NZ Oil & Gas (NZO)

[Grimy]

Do you know if the NZSA will vote their proxies for Brian, or should those of us who have given our proxy votes to NZSA amend our instructions to make sure? (I've already directed them to vote no on the buy out).

[mistaTea]

https://www.nbr.co.nz/story/activist...der-nz-oil-gas

[RTM]

https://www.nbr.co.nz/story/activist...der-nz-oil-gas

I don’t have NBR, but I guess the article reflects much of what is on ShareTrader ?

[blackcap]

https://www.nbr.co.nz/story/activist...der-nz-oil-gas

Thanks mistaTea, I have just actually purchased a subscription to the NBR. Fascinating read.

[mistaTea]

I don’t have NBR, but I guess the article reflects much of what is on ShareTrader ?

It does, and the activist sharehoder (James Dunphy) also points out that a report on Ironbark prospects should be comissioned by a company that actually has expertise in the matter (from a specialist petroleum engineering firm such as Risc Advisory) before minority holders can make an educated decision on whether or not to sell.

He points out that 74c is low ball for all the same reasons we have.

John Pagani refutes all of his claims out of hand. Reiterates that all the information needed to make a decision is provided in the scheme booklet etc etc.

James has also made a complaint to the takeovers panel which is under review.

[digger]

Do you know if the NZSA will vote their proxies for Brian, or should those of us who have given our proxy votes to NZSA amend our instructions to make sure? (I've already directed them to vote no on the buy out).

Thanks for that. Next Tuesday I will quote you at the Hamilton NZSA.

[Not too Flash]

Got the phone call last night to make sure I had the updated offer and that I was voting .......

[RTM]

It does, and the activist sharehoder (James Dunphy) also points out that a report on Ironbark prospects should be comissioned by a company that actually has expertise in the matter (from a specialist petroleum engineering firm such as Risc Advisory) before minority holders can make an educated decision on whether or not to sell.

He points out that 74c is low ball for all the same reasons we have.

John Pagani refutes all of his claims out of hand. Reiterates that all the information needed to make a decision is provided in the scheme booklet etc etc.

James has also made a complaint to the takeovers panel which is under review.

Thanks. RTM

[mistaTea]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12277782

Much more thorough article from Gaynor this time round. I suspect he has done much more research into NZOG since his last opinion piece (which I felt started off ok, but then wandered off topic).

He rightly points out how SoA's enable these big conglomerates to come in and pick off NZ companies with relative ease (versus a standard takeover process that requires 90% approval from target shares).

This latest low ball bid will fail I have no doubt. But, in my view, all it will mean is that they will keep coming back with a new offer slightly higher than the last until they eventually sneak over the 75%.

Thereby still enabling them to eventually buy the rest of the company for a price less than a rational buyer and seller would transact if they were selling the whole business.

[Lion]

It’s been a quiet few days on this thread.


Here are some figures about the size of Clipper from an NZOG announcement, 21st Feb 2017:
“Analysis of the prospect in the Clipper permit, PEP 52717, has been underway since a 3D seismic survey was completed at the end of 2013. It revealed up to three horizons in the structure. Best estimates of unrisked petroleum in place (100%) in the three horizons now total 11 trillion cubic feet of gas (tcf), and 1.5 billion barrels of liquid (oil or gas condensate) within the proven petroleum system. (5.5 tcf and 750 million barrels net to New Zealand Oil & Gas.)”


1.5 billion barrels of petroleum liquids has equivalent energy to around 1.5b x 6000 cu ft of gas (at 6000 cu ft to one barrel).
That’s 9 trillion cu ft. (tcf)
11 + 9 = 20.
That’s energy equivalent to 20 tcf of gas in Clipper. NZOG has 50% of the permit, (or 10 tcf).


Ironbark is supposed to have 15 tcf of gas. NZOG has just under 26% of Ironbark (counting its share of CUE) (Or 3.9 tcf).


To convert both fields to barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) Ironbark is 2.5bbl and Clipper 3.3bbl.


Now, there are no doubt many differences between the two fields. Clipper doesn’t have a nearby LNG plant and is in deeper, rougher water and a little further offshore.


But Clipper is one hell of a potential asset and shouldn’t be ignored while we are trying to evaluate the worth of NZOG.
That 2017 announcement said "a gas-to-shore LNG project is considered the most likely model". And a later announcement said that gas could be economically used in SI homes and industry.

I rather suspect OGOG know full well what Clipper might be worth.