NZ Oil & Gas (NZO)

[percy]

.................................................. ......................

[Beagle]

..................….

[mistaTea]

Down the ski slope the share price goes. Broken down through the 100 day moving average today. Maybe 50 cents is on the cards again even before the next drill ?... seeing as the majority (by number), of minority shareholders wanted out.

Ironic how these things often work...was less than 50 cents before the proposed scheme of arrangement was tabled and despite everyone thinking its definitely worth more I suspect the chances of it reverting back to where it started from are very good.

I too lament that we do not have more intellectually stimulating posts like this one to really improve the overall quality of this thread.

[digger]

Soon after the first SOA was announced I asked John by sharetrader way back in early july if he could fill me in on the access minor shareholders had to all the emails that NZO control to comminate with Shareholders.. John never replied but Brian Roulston did. We then made up some shareholder statements for consideration that was suppost to go to all shareholders once the scheme booklet was released.. NZO was first issued these intended statements on 19th july/19,pointing out that they were not final as at that stage we did not know what was in the scheme booklet.While John Pagani never formally acknowledged being in receit of the july statements he did email me about some of the contents,saying that I was out of line doing any opposition when I no idea what would be in the booklet. John pointed out that as it was a court supervised process I would have the required days to get my Statements in so that the forwarding cost would be met by NZO as set out in law.

Well nothing like that happened. I sent in the final Shareholders Statements on the 6th sept not wanting to wait any longer. On the the 8th Sept the booklet was released. Suddenly NZO who from july to sept would not talk to me suddenly started emailing me about these Shareholder statements saying that as the required working days were insufficient before the meeting of 62 cents SOA offer all the cost to put an alternative view to shareholders would now have to be born by me. So minor shareholders never got an alternative view points to consider.


I spoke about this today . The reply i received made to realise how much the company has change since the days of Tony Randford.Tony liked and encouraged alternative views. Not so anymore. The reply I got at the meeting was that they did consider my statements but were not worth passing on.

Now hang on. Since when did NZO become the filter that all idea not wanted have to first get the approval of the board.
A number of other shareholders did say they so my point that the company did shut down alternative viewpoints but one centainly did not. He said why did you not say what these points were. After some small time I realised he was part of the company and hoped to confuse the situation.
Spoke to many board members and my clear impression is that the board needs a good cleanout.I first joined this company in 1984 and have never before felt this way. They are too dictatorrial and have no clear idea about the value of concensus.


Rosalind Archer said that the opposition to the SOA was from a few who just wanted the max for their shares. Later on a NZSA member spoke and said that that is what ever intelligent investers wants,and should want.
Rosalind has little ides about risk and reward so went on about how a dry well could effect the shareprice. Dosen't seem to understand that we all know that and that is why we invest in drilling.

But I went away very annoyed about the arrognant bastereds that feel they have the right to decide what the shareholders should be allowed to hear.{ we considered your statments and found them wanting]
You ignorant shareholdes don't have the intelligence to arrive at that conclusion yourselves so the board will protect you from such ideas.

[dodgy]

Soon after the first SOA was announced I asked John by sharetrader way back in early july if he could fill me in on the access minor shareholders had to all the emails that NZO control to comminate with Shareholders.. John never replied but Brian Roulston did. We then made up some shareholder statements for consideration that was suppost to go to all shareholders once the scheme booklet was released.. NZO was first issued these intended statements on 19th july/19,pointing out that they were not final as at that stage we did not know what was in the scheme booklet.While John Pagani never formally acknowledged being in receit of the july statements he did email me about some of the contents,saying that I was out of line doing any opposition when I no idea what would be in the booklet. John pointed out that as it was a court supervised process I would have the required days to get my Statements in so that the forwarding cost would be met by NZO as set out in law.

Well nothing like that happened. I sent in the final Shareholders Statements on the 6th sept not wanting to wait any longer. On the the 8th Sept the booklet was released. Suddenly NZO who from july to sept would not talk to me suddenly started emailing me about these Shareholder statements saying that as the required working days were insufficient before the meeting of 62 cents SOA offer all the cost to put an alternative view to shareholders would now have to be born by me. So minor shareholders never got an alternative view points to consider.


I spoke about this today . The reply i received made to realise how much the company has change since the days of Tony Randford.Tony liked and encouraged alternative views. Not so anymore. The reply I got at the meeting was that they did consider my statements but were not worth passing on.

Now hang on. Since when did NZO become the filter that all idea not wanted have to first get the approval of the board.
A number of other shareholders did say they so my point that the company did shut down alternative viewpoints but one centainly did not. He said why did you not say what these points were. After some small time I realised he was part of the company and hoped to confuse the situation.
Spoke to many board members and my clear impression is that the board needs a good cleanout.I first joined this company in 1984 and have never before felt this way. They are too dictatorrial and have no clear idea about the value of concensus.


Rosalind Archer said that the opposition to the SOA was from a few who just wanted the max for their shares. Later on a NZSA member spoke and said that that is what ever intelligent investers wants,and should want.
Rosalind has little ides about risk and reward so went on about how a dry well could effect the shareprice. Dosen't seem to understand that we all know that and that is why we invest in drilling.

But I went away very annoyed about the arrognant bastereds that feel they have the right to decide what the shareholders should be allowed to hear.{ we considered your statments and found them wanting]
You ignorant shareholdes don't have the intelligence to arrive at that conclusion yourselves so the board will protect you from such ideas.

Good morning Digger.
Unfortunately you have been going on since 1984 about how great this company is....Why do you bother with it? From where I am standing, in my opinion ,this company from Radfords "thrill and drill days" up to now have engaged only in my wealth destruction - in oil and coal. But you hang in there....Good luck with that.
Regards,
-dodgy (on and off holder since 1988)

[RTM]

Morning Digger,
Through this whole process I have been concerned about how one sided it is. Especially from the communication perspective. We are very lucky to have ShareTrader. But what we are missing is access to shareholders (email) addresses, that the company can access to get across their perspective. I see you say “as set out in law.” I have no idea what legal rights shareholders have with respect to communications with other shareholders ? Can you elaborate. Have NZO broken the law ? Is this something that NZSA could help us with ?

Thanks to all the larger shareholders who managed to stop this going ahead. I’ve learnt a lot about my investment in NZO !

[Beagle]

My experience with this company that goes right back to Tony Radford's days is they have never really engaged with shareholders in a collaborative manner asking what they want ?
Have they ever presented at a NZSA meeting and being open to questions and feedback before ?
When was their last investor day where they brought shareholders in on their strategy.
Huge amounts of the cash that Kupe spat out was wasted, in my opinion.
I got out years ago but still have a morbid fascination with how "well" they're doing.

[blackcap]

My experience with this company that goes right back to Tony Radford's days is they have never really engaged with shareholders in a collaborative manner asking what they want ?
Have they ever presented at a NZSA meeting and being open to questions and feedback before ?
.

Yes they have. Andrew Jeffries presented in depth at the Wellington Branch of the NZSA meeting in Khandallah just a few months ago. It was a very good presentation of over an hour and a half. I purchased more shares at about 50 cents on the strengh of that presentation.

[mistaTea]

The Board and Management have made it crystal clear that it is impossible for NZOG to purchase equity in meaningful production assets (as part of the doom and gloom story). We are too small and companies like Beach prefer to partner with larger companies with deep pockets - like OGOG.

Fair enough.

But if that is really true then NZOG’s destiny is 100% tied to the success or failure of Ironbark and Clipper.

In which case, what is the benefit in sitting on all that cash?

If you deduct the $24M held in escrow from the $78M cash balance held by NZOG directly you are left with $54M just sitting there.

Why not leave $30M in the kitty for Clipper and potential cost overruns in Ironbark and return $24M to shareholders?

They could do a capital return like last time by cancelling 1 in 2 shares to avoid tax etc.

I just can’t see the sense in them holding all that cash now if they are saying they can’t do anything with it.

Any thoughts Sharetraders?

[Wiremu]

The Board and Management have made it crystal clear that it is impossible for NZOG to purchase equity in meaningful production assets (as part of the doom and gloom story). We are too small and companies like Beach prefer to partner with larger companies with deep pockets - like OGOG.

Fair enough.

But if that is really true then NZOG’s destiny is 100% tied to the success or failure of Ironbark and Clipper.

In which case, what is the benefit in sitting on all that cash?

If you deduct the $24M held in escrow from the $78M cash balance held by NZOG directly you are left with $54M just sitting there.

Why not leave $30M in the kitty for Clipper and potential cost overruns in Ironbark and return $24M to shareholders?

They could do a capital return like last time by cancelling 1 in 2 shares to avoid tax etc.

I just can’t see the sense in them holding all that cash now if they are saying they can’t do anything with it.

Any thoughts Sharetraders?

The answer is simple, rather than attack the minority shareholders with a duplicitous offer based on a value derived from sharemarket portfolio interests rather than a value based on 100% control, just do things that make the company bigger.