NZ Oil & Gas (NZO)

[mistaTea]

Who knows what has gone on behind closed doors.

One thing that I think is likely though - Matthew Boyall (Cue CEO) must have been pretty pissed off when he read that NZX announcement on 13/09. It completely contradicted the spiel he and his team gave to investors at the Good Oil Conference.

These investors are buying up Cue shares right now in part due to the strong case he has (quite rightly) put for Ironbark. It absolutely could be a game changer, and the odds of success are better than average.

So, to wake up two days later and see a NZX announcement savagely contradicting this position and highlighting a study that has low balled the success rate to only 5% must have been quite something. If it were me, I would be furious.

If there is any truth to my comments (and I appreciate that I am speculating here) then either John went rogue or he has been stitched up.

We will probably never know the full story. However he was only promoted to his current role on 28/02/19 - barely 6 months in.

[BIRMANBOY]

I just had an unsolicited call from NZO asking if I had received the details and reminding me that the independent directors have unanimously voted to accept the offer LOL. Must be getting anxious in the boardroom:ohmy:

[fish]

I just had an unsolicited call from NZO asking if I had received the details and reminding me that the independent directors have unanimously voted to accept the offer LOL. Must be getting anxious in the boardroom:ohmy:

Clearly they must be trying to get everyone to vote.
I wonder if this is allowed-it could be construed as misleading by lacking balance-you could always check with the takeovers panel

[Vaygor1]

Clearly they must be trying to get everyone to vote.
I wonder if this is allowed-it could be construed as misleading by lacking balance-you could always check with the takeovers panel

I think this is yet another dirty tactic to add to the list of their already dirty tactics.

The SoA booklet is meant to supply all the salient information including the means to vote.

An unsolicited phone call does not, and can not, convey the issues around risk and reason set out in the SoA, which is the whole reason for requiring a booklet in the 1st place... so shareholders can make a 'considered' decision based on the booklet's existing spin.

These unsolicited and I think manipulative phone calls will also work against the board if the voting results allow for this fiasco to proceed any further.

Speaking of process, I understand approval of the scheme requires NZX's approval (seeing as NZO is listed) as well as approval from the Takeovers Panel. Any letters of concern sent to one should also be addressed and sent to the other.

[Sideshow Bob]

I just had an unsolicited call from NZO asking if I had received the details and reminding me that the independent directors have unanimously voted to accept the offer LOL. Must be getting anxious in the boardroom:ohmy:

Had you voted Birmanboy? I wonder if they call all shareholders?? Or just with decent holdings...…

Hope some of the bigger smaller shareholders like ACC don't just roll over and follow the independent directors.

[ordop]

They will target call the larger shareholders who haven't voted. ACC will politically vote for the scheme or so some think. OGOG may also have some larger sleepers on the shareholder list for this very situation but the only counter you and I have is to vote against and wait.

[fish]

They will target call the larger shareholders who haven't voted. ACC will politically vote for the scheme or so some think. OGOG may also have some larger sleepers on the shareholder list for this very situation but the only counter you and I have is to vote against and wait.

Agree this is what you might expect but in reality they may be wary or have difficulty in contacting the large holders who like their privacy.I know they have asked some of the larger holders to meet with Independent directors or OGOG .They will be wasting time and money if they try to find me.I have just voted my 2% against so they have to find 6% of non-ogog shareholders to balance that.
I know bigger shareholders voting against but may be waiting for the shareholder meeting end october .Hopefully if enough vote before this meeting it will be cancelled and we can move on

[Boffin]

No contact by email from NZO re: announcements etc - as requested. I only knew about the .62c offer by keeping my eye on this forum, as I have done for over ten years. Have voted my 35k against.

[BIRMANBOY]

Received all of the paperwork and details today in the post.

[fish]

Received all of the paperwork and details today in the post.
Thanks Boffin for letting us know that this problem appears to be resolved.
Also that you let us know your votes against.
Nobody on this forum has said they are voting for the scheme.If anyone is voting for the scheme it would be good if you could post.I am sure nobody would attempt to influence you and you would be well-respected for having stood up.It is really good to have a mix of thoughts and intentions and so far there has been no positivity about the scheme that I can see .

[mistaTea]

I know of one person who voted for the scheme simply because his policy is that he just does what the independent directors tell him to.

No scrutinising the SoA, no reflecting on whether or not the price being offered is truly reflective of value etc. Just voted for.

There will be a number of other FOR votes like that, unfortunately.

However, even if OGOG achieved a whopping turnout for this SoA...say 75% - they would still need damn near 28 million votes to succeed. That is a lot of votes to get, given the serious criticisms being made and strong feelings of opportunism etc.

[fish]

I know of one person who voted for the scheme simply because his policy is that he just does what the independent directors tell him to.

No scrutinising the SoA, no reflecting on whether or not the price being offered is truly reflective of value etc. Just voted for.

There will be a number of other FOR votes like that, unfortunately.

However, even if OGOG achieved a whopping turnout for this SoA...say 75% - they would still need damn near 28 million votes to succeed. That is a lot of votes to get, given the serious criticisms being made and strong feelings of opportunism etc.

I fully agree with you and I believe that the soa has no chance of succeeding.
However the Independent directors are misleading shareholders by their NZX announcement that the stk report says that Ironbark has only a 5% chance of financial success.
I have now read the stk report several times and it certainly does not say this.
At this stage of Ironbark with BP the operator and Ocean Apex drilling next year geological success-defined as flowable hydrocarbons is virtually equivalent to commercial success and its demonstrably wrong to announce at this stage that Ironbark has only a 5% chance .
I intend to pursue this as I cannot believe the Independent directors are not misleading the market(I do not have to prove this is intentional but just that the announcement is misleading)

[mistaTea]

However the Independent directors are misleading shareholders by their NZX announcement that the stk report says that Ironbark has only a 5% chance of financial success.
I have now read the stk report several times and it certainly does not say this.


The PKF report, which references SRK analysis does not explicitly say anywhere that "Ironbark only has a 5% probability of commercial success".

It does provide a table (4-4) on page 27, which multiplies out the various probabilities to end up with a Low, Preferred and High Value for a discovery. The way the factors are multiplied out, you could infer that the net factor applied is 5% to come up with a valuation range for a discovery.
Nobody actually believes that, in reality, anybody stumping up the large amount of cash required for exploration wells is anticipating a 95% chance of a dry well though.

However, PKF then further reduce the low estimate based on the amount paid in earlier farm-in deals with BP and Beach. This gave an incredibly wide value range of A$3.8M - A$536M (with a preferred value of A$357M) for the total value of the prospect. In my view, that range is so wide that it has very little practical use.
It did mean that NZOG was able to farm-in to Ironbark for more than BP paid, but the same as Beach. NZOG will end up paying, in total, approx $4.4 million to Cue to farm in for 15%.

The Northington report then states that minority shareholders should therefore sell their interest in Ironbark to OGOG on the same terms as Cue (i.e. $4.4M).

Well, sorry but that isn't going to fly. Cue was in a different situation - they were trying to attract financial backing for an exciting drill. They were not in a position to negotiate a larger carrying cost from BP, Beach and NZOG - but they have retained 21% equity and will stand to gain a lot, given around half their drill cost will be funded by the other JV partners. If they did not accept NZOG as a JV partner, they would not have fulfilled a key obligation in their option agreement with BP and risked blowing up the whole deal. So Cue shareholders had to take the deal on the table, rightly or wrongly.

Now, we are in a different situation altogether. Minority Shareholders are not trying to attract any interest to secure finance. OGOG want to buy out our equity, and to do that they will need to offer considerably more (even if they doubled their current offer, I doubt it would be enough). To suggest that because NZOG, BP and Beach got a sweet farm-in deal for Ironbark, and on the strength of that NZOG minority holders should drop their pants too is ludicrous.

[fish]

Thank you Mista tea
No wonder I cannot find a 5% chance of success in the srk report-I have spent hours trying to find out how anyone could infer only a 5% chance of success in the report.
Table 4-4 is the estimated value of discovered hydrocarbons .It has nothing that a reasonable person could infer a 5% chance of successful drill.Indeed it uses a 2/7 chance of a wildcat drill being successful based on 7 previous drills in the last 20 years .It gives a preferred value of $357 a$mm so the value to nzo(including cue) is over $100million.
As I have said before with bp involved the chances of a successful drill with the technology and experience they have is at least 1 in 3 and probably more than 1 in 2.

[mistaTea]

Thank you Mista tea
No wonder I cannot find a 5% chance of success in the srk report-I have spent hours trying to find out how anyone could infer only a 5% chance of success in the report.
Table 4-4 is the estimated value of discovered hydrocarbons .It has nothing that a reasonable person could infer a 5% chance of successful drill.Indeed it uses a 2/7 chance of a wildcat drill being successful based on 7 previous drills in the last 20 years .It gives a preferred value of $357 a$mm so the value to nzo(including cue) is over $100million.
As I have said before with bp involved the chances of a successful drill with the technology and experience they have is at least 1 in 3 and probably more than 1 in 2.

Correct, the inferred 5% used to end up with the value range is a framework used to derive some kind of estimate in terms of the value of a discovery in Ironbark.

Whether you can take that percentage and say therefore the chance of a drill discovering commercially viable levels of extractable hydrocarbons is still unclear to me (and appears dubious).
Certainly not believable in practice.

[arjay]

A concern is that the majority of small shareholders don’t follow this thread. They will likely have been unaware of what’s happening when they receive a kind offer for their shares. The offer will explain that the alternative is that they will most likely lose their equity in the upcoming bound-to-fail drills. Is it unreasonable to expect that the offer might therefore be successful? Is there any way an alternative message can be sent to all shareholders?

[Wiremu]

Thank you Mista tea
No wonder I cannot find a 5% chance of success in the srk report-I have spent hours trying to find out how anyone could infer only a 5% chance of success in the report.
Table 4-4 is the estimated value of discovered hydrocarbons .It has nothing that a reasonable person could infer a 5% chance of successful drill.Indeed it uses a 2/7 chance of a wildcat drill being successful based on 7 previous drills in the last 20 years .It gives a preferred value of $357 a$mm so the value to nzo(including cue) is over $100million.
As I have said before with bp involved the chances of a successful drill with the technology and experience they have is at least 1 in 3 and probably more than 1 in 2.

Fish, you are absolutely correct on this point. Nowhere in the SRK report does it refer to a 5% chance of success, and as experts neither would they. The 5% chance of success is a Northington's construct which is an erroneous use of SRK's information, and entirely misleading.

[fish]

A concern is that the majority of small shareholders don’t follow this thread. They will likely have been unaware of what’s happening when they receive a kind offer for their shares. The offer will explain that the alternative is that they will most likely lose their equity in the upcoming bound-to-fail drills. Is it unreasonable to expect that the offer might therefore be successful? Is there any way an alternative message can be sent to all shareholders?
The message could be sent by the takeovers panel or the nzx.
For instance if you make them aware of your concerns which shows the nzo independent directors are misleading voting shareholders they have tremendous powers to rectify the situation.
If a statement is made that clearly is not honest opinion and is misleading then it is a breach of the code
The get out card the directors may use is it is honest opinion.However honest opinion must be
a)honestly held and
b)reasonably based and
c)Not demonstrably wrong

It is difficult to prove a) but I feel b) and c) could be very difficult for them to dispute.

Good Luck

[fish]

Fish, you are absolutely correct on this point. Nowhere in the SRK report does it refer to a 5% chance of success, and as experts neither would they. The 5% chance of success is a Northington's construct which is an erroneous use of SRK's information, and entirely misleading.

Thank you wiremu.
Would you consider making a complaint to both the nzx and the takeovers panel as I feel they need to know from people that have read both the Northington and srk report

[mistaTea]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12269453

Brian Gaynor using the NZOG SoA as an example, questioning why so many Kiwi Directors are gutless.

[fish]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12269453

Brian Gaynor using the NZOG SoA as an example, questioning why so many Kiwi Directors are gutless.

Gutless is assuming the NZO Independent directors have our best interests at heart.They would know the NZX announcement 13/9/19 was misleading and actually false.
My personal opinion is that Rod Ritchie,with his extensive experience in the petroleum Industry and diverse interests(including OMV -Austrian petrochemical group I think) would certainly Know the Northbridge report was false

[mistaTea]

Gutless is assuming the NZO Independent directors have our best interests at heart.They would know the NZX announcement 13/9/19 was misleading and actually false.
My personal opinion is that Rod Ritchie,with his extensive experience in the petroleum Industry and diverse interests(including OMV -Austrian petrochemical group I think) would certainly Know the Northbridge report was false

Old Roddie boy hasn’t had ahelluva lot to say at all during this whole scam.

It’s been left up to the academic to convince us.

She probably subscribes to the whole ‘Modern Portfolio Theory’ and therefore a 25% premium on SP is a damn good deal. Look no further!

[Fabs37]

Old Roddie boy hasn’t had ahelluva lot to say at all during this whole scam.

It’s been left up to the academic to convince us.

She probably subscribes to the whole ‘Modern Portfolio Theory’ and therefore a 25% premium on SP is a damn good deal. Look no further!

Well it,s like this, average S/H should not been surprised it has come to this offer.
When the CO. bought out a percentage of shares at what under 75 cents, to get their holding to 70%
Then let the S/Price drift until all the Ducks lined up and then make this ridiculous offer.
All the while repeating the Mantra, managements aim is to create value to S/Hs

Hinted at that in several posts last 2 years.

[mistaTea]

Well it,s like this, average S/H should not been surprised it has come to this offer.
When the CO. bought out a percentage of shares at what under 75 cents, to get their holding to 70%
Then let the S/Price drift until all the Ducks lined up and then make this ridiculous offer.
All the while repeating the Mantra, managements aim is to create value to S/Hs

Hinted at that in several posts last 2 years.

Yes, and it does occur to me too that the whole process they did to ‘clean up’ the shareholder base by purchasing back any holdings under 500 was all part of this ultimate aim.

Those shareholders were almost certainly not going to bother voting, so a quick ‘tidy up’ would benefit OGOG when it was time to kick the remaining minority holders in the guts with a low ball SOA.

[Fabs37]

All part of the ploi.
Strategy and Focus, they play for keeps.
Time will tell.

[Lion]

Very interesting times, here and now. I wonder if the "independent' directors and whole board are getting anxious about the legality of their report of 13/9.

I wish I could have seen Brian Gaynor's piece in the Herald, but it's behind their paywall. He's always been honest and perceptive, IMO.

[fish]

Brian Gaynor asks the question
Wheres the fight in Kiwi Company Directors?
He asks why are they not fighting such a low ball offer?
He states NZOG endorsed the 78 cent per share partial offer because the singaporean company had global expertise that would benefit the NZX listed company.
Apart from that he covers the history of the company which you ,like many of us ,have been part off.
He has not mentioned Ironbark and this could be for many reasons eg ignorance(which I doubt) or because of legal advice about defamation ( court cases can cost millions even if you win).
Stating as fact something that is untrue about a person and publishing it can be very expensive-and that could apply to posts on sharetrader.

[Lion]

Thanks for that fish.

Your post made more sense this morning, Fabs37. Maybe I'd had a bit of wine last night!

[fish]

Very interesting times, here and now. I wonder if the "independent' directors and whole board are getting anxious about the legality of their report of 13/9.

I wish I could have seen Brian Gaynor's piece in the Herald, but it's behind their paywall. He's always been honest and perceptive, IMO.

Absolutely.He asks the important question as to why Independent directors would recommend such a low ball offer
Its a pity he didnt comment on the 13/9/19 report but maybe he is awaiting to hear from the takeovers panel/nzx.
I do not think we will long to hear as a misleading announcement such as this could lead to unfair acceptance of the offer and people are voting now

[mistaTea]

I just had a look at the NZO trade volumes since the SoA was announced on 10 July.

Shares have been trading pretty close to the 62c offer price the whole time.

Approx 3.5 million shares have been purchased at these prices (roughly 7% of the target shares). If everyone is behaving rationally, it would be fair to expect the majority of these shares to vote AGAINST?

[peat]

Absolutely.He asks the important question as to why Independent directors would recommend such a low ball offer
Its a pity he didnt comment on the 13/9/19 report but maybe he is awaiting to hear from the takeovers panel/nzx.
I do not think we will long to hear as a misleading announcement such as this could lead to unfair acceptance of the offer and people are voting now

Gaynor also highlights Dr Rosalind Archers lack of directorial experience
Archer is a Professor at Akl Uni Engineering. She has been the HOD for several years and I know she specialises in geothermal engineering, but apparently also (according to the Uni website)
petroleum reservoirs, gas hydrates and carbon dioxide sequestration.

[Sideshow Bob]

I just had a look at the NZO trade volumes since the SoA was announced on 10 July.

Shares have been trading pretty close to the 62c offer price the whole time.

Approx 3.5 million shares have been purchased at these prices (roughly 7% of the target shares). If everyone is behaving rationally, it would be fair to expect the majority of these shares to vote AGAINST?

I would think the same. Unless someone been buying for another entity and then signing them into the offer at no/minimal cost. Sure dodgy, but a possibility??

[mistaTea]

I would think the same. Unless someone been buying for another entity and then signing them into the offer at no/minimal cost. Sure dodgy, but a possibility??

An interesting thought. But I do not believe OGOG would risk doing anything outright dodgy/illegal like that.

They have given us a crappy offer, and I am unimpressed with Northington etc. But I am not near the point if jumping to the conclusion that, just because OGOG are trying to get my shares from me for cheap they must also be doing something illegal etc.

I might just be naive about the whole thing, but unless we have proof to support that kind of speculation I think we should tread carefully.

[fish]

An interesting thought. But I do not believe OGOG would risk doing anything outright dodgy/illegal like that.

They have given us a crappy offer, and I am unimpressed with Northington etc. But I am not near the point if jumping to the conclusion that, just because OGOG are trying to get my shares from me for cheap they must also be doing something illegal etc.

I might just be naive about the whole thing, but unless we have proof to support that kind of speculation I think we should tread carefully.

Northington in my opinion have been very wrong to a serious extent that demands investigation
JFK said-
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

I do hope the NZX and takeovers panel take action to get a fair valuation asap-all this time shares are being traded after false information has been given.
The Independent directors could get another report or instruct Northington to correct their errors.The longer this takes the worse the damage

[Sideshow Bob]

An interesting thought. But I do not believe OGOG would risk doing anything outright dodgy/illegal like that.

They have given us a crappy offer, and I am unimpressed with Northington etc. But I am not near the point if jumping to the conclusion that, just because OGOG are trying to get my shares from me for cheap they must also be doing something illegal etc.

I might just be naive about the whole thing, but unless we have proof to support that kind of speculation I think we should tread carefully.

It wasn't necessarily speculating - just an alternative. My thoughts were that any buyers are in for the chance of a no vote, and further consequential events. The other is about the only other possibility I could see and don't think this would happen.

[fish]

I would think the same. Unless someone been buying for another entity and then signing them into the offer at no/minimal cost. Sure dodgy, but a possibility??

The people buying the shares know the offer has effectively failed.
They are buying because the Northington Report is seriously flawed and undervalues NZO.
They are buying to get high value assets including substantial cash reserves and Ironbark that has at least a 1 in 3 chance of being developed into one of the worlds largest gas fields.
OGOG in my opinion may make another offer but it will not be accepted by those I know who hold substantial holdings.I suspect they have been talking to acc and other big shareholders and know this offer has failed.They will now have a better idea of what they might have to pay to succeed with a higher offer.
The claim of only 5% chance of economic success for Ironbark will never be repeated as it would then be fraudulent

[blackcap]

The people buying the shares know the offer has effectively failed.
They are buying because the Northington Report is seriously flawed and undervalues NZO.
They are buying to get high value assets including substantial cash reserves and Ironbark that has at least a 1 in 3 chance of being developed into one of the worlds largest gas fields.
OGOG in my opinion may make another offer but it will not be accepted by those I know who hold substantial holdings.I suspect they have been talking to acc and other big shareholders and know this offer has failed.They will now have a better idea of what they might have to pay to succeed with a higher offer.
The claim of only 5% chance of economic success for Ironbark will never be repeated as it would then be fraudulent

One thing I do then not understand Fish. If they know the offer has failed, why are they delaying the CUE AGM?

[fish]

One thing I do then not understand Fish. If they know the offer has failed, why are they delaying the CUE AGM?

Good question and it would be helpful to know the answer.I have had thoughts but they are too speculative to post.Clearly OGOG/NZO will have been planning alternative strategies .I have already bought into CUE for the Ironbark prospect.
Maybe a takeover of CUE?

[fish]

Just some further speculative thoughts-
NZO misleads the market on the 13/9- scam is exposed.
17/9/19 nzx announcement John resigns
OGOG/Northridge are in panic mode.
Fallout could reach as far as CUE.
OGOG do not want to face shareholders at CUE agm=meeting postponed

[airedale]

I have just received the scheme {scheming}? booklet today. I will vote against the scheme.

[digger]

I have just received the scheme {scheming}? booklet today. I will vote against the scheme.

so have I. Like most others I have already voted.

[CD_CHCH]

Just some further speculative thoughts-
NZO misleads the market on the 13/9- scam is exposed.
17/9/19 nzx announcement John resigns
OGOG/Northridge are in panic mode.
Fallout could reach as far as CUE.
OGOG do not want to face shareholders at CUE agm=meeting postponed

So let us review the timeline of events to date.

Back in 2017 OGOG made an offer of 78 cents per share to purchase 70% of the company beating out Zeta who were also trying to accquire the company.

We can only presume that OGOG didn't purchase 70% of the company solely as a goodwill gesture to allow shareholders to cash out without brokerage fees, but instead saw value in the company and its future prospects.

Now we are being asked to believe that the future of the company is grim and the remaining 30% of the company that they don't own is only worth 62 cents per share.

Should we believe and trust them?

The following extracts are from their partial takeover document date Oct 2017:

"our conviction that the opportunities in front of NZOG, like the Clipper exploration permit, are simply too interesting to ignore. We believe that the best way to preserve those opportunities and protect shareholder value is to make an offer for control of NZOG."

"We have chosen not to make a full takeover offer because we believe it is important that NZOG maintains its public listing on the NZX Main Board. By remaining a public company, NZOG will be able to access new capital to fund future growth and will give existing shareholders (even those who accept our Offer) the opportunity to participate as the business develops."

"The Ofer Global Group is not a financial investor looking to make a quick profit. Nor is it a private equity fund looking to turn a business around and sell it, or a hedge fund looking to take advantage of a distressed opportunity."

"Our long-term focus necessitates that we prioritise corporate and social responsibility, community investment, and are aware of and have respect for the concerns of local stakeholders."

"OGOG seeks to focus NZOG on responsible exploration and production opportunities that we believe will put NZOG on a steady growth trajectory, ultimately creating substantial value for shareholders."

"OGOG’s current intention is to focus the company, its financial resources and its staff on responsible exploration and production opportunities both in New Zealand and throughout the Asia-Pacific region. As such, OGOG does not plan to reduce those resources by pursuing any capital return to shareholders in the near term (other than under NZOG’s current dividend programme). Instead, OGOG expects to supplement NZOG’s existing resources by identifying areas where the Ofer Global Group can complement NZOG’s existing activities. To take just one example, OGOG expects that it can be helpful in identifying a suitable farm-in partner for the Clipper exploration permit."

We have voted against the scheme of arrangement and believe the statements made in their partial takeover offer less than 2 years ago are at odds with their current actions.

[fish]

I do not know to what extent OGOG have been responsible for this misleading scheme.
It is possible that nzo management alone have misled everyone and told Northington partners the value they wanted.This could be why John Pagani suddenly resigned.
Legal advice might be preventing OGOG from coming clean.
The longer they leave it the more damage will be done.
OGOG will know the SRK valuation of Ironbar is misrepresented by Northington and the Independent Directors and have a moral if not legal duty to correct it.
From the political view it could be a disaster for OGOG if the Hon. Megan Woods has to get involved.

[digger]

I do not know to what extent OGOG have been responsible for this misleading scheme.
It is possible that nzo management alone have misled everyone and told Northington partners the value they wanted.This could be why John Pagani suddenly resigned.
Legal advice might be preventing OGOG from coming clean.
The longer they leave it the more damage will be done.
OGOG will know the SRK valuation of Ironbar is misrepresented by Northington and the Independent Directors and have a moral if not legal duty to correct it.
From the political view it could be a disaster for OGOG if the Hon. Megan Woods has to get involved.

Thanks Fish for all your reports.
I have been doing a few things along these lines,that if worst comes to worst Megan Woods will get involved.
Some I might like to say but if this SOA goes through it will be off to the High Court at the end of Oct/19 ,so some things need to be kept quite for now.. In the meantime some wheels are turning.What I believe I can say follows.

On Tuesday the 17th of this month I spoke at the NZSA in Hamilton about this SOA. The chairman then took my notes and said he would deliver and speak at the National NZSA council . This he must have done or by pure coincidence the CEO of OGOG has asked for a special meeting with the national head of NZSA. This meeting will be this coming Saturday in Auckland to which I was invited. I declined as when someones is out to steal my shares I am inclined to be not that friendly,so best out of it.. This morning I outlined for the NZSA [SOME] of the misleading statements made on behalf of OGOG takeover. Most have already been stated here so will not outline.
In summary I asked if the SOA can be nullified as this is suppost to be a court-supervised process and in too many areas that process has not been followed.

Unless there is some legal reason for not doing so,I will report where it is all up to.

[Baa_Baa]

Thanks Fish for all your reports.
I have been doing a few things along these lines,that if worst comes to worst Megan Woods will get involved.
Some I might like to say but if this SOA goes through it will be off to the High Court at the end of Oct/19 ,so some things need to be kept quite for now.. In the meantime some wheels are turning.What I believe I can say follows.

On Tuesday the 17th of this month I spoke at the NZSA in Hamilton about this SOA. The chairman then took my notes and said he would deliver and speak at the National NZSA council . This he must have done or by pure coincidence the CEO of OGOG has asked for a special meeting with the national head of NZSA. This meeting will be this coming Saturday in Auckland to which I was invited. I declined as when someones is out to steal my shares I am inclined to be not that friendly,so best out of it.. This morning I outlined for the NZSA [SOME] of the misleading statements made on behalf of OGOG takeover. Most have already been stated here so will not outline.
In summary I asked if the SOA can be nullified as this is suppost to be a court-supervised process and in too many areas that process has not been followed.

Unless there is some legal reason for not doing so,I will report where it is all up to.

You're a legend, we all I'm sure thank you for your insights, contacts and interventions. It's just not right that minority shareholders get screwed when the big fat controllers think they can obfuscate and manipulate the proceedings. Well done and all the best.

[Arthur]

Certainly appears short sighted to be sailing this close to the wind given the current politics. I wonder if there is a bad faith/operator condition on their existing permits.

[fish]

Certainly appears short sighted to be sailing this close to the wind given the current politics. I wonder if there is a bad faith/operator condition on their existing permits.
You echo my current thoughts
I am planning to brief my QC who is an expert on these matters but it looks as if I am going to go Public and it will not be defamatory in anyway-just my opinion based on the facts.This will include hon Megan Woods who is probably in the dark about how NZ energy resource are about to be stolen by OGOG.

For the scheme to be fair and reasonable I have been trying to put a value on NZO to OGOG.
Liquidation value looks to be around 85 cents.
However there should be a premium for OGOG to pay in respect of gaining control and gaining synergies-at least 10% on the liquidation value.

For me its not just about value.I really want the whole of NZ to gain from these world size gas fields.I will choose battles to fight only if I know I can win.
This is one I will fight to the end.However I also have to be pragmatic and a fair and reasonable offer would probably beat my principles

[fish]

I have just received the scheme {scheming}? booklet today. I will vote against the scheme.

Make sure you vote asap as not long before the special meeting unless you are going to it.We have to make sure ogog do not steal nzo from NZ

cheers

[airedale]

Thanks Fish, I have a note in my diary to vote by Monday 14th October, so I will definitely do it by Thursday 10th October. I am waiting for a recent buy NZO trade to settle.

[Chippie]

Had a call on Friday asking if i would vote. Good to know they do not already know i have already voted. When asked why i voted against it, told them they are a bunch of crooks trying to rip little shareholders off.

[fish]

Had a call on Friday asking if i would vote. Good to know they do not already know i have already voted. When asked why i voted against it, told them they are a bunch of crooks trying to rip little shareholders off.

In my opinion you are correct Chippie.

The takeovers panel guidance notes makes a pertinent note-

states in misleading conduct-

2.3 As well as the rule 64 prohibition it is also a criminal offence under section 44c of the takeovers act to make or disseminate materially false or misleading statements-5 years in jail and $300000 fine .

They are making out that Ironbark has only minimal value and is likely to be unsuccessful with a big cash loss and the company not going anywhere and becoming valueless due to high corporate expenses.
The truth is that the srk report last year valued Ironbark nzo share at around preferred value 60 million.It is now worth a lot more-lets say 50 cents a share.
this puts a reasonable and fair valuation at 110 cents a share.
Personally I would be reluctant to sell for less than this.
Needless to say I will be hoping to buy more NZO today rather than let OGOG steal our main oil and gas company.

[blackcap]

An interesting read from our CEO:

http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-website-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/attachments/NZO/341810/308807.pdf

[fish]

[QUOTE=blackcap;772960]An interesting read from our CEO:

Very clear argument that Gas is the future for decades to come and if NZ isnt part of the team to fight CO2 emissions bad countries will burn coal with 3 times as much CO2 emissions.
It also reaffirms my view that NZO management and John Pagani are the good people.
It is OGOG trying to steal Ironbark for its own ends.A speculative thought is that once Ironbark comes on stream with its 15 trillion cubic feet of gas why would OGOG consider drilling barque?

[mistaTea]

https://www.nbr.co.nz/story/supine-independents-wave-through-lowball-nzog-offer

For those of you who read NBR...Shoeshine have written a damning piece on OGOG's 'low-ball' and 'opportunistic' takeover attempt.

Trying to dupe minority holders into selling their company for such a small amount of money is just downright greedy.

They could have offered a fair price right from the outset and wrapped this deal up quickly, enabling departing shareholders to feel like they got a reasonable deal given the current conditions.

But no, they couldn't help themselves. Their greed overrode all reason, and here we are. Our Independent Directors ought to be ashamed of themselves too. A reasonable offer would have probably only cost them an additional $15M more than their current offer, peanuts in the scheme of things. So now because they are tight asses, and damn greedy... they are not going to get any deal.

If Ironbark comes through next year, they will be kicking themselves that they didn't throw a few more shekels our way in the first place to get the deal done.

They are going to be very embarrassed when the final votes are counted and an overwhelming AGAINST vote is determined. So they should be, all of them.

[mistaTea]

Had a call on Friday asking if i would vote. Good to know they do not already know i have already voted. When asked why i voted against it, told them they are a bunch of crooks trying to rip little shareholders off.

The fact that these people even need to ring around, desperately trying to get people to vote says it all really. They aren't allowed to suggest which way people should vote, but you can be sure they will be emphasising that the Independent Directors have recommended the offer etc.

The reality is, if their offer was reasonable they wouldn't have to work the phones at all - the reasonable terms of the deal would speak for itself and 75% of those who bothered to vote would endorse it.

[glennj]

A couple of days ago, perhaps Friday, I got a call too asking to discuss this investment. Think it was an Australian based call? I said I was busy and didn't currently have time to discuss it.
(I had already voted against the deal on line so that backs up that who ever is calling does not know if people have already voted or not)

[RTM]

The fact that these people even need to ring around, desperately trying to get people to vote says it all really. They aren't allowed to suggest which way people should vote, but you can be sure they will be emphasising that the Independent Directors have recommended the offer etc.

The reality is, if their offer was reasonable they wouldn't have to work the phones at all - the reasonable terms of the deal would speak for itself and 75% of those who bothered to vote would endorse it.

I wonder if they are just calling the bigger shareholders ? I haven't had a call..17,300 shares.
They seem to have an advantage in that they have a list of shareholders...and holdings I guess. And shareholders have no effective way of communicating with each other, other than via this forum.
And not everyone would be aware of this forum.

[fish]

This forum is where we have the advantage.
Not only is this forum communicating well but we can send personal messages.
I know for a fact that this scheme of arrangement has failed and I hope NZO is not paying for anyone from Australia to be phoning people up to let them know the Independent directors want you to vote for the scheme.

[RTM]

I know for a fact that this scheme of arrangement has failed......

Interesting. First time I've been made aware of that.
Congratulations all holders and huge thanks to the key shareholders who have helped us all with our decision.

[Vaygor1]

This forum is where we have the advantage.
Not only is this forum communicating well but we can send personal messages.
I know for a fact that this scheme of arrangement has failed and I hope NZO is not paying for anyone from Australia to be phoning people up to let them know the Independent directors want you to vote for the scheme.

I would be surprised if a material amount of minority shareholders are aware this forum even exists, but.....

I have phoned around asking all those I know (especially those I know owning NZO) to phone others they know who own NZO shares with a strong message to 1st and foremost vote, and 2ndly to vote NO..... and then to request them pass this on again and again... (I supplied the basis behind my position).

From the feedback I have received from those I originally spoke to, this has been a very helpful initiative and I strongly suggest and request all those reading this post to do the same.

OGOG can go get stuffed.

[mistaTea]

I would be surprised if a material amount of minority shareholders are aware this forum even exists, but.....


I met with Alistair McGregor on Saturday. He lamented that there are over 5,000 shareholders - given how poorly the FOR vote is doing, that's a lot of people to try and cold call and beg to sell their shares.

Half of those shareholders hold small parcels of shares (less than 2,000) and were never going to be particularly interested/motivated anyway (and certainly not for the crumbs that have been offered).

I mean, if you owned 1,000 shares (for example)... if you even bother to take an interest in what is going on...what are you likely going to do? Take $620 from OGOG now or stick around to drill Ironbark (where your 1,000 shares could be worth 5, 8, maybe 10 grand)?

[peat]

I know for a fact that this scheme of arrangement has failed

Hey Fish
is this really a fact or a very strong opinion?

[blackcap]

Interestingly I see they have announced an AGM on the 12th Dec. Surely if the SOA was going to be successful there would be no need for an AGM (one that current shareholders would attend)?

[digger]

Interestingly I see they have announced an AGM on the 12th Dec. Surely if the SOA was going to be successful there would be no need for an AGM (one that current shareholders would attend)?

Probably given us time to think about changing these two fake independent directors for real ones.

[blackcap]

Probably given us time to think about changing these two fake independent directors for real ones.

I wonder if they are up for re-election this time? I will be voting against that as well give the opportunity. That said if OGOG want them there then they stay there.

[airedale]

[QUOTE=blackcap;773262]Interestingly I see they have announced an AGM on the 12th Dec. Surely if the SOA was going to be successful there would be no need for an AGM (one that current shareholders would attend)?[/QUOTE

I see that the wording for the notice of the AGM is that a meeting is expected to be held. Am I reading to much in to that? {conspiracy theory]?

[fish]

Hey Fish
is this really a fact or a very strong opinion?

I cannot prove it but I know enough voting against it to ensure it has failed.
I guess you will not know until the special meeting.
My expectation is that this will not happen as planned.
OGOG should know by now they have been ill-advised to make such a low ball offer which has backfired in more ways than one.
My understanding-and I could be wrong as I have not seen it in writing-that this scheme of arrangement allows ogog to increase the offer and postpone the meeting

[mistaTea]

Hey Fish
is this really a fact or a very strong opinion?

I can now confirm that, even if 100% of eligible minority voters turnout (which won't happen - not by a long shot) even then we have more than 25% AGAINST.

Fish has given a fact.

[mistaTea]

[QUOTE=blackcap;773262]Interestingly I see they have announced an AGM on the 12th Dec. Surely if the SOA was going to be successful there would be no need for an AGM (one that current shareholders would attend)?[/QUOTE

I see that the wording for the notice of the AGM is that a meeting is expected to be held. Am I reading to much in to that? {conspiracy theory]?

I just hope they cancel the special meeting to save on costs. They know damn well they won't get enough votes now (not nearly enough).

[mistaTea]

My understanding-and I could be wrong as I have not seen it in writing-that this scheme of arrangement allows ogog to increase the offer and postpone the meeting

Correct, there is nothing to stop OGOG increasing their offer to an acceptable amount. It might delay the process by a few days (i.e. the special meeting might need to be moved) but that is all.

If they were only ever interested in using a low share price to try their luck at grabbing the rest of the business for chump change (and not actually being prepared to ever pay a fair price) then I would not hold my breath for an increased offer.

[fish]

Probably given us time to think about changing these two fake independent directors for real ones.

Fully agree but we have got little time before nominations need to be sent in.
I would love to be a director but have never been one and I am sure there are better people able to represent our interests.
Any ideas?

[Vaygor1]

[QUOTE=blackcap;773262]Interestingly I see they have announced an AGM on the 12th Dec. Surely if the SOA was going to be successful there would be no need for an AGM (one that current shareholders would attend)?[/QUOTE

I see that the wording for the notice of the AGM is that a meeting is expected to be held. Am I reading to much in to that? {conspiracy theory]?

No you're not reading too much into it. I thought exactly the same thing when i read it. Never seen this before, I'm used to the term '... will be held ...."

Addendum...

Under normal circumstances the announcement would set the date, time, venue, and purpose of the meeting. This would then, if need-be, be followed by some tags stating that the meeting date, time, venue, or purpose may change with an explanation as to the reasons why.

To state a meeting is expected to be held means no meeting date has been set.

So, has a meeting been announced or not? The answer has to be No.

[blackcap]

Fully agree but we have got little time before nominations need to be sent in.
I would love to be a director but have never been one and I am sure there are better people able to represent our interests.
Any ideas?

Hi Fish, check your inbox.

[airedale]

I voted NO to the scheme today. A modest number of shares but every little helps.

[digger]

Fully agree but we have got little time before nominations need to be sent in.
I would love to be a director but have never been one and I am sure there are better people able to represent our interests.
Any ideas?

One of the lasting things to come out of this SOA is the shocking behaviour of the independent directors. They have shown that they are not the least independent and are in fact slaves to the wishes of OGOG who call the shots.
What I would like to see is that in a company like NZO where more than 50% of the the shares are held by another company ,then the independent directors need to be elected outside the control of the master holder. I intend to bring this up at the next meeting of NZSA. I find the subserivant attitude displayed by the so called independent directors of NZO served only OGOG and to hell with the minor holders.They recommended that we allow ourselves to be pretty much be robbed.

So if we ever can we sure need these two removed and replaced by independent directors voted in by the 30% not held by OGOG. On the present company structure this will never happen,so any company having 50% or more of their shares held by another company will have slave directors.

[fish]

One of the lasting things to come out of this SOA is the shocking behaviour of the independent directors. They have shown that they are not the least independent and are in fact slaves to the wishes of OGOG who call the shots.
What I would like to see is that in a company like NZO where more than 50% of the the shares are held by another company ,then the independent directors need to be elected outside the control of the master holder. I intend to bring this up at the next meeting of NZSA. I find the subserivant attitude displayed by the so called independent directors of NZO served only OGOG and to hell with the minor holders.They recommended that we allow ourselves to be pretty much be robbed.

So if we ever can we sure need these two removed and replaced by independent directors voted in by the 30% not held by OGOG. On the present company structure this will never happen,so any company having 50% or more of their shares held by another company will have slave directors.
That is the legal position Digger however we have so much against OGOG and the Independent directors that their current position is untenable.
Should it progress to an AGM motions of no confidence in the Independent Directors will be filed.There is a lot more to come both official and some private.
It is possible they could be spending time in court.Every action they do will be closely scrutinised .It is possible there will be political scrutiny soon(others will soon be acting and I plan to see Winston Peters )

[digger]

That is the legal position Digger however we have so much against OGOG and the Independent directors that their current position is untenable.
Should it progress to an AGM motions of no confidence in the Independent Directors will be filed.There is a lot more to come both official and some private.
It is possible they could be spending time in court.Every action they do will be closely scrutinised .It is possible there will be political scrutiny soon(others will soon be acting and I plan to see Winston Peters )

Agree Fish the political side needs to be awaken to what is happening.

Now I think we need to move on getting someone to reppresent us on the board.. Who do we know who is committed be stand as a director. It will not be me as I am too old and it is really not my thing but some of you other activist need to move on it. Mista Tea, Fish or Wirenu what do you think and are you willing to bang your heads against the 70% that will be against you from the start.
As I am one of the larger holders of the 30% group and will not be going forward as a director,I want to push this thing. While defeating the 62 cent SOA is important replacing these two slave directors with independent ones is just as important. Some voters listen to Independent directors and in this present case it is a fact that one large holder in this 30% group did just that and voted in favor of the scheme. A very strong reason to get Independed directors independend.
So lets put up or shut up in the next few days.

Thoughts

[iceman]

A very interesting discussion on this thread from some heavily invested and wise posters. I haven’t read all the recent posts but have you guys sought help from NZSA, particularly with a suggestion of an independent director ? They may have some helpful suggestions

[digger]

A very interesting discussion on this thread from some heavily invested and wise posters. I haven’t read all the recent posts but have you guys sought help from NZSA, particularly with a suggestion of an independent director ? They may have some helpful suggestions

Yes I am a member and will be bringing this up at the next meeting.I spoke at the last meeting so they are sort of expecting me for an update on NZO and the SOA. This will no longer be about the 62 cent SOA as it is dead in the water but a consequence of the way it unfolded. We need to change the independent director as they are what my wife calls HIRE GUNS for OGOG and clearly do not represent us minor holders. Or will only represent us if doing so does not conflict with their primary objective of representing OGOG.

[Leftfield]

A very interesting discussion on this thread from some heavily invested and wise posters. I haven’t read all the recent posts but have you guys sought help from NZSA, particularly with a suggestion of an independent director ? They may have some helpful suggestions

Must say I'm surprised that as a NZSA member we haven't heard more from them on this issue.

Although not a NZO share holder I don't like to see this sort of rort going on. Reminds me of the Macraes Mine saga some while ago. GLH.

[CD_CHCH]

We are more than happy to vote in support of one of the trusted posters on this forum becoming an independent director to look after the interests of the small shareholders should someone decide to put their name forward.

[iceman]

Agree Digger and Left field. Like Lf, I am currently not a NZO holder but have been in the past. I am a NZSA member as I know many members here are. Why don’t we use the NZSA on this case to really see if small SH have any chance of making a difference ?I have never seen a better opportunity to try it and to hopefully make a difference to small holders

[Boffin]

Just returned to Oz from Europe. My NZO paperwork had arrived in my absence. Only a minor thing, but I hope OGOG has paid for it not NZO as it is totally OGOG related. I have always been impressed with this forum. I have been a NZO holder for a loooooong time, way before Pike River etc. It really is a very switched on crowd here. So I think a big Thank you is in order.

[fish]

Agree Fish the political side needs to be awaken to what is happening.

Now I think we need to move on getting someone to reppresent us on the board.. Who do we know who is committed be stand as a director. It will not be me as I am too old and it is really not my thing but some of you other activist need to move on it. Mista Tea, Fish or Wirenu what do you think and are you willing to bang your heads against the 70% that will be against you from the start.
As I am one of the larger holders of the 30% group and will not be going forward as a director,I want to push this thing. While defeating the 62 cent SOA is important replacing these two slave directors with independent ones is just as important. Some voters listen to Independent directors and in this present case it is a fact that one large holder in this 30% group did just that and voted in favor of the scheme. A very strong reason to get Independed directors independend.
So lets put up or shut up in the next few days.

Thoughts

Digger I know you have been enthusiastic years past about Barque.Was it Andrew Jefferies who said it had about a 1 in 3 chance of commercial success-tat was several years ago and offshore drills are now approaching 1 in 2 chance.Also it is very big and would be nz biggest find.One of my concerns is that this is 60km offshore and ideal for one of ogog floating offshore storage platforms with the intention of direct export rather than pipeline to shore.Both of these options are equivalent in cost but ogog would be the main beneficiary of the former to the detriment of the nz economy(estimate of 32 billion could be lost)
This alone could be a strong reason to get politicians involved in this takeover.
However if the takeover was unsuccessful we probably have enough minority power to block direct export-Independent Directors or not.

[etnom]

Agree Fish the political side needs to be awaken to what is happening.

Now I think we need to move on getting someone to reppresent us on the board.. Who do we know who is committed be stand as a director. It will not be me as I am too old and it is really not my thing but some of you other activist need to move on it. Mista Tea, Fish or Wirenu what do you think and are you willing to bang your heads against the 70% that will be against you from the start.
As I am one of the larger holders of the 30% group and will not be going forward as a director,I want to push this thing. While defeating the 62 cent SOA is important replacing these two slave directors with independent ones is just as important. Some voters listen to Independent directors and in this present case it is a fact that one large holder in this 30% group did just that and voted in favor of the scheme. A very strong reason to get Independed directors independend.
So lets put up or shut up in the next few days.

Thoughts

Thank Digger. I agree with your view. You have my support and modest share backing should it be required.

[Leftfield]

Must say I'm surprised that as a NZSA member we haven't heard more from them on this issue.

Away fishing today and returned to an email from NZSA saying (at last) ....

It is the policy of NZSA to support the retention of listed companies on the NZX and it appears to NZSA that

the offer is opportunistic.

We have decided in all the circumstances to vote undirected proxies AGAINST the resolution.

[Lion]

Also it [Barque] is very big and would be nz biggest find.One of my concerns is that this is 60km offshore and ideal for one of ogog floating offshore storage platforms with the intention of direct export rather than pipeline to shore.

fish - as I recall Barque is more of a (potential!) gas field than oil. When you refer to a floating platform, are you referring to oil storage then export? NZOG prepared a business case for piping Barque gas to shore to fuel SI cities and factories and maybe a methanol plant and claimed that would be economic.

Some commentators reckon LNG is the fuel of the future, a bridge between "dirty" fossil fuels like oil and coal, until renewables are fully up and running. That's what Ironbark's gas would mostly go to, I think. I haven't heard anyone talk of an LNG plant (or 'train') for Barque's gas - they are hugely expensive to build, but it's possible it might become economic one day. Isn't Ironbark 50km from shore? Barque is only a little more distance and not much smaller than Ironbark.

Hey well done to you, digger, mistatea and others. I think together we have probably stopped the SoA and maybe given OGOG a bit of a fright.

[digger]

Away fishing today and returned to an email from NZSA saying (at last) ....

It is the policy of NZSA to support the retention of listed companies on the NZX and it appears to NZSA that

the offer is opportunistic.

We have decided in all the circumstances to vote undirected proxies AGAINST the resolution.







Yes I am aware of this. i have been pushing NZSA on this matter. Will find out more at next coming meeting,especially how can we go about getting true independent directors voted in from minor holdings only.

[mistaTea]

Hey well done to you, digger, mistatea and others. I think together we have probably stopped the SoA and maybe given OGOG a bit of a fright.

Thanks mate, we are very pleased with the result.

In turn we would like to thank all of our fellow Sharetraders. Everyone who voted (no matter how big or small their shareholding was) made a big difference.

Outside of the large 5 holders who post on Sharetrader (fish, digger, Wiremu, me plus one other who does not use Sharetrader) I counted about 2 million shares from those of you who were happy to share. There were actually more votes than that, but some preferred to keep their shareholding private, which is fair enough.

In other words, just to cancel out your shares...OGOG would have needed to get 6 million FOR votes. I will be surprised if they managed to get anywhere near 6 million FOR votes in total.

[fish]

fish - as I recall Barque is more of a (potential!) gas field than oil. When you refer to a floating platform, are you referring to oil storage then export? NZOG prepared a business case for piping Barque gas to shore to fuel SI cities and factories and maybe a methanol plant and claimed that would be economic.

Some commentators reckon LNG is the fuel of the future, a bridge between "dirty" fossil fuels like oil and coal, until renewables are fully up and running. That's what Ironbark's gas would mostly go to, I think. I haven't heard anyone talk of an LNG plant (or 'train') for Barque's gas - they are hugely expensive to build, but it's possible it might become economic one day. Isn't Ironbark 50km from shore? Barque is only a little more distance and not much smaller than Ironbark.

Hey well done to you, digger, mistatea and others. I think together we have probably stopped the SoA and maybe given OGOG a bit of a fright.

Good Morning Lion

The mastermind Billionaire behind OGOG is Eyal Ofer.Look up his activities on Wikipaedia.Also read about Barque in the Oil and Gas journals.
Greenpeace have played right into his hands.
LNG is the transition fuel as we move from dirty oil and coal to much cleaner.
gas.
If Barque is successful(it is considered a highly regarded prospect) we will see a floating processing and storage platform under OGOG plans and they need 100% control to do this.These FLNG have to be massive.One put recently into an Australian 3 tcf gas field in is 488m long by 74 m and producing 111000 BOE equivalent a day.
In simple terms of this takeover one days production would pay for it.
OGOG have been lucky so far to get control of nzo and cue for a pittance.
Now we know how they play it might get tougher.

[mistaTea]

Very interesting thoughts fish, and if you are right then this was an attempt at one of the biggest heists on New Zealanders.

Fortunately, because they can’t get rid of us minority shareholders that easily, this will never eventuate even if it was their plan.

One thing is pretty clear to me - the Canterbury basin will get drilled if OGOG wants it to. Even if they have to inject money themselves by purchasing a large piece of the equity directly.

They have a great relationship with BP and Beach - I am sure at least one of them could be convinced (if they haven’t already been).

And it would be a lot easier of course if they owned 100% of NZOG privately. No need for the rigmarole of shareholder votes etc to get the farm in partners signed off etc.

They certainly don’t think Clipper is worth $0!

[Lion]

fish, thanks for that info. I didn't know there was such a thing as a floating LNG train.

[fish]

fish, thanks for that info. I didn't know there was such a thing as a floating LNG train.

Almost unbelievable
Seeing is believing
Have a look at the LNG tankers berthing alongside the FLNG platform-shells PRELUDE on youtube

[mistaTea]

https://www.nbr.co.nz/story/takeovers-panel-receives-complaint-about-nzog-takeover

Article in the NBR that talks about a complaint the Takeovers panel is currently investigating regarding the derived (contrived?) 5% probability of commercial success statement...

[Wiremu]

The following 5 April 2018 article from the Tradewinds shipping news makes interesting reading, especially alongside the farm-ins OGOG has done with Beach Petroleum:

Eyal Ofer secures upstream entry into LNG with New Zealand Oil & Gas deal
by Andy Pierce
Eyal Ofer has pushed his involvement in the offshore sector into new territory after taking control of New Zealand Oil & Gas.
OG Oil & Gas, which is part of Ofer Global, is now the majority shareholder in the company that controls two of the world’s 10 largest gas prospect fields.
The tycoon has been involved in drilling and, via Omni Offshore Terminals, has a presence in the floating production, storage and offloading space.
However, the purchase of a near 70% stake in New Zealand Oil & Gas marks the first time that the family has had control of the hydrocarbon molecules, rather than drilling for, or transporting, them.
His investment in New Zealand Oil & Gas is believed to be backed by pure equity, with no debt taken on to fund the purchase.
The company will retain its stock listing as one of the few public vehicles, alongside Royal Caribbean, in a largely private group.
The deal is a classical counter-cyclical move from the same playbook as the family’s takeover of the Associated Bulk Carriers' capesize fleet in 2001.
Ofer, the chairman of Ofer Global, is understood to be a firm believer in natural gas as a fuel for the future, with the investment in New Zealand viewed as a logical expansion of his existing business.
His presence in shipping, via Zodiac Maritime, spans the tanker, dry cargo, container, car carrier and LPG sectors. Investment in LNG tonnage would now appear a logical step at some point in the future following the company's debut upstream in the LNG industry.
Ofer first expressed an interest in New Zealand Oil & Gas in September last year. In an initial proposal, OG Oil & Gas chief executive Alastair McGregor said it was the right time in the exploration and development cycle for such an investment.
Embedded value
McGregor, who has joined the board of New Zealand Oil & Gas, also cited the group’s existing business in New Zealand with the Maari FPSO, and noted substantial value embedded in the energy company.
In a statement in January, Ofer said: “I am personally very excited about the prospect of having New Zealand Oil & Gas join the Ofer Global family. By working together, we are confident that we will create value for shareholders, the country and the region.”
New Zealand Oil & Gas holds permits in the Canterbury Basin and Great South Basin, with a key asset — the Barque prospect — off the region of Canterbury in the South Island.
Studies suggest it could double New Zealand’s oil and gas production, with NZD 32bn ($23bn) in royalties and taxes being generated over the life of the Barque field.

[Fabs37]

In a statement in January, Ofer said: “I am personally very excited about the prospect of having New Zealand Oil & Gas join the Ofer Global family. By working together, we are confident that we will create value for shareholders, the country and the region.”

Second biggest Billionaire in the whole of ISRAEL has some very noble intentions.

So whats the problem, trust him he knows what he is doing

[fish]

In a statement in January, Ofer said: “I am personally very excited about the prospect of having New Zealand Oil & Gas join the Ofer Global family. By working together, we are confident that we will create value for shareholders, the country and the region.”

Second biggest Billionaire in the whole of ISRAEL has some very noble intentions.

So whats the problem, trust him he knows what he is doing

Family comes first.
I am sure he knows what he is doing and he no longer wants pesky NZO shareholder getting in the way of even greater wealth

[Sideshow Bob]

Oh, they have all of a sudden upped their price.....!!

https://www.nzx.com/announcements/342253

[trader_jackson]

Oh, they have all of a sudden upped their price.....!!

https://www.nzx.com/announcements/342253

Well done NZ Oil and Gas holders for making a noise about this (I saw an article on NBR last night that made me think wow) - it has clearly been heard, and they have upped their price accordingly.

This will now almost certainly go through.

[yabster]

Horse has bolted or is that volted- 12 cents will make no difference- Pagani and the board should resign

[CD_CHCH]

While the increased offer is slightly more palatable than the original offer given the potential upsides of drilling Ironbark we would prefer to remain shareholders in NZO and as such will continue to vote against the scheme.

Our thoughts are the rewards to shareholders from a successful drilling of Ironbark far outweigh 74 cents per share.

It should also be remembered that OGOG aren't offering more out of the goodness of their heart - they obviously see huge value in NZO and its assets.

I have no idea what the final share value would be following a successful drilling programme but wouldn't be surprised if it resulted in a share price north of $5 per share, which makes 74 cents still seem a ridiculous offer. 74 cents also doesn't factor in a premium for gaining full control of NZO.

Of course each share holder must do what they consider right for their own situation.

[Sideshow Bob]

Horse has bolted or is that volted- 12 cents will make no difference

I think those who have voted will be unlikely to change their mind. Still below what they offered close to 2 years ago, and think they got the back up of many shareholders. A lot want to see Ironbark drilled and take their chance.

Still hope it doesn't go through and not changing my mind.

Just annoyed as going to buy more last week but because my inertia...….;)

[yabster]

Well done NZ Oil and Gas holders for making a noise about this (I saw an article on NBR last night that made me think wow) - it has clearly been heard, and they have upped their price accordingly.

This will now almost certainly go through.

why do you think that?

[mistaTea]

Still a very strong NO from me.

74c per share represents a market cap of $122M.

When you consider that Kupe has been given a low end value of $24M, and 50% of Cue's current market cap is $40M....

That means they are still hoping to buy NZOG's $78M cash for $58M.

$20M or so will be spent drilling Ironbark...so if they can get the rest of the company for 74c/share it will mean they are effectively getting a free shot at Ironbark.

What kind of a loon would go for that deal?

And just because this low ball offer is some percentage above the previous low ball offer is meaningless.

[blackcap]

Yeah still a big NO from me too. They can go and get screwed as far as I am concerned. That is what happens when you make a low ball offer and get the independents to say its all ok. Puts the heckles up. That is the emotional reaction. But Mista Tea has put the rational case forward and that is why I will be voting NO. Well my existing NO will remain NO.

[mistaTea]

I was thinking earlier, about how funny it would be if we tried to apply the Northignton valuation model to everyday assets we might sell. Given they have attempted a sum of the parts calculation, but then completely confused themselves by trying to deduct OPEX and CAPEX.

Imagine you owned a motorbike that you wanted to sell to me. Now let's say we both agreed that you could objectively value the motorbike at $10,000.

"Do we have a deal, at $10K then?" you ask.

"Welllllllll," I say in a strained voice, shrugging my shoulders slightly and cocking my head to the left. "Of course, I'll have to put petrol in the stuffing thing. Then there is WOF, rego...Hell even insurance to pay for! I'm afraid we will have to make a few deductions - but do not worry mate! I will only extrapolate the costs out 8 years into the future! I will give you $7K for your $10K bike, deal?"

[Ripping]

The SOA offer price has been increased today to 74c a share (from 62c). Obviously OGOG want this, even at a 12c premium to their original offer. This gives me even more reason to stay firm with my 'NO' vote against the SOA. And weirdly, the original NZO thread disappeared from this forum.

[Sideshow Bob]

The SOA offer price has been increased today to 74c a share (from 62c). Obviously OGOG want this, even at a 12c premium to their original offer. This gives me even more reason to stay firm with my 'NO' vote against the SOA. And weirdly, the original NZO thread disappeared from this forum.

Very weird it has disappeared, but think I can guess why...….

[Lion]

Quote from Ripping "And weirdly, the original NZO thread disappeared from this forum."


Yeah, strange. Conspiracy?? Probably not. (P.S. well why do you think that, SS Bob?)


I'm not changing my vote from a big fat NO either, and I'd be surprised if many will. Certainly not the bigger holders who post here.


If this really is the Co's final offer, then I'm pleased - it means I can keep my NZOG shares for the Ironbark drill.
But then, we have seen how OGOG can change their minds about things - like keeping NZOG listed.


All's fair in love and war, the saying goes, and I suppose for business too.

[RTM]

Very weird it has disappeared, but think I can guess why...….

Wow...just back from town and a new thread. Lot of history / discussion lost. Need it back.
What’s going on . What have I missed ?

[Ripping]

. What have I missed ?

Hmmm.. depends on how long you've been gone ...

[Lion]

RTM there's a new offer of 74c, you may know by now. And the NZO thread went down just recently, a few minutes ago, no reason given yet.

[RTM]

Yes...thanks ...saw the new offer before I went to town. Not going to make a material difference to my decision.
More concerned about what losing the thread means. Lot of history there for old & new.
Censorship comes to mind ?

[CD_CHCH]

Our NO vote has also remained unchanged.

For all the reasons people have previously outlined 74 cents just doesn't cut it.

Hopefully the old thread will be put back online as it does contain a lot of useful information and analysis from various members.

[ordop]

Hey ripping - 10 posts, joined April 2000, helmet avatar - spent a lot of time in the wairarapa? - i may know you. Will the old thread be available for viewing only since it was 1090 pages long - do you know?

[Lion]

I had first thought of a technical reason why the thread went down (because I'm more of a techie person than a conspiracy theorist) but now I suspect there was a threat of legal action against the site for something someone posted.

As I recall, there was nothing libellous or illegal said before it went down, but I wasn't watching all the time.

OK, out with it - who said something naughty?

P.S. interesting that the SP has only been 70 or 71c all morning. No-one's interested in making 3 or 4 cents on a quick trade? Or, what else could it mean, anyone? I think it doesn't show much confidence in the new offer, at least.

And where are our star posters since the thread went down? misterTea - fish? Banned, perhaps? Ooh, I think I like a good conspiracy, after all.

[Sideshow Bob]

I see NZO is up this morning, and trades going through at 70-71c. Still a few cents short of the revised offer.

[tim23]

Probably not a bad place to park some cash if you believe offer will succeed...

[freddagg]

My vote stays no

[airedale]

Very strange and unusual to see the old thread disappear after the revised offer has been announced. Normally this would have seen our principal posters have a lot of meaningful comments and analysis.

[Ripping]

Hey ripping- spent a lot of time in the wairarapa? - i may know you. Will the old thread be available for viewing only since it was 1090 pages long - do you know?
Unlikely you know me, spent very little time in the Wairarapa - I did think my post count was in the mid thirties (! wooo !) - in fact I guarantee it. Because of this, I think the entire previous thread has been deleted, along with the posts associated with it - dropping me back to single figures at the time this thread started.
My guess is, that along with the new SOA offer, OGOG sent a 'please remove thread' mail to sharetrader, as some of the posts could 'perhaps' be considered defamatory to certain individuals, and legal action may follow if not removed. This of course ties in well with the new SOA offer as statements and posts that are negative to OGOG's preferred outcome (and lets face it, the vast majority were) would be removed.

edit: A quick forum search shows that the 'big players' in the thread are either still active or have not been deleted.

[Vince]

NZO thread is 'parked' for a short period.

No conspiracy theory or censorship, - just a short toxic cleanse.

Vince

[RTM]

NZO thread is 'parked' for a short period.

No conspiracy theory or censorship, - just a short toxic cleanse.

Vince

Thank you. Appreciate the update.

[digger]

So are will still allowed to say anything against NZO.

If so here is my take of the increased offer. Firstly I knew this was going to happen. Make a pitiful move then increase it to look good. Still miles too low. The one good thing about it is if going by what they say its supposed to be the last offer. That would be great if you can believe anything these people say. So defeat this one and we get to hold for the Ironbank drill. Naturally if this small increase also fails they can come back with an old fashion takeover and accumulate that way. Eventually then using the takeover rules to acquire the last 10%. Doing so would not be against no further offer increases as that in fact legally speaking refers to SOA not normal takeover.

My only reqret with the last 62 cent offer was calling it lowball. It was too anaemic to qualify for lowball. This 74 cent one is half way between anaemic and lowball.

[blockhead]

Turned out I wasn't so clever selling @ 62 then

[Bart]

Indeed weird.
1) lets wait and see why this 'toxic cleanse'
2) upping the offer shows they were (and still are) trying to rip us off. If 62 was a fair price for this worthless company, why now offer more? Which fair and 'independent' director got it so wrong? Makes me more determined to reject this offer too.
3) still no word from the major contributors to the original thread? Would like to see a sign of life. Taken in a coup?

[RTM]

Indeed weird.
1) lets wait and see why this 'toxic cleanse'


Not sure you will see it now Bart. It will have been sanitized.

[Vaygor1]

Unlikely you know me, spent very little time in the Wairarapa - I did think my post count was in the mid thirties (! wooo !) - in fact I guarantee it. Because of this, I think the entire previous thread has been deleted....

You are correct Ripping.

My post count has gone from an easy-to remember-899 now down to 869.... + 1 for this post = 870 (at the time of sending this).

If you look under 'Community' up the top and then choose Members List from the drop down menu you will see:
1) Fish is gone.
2) JohnPagani's post count is 0.

Purely due to random timing on ShareTrader this morning, I saw some NZO posts and am aware of what happened to trigger the parking of the historic NZO thread, but won't be posting or PM'ing anyone on ST about it.. suffice to say the reasons for it happening (in my view, and especially given I don't have all the facts) are somewhat understandable and for the benefit of all contributors (including myself) am happy to leave things be.

Regarding those in control of this forum, I appreciate this new NZO thread has been allowed to commence up until if/when the old one is back, presumably upon the final outcome of the SoA and anything that may follow it if the increased OGOG offer is also rejected.

Regarding the increased offer, my vote will remain a NO, but I will double-check with the registry that no action on my part means my No vote remains.

[RTM]

Regarding the increased offer, my vote will remain a NO, but I will double-check with the registry that no action on my part means my No vote remains.

Would be good if you could confirm this when you know Vaygor.
Thanks, RTM.

[Ripping]

Regarding the increased offer, my vote will remain a NO, but I will double-check with the registry that no action on my part means my No vote remains.

The 'Scheme Booklet Supplement' that was released today following the announcement of the raised offer, states:

"If you have already cast a vote or appointed a proxy and do not want to change it, then there is no need to do anything - your vote is still valid and will count."

And another quote from said booklet:

"Your Independent Directors unanimously recommend that you vote in favour of the Scheme, in the absence of a Superior Proposal."

riiighhhtt ..... Didn't they say that last time ? I will check my 'no' vote remains by going to computershare again...

[RTM]

The 'Scheme Booklet Supplement' that was released today following the announcement of the raised offer, states:

"If you have already cast a vote or appointed a proxy and do not want to change it, then there is no need to do anything - your vote is still valid and will count."

And another quote from said booklet:

"Your Independent Directors unanimously recommend that you vote in favour of the Scheme, in the absence of a Superior Proposal."

riiighhhtt ..... Didn't they say that last time ? I will check my 'no' vote remains by going to computershare again...

Thanks. RTM

[digger]

The 'Scheme Booklet Supplement' that was released today following the announcement of the raised offer, states:

"If you have already cast a vote or appointed a proxy and do not want to change it, then there is no need to do anything - your vote is still valid and will count."

And another quote from said booklet:

"Your Independent Directors unanimously recommend that you vote in favour of the Scheme, in the absence of a Superior Proposal."

riiighhhtt ..... Didn't they say that last time ? I will check my 'no' vote remains by going to computershare again...

Are these the same independent directors that tried to sell us all out at 62 cents? I would have thought that they would be ***** by now for all the misleading info they put out and voting interference.

Very good point Vaygorl1 to independently check that a no is a no and dosen't slip around to being not counted or worst counted in favor.

[Vince]

Folks,

New and old threads merged now.

Please refrain from personal attacks on people, - broadly speaking this means everyone. Nothing wrong with a good heated robust debate but bear in mind the terms and conditions of this site.

Thank you,
Vince

[mistaTea]

I am still here. Very sad that fish’s profile has been disabled - I hope Sharetrader will let him back on as he has valuable insights.

Our NO votes will still be valid, but feel free to check on Computershare.

I won’t repeat all of the details here - but I did feel bad earlier because I felt indirectly responsible for the thread coming down.

I was aghast at a post my employee John Pagani made in response to fish. I was so shocked about it that I shared the post with another one of my employees - Andrew Jeffries.

I asked Andrew if he was happy with his workers representing my company in that manner etc. It was such a toxic personal attack out of nowhere really.

Within half an hour all of the offending posts and replies etc were removed and then the whole thread was disabled! So clearly someone kicked up a big enough stink to have Sharetrader intervene - we can speculate until the cows come home how it all went down.

Anyway, glad it is back up and running now so we can continue to discuss the latest low ball offer.

[Carpenterjoe]

Are these the same independent directors that tried to sell us all out at 62 cents? I would have thought that they would ****by now for all the misleading info they put out and voting interference.

Very good point Vaygorl1 to independently check that a no is a no and dosen't slip around to being not counted or worst counted in favor.

yip, I do not get it.

Independent Directors recommend 62 cents. Then change their mind to 74 cents. It might be best to start all over again next year.

Is there a change of date for finial voting submissions?

Seems, I will be awaiting the new information by snail mail so i can vote this down, This new postal submission allows for more people to vote it down. I hope the active members of nzog ST not be punished for expressing their personal views of acting board members.

I find it disgusting that an employee of NZOG can threaten legal proceedings on any shareholder or potential shareholder in an open online forum during a voting situation, disgusting. I suspect the nzx should put a halt to the take over proceedings asap.

Thank you Vince, for staying on top of it. I do hope you are fairly reimbursed for your efforts.

[digger]

I am still here. Very sad that fish’s profile has been disabled - I hope Sharetrader will let him back on as he has valuable insights.

Our NO votes will still be valid, but feel free to check on Computershare.

I won’t repeat all of the details here - but I did feel bad earlier because I felt indirectly responsible for the thread coming down.

I was aghast at a post my employee John Pagani made in response to fish. I was so shocked about it that I shared the post with another one of my employees - Andrew Jeffries.

I asked Andrew if he was happy with his workers representing my company in that manner etc. It was such a toxic personal attack out of nowhere really.

Within half an hour all of the offending posts and replies etc were removed and then the whole thread was disabled! So clearly someone kicked up a big enough stink to have Sharetrader intervene - we can speculate until the cows come home how it all went down.

Anyway, glad it is back up and running now so we can continue to discuss the latest low ball offer.

Did anyone by chance make a hard copy of fish's posts. He had several lately that were very telling and I was going to get back to them for a slower read and think,but now they are gone.

[Ripping]

I logged on to computershare late this evening to check my vote remained 'no' - and it had.
It clearly states that if you do not want to change your previously registered vote you need not do anything. Always good to be sure though eh?

[mistaTea]

If OGOG were smart (and not so damn greedy) their first offer would have been 74c (effectively what shareholders were paid last time when they bought 70%: 78c minus the 4c dividend that was declared.

We would have rejected that offer as low ball, but we would not have been nearly as outraged. At least their offer was on the same terms as the earlier one, we would have thought. But why would we sell 2 years later at the same price when Ironbark agreements are now signed and we are getting ready for one of the big drills of the century? Or so the thinking would have gone.

Then they could have come back with a higher offer - 85c. That number would essentially be a fair offer for existing assets, nothing for a Ironbark really but it would give shareholders who may be having second thoughts about drilling risk etc an option to bail at a fair price for the existing business. And it would have likely gotten through at that price.

All up, it would have cost them US$25M (their current offer is US$$22.6).

And because of their inherent stinking attitude, this latest offer is doomed to fail too. Damned foolish, the whole thing.

[mistaTea]

I can also now give a bit more detail about the meeting I had with the OGOG CEO (given this is now their full and final offer).

After giving it to him straight about how outrageous 62c was, and outlining all the reasons why his offer was going to fail miserably...

I eventually named a price that the large shareholders and I would accept reluctantly at a minimum. I pointed out that the 5 of us hold approx 16% of the minority shares, and without our support any future offers are unlikely to succeed. He accepted the truth in that.

We fundamentally do not want to sell, but we figured if it was going to be forced on us we had better front foot it to get a a reasonable price. Rather than have OGOG keep coming back with incrementally higher offers, wearing the minority base down over time into accepting a low offer.

Anyway, I won’t declare what that price is here as the others I am working closely with will want to keep as many cards up our sleeves as possible while our thinking evolves.

Suffice it to say, it was considerably more than 74c.

Anyway, as I was finishing my coffee I said, and I quote...”Alistair, mate if you are going to come back with a higher offer make sure it is not 1 cent below our asking price because that will just piss us off”.

He nodded, said very little and it would now appear that he thought I was joking.

I most definitely was not.

[Bart]

Thanks to all serious traders keeping people with small holdings like me informed. I can only guess what is going on, and I am disappointed that historic explanations from Fish have been removed. I am still puzzled how a truly independent director can say that 62 cents is a fair offer, and then only weeks later say that 74 cents is now a fair (and final) offer. I do expect such behavior from second hand car salesmen. An effort is made to relate this increased offer to the rise of Cue ("a relatively small, illiquid stock"), but then again the increase of Cue adds only something like 5 cents to the NZO share, so they are very generous. The new booklet also states "The chance of commercial success (of Ironbark) has beenindependently assessed to be highly unlikely" - what fools BP and our directors must have been to invest in that!!

[Joshuatree]

Well said Bart.A win for the little guys atpit:t_up: . fantastic sharing on here by many, Sharetrader at its best thread. Im very aware of the risks drilling Ironbark,its a gamble when exploring, drilling thats the exciting fun part using a small allocation im prepared lose on.

[airedale]

The new booklet also states "The chance of commercial success (of Ironbark) has been independently assessed to be highly unlikely" - what fools BP and our directors must have been to invest in that!!unquote
That very perceptive and ironic remark by Bart really sums up the inept behaviour of the independent directors.

[Sideshow Bob]

If it was a fair offer at 62c, I'm surprised 74c isn't described as "utterly brilliant".

[mistaTea]

Yes it still beggars belief that they are continuing with the version of the story that describes Ironbark to be highly unlikely to succeed. 95% certain to fail according to our Board representitives.

A much different story to the one Andrew Jeffries was giving very recently.

It was another talking point I put to Alistair. "Nobody believes Ironbark has a 5% chance of being commercially successful Alistair. Nobody. BP certainly didn't purchase 42.5% of the equity on those odds. And, if it were true, why the hell would NZOG go and purchase an additional 15% when we already had exposure through Cue?"

From memory he just blinked at me. He certainly didn't say much.

It is entirely possible that Ironbark (or any other prospect for that matter) turns out to be unsuccessful. But let's not kid ourselves - the odds for this particular permit are much higher than that.

Fish (who has been granted access to Sharetrader again) has a friend who used to work in the industry and reckons BP wouldn't take this on unless the odds were 1 in 2. Even if the odds aren't quite that high, it certainly highlights to me that BP would definitely not be interested in 5%.

[Vaygor1]

I logged on to computershare late this evening to check my vote remained 'no' - and it had.
It clearly states that if you do not want to change your previously registered vote you need not do anything. Always good to be sure though eh?

Cheers Ripping.

I too just visited ComputerShare and went through the process again myself, just to make 200% sure I've voted AGAINST the offer.

[Independent Observer AUNZ]

John Pagani

Why is a controversial political figure filling the External Relations role of a listed company?

This whole charade just leaves me with more questions than answers about the governance of this company. I expect NZX to also take a very close look at the recent trading activities for anomolies. Bizarre to say the least.

[tim23]

Voted against today too.

[Beagle]

As a former shareholder who endured many years of NZO's "expert" governance and management before I will opine on this one.

I've never heard of the chances of drilling success being anything remotely like 1 in 2 or for that matter being 200% confident of anything but this thread is absolutly fabulous entertainment, that's for sure !

What happens when you vote this SOA down and then Ironbark drilling is a failure, (which simple logic will tell you is highly likely). Back to well under 50 cents, perhaps only 35-40 cents taking into account the substantial cost of drilling said project and then all you good folks have the lasting pleasure of enjoying NZO's "expert" management and governance for many years to come.

A wise old dog once said to me, be careful what you wish for...

This miserable failure of a company that's squandered hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue from Kupe deserves to be eradicated from the NZX once and for all.

[Snow Leopard]

Someone got out of the wrong side of the dog basket this morning!

[Beagle]

Not at all Snowy...happy as...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93YzbDlLRNY

[arjay]

What happens when you vote this SOA down and then Ironbark drilling is a failure, (which simple logic will tell you is highly likely).

This is the difference between oilers and more conservative investors. Seem to remember Tui being considered a 1:20 shot, and gas at that. Those of us who have owned since those days have done ok imo. Better return than the bank anyhow. Happy to take a shot at Ironbark.

[Beagle]

Done okay since those days ? Wow, you're easily pleased. Shares were $1.40 in 1986. If they'd simply kept up with inflation, (no net gain in 33 years and many of those without a dividend) they'd be $3.61 now. The truth is Radford and co and everyone since then has eaten your lunch for you.

[digger]

Beagle you make a valid point,but if you feel that way put your money in the bank and be at ease. I have only one life and I like the thrill and drill. The thrill and drill will be hugh with Ironbank at 5 times the size of maui,then Clipper at 4 times the size. So in short this all comes down to the size of your ba-ls.
So for you sell and move on.We oil investers are well aware of the risks you outline,but you have only told half the story---the risk. Now back to the rhrill and the possible reward.

[mistaTea]

As a former shareholder who endured many years of NZO's "expert" governance and management before I will opine on this one.

I've never heard of the chances of drilling success being anything remotely like 1 in 2 or for that matter being 200% confident of anything but this thread is absolutly fabulous entertainment, that's for sure !

What happens when you vote this SOA down and then Ironbark drilling is a failure, (which simple logic will tell you is highly likely). Back to well under 50 cents, perhaps only 35-40 cents taking into account the substantial cost of drilling said project and then all you good folks have the lasting pleasure of enjoying NZO's "expert" management and governance for many years to come.



You're dead right that the SP will crash down to below 50c if Ironbark is unsuccessful. That possibility is not lost on the investors I have held discussions with - we certainly don't view Ironbark as a 'sure thing'. To my knowledge nobody has gone out and purchased a new Lambhorgini yet in anticiption of a windfall.

With regards to the 1 in 2 odds...this is a figure that an associate of fish (who was in the industry) opined. As I have said in past posts, I have absolutely no way to verify whether or not BP actually anticipate such favourable odds. However, that nugget of information does highlight/reinforce in my mind that, whatever BP actually think the odds of success are...those odds are a hell of a lot higher than 5%.

There are not many Ironbark-type opportunities in ones lifetime. I intend to see this one through, come what may.

And, just because there is risk involved with drilling - it doesn't mean I need to drop my pants for OGOG and take a price below current asset backing. If I was getting cold feet about being involved with an Oil & Gas Exploration company I would have sold to OGOG @78c two years ago, and drumped the ones that didn't sell (due to scaling) on market soon after.

But I didn't. And in 12 months we will find out if that decision was tremendously smart - or trmendously stupid.

[Bart]

If I have $100 and want to go to Sky City to gamble with it, that is my right. They want to stop me at the door, point out that there is a less than even chance on a good return, and therefor that $100 is only worth $40 (and even worse if I intend to come back a number of years with $100), so they offer me a friendly $30 for that 100 dollar bill - and now are even more generous and offer to take it of my hand for $40, to spare me the disappointment when I lose it all. But they ignore the thrill of perhaps hitting the jackpot! I want my 12 months worth of excitement, and am willing to take the risk. Not to mention the fact that statistically the value should probably be more in the vicinity of $80, so they (still) are telling porkies.

[arjay]

Done okay since those days ? Wow, you're easily pleased. Shares were $1.40 in 1986. If they'd simply kept up with inflation, (no net gain in 33 years and many of those without a dividend) they'd be $3.61 now. The truth is Radford and co and everyone since then has eaten your lunch for you.

Might wanna re-check those numbers Beagle. I was accumulating in 1986 and recall they were sub 50c at the time. They discovered Kupe that year so was probably a small spike, but NZO never went north of a dollar until Tui.

[Vaygor1]

I am interested in other contributor's view on this matter.

From what I can gather (please correct me if I'm wrong) the board, and by extension OGOG, seem to be privy to the votes for, against, and abstained prior to the SoA voting closing date.

Based on this:
They can keep an eye on it.
Not raise their offer if it's looking like being accepted.
Take the moral high ground of generously increasing their offer before the closing time.
Use the information to help determine how much to increase the offer by, just enough to get it over the line.
Enabling OGOG not to suffer the loss of money and time (for making such a ridiculous offer) by conveniently raising the offer prior to the closing date and then extending the closing date.
Probably another dozen or so benefits in addition to the above.

If I'm right, I can't think of any other voting system that allows this.
If OGOG can in any way be made privy to this running-total information , then so should all shareholders. All shares rank equally don't they?

In my view, the running total needs to openly accessable to all shareholders or, like a normal voting or tender process, remain under lock and key until after closing... and I lean very heavily on the latter of these.

Thoughts or clarifications anyone?

[Beagle]

Chart I have on MSN Money only goes back to 30 June 1986 when they were 79 cents. May have been lower earlier that year as you suggest.
My point is this has not been a successful company over the long run and from memory they didn't pay a dividend until Tui started flowing in circa 2007 and even then it was a very modest portion of net profit. No dividends for about 20 years. Then there was all the money they threw down other rat holes.

[Joshuatree]

Beagle you make a valid point,but if you feel that way put your money in the bank and be at ease. I have only one life and I like the thrill and drill. The thrill and drill will be hugh with Ironbank at 5 times the size of maui,then Clipper at 4 times the size. So in short this all comes down to the size of your ba-ls.
So for you sell and move on.We oil investers are well aware of the risks you outline,but you have only told half the story---the risk. Now back to the rhrill and the possible reward.

Yeah, beagle get some fun in your life! The odds are against us with barque but hey that doesn't stop me buying a lotto ticket 3 times a year, taking that tight gap at the roundabout, or taking a punt on an unknown downtempo cd on trademe! Reminds me of Iggy Pops song"No Fun"!:D

[Beagle]

Beagle you make a valid point,but if you feel that way put your money in the bank and be at ease. I have only one life and I like the thrill and drill. The thrill and drill will be hugh with Ironbank at 5 times the size of maui,then Clipper at 4 times the size. So in short this all comes down to the size of your ba-ls.
So for you sell and move on.We oil investers are well aware of the risks you outline,but you have only told half the story---the risk. Now back to the rhrill and the possible reward.

LOL, you're a gambler, I'm an investor. I bet on things that are highly likely to give me a reward...each to their own :)

[blackcap]

LOL, you're a gambler, I'm an investor. I bet on things that are highly likely to give me a reward...each to their own :)

I think it is more nuanced than that. I too hold a small amount of NZO. I consider myself an investor. There is a 90% chance that the SP will go from 60 cents to 40 cents if Ironbark is not successful. There is a 10% chance that the SP will go to $5.00 if Ironbark is successful.

My tradeoff is a 90% chance to lose 33% versus a 10% chance to make 833%. Simple probability tree and expected outcomes show that being in for the drill is the better investment.

.9 * -33% + .1 * 833% = +53.6.

The expectation of the project is very much in the positive. (the 90% and 10% figures are just made up but that is sort of what I feel chance of success might could be and useful for illustration purposes)

[Beagle]

Yes, things can go very well. The old associate company Mineral Resources was a 10 bagger for me back in the day.

[airedale]

Yes, things can go very well. The old associate company Mineral Resources was a 10 bagger for me back in the day.

Hi Beagle, if you were in Mineral Resources back in the Tony Radford days you enjoyed a punt like the the rest of us.;)

[Beagle]

Hi Beagle, if you were in Mineral Resources back in the Tony Radford days you enjoyed a punt like the the rest of us.;)

Yes I certainly did well extremely well from Mineral resources and made a bit from United resources too. NZO much less of a happy hunting ground.
Remember how they circled the wagon's with those three companies and had cross shareholders in each other to block a takeover ?
Tony Radford was as cunning as a hungry weasel.

Don't really feel the need to punt these days. I guess older dogs like more predictable things :)

[arjay]

Chart I have on MSN Money only goes back to 30 June 1986 when they were 79 cents. May have been lower earlier that year as you suggest.
My point is this has not been a successful company over the long run and from memory they didn't pay a dividend until Tui started flowing in circa 2007 and even then it was a very modest portion of net profit. No dividends for about 20 years. Then there was all the money they threw down other rat holes.

Fair comments- mind you, any investment choice can be countered in hindsight with examples of better gains made elsewhere. There are plenty of investors coming out of the 1988 crash who would have more money now if they’d invested in NZO at the time instead of other choices they made. BTW, NZO we’re giving divies before Tui - when they had a chunk of the Ngatoro field.

[airedale]

I am interested in other contributor's view on this matter.

From what I can gather (please correct me if I'm wrong) the board, and by extension OGOG, seem to be privy to the votes for, against, and abstained prior to the SoA voting closing date.

Based on this:
They can keep an eye on it.
Not raise their offer if it's looking like being accepted.
Take the moral high ground of generously increasing their offer before the closing time.
Use the information to help determine how much to increase the offer by, just enough to get it over the line.
Enabling OGOG not to suffer the loss of money and time (for making such a ridiculous offer) by conveniently raising the offer prior to the closing date and then extending the closing date.
Probably another dozen or so benefits in addition to the above.

If I'm right, I can't think of any other voting system that allows this.
If OGOG can in any way be made privy to this running-total information , then so should all shareholders. All shares rank equally don't they?

In my view, the running total needs to openly accessable to all shareholders or, like a normal voting or tender process, remain under lock and key until after closing... and I lean very heavily on the latter of these.

Thoughts or clarifications anyone?
Good question Vaygor, Is Computershare really independent or does NZO know more than the rest of the market?

[Sideshow Bob]

Good question Vaygor, Is Computershare really independent or does NZO know more than the rest of the market?

Well they have obviously kept a eye of this forum so would have picked up the mood of many holders. There also have been some quite confident exertions that it had failed based on the shareholding blocks posters know about voting against. This combined with some communication with some of the bigger holders would probably given them an answer regardless.

But I'm a natural cynic in these sort of things - a la, 62c was fair, but then they suddenly increase to 74c......why???

Personally I think they've shown contempt for minority shareholders, and from this, have got some solid pushback on there offer.

[freddagg]

I see that close to a million share have traded at around 72c since the offer was increased to 74c.
Since most of the buyers are likely to be trying to arbitrage the difference then I assume most of these shares are going to be voted in favour of the SOA

[blackcap]

I see that close to a million share have traded at around 72c since the offer was increased to 74c.
Since most of the buyers are likely to be trying to arbitrage the difference then I assume most of these shares are going to be voted in favour of the SOA

You would be correct with that assertion. I guess one of us needs to do a tally of how many shares trade between now and the voting date. Be careful though, some of the shares sold may be ones that have already voted Yes anyway or were going to vote Yes. So not necessarily a net win for the SOA.

[airedale]

I see that close to a million share have traded at around 72c since the offer was increased to 74c.
Since most of the buyers are likely to be trying to arbitrage the difference then I assume most of these shares are going to be voted in favour of the SOA
Not necessarily. I started buying at 61.5 cents when this episode began. I figured that there was little downside below the SoA offer. So not much risk. I might buy more at the 72 cent mark. I may be able to repeat the trick. I have also voted against the offer.

[BigBob]

Not necessarily. I started buying at 61.5 cents when this episode began. I figured that there was little downside below the SoA offer. So not much risk. I might buy more at the 72 cent mark. I may be able to repeat the trick. I have also voted against the offer.

I agree... I was trying to get a few more around 70 just after the new offer came out. I missed out, but might try again around 72. I also see limited downside even if the offer fails, and worse case they get taken off me at 74...

I will not change my NO vote...

[Wiremu]

Interesting analysts report from July: https://www.stockanalysis.com.au/newsletters/SA-Vol16-Issue26-100719.pdf

Quotes success at Ironbark would be worth $6.51 a share for NZO, and $1.33 a share for Cue (A$)

[Bart]

Very interesting indeed. English not being my first language, what exactly does the 76% value mean in "In assessing a risked value for Ironbark, StockAnalysis assumes a success target that is 76% of the proponent's Best Estimate and ..."? I take it they are not saying a 76% chance of success. Also, a 5% chance of a value of $6.51 (I assume half of the $1.33 Cue value is inluded in this) would be $0.32 (AUD) to NZO, so without this NZO was originally rated at $0.64 - $0.39 = $0.25??

[blackcap]

Also, a 5% chance of a value of $6.51 (I assume half of the $1.33 Cue value is inluded in this) would be $0.32 (AUD) to NZO, so without this NZO was originally rated at $0.64 - $0.39 = $0.25??

I do not believe so. Because the Northington Report states that failure in Ironbark would cost about 15 cents per share to NZO. So that would mean about 60 cents to 45 cents. That is why with my earlier example, this is a good "gamble" ie the expected outcome is positive.

[CD_CHCH]

Interesting analysts report from July: https://www.stockanalysis.com.au/newsletters/SA-Vol16-Issue26-100719.pdf

Quotes success at Ironbark would be worth $6.51 a share for NZO, and $1.33 a share for Cue (A$)

So effectively we are being offered 74 cents per share for NZO's assets (ignoring for the moment that this is less than their actual value) and OGOG would be taking Ironbark off our hands for nothing complete with its potential $6.51 per share upside - the word THEFT springs to mind.

[mistaTea]

So effectively we are being offered 74 cents per share for NZO's assets (ignoring for the moment that this is less than their actual value) and OGOG would be taking Ironbark off our hands for nothing complete with its potential $6.51 per share upside - the word THEFT springs to mind.

Yes they are trying to buy the company for less than the existing assets are worth, let along ascribe a reasonable value to Ironbark (which has moderate downside versus upside potential).

It beggars belief.

For them to be successful, I still think they are going to need well north of 30 million FOR votes. That would require a turnout of 85% or more.

I don't see it happening. Ironbark is just too interesting - so Shareholders would need to feel reasonably compensated for the asset to forgo this once-in-a-lifetime drill.

[digger]

I can not see in any of these many pages discussion for the real reason why OGOG wants all of NZO. And as soon as they get it onto CUE.


To me there are two outstanding reason. The first one is the small one that I have mentioned before and got no reply comments. That being that OGOG probably has employed some new technology and knows that the true chance of success with Ironbank is very high. [maybe 95%--now where did I get that figure from].

The second is that for the last 15 years I have been following the climate debate. My belief is that we are heading for significant global cooling.This is supported by NASA and top solar scientist. I now believe that I am hardly the only one that is aware of the latest research in this area. In fact I would say with 95%{that dam figure has come up again] confidence that OGOG also is well aware of this research. Global cooling will create a sky rocking prices for gas.

Anyone wanting a true peak at our future read this.
cornwallalliance.org/2019/03/global-cooling-the-real-climate-threat/

[mistaTea]

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.nasdaq.com/articles/equinors-wa-542-p-permit-to-fortify-foothold-down-under-2019-10-11%3famp

Loads and loads of interest in this part of Australia, so far as exciting discoveries of new energy sources are concerned.

[arjay]

Hmmm ...the Cornwall Alliance’s objections to the idea of global warming stem from their evangelical view that God wouldn’t create Nature in such an imperfect way as to allow it to be impacted by human activity. I’ll stick with science and what I observe around me. I suspect an OGOG driver is based on Ironbark’s value as a transition fuel, something that will only increase as we end the use of dirty fuels.

[digger]

Hmmm ...the Cornwall Alliance’s objections to the idea of global warming stem from their evangelical view that God wouldn’t create Nature in such an imperfect way as to allow it to be impacted by human activity. I’ll stick with science and what I observe around me. I suspect an OGOG driver is based on Ironbark’s value as a transition fuel, something that will only increase as we end the use of dirty fuels.

Your so right Arjay.. Of all the about 100 articles I have on the ever changing climate I picked that one. A real screw up. I probably am an atheist--I certainly have no interest in religion.

So science you want . Try this piece and I have double checked that god fearing stuff does not creap in.

professor-valentina-zharkova-breaks-her-silence-and-confirms-super-grand-solar-minimum/

[etnom]

With regards to the valuation - something else that appears in the workings that is completely alien to me as an investor... (as in, I have never ever even heard of this in everything I have studied around working out business value...)

After working out what everything is worth....apparently we need to deduct 17 cents per share (roughly $28 million) from all of our assets. "Corporate Overheads" projected until at least 2027.

In other words, they expect us to pay for NZOG staff's salaries + some one-off Ironbark costs (as part of the deal with Cue) up until 2027, even though we would no longer be owners from October 2019.

***

Like, if you owned a rare painting that I wanted to buy - and let's say we could objectively agree that your painting is worth $1 million. But hang on! Not so fast! I am an art dealer, and you need to pay towards my salary for the next 10 years! Your portion of that is 150,000! (Don't worry thought - I did a NPV calculation and discounted my earnings at 10%!)
There is also a one-off shipping and storage cost of $50,000!

Sorry matey, you need to sell me your $1 million painting for $800,000. It's only.... fair after all *Cheshire grin*

What chance do we have of our spineless independent directors to come clean and do the right thing.

[etnom]

Yes. the recent NZOG reports have been scant on detail around Ironbark. Considering how effusive Andrew Jeffries was as recently as June about Ironbark (when announcing the farm-in agreement), I was hoping for a lot more colour around our largest exploration asset.

Not sure what else we are missing from NZOG....but I can tell you what we are missing from OGOG - a decent offer.

Here is a summary of how I would value the business for the purpose of a takeover (for what it is worth to anyone who might be vaguely interested in my thoughts on business value). My reasoning assumes the majority shareholder is acting in good faith, and understands that some premium must be paid to take 100% control.


NZOG cash balance at last Annual Report= approx $78 million (NZ$106M consolodated - NZ$28M Cue Energy share). Approx 47 cents per share.
Kupe = $24 million (low figure from Northington for this part is not unreasonable based on current reserves). Approx 15 cents per share.
Cue Energy: Current Market Cap = NZ$72 million. Price has increased somewhat after Ironbark farm in announcements, so this is probably a decent enough figure for what the market feels Cue is worth, given Ironbark is now fully funded and in play. NZOG share = NZ$36 million (22 cents per share).

So before we have even worked out what the exploration assets are worth we have 47c (cash) + 15c (Kupe) + 22c (Cue) = 84 cents per share. That is what I would consider a reasonable offer just for the existing assets that NZOG control.

Now let's talk about exploration.

Ironbark. It can be shown that a very conservative estimate of potential earnings attributable to NZOG for a 15Tcf find is NZ$1B. It would most likely be closer to double that. In 2017 Cue estimated the chance of success at 25%. We have strong reason to believe this probability of success has significantly increased due to BP, beach and NZOG farming in with large pieces of the equity each (especially BP).

But for our purposes, we can still use the 25% probability. 25% * conservative NZ1B = $250 million. But OGOG would be taking on all of the risk, so we can't expect them to pay all of that. Not even half actually.
A reasonable offer for Ironbark, given how advanced the exploration permit is and the encouraging signs so far, would then be about NZ$100M (61 cents per share).

Clipper. The Barque prospect is estimated to be about 75% of the size of Ironbark. However, there is more uncertainty given the current government policy. Also, the existing infrastructure near Ironbark does not exist near Clipper. So there would be additional costs to extraxct, store and ship the gas onshore.

For this reason we can't just say 75% of Ironbark. 50% would be more reasonable = $50M (30 cents per share).

Ok, so we have 84 cents (existing assets) + 61 cents (Ironbark) + 30 cents (Clipper) = $1.75 per share.

This is what I think a reasonable starting point would be for a majority shareholder to offer minority holders to take full control of this business.

Oh and, to whoever is reading this representing OGOG...now that you have learnt how to view the value of the assets through the eyes of a business owner - it's not too late to increase your offer appropriately :t_up:

Probably as they knew the old offer had no chance and have access to this site and read messages here .... decided lets go as low as practically possible.

My 50,000+ shares vote no, to the revised offer stands.

[Independent Observer AUNZ]

Your so right Arjay.. Of all the about 100 articles I have on the ever changing climate I picked that one. A real screw up. I probably am an atheist--I certainly have no interest in religion.

So science you want . Try this piece and I have double checked that god fearing stuff does not creap in.

professor-valentina-zharkova-breaks-her-silence-and-confirms-super-grand-solar-minimum/

Can't believe I'm having this debate with what I assumed were intelligent people on this forum... but...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/09/the-imminent-mini-ice-age-myth-is-back-and-its-still-wrong

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2209895-journal-criticised-for-study-claiming-sun-is-causing-global-warming/

And hundreds more...

[mistaTea]

Can't believe I'm having this debate with what I assumed were intelligent people on this forum... but...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/09/the-imminent-mini-ice-age-myth-is-back-and-its-still-wrong

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2209895-journal-criticised-for-study-claiming-sun-is-causing-global-warming/

And hundreds more...

My view remains that the climate is getting warmer due to a combination of natural variations and man made consumption and pollution.

With 7 billion people on the planet, of course we are having all kinds of impacts on the natural environment. And of course we need to clean up our act. Not only with CO2 emissions but also a whole range of other environmental destruction (intensive farming wrecking waterways, excessive logging etc etc).

We need ambitions long-term goals to clean Earth up, though in the meantime we need to keep away from the rhetoric and implement pragmatic and achievable goals. Doom and gloom prophecies that call for complete bans etc are just absurd. The reality is, over the course of the next century we will need to be able to produce more energy than we ever have to support a growing population as well as 3rd World countries who are making the transition to an industrialised nation.

Accepting gas as a key transition fuel away from coal power plants is an example of a pragmatic step.

Investing in carbon capture technology would also seem like a reasonable thing to do while we are transitioning.

It’s entirely possibly to be an Oil & Gas explorer and accept global warming is a thing, and that humans are contributing.

[Ripping]

My view remains that the climate is getting warmer due to a combination of natural variations and man made consumption and pollution.

With 7 billion people on the planet, of course we are having all kinds of impacts on the natural environment. And of course we need to clean up our act. Not only with CO2 emissions but also a whole range of other environmental destruction (intensive farming wrecking waterways, excessive logging etc etc).

We need ambitions long-term goals to clean Earth up, though in the meantime we need to keep away from the rhetoric and implement pragmatic and achievable goals. Doom and gloom prophecies that call for complete bans etc are just absurd. The reality is, over the course of the next century we will need to be able to produce more energy than we ever have to support a growing population as well as 3rd World countries who are making the transition to an industrialised nation.

Accepting gas as a key transition fuel away from coal power plants is an example of a pragmatic step.

Investing in carbon capture technology would also seem like a reasonable thing to do while we are transitioning.

It’s entirely possibly to be an Oil & Gas explorer and accept global warming is a thing, and that humans are contributing.

Agree. And yet I think many arguments on this are irrelevant with respect to Ironbark. Worldwide demand for energy is increasing. Every energy producer is exploiting that demand, whether the source be coal, oil, gas, solar or wind.
If global temperatures are rising, falling or remaining static, that demand for energy will keep increasing, and certainly in the fossil fuel sector, the source of raw material to produce that energy is still decreasing.
Simply supply and demand.

[airedale]

I have just been to Computershare to re-check my vote as I recently bought a few more. My updated total is correct and the newest shares have been recorded as per my original vote against.
However, from Computershare the details of the time and place of the meeting are 10.00 am on Tuesday 14th November. Tuesday of that week is the 12thof November.

[digger]

I have just been to Computershare to re-check my vote as I recently bought a few more. My updated total is correct and the newest shares have been recorded as per my original vote against.
However, from Computershare the details of the time and place of the meeting are 10.00 am on Tuesday 14th November. Tuesday of that week is the 12thof November.

So does that give you confidence in computershare? Can't look up on a calander and sort out the day of the week,so can they be trusted to give your shares the no vote you asked for. As you have spotted this you should point it out to them.

[Independent Observer AUNZ]

My view remains that the climate is getting warmer due to a combination of natural variations and man made consumption and pollution.
Accepting gas as a key transition fuel away from coal power plants is an example of a pragmatic step.



I agree that gas is a good transition fuel (and better than coal).

There is however not sufficient evidence that natural variations could cause, or even sufficiently contribute to materially, the extreme changes we are seeing already in climate data. The more that idea gets trotted out and accepted in various forums, the more I feel some in our society are keeping their head in the sand about what is really happening right before our eyes.

[neopoleII]

I agree that gas is a good transition fuel (and better than coal).

There is however not sufficient evidence that natural variations could cause, or even sufficiently contribute to materially, the extreme changes we are seeing already in climate data. The more that idea gets trotted out and accepted in various forums, the more I feel some in our society are keeping their head in the sand about what is really happening right before our eyes.

and in the meantime the western world wants cheap products from china and india which is about a 1/3 plus population on earth and huge polluters and our western governments want to tax the life out of our citizens and corporations to virtue signal we "the minions" are doing a positive thing.
all an aware person needs to do is look at the stats of co2 production from china, india, indo asia and region and see that what entitled 1st worlders are spouting about is nothing but virtue politics.

to fix this issue, we of the western world who believe in climate change and think that a few million people can fix the climate compared to billions of the rest of the world population should vote to buy and sell nothing to or from the polluters.
like putting tariffs on products made in china, not selling our stuff to china etc.

not going to happen........ but the politicians play this game for their own agenda.

[neopoleII]

sorry for the above post, should be elsewhere, but this climate change ideology and the persecution against energy producers really annoys me

[digger]

Can't believe I'm having this debate with what I assumed were intelligent people on this forum... but...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/09/the-imminent-mini-ice-age-myth-is-back-and-its-still-wrong

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2209895-journal-criticised-for-study-claiming-sun-is-causing-global-warming/

And hundreds more...

Yes read all them and the other 100 you talk about,plus some..Nasa scientist and the worlds top solar scientists are saying the the solar maximuns we have enjoyed for 100 years is coming to an end. We have lived in the best of times but our grandchildren will heading for a colder climate. By 2023 we will know who is right. My point here is that OGOG wants as much of Ironbank for itself as possible. Even in a warming climate OGOG at present offer will make a fortune. A cold one that I believe [but don't want as I hate the cold] will be our future ,will make OGOG one of the worlds most succesfull companies.
Hope your around by 2023. The winner of this debate gets free drinks. Agreed????
Subject now closed from me on this point. Where do I meet you in 2023 for a free drink.. Some warm place I hope.


My point

[Independent Observer AUNZ]

The winner of this debate gets free drinks. Agreed????


Agreed. Look forward to it. Hope I'm wrong and its my shout but somehow I don't think so.

neopoleII - I'm not sure who specifically you are talking about but any politicians worth their salt should be pushing for both local AND global action.

[digger]

Agreed. Look forward to it. Hope I'm wrong and its my shout but somehow I don't think so.

Ok let set the outline on this bet. What I am saying is that 2023 will be colder than 2019.

If it should be warmer you win. I will make sure your drink comes with ice. Mine will be a hot drink to warm up from the colder climate


Now in the meantime don't go passing away as I am looking forward to this bet.

[arjay]

Ok let set the outline on this bet. What I am saying is that 2023 will be colder than 2019.

If it should be warmer you win. I will make sure your drink comes with ice. Mine will be a hot drink to warm up from the colder climate


Now in the meantime don't go passing away as I am looking forward to this bet.


Sounds dodgy to me as 2023 could be, by chance, the one cooler year occurring during a rising trend. Seems to me that Digger should buy if the average Morrinsville temperature over 4 calendar years 2020-2023 inclusive is higher than 2016-19 inclusive.

[mistaTea]

I agree that gas is a good transition fuel (and better than coal).

There is however not sufficient evidence that natural variations could cause, or even sufficiently contribute to materially, the extreme changes we are seeing already in climate data. The more that idea gets trotted out and accepted in various forums, the more I feel some in our society are keeping their head in the sand about what is really happening right before our eyes.

Not so arjay! Independent Observer AUNZ has already stated, quite categorically, that he (or she) will not countenance any notion that natural cycles in weather patterns have anything to do with current climate observations.

The change in climate must only be due to activities of man, or so I am lead to believe. Any claims to the contrary are simply people with their heads buried in the sand 'trotting out' any old bs story to justify their ongoing (and downright greedy) activities.

In which case, if digger is right and we experience a cooling period - we cannot say that is is a chance outcome. We must blame humans 100%.

Otherwise, it would be like trying to have a bob both ways wouldn't it?

It is this kind of thinking that puts me off. Generally, I try to keep away from the fringes of any given debate. On one side you have deniers - who seem to think that humans have absolutely nothing to do with climate change. Perfectly ridiculous.

On the other side, you have people who will not accept that natural changes and variations also contribute to our evolving climate. The only factor, in their minds, is human activity. Equally absurd.

I find the truth is usually somewhere in between the extremes.

Anyway, we must be bored waiting for the latest takeover bid to fail...how on earth did this thread become about wagers on future planet temperatures?

[digger]

Sounds dodgy to me as 2023 could be, by chance, the one cooler year occurring during a rising trend. Seems to me that Digger should buy if the average Morrinsville temperature over 4 calendar years 2020-2023 inclusive is higher than 2016-19 inclusive.

No Arjay I believe we have a deal between myself and Independent Observer to stand as it is.The world average temperature.

If you want I am prepared to make a bet with you on the four year groups as you have outlined. So a drink on the bet where I say the 20 t0 23 inclusive will be colder than 16 to 19 inclusive. However in both cases we have to use the world average as this is recorded yearly with no fiddling.. To my mind there is no station Morrinsville doing this work that can be independently relied on. The met service keeps the records.

[Independent Observer AUNZ]

No Arjay I believe we have a deal between myself and Independent Observer to stand as it is.The world average temperature.

If you want I am prepared to make a bet with you on the four year groups as you have outlined. So a drink on the bet where I say the 20 t0 23 inclusive will be colder than 16 to 19 inclusive. However in both cases we have to use the world average as this is recorded yearly with no fiddling.. To my mind there is no station Morrinsville doing this work that can be independently relied on. The met service keeps the records.

Thanks or the backup Arjay, but its not going to matter. The worlds getting hotter so I have the better odds.

Even if we are using a potentially flawed shortened timeframe, a bet is a bet.

I'm in my late 30s so I bloody well hope I don't kick the bucket in the intervening time. I don't own NZO shares so that must help my heart stress factors.

[digger]

Ok now that all the positions on the future climate are sorted out ,on with the next issue.

A number of us shareholders [4] have got together about 1.5 months ago and have without a doubt been responsible for killing off the very small 62 cent bid made by OGOG. We are now working on the small bid of 74 cents. Notice that in this case the very has been dropped.

The main point is that the four of us have also considered others issues that can only be discussed on private emails. The outcome is that we have asked Brian Roulston to allow his name to be put forward as a director in the up coming AGM. Brian after a few weeks thinking about it decided to accept the nomination. So yesterday I sent by fast mail two letters to the company. The first nominating Brian and the second a letter from Brian Concenting to the nomination.

About an hour ago John Pagani replied saying letter arrivied and all is in order. The nomination will be included in the AGM mail you will all receive .

Now unless OGOG wants Brian he will have approx nil chance of getting elected. Under present company structure all shareholders get one vote for each share held. That means that OGOG with 70% pretty well call the shots--in fact do call the shots.
We wanted Brian to allow his name to go forward to protest that the minor holders that control 30% of the company have nil say and are not represented.Under present company structure directors do what the major holder says or its the door.Under the very unlikely event that Brian gets elected he has the ability to be a top directors for us. Now that is if a snow ball can survive in hell
I am hopefull I can then bring this up with The NZ Shareholders Association.

There may well be other nominations but none will have been as active for minor holder as Brian. Brian often has posted on sharetrader.

[CD_CHCH]

First off Digger - a big thank you, to you and all the others who have been tirelessly working behind the scenes to look after and protect the interests of the small shareholders - your efforts are very much appreciated.

We only have a small holding, but will definitely vote in favour of Brian being elected come AGM time.

[tim23]

First off Digger - a big thank you, to you and all the others who have been tirelessly working behind the scenes to look after and protect the interests of the small shareholders - your efforts are very much appreciated.

We only have a small holding, but will definitely vote in favour of Brian being elected come AGM time.

I concur, nicely put.

[RTM]

First off Digger - a big thank you, to you and all the others who have been tirelessly working behind the scenes to look after and protect the interests of the small shareholders - your efforts are very much appreciated.

We only have a small holding, but will definitely vote in favour of Brian being elected come AGM time.

Yes...a big thanks from me as well. Additionally, look forward to voting for Brian.

[izam]

Originally Posted by CD_CHCH https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?p=774706#post774706)
First off Digger - a big thank you, to you and all the others who have been tirelessly working behind the scenes to look after and protect the interests of the small shareholders - your efforts are very much appreciated.




I also have a small holding so thanks for
the effort put in looking after the smaller holders

[mistaTea]

I have sent my nomination in for Brian, and he will have my vote.

Brian has done an incredible amount of work behind the scenes on our behalf all in his own time - and I can't thank him enough.

We are all looking forward to this latest bid falling short, so that we can move forward and explore Ironbark.

[airedale]

Thanks Digger for your input.

[BWR]

Digger, mistaTea, and one other, thank you for your nominations and support. It is quite apparent from the communications from the NZO independent directors that they have no real experience with, or understanding of, the motivations of third party shareholders/investors in petroleum exploration companies. I'm sure they are both excellent in their own technical areas, and NZO has benefited from their expertise. However, being given the short straws in a takeover or scheme of arrangement is something quite different. It is also obvious that whoever is giving them independent advice, assuming they have independent advisors, is letting them down badly.

A good example of what should be expected from independent directors in circumstances such as this is the 2018 takeover offer from Infratil for the shares in Tilt Renewables held by minority shareholders. Fiona Oliver is the chair of the independent directors and to read through her communications during the takeover is enlightening, especially in comparison to what we as minority shareholders in NZO have been subject to.

It is for this reason I have agreed to be nominated. There is no way my nomination will be successful, but at least we as minority shareholders can use our votes as a form of silent protest.

[RTM]

Digger, mistaTea, and one other, thank you for your nominations and support. It is quite apparent from the communications from the NZO independent directors that they have no real experience with, or understanding of, the motivations of third party shareholders/investors in petroleum exploration companies. I'm sure they are both excellent in their own technical areas, and NZO has benefited from their expertise. However, being given the short straws in a takeover or scheme of arrangement is something quite different. It is also obvious that whoever is giving them independent advice, assuming they have independent advisors, is letting them down badly.

A good example of what should be expected from independent directors in circumstances such as this is the 2018 takeover offer from Infratil for the shares in Tilt Renewables held by minority shareholders. Fiona Oliver is the chair of the independent directors and to read through her communications during the takeover is enlightening, especially in comparison to what we as minority shareholders in NZO have been subject to.

It is for this reason I have agreed to be nominated. There is no way my nomination will be successful, but at least we as minority shareholders can use our votes as a form of silent protest.

Best of luck. Would be very interesting if they call your bluff and vote you on !

[BWR]

RTM, the words snowball, chance, and hell come to mind.

[CD_CHCH]

I'm not sure if any of the OGOG directors or current independent directors are up for re-election at the upcoming AGM, but if any are it could also send a signal if all the remaining 30% shareholders voted against them. Again it wouldn't make a difference, but would send a powerful message that the shareholders aren't happy or impressed with the way things are being handled.

[Fabs37]

Here is the CHANCE for any one to take a low risk Possible High Return Gamble.

My 180331 shares in NZO are up for grabs @ 74cents per Share.
Have not voted NO on them yet.

Contact me per e-mail via== fabs1937@gmail.com==
To introduce You to my Broker.

All the talking,S been done, how about some ACTION.
Cheers

[etnom]

Digger, mistaTea, and one other, thank you for your nominations and support. It is quite apparent from the communications from the NZO independent directors that they have no real experience with, or understanding of, the motivations of third party shareholders/investors in petroleum exploration companies. I'm sure they are both excellent in their own technical areas, and NZO has benefited from their expertise. However, being given the short straws in a takeover or scheme of arrangement is something quite different. It is also obvious that whoever is giving them independent advice, assuming they have independent advisors, is letting them down badly.

A good example of what should be expected from independent directors in circumstances such as this is the 2018 takeover offer from Infratil for the shares in Tilt Renewables held by minority shareholders. Fiona Oliver is the chair of the independent directors and to read through her communications during the takeover is enlightening, especially in comparison to what we as minority shareholders in NZO have been subject to.

It is for this reason I have agreed to be nominated. There is no way my nomination will be successful, but at least we as minority shareholders can use our votes as a form of silent protest.

BWR you have my vote and support. Thank you for taking the initiative and effort put in. Really wish we could vote out the two current spineless so called independent directors. Least they could do is voluntarily resign.

[Grimy]

Do you know if the NZSA will vote their proxies for Brian, or should those of us who have given our proxy votes to NZSA amend our instructions to make sure? (I've already directed them to vote no on the buy out).

[mistaTea]

https://www.nbr.co.nz/story/activist-investor-lights-fire-under-nz-oil-gas

[RTM]

https://www.nbr.co.nz/story/activist-investor-lights-fire-under-nz-oil-gas

I don’t have NBR, but I guess the article reflects much of what is on ShareTrader ?

[blackcap]

https://www.nbr.co.nz/story/activist-investor-lights-fire-under-nz-oil-gas

Thanks mistaTea, I have just actually purchased a subscription to the NBR. Fascinating read.

[mistaTea]

I don’t have NBR, but I guess the article reflects much of what is on ShareTrader ?

It does, and the activist sharehoder (James Dunphy) also points out that a report on Ironbark prospects should be comissioned by a company that actually has expertise in the matter (from a specialist petroleum engineering firm such as Risc Advisory) before minority holders can make an educated decision on whether or not to sell.

He points out that 74c is low ball for all the same reasons we have.

John Pagani refutes all of his claims out of hand. Reiterates that all the information needed to make a decision is provided in the scheme booklet etc etc.

James has also made a complaint to the takeovers panel which is under review.

[digger]

Do you know if the NZSA will vote their proxies for Brian, or should those of us who have given our proxy votes to NZSA amend our instructions to make sure? (I've already directed them to vote no on the buy out).

Thanks for that. Next Tuesday I will quote you at the Hamilton NZSA.

[Not too Flash]

Got the phone call last night to make sure I had the updated offer and that I was voting .......

[RTM]

It does, and the activist sharehoder (James Dunphy) also points out that a report on Ironbark prospects should be comissioned by a company that actually has expertise in the matter (from a specialist petroleum engineering firm such as Risc Advisory) before minority holders can make an educated decision on whether or not to sell.

He points out that 74c is low ball for all the same reasons we have.

John Pagani refutes all of his claims out of hand. Reiterates that all the information needed to make a decision is provided in the scheme booklet etc etc.

James has also made a complaint to the takeovers panel which is under review.

Thanks. RTM

[mistaTea]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12277782

Much more thorough article from Gaynor this time round. I suspect he has done much more research into NZOG since his last opinion piece (which I felt started off ok, but then wandered off topic).

He rightly points out how SoA's enable these big conglomerates to come in and pick off NZ companies with relative ease (versus a standard takeover process that requires 90% approval from target shares).

This latest low ball bid will fail I have no doubt. But, in my view, all it will mean is that they will keep coming back with a new offer slightly higher than the last until they eventually sneak over the 75%.

Thereby still enabling them to eventually buy the rest of the company for a price less than a rational buyer and seller would transact if they were selling the whole business.

[Lion]

It’s been a quiet few days on this thread.


Here are some figures about the size of Clipper from an NZOG announcement, 21st Feb 2017:
“Analysis of the prospect in the Clipper permit, PEP 52717, has been underway since a 3D seismic survey was completed at the end of 2013. It revealed up to three horizons in the structure. Best estimates of unrisked petroleum in place (100%) in the three horizons now total 11 trillion cubic feet of gas (tcf), and 1.5 billion barrels of liquid (oil or gas condensate) within the proven petroleum system. (5.5 tcf and 750 million barrels net to New Zealand Oil & Gas.)”


1.5 billion barrels of petroleum liquids has equivalent energy to around 1.5b x 6000 cu ft of gas (at 6000 cu ft to one barrel).
That’s 9 trillion cu ft. (tcf)
11 + 9 = 20.
That’s energy equivalent to 20 tcf of gas in Clipper. NZOG has 50% of the permit, (or 10 tcf).


Ironbark is supposed to have 15 tcf of gas. NZOG has just under 26% of Ironbark (counting its share of CUE) (Or 3.9 tcf).


To convert both fields to barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) Ironbark is 2.5bbl and Clipper 3.3bbl.


Now, there are no doubt many differences between the two fields. Clipper doesn’t have a nearby LNG plant and is in deeper, rougher water and a little further offshore.


But Clipper is one hell of a potential asset and shouldn’t be ignored while we are trying to evaluate the worth of NZOG.
That 2017 announcement said "a gas-to-shore LNG project is considered the most likely model". And a later announcement said that gas could be economically used in SI homes and industry.

I rather suspect OGOG know full well what Clipper might be worth.

[mistaTea]

For those of you who subscribe to NBR, here is the latest article about NZOG (written by Tim Hunter):

https://www.nbr.co.nz/story/shareholders-mad-reject-nzo-takeover-tweedie-says

An old CEO of Cue, Richard Tweedie, is essentially saying minority NZOG holders would be crazy not to accept an offer price that values the company at less than existing production assets, because there is risk in drilling Ironbark.

We should pretend Ironbark is worth absolutely zilch until a discovery is made. In other words he thinks we are stark-raving mad not to sell existing production assets + cash at a discount AND hand over our exploration permits (with their huge upsides if successful...) for FREE. That's right! OGOG should get a free shot at drilling an enormous gas target in a proven area while I should be left with my d1ck in my hand.

I wonder who on earth might have given Dick Tweedie a ring to ask him to come forward?

[mistaTea]

This was a comment placed on the article by 'Anonymous': "Great to hear a top shelf experienced commentator talk about this Ironbark prospect. All we've heard so far is opinions from inexperienced minor shareholders that don't have any experience but seem to have very loud voices. Well done Mr Tweedie (and NBR) at balancing the ledger. However, is it too late and have those shareholders with their backs up already voted no based on a couple of minor shareholders swaying their uneducated opinions - I hope not."

We are almost certain that it is a NZOG employee. No names!

My response was: "Either you are an uneducated loud mouth like the rest of us, in which case why would a minority shareholder listen to you given you don't have any skin in the game?

Or you are a NZOG employee, in which case - shame on you.

It is not a question of whether or not OGOG should take 100% control of NZOG. The question is whether or not the current offer (74c) represents fair value for control. 74c is less than the existing production assets are worth.

Why would minority shareholders roll over and sell their business at a discount, thereby forgoing any large discoveries that might be made in Ironbark.

No rational investor would do that."

[Wiremu]

"Great to hear a top shelf experienced commentator talk about this Ironbark prospect. All we've heard so far is opinions from inexperienced minor shareholders that don't have any experience but seem to have very loud voices. Well done Mr Tweedie (and NBR) at balancing the ledger. However, is it too late and have those shareholders with their backs up already voted no based on a couple of minor shareholders swaying their uneducated opinions - I hope not." Quote from Anonymous.

It's not hard to identify this language and thinking. While criticising the "inexperienced minor shareholders" he then slags off all other minority shareholders with their "uneducated opinions". I guess he just assumes that none of us can think for ourselves.

[mistaTea]

"Great to hear a top shelf experienced commentator talk about this Ironbark prospect. All we've heard so far is opinions from inexperienced minor shareholders that don't have any experience but seem to have very loud voices. Well done Mr Tweedie (and NBR) at balancing the ledger. However, is it too late and have those shareholders with their backs up already voted no based on a couple of minor shareholders swaying their uneducated opinions - I hope not." Quote from Anonymous.

It's not hard to identify this language and thinking. While criticising the "inexperienced minor shareholders" he then slags off all other minority shareholders with their "uneducated opinions". I guess he just assumes that none of us can think for ourselves.

The more desperate these guys get the more comical this whole fiasco becomes.

There is no way Richard Tweedie just poked his head up unprompted. Why would he? It has nothing to do with him. So one can only assume NZOG got on the phone to their old mate, lamented their inability to sell their latest low-ball offer to minority holders and then we end up with this article as a favour.

Then to stoop even lower, "someone" (*wink*) planting comments that slag off minority holders is just pathetic. The comment does not provide any reasonable rationale as to why 74c is a great deal for minority holders - just personal attacks.
Think on it, if it was just a member of the public - why would he or she make personal attacks against minority holders and insist they must be easily-manipulated fools if they don't vote for this deal? I wouldn't expect your average reader to give two hoots whether or not this SoA goes through.

So that comment definitely smells like someone who has a dog in the fight. As Donald Trump would say - Sad!

[digger]

[QUOTE=Wiremu;775506]"Great to hear a top shelf experienced commentator talk about this Ironbark prospect. All we've heard so far is opinions from inexperienced minor shareholders that don't have any experience but seem to have very loud voices. Well done Mr Tweedie (and NBR) at balancing the ledger. However, is it too late and have those shareholders with their backs up already voted no based on a couple of minor shareholders swaying their uneducated opinions - I hope not." Quote from Anonymous.

So what is in it for Dick Tweedie to put away his walking stick and attack us . Is he balancing the ledger as Jonh [that could be misspelled]says ,or is he balancing his personal accounts after an approach from OGOG. I know which one I would pick. I too was approached by OGOG to back the 62 cent deal,as were others.

May I ask Mr Jonh anonymous why someone with most likely holds nil shares in NZOG would bother saving us from ourselves. Surely Dick Tweedie would be better to say nothing and leave the pathetic,unwashed,uneducated inexperience masses to their own misery and vote down this second attempt to steal our shares.Afterall Dick Tweedie surely you know there is only a 5% chance of success with Ironbank,so voting it down is really doing OGOG a favor.

Amazing what a little handout under the table can do .After this someone will be shuffling around with a gold walking stick.

On a more serious note I am at a true loss as to what were Mr tweedie's motives.

[etnom]

[QUOTE=Wiremu;775506]"Great to hear a top shelf experienced commentator talk about this Ironbark prospect. All we've heard so far is opinions from inexperienced minor shareholders that don't have any experience but seem to have very loud voices. Well done Mr Tweedie (and NBR) at balancing the ledger. However, is it too late and have those shareholders with their backs up already voted no based on a couple of minor shareholders swaying their uneducated opinions - I hope not." Quote from Anonymous.

So what is in it for Dick Tweedie to put away his walking stick and attack us . Is he balancing the ledger as Jonh [that could be misspelled]says ,or is he balancing his personal accounts after an approach from OGOG. I know which one I would pick. I too was approached by OGOG to back the 62 cent deal,as were others.

May I ask Mr Jonh anonymous why someone with most likely holds nil shares in NZOG would bother saving us from ourselves. Surely Dick Tweedie would be better to say nothing and leave the pathetic,unwashed,uneducated inexperience masses to their own misery and vote down this second attempt to steal our shares.Afterall Dick Tweedie surely you know there is only a 5% chance of success with Ironbank,so voting it down is really doing OGOG a favor.

Amazing what a little handout under the table can do .After this someone will be shuffling around with a gold walking stick.

On a more serious note I am at a true loss as to what were Mr tweedie's motives.

Probably a position as an independent director in NZO or another OGOG company. Another spineless person with no scruples

[CD_CHCH]

Perhaps Mr Tweedie and the Anonymous poster would do well to stop and think for a minute - without the capital that the "inexperienced minor shareholders" both past and present provided, the company wouldn't exist.

The shareholders that they are so dismissive of have provided the means for the company to grow to what it is today - along the way a number of employees have been paid very well from that capital - including Mr Tweedie himself during his time at Cue.

As mistaTea so rightly pointed out:

"It is not a question of whether or not OGOG should take 100% control of NZOG. The question is whether or not the current offer (74c) represents fair value for control. 74c is less than the existing production assets are worth.

Why would minority shareholders roll over and sell their business at a discount, thereby forgoing any large discoveries that might be made in Ironbark.

No rational investor would do that."

[mistaTea]

If OGOG and Dick Tweedie are right, and Ironbark is just a pure gamble with incredibly low odds of success...

Then the current NZOG and Cue CEO's have a lot to answer for in my mind. They have certainly not tempered their effusive comments about the prospect with a healthy dose of caution (i.e. yes it could be huge, but we are 95% confident it will come to nothing...).

The only way the change of heart makes sense is that it helps OGOG pick off the remaining 30% for a song.

The current offer values the whole business at $121M. When you deduct the $76M cash attributable to NZOG directly, that leaves $45M.

So according to Dick and his mates at NZOG and OGOG, the entire going concern plus exploration permits is only worth $45M.

Our share of Cue alone is worth almost that.

Despicable, absolutely despicable.

[Wiremu]

If OGOG and Dick Tweedie are right, and Ironbark is just a pure gamble with incredibly low odds of success...

Then the current NZOG and Cue CEO's have a lot to answer for in my mind. They have certainly not tempered their effusive comments about the prospect with a healthy dose of caution (i.e. yes it could be huge, but we are 95% confident it will come to nothing...).

The only way the change of heart makes sense is that it helps OGOG pick off the remaining 30% for a song.

The current offer values the whole business at $121M. When you deduct the $76M cash attributable to NZOG directly, that leaves $45M.

So according to Dick and his mates at NZOG and OGOG, the entire going concern plus exploration permits is only worth $45M.

Our share of Cue alone is worth almost that.

Despicable, absolutely despicable.

Mr Tweedie is entitled to his opinion but interesting question as to why he needs to pronounce it to the public at large.

Another more qualified opinion was provided by Peter Strachan, well respected Australian resource company analyst. In July 2019 his calculation of the Risk Adjusted Value of Ironbark per NZO share was $A0.90, and the Discovery Value per NZO share $A6.51. The Discovery Leverage per NZO share he calculated at 1368%.

[mistaTea]

Mr Tweedie is entitled to his opinion...

I have always found life to be much more pleasant when everyone just agrees with me though!

:D:t_up::eek2:

[CD_CHCH]

If OGOG and Dick Tweedie are right, and Ironbark is just a pure gamble with incredibly low odds of success...

Then the current NZOG and Cue CEO's have a lot to answer for in my mind. They have certainly not tempered their effusive comments about the prospect with a healthy dose of caution (i.e. yes it could be huge, but we are 95% confident it will come to nothing...).

The only way the change of heart makes sense is that it helps OGOG pick off the remaining 30% for a song.

The current offer values the whole business at $121M. When you deduct the $76M cash attributable to NZOG directly, that leaves $45M.

So according to Dick and his mates at NZOG and OGOG, the entire going concern plus exploration permits is only worth $45M.

Our share of Cue alone is worth almost that.

Despicable, absolutely despicable.

So here's a random but interesting thought. I wonder what the response from OGOG would be if the minor shareholders were to offer them 62 cents a share to buy them out and take control of the company.....

After all they went to a lot of trouble to tell us how "62 cents a share is a fantastic offer and Ironbark only has a 5% chance of success"

[mistaTea]

So here's a random but interesting thought. I wonder what the response from OGOG would be if the minor shareholders were to offer them 62 cents a share to buy them out and take control of the company.....

After all they went to a lot of trouble to tell us how "62 cents a share is a fantastic offer and Ironbark only has a 5% chance of success"

Yes I did ponder that in an earlier post. If the shoe were on the other foot - would they think it was a great deal?

If we offered them 62c... or even 74c...I am pretty sure they would tell us to take a flying leap!

[Lion]

I have always found life to be much more pleasant when everyone just agrees with me though!

:D:t_up::eek2:

I agree with you.

[Bart]

Mr Tweedie is entitled to his opinion but interesting question as to why he needs to pronounce it to the public at large.

Another more qualified opinion was provided by Peter Strachan, well respected Australian resource company analyst. In July 2019 his calculation of the Risk Adjusted Value of Ironbark per NZO share was $A0.90, and the Discovery Value per NZO share $A6.51. The Discovery Leverage per NZO share he calculated at 1368%.
Does that mean that he judges the chance of success at 0.90/6.51 = ~ 15% ??

[Wiremu]

Does that mean that he judges the chance of success at 0.90/6.51 = ~ 15% ??

No, that sort of formula mixing measures is Northington's nonsense. Peter Strachan provides two different measures, one the value of a NZO share now taking into account all of the risk factors prior to drilling taking place (risk adjusted value), the second if the prospect reached commercial production assuming and on the assumption the proven gas quantity was 75% of the projected maximum (discovery value).

[tim23]

Its all very curious wasn't there something odd when Southern Petroleum got taken over a number of years back and shareholders had a win?

[mistaTea]

Less than 3 weeks now until the Special Meeting (unless they pull the pin earlier).

I believe the Takeovers Panel were beginning to wrap up their investigtion into a range of complaints at the end of last week.

It will be very interesting to see the findings and rationale behind their thinking - hopefully this week some time.

[Sideshow Bob]

And in the meantime, Quarterly Cashflow & Activities report here: https://www.nzx.com/announcements/343328

[RTM]

And in the meantime, Quarterly Cashflow & Activities report here: https://www.nzx.com/announcements/343328

But wait....there’s more
https://www.nzx.com/announcements/343330

Not read it yet !

[blackcap]

But wait....there’s more
https://www.nzx.com/announcements/343330

Not read it yet !

Just a big FU (to shareholders) from the takeovers panel. As expected.

[mistaTea]

Just a big FU (to shareholders) from the takeovers panel. As expected.

A damn shame really.

I will never understand how Northington are able to get away with 'deriving' a 5% chance of success figure that was never mentioned in the SRK report. SRK never discuss probability of success anywhere in their report - they only attempt to calculate the value of the prospect.

It is absolutely misleading to to state that investors should believe the chance of a commercial discovery is only 5%.

The only way we avoid being robbed blind is for enough of us to vote NO. Cannot rely on any other parties.

[blackcap]

A damn shame really.

I will never understand how Northington are able to get away with 'deriving' a 5% chance of success figure that was never mentioned in the SRK report. SRK never discuss probability of success anywhere in their report - they only attempt to calculate the value of the prospect.

It is absolutely misleading to to state that investors should believe the chance of a commercial discovery is only 5%.

The only way we avoid being robbed blind is for enough of us to vote NO. Cannot rely on any other parties.

I have not called them (Northington) but I would really like to ask them what the liquidation valuation is that they have for NZO and why that was not included in their report. I may give them a call and see what they say.

That alone (not having a liquidation value) should send alarm bells ringing at the Takeovers Panel, but obviously not.

[mistaTea]

"WA-359-P
15% New Zealand Oil & Gas
21.5% Cue Energy*
42.5% BP Developments Australia Pty Ltd (Operator)
21% Beach Energy
Ironbark-1 planning is progressing with the well scheduled tobe drilled in late 2020 using the Ocean Apex drill rig.During the quarter, site survey operations over the welllocation were completed."

Two sentences. That is all they had to say about Ironbark in the Activities Report.

If it weren't for the current theft attempt (I mean perfectly legitimate and generous Scheme of Arrangement) you can bet they would be much more bullish in their update on Ironbark.

[Sideshow Bob]

I have not called them (Northington) but I would really like to ask them what the liquidation valuation is that they have for NZO and why that was not included in their report. I may give them a call and see what they say.

That alone should send alarm bells ringing at the Takeovers Panel, but obviously not.

The MD was my first year finance lecturer at Lincoln, many many moons ago. Good dude, and good lecturer. I remember a lot of the exams questions revolved around names of All Blacks and cricketers...…

Maybe he has moved to the corporate dark side!!

[Fabs37]

Just a big FU (to shareholders) from the takeovers panel. As expected.

YES, no surprise here and Totally Predictable.

Objective scrutiny, questioning & opinions on official narratives going the same way as Free Speech, on the Way-Out.

DO WHAT THOU WILL-ST SHALL BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW.

for some

[blackcap]

The MD was my first year finance lecturer at Lincoln, many many moons ago. Good dude, and good lecturer. I remember a lot of the exams questions revolved around names of All Blacks and cricketers...…

Maybe he has moved to the corporate dark side!!

Well that is interesting. The corporate world can suck the soul out of you and or change ethics. Then again the MD may not even know about this little report but would be indicative of culture at the organisation.

[mistaTea]

For what it's worth - I do think we need to be a little careful here, and make sure we avoid inadvertently falling into the trap of 'Group Think'.

Posters to this forum seem to be in agreement that the current offer is still too low, relative to the value of existing assets (and of course, the potentially large upside in Ironbark and Clipper).

I have been very frustrated with the Northington Report, and I disagree with the notion that you can infer a 5% probability of commercial success that was not stated in the referenced report (SRK). It also is not good enough, in my view, for Northington to not include a liquidation value estimate.

However, the Takeovers Panel do point out that they have a high bar threshold when it comes to misleading content and statements. Though the current ruling did not go in my favour, I do see that this high bar is necessary. Our opinion is that the Northington Report is not good enough, and significantly understates the value of the company.
However, so far as the TO Panel can see anyway...the views expressed by Northington and the IDC are genuinely held and reasonably derived.
In other words, we might not like the methodology they have used, and in our opinion there are better methods that should have been used...however Northington have used 'a methodology' that is not completely bonkers, and they genuinely believe the one they have used provides a fair estimate for the business. And that is where it ends I think, so far as the valuation and subsequent SoA statements go.

Our strong opinion is that the business is worth considerably more, so all we can do it make sure we get enough NO votes to stop the deal going ahead.

Then hopefully that is the end of it and we can all explore Ironbark. Or OGOG can think about it for a bit and come back with a higher offer - and then we assess that on its merits again.

[Baa_Baa]

For what it's worth - I do think we need to be a little careful here, and make sure we avoid inadvertently falling into the trap of 'Group Think'.

Posters to this forum seem to be in agreement that the current offer is still too low, relative to the value of existing assets (and of course, the potentially large upside in Ironbark and Clipper).

I have been very frustrated with the Northington Report, and I disagree with the notion that you can infer a 5% probability of commercial success that was not stated in the referenced report (SRK). It also is not good enough, in my view, for Northington to not include a liquidation value estimate.

However, the Takeovers Panel do point out that they have a high bar threshold when it comes to misleading content and statements. Though the current ruling did not go in my favour, I do see that this high bar is necessary. Our opinion is that the Northington Report is not good enough, and significantly understates the value of the company.
However, so far as the TO Panel can see anyway...the views expressed by Northington and the IDC are genuinely held and reasonably derived.
In other words, we might not like the methodology they have used, and in our opinion there are better methods that should have been used...however Northington have used 'a methodology' that is not completely bonkers, and they genuinely believe the one they have used provides a fair estimate for the business. And that is where it ends I think, so far as the valuation and subsequent SoA statements go.

Our strong opinion is that the business is worth considerably more, so all we can do it make sure we get enough NO votes to stop the deal going ahead.

Then hopefully that is the end of it and we can all explore Ironbark. Or OGOG can think about it for a bit and come back with a higher offer - and then we assess that on its merits again.

Some objectivity goes a long way, as was also pointed out, the 'market' does not agree either with the opinions expressed here, that the 'value' is anything more than the price the market will pay for it. And the market price is now tracking the OGOG offer price.

As you say, the only chance you shareholders have is by voting no in the required % of all shareholdings. At that point if successful and OGOG are true their word, you will retain the company and the bidder will not counter their firm and final offer.

[THEONE]

Probably raised before, but this from Cue

Cue estimates the Ironbark prospect contains 15Tcf of prospective recoverable gas(2) at a
25% chance of success.

https://www.cuenrg.com.au/irm/PDF/2455_0/WA359PJVConditionalAgreementampIronbarkFunding

[Leftfield]

Interesting article for holders.....ACC to play a key role in shareholder sale vote.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/117030158/new-zealand-oil-and-gas-takeover-looms