NZ Oil & Gas (NZO)

[mistaTea]

The answer is simple... just do things that make the company bigger.

The ideal scenario for shareholders is definitely for Management to deploy the capital into income generating assets. If they genuinely can't invest the dosh we have (and borrow the shortfall) to invest in a large production asset, then they could look at either purchasing the rest of Cue or merging Cue and NZO.

Second option would be better as you would immediately make large savings by sacking the NZO board, the CEO, the lawyer etc etc and using what Cue already have in place. A fellow shareholder mentioned this possibility to me (the guy is pretty switched on)...have Cue do a reverse takeover/merger of NZO. Existing Cue and NZO shareholders get shares in the new entity...
Then we just end up with a larger Cue that is only listed on the ASX. No problem working with the Aussie government on Energy Supply and the larger Cue would have no issues borrowing money for future projects.

There are plenty of things they could do with the money - and of course we can't trust a thing they say anymore. So when they tell us it has not been possible to do anything with the money we need to take it with a very large bucket of salt.

However, if I am wrong and investing the tens of millions of dollars is genuinely not possible - then give us our money back so we can find other investments to increase our return.

[dodgy]

The ideal scenario for shareholders is definitely for Management to deploy the capital into income generating assets. If they genuinely can't invest the dosh we have (and borrow the shortfall) to invest in a large production asset, then they could look at either purchasing the rest of Cue or merging Cue and NZO.

Second option would be better as you would immediately make large savings by sacking the NZO board, the CEO, the lawyer etc etc and using what Cue already have in place. A fellow shareholder mentioned this possibility to me (the guy is pretty switched on)...have Cue do a reverse takeover of NZO. Then we just end up with a larger Cue that is only listed on the ASX. No problem working with the Aussie government on Energy Supply and the larger Cue would have no issues borrowing money for future projects.

There are plenty of things they could do with the money - and of course we can't trust a thing they say anymore. So when they tell us it has not been possible to do anything with the money we need to take it with a very large bucket of salt.

However, if I am wrong and investing the tens of millions of dollars is genuinely not possible - then give us our money back so we can find other investments to increase our return.

Hi All,
Beware you may be Barquing up the wrong investment tree. Time will tell I guess.
-d

[digger]

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 !

Companies control the email address of all shareholders. Under the privacy Act they can not pass these emails on to anyone. So in a case like this we have the companies act 1993. This act allows any sharholder to contact all shareholders if a matter such as the past two SOA come before us. Under the Act 1993 you must give notice to the company so many working days in advance,and if you do your points of view are past on to the other shareholders at the companies expense. I or I should say we thought it was all done correctly but they twised it to say we were out by two days and had to pay for it ourselves. And what made me so mad was that I was following John Pagani advise to wait for the scheme booklet. This was nothing short of a trick which I fell for. In the event this SOA went throught it would have been off to court as what the NZO did was just not legal I would be argueing. But that is all behind us now except my future trust in Board members,which is a little on the little side.

Soon we will all be getting the AGM meeting details. Note Brian Roulston is standing for director. He has bugger all chance as OGOG controls the show with 70% ownership., but consider voting for him as a sort of wakeup call to the company.

[RTM]

Companies control the email address of all shareholders. Under the privacy Act they can not pass these emails on to anyone. So in a case like this we have the companies act 1993. This act allows any sharholder to contact all shareholders if a matter such as the past two SOA come before us. Under the Act 1993 you must give notice to the company so many working days in advance,and if you do your points of view are past on to the other shareholders at the companies expense. I or I should say we thought it was all done correctly but they twised it to say we were out by two days and had to pay for it ourselves. And what made me so mad was that I was following John Pagani advise to wait for the scheme booklet. This was nothing short of a trick which I fell for. In the event this SOA went throught it would have been off to court as what the NZO did was just not legal I would be argueing. But that is all behind us now except my future trust in Board members,which is a little on the little side.

Soon we will all be getting the AGM meeting details. Note Brian Roulston is standing for director. He has bugger all chance as OGOG controls the show with 70% ownership., but consider voting for him as a sort of wakeup call to the company.

Thanks for that, I understand more clearly now. Once again, appreciate all your efforts.
And thanks for reminder re Brian.

[Fabs37]

What is Actually stopping this lot to sell off all or some interests in the present held Projects to any sister CO,s at any price??
Also interesting to find out if pos. what are the likly redundancy Packages to any of the too many non performing gent,s on the Through of NZOG???

[mistaTea]

What is Actually stopping this lot to sell off all or some interests in the present held Projects to any sister CO,s at any price??
Also interesting to find out if pos. what are the likly redundancy Packages to any of the too many non performing gent,s on the Through of NZOG???

I suspect Court proceedings by minority interests would deter OGOG from doing anything 'dodgy' like what you suggest.

OGOG have a tremendous amount of power as majority owner to set the strategic agenda, make capital allocation decisions etc. But that doesn't mean they can just do whatever they want to bolster their interests at the expense of minority holders.

I also don't think that we can deduce from recent events that just because OGOG tried their luck at getting the rest of NZOG for a cheap price that they are these evil megalomaniacs plotting their next nefarious actions to acquire the rest of the business.

I remain a harsh critic of the SOA that was put before shareholders, but that's all over now.

In terms of redundancies - God only knows. Definitely far too much money is being paid between CUE and NZOG Board and Management fees though compared to the income these companies are actually producing.

Shareholders would be better served with one CUE-NZOG company so that the duplicated roles could be removed. The problem with trying to do a merger of sorts at this point is that Cue shares are selling at somewhat of a premium on the ASX while NZOG shares are selling at a discount to asset value on the NZX. So quite how you would come up with a 'fair value' for each company is debatable.

[Fabs37]

[Its only a DODGY SUGGESTION IF ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE, IS IT RELY??

Only asked IS IT POSSIBLE ?? yes am aware of ending up before a court not much of a deterrent to them.
Outcome, Your guess as good as anybody's.
For Example how it works for some yes; As per below

As for TRUSTING this lot?
1/ Targeting 70% hold with consequent long term planning in mind. [ yes presumptuous of me att. but turning out that way ]
2/Reminding us constantly harping on how they are working hard Creating Value for S/H,s [ well YOU be the judge of that ]
3/ SOA
4/ No Apologies
Or giving them the BOD.

Tony Radfords Mineral Res. Co,s or was it Otter Gold by then LOSS at the Privy Court London after the NZ High Court ruled in his favor twice against the big Boys.
At least Tony while often reviled by the investment fraternity made at least for THIS investor more money than other CO,s made for me put together over many years.
BTW; HAVE NOTHING AGAINST BIG BOYS OR CO,S. as long as they ARE TRANSPARENT.
Hope that helps

[RTM]

Well....John's told us what he thinks !

http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-websit...612/312248.pdf

[blackcap]

Well....John's told us what he thinks !

http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-websit...612/312248.pdf

Yeah but the amounts are immaterial and he is leaving the company anyway. So that does not mean much to me.

However I am concerned about things such as corporate costs and Andrew Jeffries on $800k and what does he do for that money. Surely he would not be helping out OGOG on their other projects?

[mistaTea]

Yeah but the amounts are immaterial and he is leaving the company anyway. So that does not mean much to me.

However I am concerned about things such as corporate costs and Andrew Jeffries on $800k and what does he do for that money. Surely he would not be helping out OGOG on their other projects?

Andrew should be paid maybe a quarter of what he currently gets. And his new duties should include John Pagani’s existing ones - answering the odd email here and there. That way Pagani’s role doesn’t have to be replaced with a new body.