NZ Oil & Gas (NZO)

[Bixbite]

Todays release now admits this.Then it will be business class tickets and expensive wines each way one a fortnight to run the show---a show that over time will likely show nothing but continued expenses.
What do others think.??

Business class tickets!!!!????

We should have a jet plane to show our NEW ZEALAND's status, shouldn't we?

[Mr Tommy]

Well did PPP have to set up an office in Vietnam for their buy in? Why does Nog need one in Europe then>

Separate issue, what are all the weird trades going thru on NZO, every 15 mins or so?
Today its parcels of 230, yesterday it was 1328.
On http://www.stocknessmonster.com/ you can see the individual trades.
I wonder if its the share buy back.

[brucey09]

Snr. Tom
The ceo lived in Europe for some time so he can catch up his friends yes?

[fabs]

I wonder, is it really wise for management to spend more money trying to underpin or stabilize the S/P instead letting it find its true level?
It seems to have now entered into a stable and market driven cycle.
Maybe entering again if drastic circumstances drive it well below 80 cents.
Any opinions?

[blockhead]

Its a decision already made so they have to go with it, Mr market will decide the value which ever way.

On another angle, how would NZO shareholders react if NZO's name appeared on the list of interested bidders in Pike ???

[fabs]

Lets hope not, but would not be surprised, they have such a wealth and depth of Coal mining expertise and the seeming unlimited funds not to speak of the commensurate professional gamblers easy to come by salaries to engage.

[J R Ewing]

I can't see NZO bidding for Pike. That would be a major U-turn on the long stated policy of wanting to exit Pike and concentrate on oil in due course.

[digger]

I can't see NZO bidding for Pike. That would be a major U-turn on the long stated policy of wanting to exit Pike and concentrate on oil in due course.

JR Ewing,this policy was set up under very different circumstances than now exist.The U Turn happened when the mine blow up.


Under the conditions now existing i would not be entirely unhappy if they did take part. It all depends on what is happening below the radar of what the average shareholder knows. NOG might very suspect know that opencast is possible from private govt hints, or that the mine is in better order than a blind sell now will force it to be desposed of.Remember NOG 30% holding under receivership carries no weight unlike the importance it would be under normal trading circumstances.But dispite this NOG is in the best position to get the best value and if the blind sell now does not deliver this i certainly would hope Management does step into the action. In fact for now getting the right price is far far more important than mucking around setting up overseas deals and expensive offices.
So there is my call---Nog should be in up to a reasonable sell level.

[blockhead]

I'm with you Digger, if it was a good idea 5-6 years ago then surely it is an even better idea now with a swag of the ground work completed.

[oldowl]

NOW READ THIS

Suitor Solid Energy undermining Pike River's value,
says receiver
Last updated 05:00 07/05/2011
Government-owned coal miner Solid Energy is accused of playing "a clear commercial game" to sink the
value of the Pike River Coal mine, which it wants to buy.
In a High Court action sought against the state-owned enterprise and two West Coast land owners,
Pricewaterhouse Coopers receiver John Fisk said "Pike's creditors will likely suffer significant detriment" if
Solid Energy's takeover of leases over crucial coalhandling facilities at Ikamatua, near Greymouth, are
allowed to stand.
"Its actions appear to be an attempt to place Solid Energy in a better commercial position than other
prospective purchase of the mine by taking over a key infrastructure asset, making the sale process more
complex and uncertain and adding a value-destructive element."
Solid Energy has rejected the allegations in the receiver's affidavit but said it couldn't respond in detail as
the matter was to come before the court.
Mr Fisk's affidavit cites a March 20 statement by Solid Energy's chief executive, Don Elder, saying "any
solution to invest in and work the mine must address the interests of the unsecured creditors on the West
Coast as a top priority."
"However," the affidavit says, "Solid Energy's actions in obtaining leases over the land which holds key
infrastructure for the mine, at the expense of Pike, is in direct contrast to that statement.
In a statement on the Thursday deadline for expressions of interest to the receivers, Solid Energy said it
was committed to recovering the bodies of the 29 men and "if possible to address the situation of the
unsecured West Coast creditors."
"We expect that any company seeking to acquire the assets should be held to the same expectations," said
Solid's chief operating officer Barry Bragg. "The worst that could happen for the families and the West
Coast is that a speculator acquires the assets and banks them in their resource portfolio."
He said it was a matter of record that since the tragic explosions at the Pike River Mine, Solid Energy has
committed staff, equipment and other resources to assist the recovery effort and has also supported Pike
River Coal by selling some coal on its behalf just before the company went into receivership.
However, the receiver's affidavit says the coal-handling facilities stoush is just the latest in a string of
actions that have made life more difficult for the Pike receivers, including alleged under-payment for coal
sold on Pike's behalf by Solid.
The receiver alleges Solid Energy's other actions include:
*"onerous penalties Solid Energy has looked to crystallise in respect of the Coal Transportation Agreement
with Pike", under which Solid was to allow Pike to send up to one million tonnes of coal by rail to Lyttelton
annually. Solid Energy effectively controls the rail links between the West Coast coalfields and Lyttelton;
*"initial rejection of Pike's force majeure under the CTA and attempt to cancel the CTA; and
*"a material variance in the actual versus market prices Pike has received for coal it has sold to Solid
Energy which remains unexplained."
PATTRICK SMELLIE
Solid Energy's corporate communications director, Vicki Blyth,said the company had pursued the Ikamatua
coalhandling facilities "opportunistically", as it represented the only site in the area where longer trains could
be loaded and would be useful for additional stockpiling.
In its Thursday statement, the company said it had "recently leased the land at the Pike River rail loadout at
Ikamatua to complement its development projects in the Reefton and Greymouth area."
Mr Fisk's affidavit details the receiver's efforts to keep paying rent on leased, disused farmland where Pike
had spent $7 million on new facilities and access roads.
"The best value for Pike will be in its ability to sell the Ikamatua facility as a working operation to the
successful purchase as part of the overall sale package," in order to "extract the best value for the company
and its creditors."
It says one of the two lessors, O'Malley Farming, had counter-signed documents on January 31 varying the
lease to allow the receiver to keep paying the $50,000 annual ground rent, which is currently paid up to
June 16.
Trustees of the R W Brown Family Trust, which also owned part of the Ikamatua land, did not respond to
the receivers, but sought on March 21 to cancel its lease with Pike, and an identical cancellation came that
day from O'Malley Farming.
"On 1 April 2011, the receivers were informed by solicitors acting for O'Malley Farming and the Trust that
they had entered into new leases with Solid Energy on substantially similar terms."
While clearly a bidder for the whole Pike operation, Solid had never indicated it had "specific interests in the
Ikamatua Facility or that it wished enter into arrangements for it outside of a full purchase of the mine and
associated assets."
The receivers want the O'Malley cancellation declared void, and to overturn the Trust's cancellation on
grounds that the Pike receivership did not constitute grounds for breaking the lease.
- BusinessDesk