Dropping the liquidation valuation is yet another example that the report is not fair and reasonable.
There are so many discrepancies that I feel we should notify the takeovers panel at this stage in order to get a truly independent valuation
Printable View
Welcome back blackcap.:)
You should have received an email from NZOG with instructions on how to cast a postal vote via Computershare.
Get in there and VOTE.
If you agree with me, please vote AGAINST.
If you disagree with me - please ABSTAIN :t_up:
Cheers Couta1.
Just voted AGAINST.
The meeting is going to be interesting that is for sure.
Dirty deeds here, eh?
Independent (as in valuation and directors) has just acquired a new meaning.
50,000 shares just voted against.
Its good to see long-term supporters and shareholders of NZO voting against this derisory and misleading offer.
I hope to look forward to the thrill and drill of Ironbark rather than being part of a high court case on the 31/10/2019
(every shareholder has a right to be heard so this could take sometime if it eventuated)
Only 20,000 shares, but just voted a definite NO against this highway robbery. Anyone knows how to reach other 'dormant' shareholders so they can be made aware of this?
Was just perusing the 2017 Annual Report for Cue Energy (some guys like to read dirty magazines, I like reading Annual Reports. Don't judge me).
Found this little gem: "Cue’s estimate of the geological chance of success for this giant prospect is 25% and the value that a success would bring to the company is many times Cue’s current market value.BP shares our enthusiasm for WA-359-P and Cue has granted them an option over 42.5% equity, exercisable by the end of October 2017."
This was badk in 2017, before BP and other partners had signed on the dotted line. Even back then , they put the odds at 25%.
Given BP, Beach and NZOG all readily signed up in the end, one would not be ridiculous for speculating that the most recent geological surveys suggested a large find with odds greater than the 25% estimated in 2017.
Fish's friend (now retired, but used to be heavily involved in the industry) reckons BP don't piss around with Deep Water Exploration like this unless the odds are 50% or greater of success. Now, I have no way of confirming that one way or the other...but it certainly doesn't sound ridiculous.
Regardless, it highlights what an insult it is for Northington to base their calculations on 5%, and keep a straight face.
In page 9 of the recent report, in the Chair's letter, (right before that notorious 5% you mention above, mistaTea), it says "Ironbark has the cost and uncertainty associated with deepwater frontier exploration"
Is this frontier territory? I don't think so. It's in the prolific Carnarvon Basin (mis-spelt by Northington many times - sloppy work, guys) and close to proven, operating fields, not to mention close to LNG plants.
Certainly the first time I have ever heard of this particular permit being referred to as 'frontier'. It would appear, on the surface at least, to be creative use of language to try to make it sound like exploring Ironbark is riskier than it most likely is in reality (hence 5% being a perfectly reasonable probability of success to use!).
Deep water, certainly. But not sure I would describe it as 'frontier'. Though I stand to be corrected - if anyone can show me a definition of 'frontier' that shows that Ironbark fits the bill I will have learned something new today :t_up: