving ideas to outperform.
Ask ADVFN Intelligence (AI)
Hot Features
Premium
