NZ Oil & Gas (NZO)

[Nitaa]

The point is. There was an incident on the 21st. This leads me to the theory that it was an temporary or an isolated case. However, since there has not been any comments regarding this incident at the agm then i can only conclude it wasnt discussed. If that is the case then as investors we are playing blind mans bluff.

[duncan macgregor]

The point is. There was an incident on the 21st. This leads me to the theory that it was an temporary or an isolated case. However, since there has not been any comments regarding this incident at the agm then i can only conclude it wasnt discussed. If that is the case then as investors we are playing blind mans bluff.

I would think that the investors that voted in favour of being ripped off at the AGM would not have the wit to ask. I would also think that a reasonable company would go to great lengths to reassure investors in an accident of this magnitude. The end result is a few more selling out and moving on never to return. Macdunk

[shasta]

I would think that the investors that voted in favour of being ripped off at the AGM would not have the wit to ask. I would also think that a reasonable company would go to great lengths to reassure investors in an accident of this magnitude. The end result is a few more selling out and moving on never to return. Macdunk

Macdunk

Its a bit unfair pointing the finger at NZO over the spill...

We hold 12.5% of the JV & thus will incur 1/8th of the costs, BUT for a producer spitting out over 40,000bopd (12.5% share) im sure the expense is a mere blip to the revenues of approx $NZ5m per week being accrued.

The next quarterly will show revenues in excess of $50m, what else have we all been waiting for?

NZO IS PRODUCING & EARNING REVENUE!

Not even NZO's previously inept management cant stuff that up!

Hard to please some

[Toddy]

The market movements in NZO/NZOOD looked a little odd today. Maybe its the cunning investors manipulating the price of the heads to slowly off load the risky and over priced options.

Not much has changed. If you look back at the history of the OC's trading leading up to exercise date, then you will observe the same kind of behaviour happening.

[Bilo]

I would think that the investors that voted in favour of being ripped off at the AGM would not have the wit to ask. I would also think that a reasonable company would go to great lengths to reassure investors in an accident of this magnitude. The end result is a few more selling out and moving on never to return. Macdunk

McDunc
First the votes at the AGM were controlled by the chairman. It didn't matter what anyone said he had in excess of 120M proxies, if the reporting hasn't made that blatantly obvious the chair certainly did by mentioning it as his very first utterance - up yours too as it were. Any vote against the chair would have been a meer protest vote, name booked in the minutes as a disagreeable bug_er.

The oil spill incident wasn't mentioned during the meeting but a written update ex AWE was available at the meeting - hence there was little additional to say at that time.

Attending the AGM was a waste of time - I guess that was why you weren't there or because you aren't a shareholder and therefore not invited?

[blockhead]

The point is. There was an incident on the 21st. This leads me to the theory that it was an temporary or an isolated case. However, since there has not been any comments regarding this incident at the agm then i can only conclude it wasnt discussed. If that is the case then as investors we are playing blind mans bluff.

Nita, do you not read the information NZO makes available ? There for all to see, McDunc included, the Co kept investors well informed re the oil spillage (imo)

[blockhead]

https://www.directbroking.co.nz/Dire...uote=Go+%3E%3E

meant to add this

[blockhead]

Thats not right for some reason, go to DirectBrokings site and look at "News" on NZO's chart

[Nitaa]

blockhead.

Are you referring to the article below..re update on discharge incident. I havent included the first post dated 25th Oct (the day before this announcement) as this one seems more appropriate. If you want to review the first one then cut and paste this link http://stocknessmonster.com/news-ite...=NZSE&N=155698

imo i considered the announcement to the market was only because of the news that tar balls were evident along a particular stretch of the Taranak coastline. No specific mention was made of where exactly or how long the stretch covered. You made a point in saying that they had disclosed enough or relevant information. I guess as a shareholder i am a lone voice in sharing an opposite view to the rest of NZO holders. clealry AWE and the JV did not think that the information was important to the market at the time. But why not ease investors minds by specifying the extent of the problem, what caused it etc, potential volume of oil spillage or whatever. Personally i am more dissapointed that no one asked for more detailed information or at least a copy of the incident report that was made to the maritime dept. As i said, clearly i am a lone voice in this particular incident and one that i wont continue to fight a losing battle.

On a different stock but considering we on the topic of disclosure, i want to draw a parrelel with Geneva Finance. The company today got a reprieve from its investors. Only time will tell if they made a right decision. Clearly Geneva had or has some things to hide due to lack of disclosure. The consumer Institute wanted to be at the meeting but wasnt invited. Geneva had that right but if they had a solid plan and want to be transparent then it would have been a great vote of confidence by letting them come along. By not allowing it then has the opposite effect. so what about NZO and the Oil leak problem. To me the same thing. Is it actually worse than what it was lead to believe. If its nothing then why didnt the company make a mention of it at the agm. it would have been good pr if they had especially if the incident was mnore or less a non event. imo it is worse than that but have no idea how much worse.

NZO
26/10/2007
GENERAL

REL: 0933 HRS New Zealand Oil and Gas Limited

GENERAL: NZO: UPDATE ON DISCHARGE INCIDENT

New Zealand Oil and Gas Ltd (NZOG) has been advised that that the oil
recovered from the Taranaki coast appears to be similar to oil produced from
the Tui oil field. As a participant in the Tui Area Oil Project, NZOG is
working closely with the Joint Venture operator of the field, AWE Ltd, to
complete the investigations.
AWE has also identified an incident which occurred on the Floating Production
Storage and Offloading vessel 'Umuroa' on 21 October, 2007, which could be
related to the oil found on the coast. This incident, reported to Maritime
New Zealand on that day, involved the discharge of potentially contaminated
produced water from the Tui field.

Investigations into whether the oil on the beach can be directly linked to
the Umuroa discharge are incomplete.
AWE is working closely with New Zealand authorities, including Maritime New
Zealand and the Taranaki Regional Council, to identify the nature and source
of the oil. AWE has supplied a sample of Tui project crude to Maritime NZ
for analysis and comparison with the degraded oil washed up on the coast.
NZOG has been advised that Taranaki Regional Council has collected
approximately six cubic metres of contaminated sand, and this is believed to
be the majority of the affected area.
The Tui area oil project lies approximately 60 km from the Taranaki
coastline.

ENDS
End CA:00155752 For:NZO Type:GENERAL Time:2007-10-26:09:33:21

[blockhead]

Are you referring to the article below..re update on discharge incident. I havent included
REL: 0933 HRS New Zealand Oil and Gas Limited

Yes Nita, I think they told all they knew at the time, surely that is fair enough isn't it ?

Any further comment re amounts or source at the time would have been conjecture.