Especially those who converted options at $1.50 (from memeory) years ago to grow the company. Only to see that money sit in the bank waiting for an opportunity like Ironbank or similar
Printable View
Especially those who converted options at $1.50 (from memeory) years ago to grow the company. Only to see that money sit in the bank waiting for an opportunity like Ironbank or similar
I suppose one school of thought would be to take the predicted net earnings attributable to NZOG, and multiply it by the probability of success (generally stated as 20% for these types of ventures).
So for example, if you thought a strike would net NZOG $2B (in today's money) over the well lifespan, and multiplied that by 20% probability of success then you would arrive at a figure of $400M.
I think this way of thinking is nonsensical though. There either is commercially viable levels of gas down there, or there isn't. It is binary. All or nothing.
And to echo Wiremu somewhat, successful long-term investors tend to look for opportunities with large upsides and small downsides (Heads I win, Tails I don't lose much). Since NZOG has been selling at a discount to NTA, any downside realised by Ironbark turning out to be a dud is somewhat mitigated for people buying in at the low share price. It would be painful, but not catastrophic. The market may well react negatively in this scenario, however the existing producing assets would still be intact, as well as the majority of the cash.
So, in summary, I don't try to pretend I can reduce risk by factoring in some kind of probability equation. I just make sure that I only buy in when the company is selling at a price that makes sense, given the opportunities.
Yes it is binary (kind of, as an oil/gas reservoir can still be viable if the results aren't quite up to expectation, unlike the cost of putting in a tender for a construction job, whereby the outcome truly is binary), but it must be evaluated somehow.
Off the top of my head it's a calc weighing up the benefit of success x the odds of success verses the cost of failure x the odds of failure. I'll look it up next week sometime. In any case these 4 variables can be heavily skewed one way to suit a buyer, and the other to suit a seller.
When an exploration company is looking at a range of opportunities to drill, then I think the more complex calculations become more important. Probabilities of success, costs involved, upside potential and opportunity costs will all be weighted and added up as the organisation tries to work out which drill site to go after...where it should focus its capital.
When you are buying into a listed company that has already (presumably) done these calculations and committed to a drill site...
Then I think it is a little different. You compare the current market capitalisation of the business against existing assets + production, and then make adjustments based on different scenarios. Like:
- Ironbark comes up dry (WORST CASE SCENARIO). How much $$$ will NZOG have wasted? How much worse off is the balance sheet?
- Ironbark strikes, but only has 5Tcf of commercially viable gas. How does that change the upside?
- Ironbark strikes, but only has 10Tcf of commercially viable gas. How does that change the upside?
- Ironbark strikes, and does have 15Tcf of commercially viable gas. BEST CASE SCENARIO! JACKPOT!!
When you run these types of scenarios, and contrast it against the share price you can make a value judgement as to whether or not it makes sense to buy into the company.
In fact, I steer clear of calculations that aim to provide precision/certainty. In my experience, they are usually precise alright - precisely wrong :eek2:
Thanks so much for that pricing.
A quick crude valuation counting NZO share of CUE is a success equals $100 per share of gas over a period of time.
Using a chance of success at 1 in 5 equals $20 a share
Then discount for drilling and development,running expenses etc and maybe $10 a share
Interesting comments here the last few days. Nonsensical and probabilities thrown about. The probabilities are sure nonsensical.
If there is a 1 in 8 chance of success then NZO next drill [ironbank] had better come in as we have used up our quota of dry wells. Now as everyone knows that is nonsensical as a fair coin can be heads or tails as long as it like and the average is still the same over a long enought throwing. What we need to keep clear is that we oilers drill because we always hope for that big one.
Anyone remember long enough back to the KUPE drilling soon after NZO was floated. The SP rocked up but later came down as it was thought the figures were too optimistic. Fast forward about two decades to the discovery and the size of the well was again near the first guess. We will never probably know the final figure as some idiot [ZETA] sold us out. Anyways why I am bring this up is because in trying to assess the probabilities of success we need to remember that figures can be shifted around to suit making any probability nonsensical.
I think we should keep nonsensical not too far from our vocabulary because shortly we will be receiving from NZO Mao Tse Tung little red book of facts. Then we will all know the true meaning of nonsensical.
Interesting to note the CUE Market Cap is currently sitting at AU$74M (NZ$77M).
So 50% of 77 = NZ$38.5M. Plus, say, NZ$85M of cold hard cash attributable to NZOG.
Already, that brings us to a total of NZ$123.5M (about 75c/share). We haven't even sold our 4% in Kupe yet, nor factored in any value of Ironbark yet we are already easily above the $102M implied business value that OGOG have offered.
This booklet and independent valuation we are about to receive soon is going to need to be pretty damned slick indeed - no matter which way I look at it, I just can't seem to get it through my thick skull.
I'm not a NZO holder, but was interested to see the SofA announcement. The first thing you guys need to get clear is whether OGOG is entitled to vote. If they are, it's what is commonly known as a minority squeeze-out, and if ALL directors vote in favour, the pass rate is 50% not 75%
I know from experience that this type of underhand tactic is common in jurisdictions such as Bermuda - not sure about NZ, and can't find anything from a brief search, but you guys will be motivated to check it out.
Don't mean to be the fox in the coop, but it's worth finding out early, whether this is already a fait accompli, or not.
John Pagani might be able to categorically dismiss my line of thought in a moment for you.........
Far from a fait accompli.
Two conditions need to be met for the SoA to pass.
- A simple majority (>50%) of the entire shareholder base must participate in the vote; and
- Each interest class must achieve a 75% majority in favour. OGOG is one interest class, and the minority shareholders are another. So the main vote that counts for practical purposes is the minority share holders interest class.
I have had this confirmed by John Pagani.
Personally, I think the vote has a slim chance of passing in favour of OGOG. Though I stand to be corrected, I imagine that most of the remaining business partners (minority shareholders) still have holdings in NZOG because we believe in the company's future prospects. Otherwise we would have dumped our holdings during the SP spike in 2017 when the Zeta vs OGOG arm wrestle ensued and/or when there was an opportunity to sell to OGOG at 78c/share (minus dividend).
In other words, if I am right and the majority of the larger minority shareholders like to hold NZOG as a long-term investment (to Hell with the share price in the interim...) then it would take a very generous offer indeed to entice them to forgo the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to drill ironbark.
We will see soon enough if I am right, or whether or not I need to eat my hat.
We have a very small holding but will be voting to decline the offer. If OGOG were serious about mopping up the minority shareholders their starting point should have been equal to or higher than their original buy in offer.
Thanks all for sharing, great info.. Looks like a unanimous NO!:mad ;:.
Prime Minister Adern banned offshore oil and gas exploration because it was evil.
Nek minit Revenue Minister Stuart Nash extends the tax break for oil exploration and seismic survey equipment because it is good.
I'm confused.
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...-fuel-industry
Bit odd alright. Sorta like how Port Chalmers was falling all over itself to host the Barque drilling base, nek minit Dunedin is declaring a climate emergency.