NZ Oil & Gas (NZO)

[digger]

Can I make another suggestion that someone with a bit of skin in the game contacts the NZSA and also requests media be apprised and present at the meeting.

I am a member of NZSA and have skin in the game. Next Tuesday we have a meeting of the Waikato branch of NZSA. Will put your points to them.

[fish]

I am a member of NZSA and have skin in the game. Next Tuesday we have a meeting of the Waikato branch of NZSA. Will put your points to them.

Thats good Digger.
When researching last night I found the NZSA had put in a submission about their concerns over the change to the takeovers code with schemes of arrangement.
I feel the takeovers panel need to be alerted sooner rather than later.

[mistaTea]

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.

[Lion]

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.

[mistaTea]

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

[rooster]

15000 shares here, have voted against.

[RTM]

When we get this long awaited booket and have considered it,then vote if you haven't already. Vote against or get ripped off.. At that point a few of us working quitely now will put into action just what you have mentioned.
Watch this space.

Does anyone know....
how many shares are eligible to vote ?
Is there anyway to see progress ?
Sadly....this is almost as interesting as the up coming exploration.

[mistaTea]

Does anyone know....
how many shares are eligible to vote ?
Is there anyway to see progress ?
Sadly....this is almost as interesting as the up coming exploration.

If everybody voted, there would be around 49 million or so eligible minority votes. That would mean that you would need around 12.3 million AGAINST votes to block the SoA if everyone voted.

Not everybody will vote though. Some who do vote (but are on the fence) may elect to ABSTAIN too. So in reality, less than 12.3 million votes are required (I hate to guess what % voter turnout there will be, and prefer to therefore plan for the worst case scenario).

As at the last Annual Report, there are 5,680,248 shares belonging to shareholders who hold parcels of 4,999 or less. I have no idea how many of these shareholders will vote...but I would speculate that the majority that do vote would vote against this deal.
Why? Because they have little to lose and everything to gain by seeing out the Ironbark drill. An offer of between 1 - 3 grand for most of these shareholders is unlikely to entice them to give up a prospect that could potentially be worth tens of thousands of dollars to them in a year or so. This is how I think a logical investor would behave (I make no predictions for speculators as that is outside my wheelhouse).

You have another 3,378,574 who hold baskets between 5,000 and 9,999. I would wager that a reasonable number of those who vote would be thinking the same way.

Then you have your larger investors, with much more skin in the game who view themselves as long-term business owners. Large holders with parcels greater than 500,000 shares (but excluding OGOG) total 15,881,683 shares outstanding. These holders will be highly likely to vote, and many have been shareholders for some years. They could have sold out beforehand if they viewed the company prospects as dire, and I have good reason to believe a significant portion of these holders are very bullish on Ironbark.

Share price means nothing to them other than a buying opportunity when it is ridiculously low, and a selling opportunity when it is unreasonably high. Beyond that, they just want to sit quietly and own the business. I know for a fact that a large chunk of these investors are underwhelmed (putting it mildly) by this offer, and will vote AGAINST.

It will all boil down to the investment philosophy that the majority of the minority shareholder base adheres to. There will be a number of shareholders who bought at the low point and, for one reason or another, are happy to grab a 25% gain and go on their merry way.

But I think OGOG making comments about this being the last Annual Report (as though they are extremely confident of getting their low offer through...) is incredibly premature.

I can't say too much more at this junction, but as I have said before - I remain very much cautiously optimistic.

[Not too Flash]

If you wanted the cash why not just sell on the market @ 62 or 63 cents and pay a little brokerage rather than vote Yes and wait

160,000 and NO NO NO for me

[freddagg]

I just added up the ones I control, came to 82000, they will be voted NO.