Originally Posted by
mistaTea
"The independent directors also take this opportunity to comment on Cue’s previous statements indicating that Ironbark has a “25% chance of success”. It should be noted that this figure refers to Cue’s assessment of “geological success” – i.e., the chance that hydrocarbons will be found in the geological structure. It does not measure the chance of “commercial success” – i.e. that any such discovery will then be capable of economic commercial exploitation. SRK Consulting uses the same 25% geological chance of success in its independent assessment that then determines a 5% chance of commercial success."
Either Cue was lying by omission when they were highlighting the 25% geological success figure (and not clarifying anywhere in their reports that the real probability of true success is only 5%), or the current lot are trying to pump up a convenient valuation to get the sale through.
I would think that 5% success would be a very important statistic to put out in the various Cue and NZOG reports, given investors make buy and sell decisions based on this type of information.
What is further perplexing then, is that if the Ironbark project is almost certainly going to fail (95% certain), then:
1. Why the Hell have we farmed in 15% and gained significantly more exposure? We already had exposure via Cue. Seems reckless use of our money then with those odds.
2. Why is OGOG being so generous to us, offering to buy us out and further expose themselves to this almost-certainly doomed prospect?
3. Why have BP and Beach been so keen to collectively purchase 63.5% of the permit? Perhaps they are just casino gamblers like our lot apparently are, and 5% odds of success are just fine by them?
I mean, the Directors must know that their story is incredibly suspicious. Even now, I am trying to find a way to see the best in these people. But I have to say, it is becoming increasingly difficult.