I think share buybacks are done with a longer term goal, rather...

I think share buybacks are done with a longer term goal, rather than a short term one.
It stands to reason that a given profit on a lower number of shares is more attractive than on a higher number of shares.
We all complain when shares are issued, because it dilutes the value of our holding relative to company value.
A given dividend shared amongst less shareholders equals a higher amount per share.

The rate of acquisition seems prudent to me. The number of shares to be acquired could not stop aggressive selling down, should institutions choose to do that. Given that, ERM is buying at market rather than trying to set the market price (they are not allowed to inflate prices under corporate law in any event). If the market says the price should be lower, then ERM gets to buy more shares for their dollar, and we benefit by receiving greater dividends in the future.

In general I am still on board with both management quality, and their corporate strategy.
There is no doubt that the management team understands energy markets deeply, and Jon Stretch is a capable communicator as CEO. He is backed by the St John family, who have much of their own money invested in making ERM bigger and more successful.

If the US operation achieves sufficient scale, it will make the company of much greater value than it currently is.
However, growing their US business has significant Opex costs - as Jon Stretch mentioned a few months ago (I posted a video of his where he mentions this). They have effectively doubled the Twh contracted in the past six months - and this comes at the cost of high Opex and low margins initially. When this starts to plateau, the gross margin should begin to increase.

Obviously time will tell, but I will be strongly tempted to add to my holdings when the price bottoms out.

DYOR