NZ Oil & Gas (NZO)

[digger]

Have voted along the same lines as you digger. I want as many votes for Brian as possible to formalise our feelings regarding the way we have been treated.

Beyond that, and once OGOG re-elect Rod to the Board...the focus needs to shift to a constructive dialogue between minority shareholders and OGOG.

Ultimately, we want a positive outcome for all long-term. So, for what it's worth, I don't see any value continuing to read management the Riot Act at the AGM as some activist shareholders intend to do.

I agree. By now I think they have the message.When making a point you have to be aware of when to stop. Look at Hong Kong as an example. The protesters claim they are protecting freedom of speach--- then when someone speaks against them they pour pertrol on him and set it alight. china could not have done a better job of shutting down free speach.
So yes we have made our point very well and now should leave it for a time and see what eventuates. I am not planning to go to the AGM.

[blackcap]

I see the NZ Shareholders Association have come out with the PVI's.

Resolution 1: In Favour
Resolution 2: Against
Resolution 3: In Favour
Resolution 4: In Favour
Resolution 5: In Favour
Resolution 6: In Favour

So they seem to be saying vote No for current independent director and are supporting the 2 independent directors being nominated by minority shareholders.
They also support resolution 5 a private resolution brought forward by Peter Cormack a shareholder.

[digger]

You beat me to it Blackcap. I was about to post the same report.

[Leftfield]

Good to see NZSA taking a stand regarding this company. Here's a link to their proxy intentions.

Looks like an interesting meeting coming up!! GLH.

[blackcap]

Gaynor commenting in the Herald:

There are four contentious resolutions on the agenda, particularly the re-election of independent director Rod Ritchie. Ritchie strongly recommended the recent low-priced takeover offer from NZOG's controlling shareholder, which was comprehensively rejected by minority shareholders.

Ritchie's re-election, which is Resolution 2, is strongly supported by the NZOG board, but the board has opposed Resolutions 3 and 4, which are the election of shareholder-nominated candidates Brian Roulston and Samantha Sharif.

Roulston and Sharif have more impressive CVs than Ritchie, including energy experience, yet the NZOG board opposes Roulston and Sharif because Ritchie's election "would fill the seven person quota of board appointments".

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12291703

[mistaTea]

Gaynor commenting in the Herald:

There are four contentious resolutions on the agenda, particularly the re-election of independent director Rod Ritchie. Ritchie strongly recommended the recent low-priced takeover offer from NZOG's controlling shareholder, which was comprehensively rejected by minority shareholders.

Ritchie's re-election, which is Resolution 2, is strongly supported by the NZOG board, but the board has opposed Resolutions 3 and 4, which are the election of shareholder-nominated candidates Brian Roulston and Samantha Sharif.

Roulston and Sharif have more impressive CVs than Ritchie, including energy experience, yet the NZOG board opposes Roulston and Sharif because Ritchie's election "would fill the seven person quota of board appointments".

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12291703

I think there are those that are still hoping that OGOG will grow a conscience at the last minute and abstain from the Director vote.

They will not, and Rod will continue with his snout in the trough unless he finds some self respect and resigns. But even in that situation we would not get anyone we put forward on the Board. OGOG would just find someone else more agreeable and install him or her.

So unless there is some kind of rule change for Independent Director voting in a situation like ours where we are a listed company with one large majority owner...OGOG are well within their rights to select whoever they want, and they will do so.

So this amounts to a protest vote from minority shareholders, but it does serve the purpose of reminding OGOG not to forget about us as we do still have rights, and expect fair dealings in future plans. When the final votes are tallied it will also give Gaynor some talking points in his next article to point out how minority shareholders have very little say when it comes to selecting 'Independent' Directors.

[blackcap]

Must be a good gig working for NZO.

16 employees out of a total of 20-25??? earn over $100k per annum. Of these 9 earn more than $200k and the average of the 16 is $273k The total is $4.3m.

Wonder what they did this last year for all that money. Sign me up!

[mistaTea]

Must be a good gig working for NZO.

16 employees out of a total of 20-25??? earn over $100k per annum. Of these 9 earn more than $200k and the average of the 16 is $273k The total is $4.3m.

Wonder what they did this last year for all that money. Sign me up!

Oh yes, money for jam alright! Especially considering very little was achieved over the last 12 months. The Ironbark deal was finalised, that's it.

When you add in wages for Cue staff that are doing the same roles as NZO I bet the cost double-up is even more stagerring.

Can't help but think we would be better off long-term with a single Cue-NZO entity so we could cut out a lot of the costs between staff and Director fees.

[blackcap]

Oh yes, money for jam alright! Especially considering very little was achieved over the last 12 months. The Ironbark deal was finalised, that's it.

When you add in wages for Cue staff that are doing the same roles as NZO I bet the cost double-up is even more stagerring.

Can't help but think we would be better off long-term with a single Cue-NZO entity so we could cut out a lot of the costs between staff and Director fees.

That is a very sensible suggestion. It would be a matter of getting CUE shareholders on board but even then that should not be too difficult as there are a lot of benefits for CUE as well in cutting costs, one could even argue that there are more benefits for CUE. Although it would mean the profile of a cue share changes and would not be as supercharged with the Ironbark drill. (i am guessing the cue shareholder has more to gain/less to lose than an NZO holder)

[Lion]

(i am guessing the cue shareholder has more to gain/less to lose than an NZO holder)

I decided to do the arithmetic on that question, blackcap. (I mean if there is no amalgamation, which, I agree, seems like a good idea)

An Australian ShareAnalysis article from June this year says a successful strike at Ironbark would have a ‘discovery value’ for NZO of $6.51 a share, for CUE of $1.31 and Beach (BPT) of 40c.

It’s not clear to me whether this discovery value is what the share price might become, or if it is on top of the existing SP.
Taking the lower option, the % increase on yesterday’s prices are 1042% for NZO, a remarkably similar 1048% for CUE and just 15% for Beach.

CUE does have less to lose though if Ironbark is not successful, as they have substantial other producing assets (and a drill result due any day now!)

NZO currently hold half of CUE, too, of course.