.................................................. ......................
Printable View
.................................................. ......................
..................….
Soon after the first SOA was announced I asked John by sharetrader way back in early july if he could fill me in on the access minor shareholders had to all the emails that NZO control to comminate with Shareholders.. John never replied but Brian Roulston did. We then made up some shareholder statements for consideration that was suppost to go to all shareholders once the scheme booklet was released.. NZO was first issued these intended statements on 19th july/19,pointing out that they were not final as at that stage we did not know what was in the scheme booklet.While John Pagani never formally acknowledged being in receit of the july statements he did email me about some of the contents,saying that I was out of line doing any opposition when I no idea what would be in the booklet. John pointed out that as it was a court supervised process I would have the required days to get my Statements in so that the forwarding cost would be met by NZO as set out in law.
Well nothing like that happened. I sent in the final Shareholders Statements on the 6th sept not wanting to wait any longer. On the the 8th Sept the booklet was released. Suddenly NZO who from july to sept would not talk to me suddenly started emailing me about these Shareholder statements saying that as the required working days were insufficient before the meeting of 62 cents SOA offer all the cost to put an alternative view to shareholders would now have to be born by me. So minor shareholders never got an alternative view points to consider.
I spoke about this today . The reply i received made to realise how much the company has change since the days of Tony Randford.Tony liked and encouraged alternative views. Not so anymore. The reply I got at the meeting was that they did consider my statements but were not worth passing on.
Now hang on. Since when did NZO become the filter that all idea not wanted have to first get the approval of the board.
A number of other shareholders did say they so my point that the company did shut down alternative viewpoints but one centainly did not. He said why did you not say what these points were. After some small time I realised he was part of the company and hoped to confuse the situation.
Spoke to many board members and my clear impression is that the board needs a good cleanout.I first joined this company in 1984 and have never before felt this way. They are too dictatorrial and have no clear idea about the value of concensus.
Rosalind Archer said that the opposition to the SOA was from a few who just wanted the max for their shares. Later on a NZSA member spoke and said that that is what ever intelligent investers wants,and should want.
Rosalind has little ides about risk and reward so went on about how a dry well could effect the shareprice. Dosen't seem to understand that we all know that and that is why we invest in drilling.
But I went away very annoyed about the arrognant bastereds that feel they have the right to decide what the shareholders should be allowed to hear.{ we considered your statments and found them wanting]
You ignorant shareholdes don't have the intelligence to arrive at that conclusion yourselves so the board will protect you from such ideas.
Good morning Digger.
Unfortunately you have been going on since 1984 about how great this company is....Why do you bother with it? From where I am standing, in my opinion ,this company from Radfords "thrill and drill days" up to now have engaged only in my wealth destruction - in oil and coal. But you hang in there....Good luck with that.
Regards,
-dodgy (on and off holder since 1988)
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 !
My experience with this company that goes right back to Tony Radford's days is they have never really engaged with shareholders in a collaborative manner asking what they want ?
Have they ever presented at a NZSA meeting and being open to questions and feedback before ?
When was their last investor day where they brought shareholders in on their strategy.
Huge amounts of the cash that Kupe spat out was wasted, in my opinion.
I got out years ago but still have a morbid fascination with how "well" they're doing.
Yes they have. Andrew Jeffries presented in depth at the Wellington Branch of the NZSA meeting in Khandallah just a few months ago. It was a very good presentation of over an hour and a half. I purchased more shares at about 50 cents on the strengh of that presentation.
The Board and Management have made it crystal clear that it is impossible for NZOG to purchase equity in meaningful production assets (as part of the doom and gloom story). We are too small and companies like Beach prefer to partner with larger companies with deep pockets - like OGOG.
Fair enough.
But if that is really true then NZOG’s destiny is 100% tied to the success or failure of Ironbark and Clipper.
In which case, what is the benefit in sitting on all that cash?
If you deduct the $24M held in escrow from the $78M cash balance held by NZOG directly you are left with $54M just sitting there.
Why not leave $30M in the kitty for Clipper and potential cost overruns in Ironbark and return $24M to shareholders?
They could do a capital return like last time by cancelling 1 in 2 shares to avoid tax etc.
I just can’t see the sense in them holding all that cash now if they are saying they can’t do anything with it.
Any thoughts Sharetraders?
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.
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.
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.
[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
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?
Andrew could at least proof read the announcement before it goes out. General Counsel can’t spell ‘unknown’ correctly
http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-websit...691/312366.pdf
All over red rover.
Oh dear, we missed an excellent chance to get good value for our now virtually worthless shares. All we can do now is dream of a 5% wonder in the distant future. Time to look at other opportunities, power companies perhaps due to the future shortage of gas?
Indeed, when the Ironbark gamble fails miserably next year and we have nowhere to turn to, I expect OGOG to send me a bottle of Dom Perignon.
A thank you for my role in stopping their bid, thereby ensuring they were not even more exposed to this 95% sure-to-be-doomed gamble.
So far as I think their low-ball offer attempt to acquire 100% control of NZO was clumsy - yes, I consider OGOG to be foolish indeed.
At the same time, I should clarify that in no way am I suggesting or implying that just because Northington tried to put a ridiculous figure of 5% as the probability of success... that I expect Ironbark to be a 'sure thing'.
Far from a 'sure thing' there are very real risks involved with deep sea exploration. Our chance of succeeding in this permit is a hell of a lot higher than 5%, but it is entirely possible that we could drill it and have it come up dry.
Investors understand this and factor it in to the price they pay to purchase equity in the company. And with a SP of around 60c or so at the moment, the company is still statistically cheap in my view.
So Beach released this today: https://yourir.info/resources/0c5a44...esentation.pdf
Of particular interest to us is the commentary on Slide 18:
"The final area I wanted to highlight was our upcoming frontier exploration opportunities.
Our exploration team carefully assesses new exploration opportunities for investment, and Beach’s hurdle for frontier areas is very high. We are not a company that participates in 1 in 8 or 1 in 10 chance of success wells, no matter how material they may be.
For us, we like a 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 chance of success at these large frontier exploration plays. We currently have an interest in 2 material frontier investment opportunities which fit this criteria.
Our investment in these wells in the Carnarvon Basin and offshore New Zealand is modest; we are not betting the company on any of these. However the success case in any one of these wells has the potential to add material resources to the company and provide another avenue for medium to long term growth. In short – they have “company changer” potential."
5% Probability of commercial success indeed!
Well that post beats me Mista tea.. I was looked right in the eye by our nZO directors and assured that 5% it was. So your post from Beach must be in error.
Looking forward to next years drill. The 5% is just 11 months away. I certainly hope OGOG keeps to their word and dose not come back with another slightly improved SOA.
Thanks for that Mista Tea, that is very telling indeed. Incredible really. I think these prices of NZO at 62 cents are very cheap. Time to load up.
No doubt if you quizzed the Great Minds at NZOG, they would try to bog you down in semantics. They would say the 5% estimate referred to commercial success, whereas Beach have just said 'success' - which could mean just discovering hydrocarbons but then not being able to extract them.
And of course it will be more bs from our Trustworthy Leaders - I do not believe for a second that Beach Energy are misleading their investors by issuing a 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 probability of success figure, when they know damn well the $35M they are about to spend is actually 95% sure to be money down the drain.
I like how they categorically state they wouldn't even touch a 1 in 8 (12.5%) or a 1 in 10 (10%) odds of success prospect, regardless of how large the potential upside might be. Those odds are a lot higher than what we were told!
How the Directors could look digger in the eye and tell him the odds of success truly are 1 in 20 really does make me feel sick.
Proving they mislead the market is near impossible under the current framework, unfortunately - but the whole thing really is shameful. I know the TO Panel are still doing a retrospective on this, I have chatted to them and others are yet to meet with them. With a little luck they will be able to make some improvements for future SoA's so that minority holders are not at such a significant information disadvantage to the majority owner.
Fortunately in this case we were thoughtful and not so easily duped. But you can see how in other cases minority interests can easily be screwed over.
SP seems to be holding steady around 61 - 62c.
Perhaps the recent events have at the very least caused existing shareholders to rethink how much they give their shares away for.
Beach Energy, now as a big partner of OGOG, have made a bold statement with their "wouldn't even touch a 1 in 8 (12.5%) or a 1 in 10 (10%) odds of success prospect".
With the NZO Annual Meeting two weeks away, remember these final remarks from Rosalind Archer at the Special Meeting:
"Against this, you are being asked to believe the opinions of people who are trying to maximise the value they receive for their shares.
Look at some of their complaints:
They have complained that we didn’t have a commercial adviser. We did.
They complained that Kupe’s value did not reflect the project currently underway. It does.
Imagine if we drilled Ironbark, and it came in unsuccessfully. Then imagine that as a shareholder you discovered a report exists, from which a 5 per cent chance of success at Ironbark can be derived. And then imagine that you found out the independent directors knew about it, and had not alerted you to it.
I believe it is correct and prudent to put this choice in front of you. That’s why there is a vote."
So its wrong to maximise the value we receive for our shares! Naughty, naughty minority shareholders.
That was answered with 63% of the votes of minority shareholders being lodged against the scheme she was actively promoting. Such a rejection is almost unprecedented.
Let that not be the end of the matter - we must keep up the pressure on the board to appoint truly independent directors to look after minority shareholder interests. That may only be wishful thinking, but we need to make the effort in our own best interests.
The Annual Meeting is our next chance to do so, and you know what to do with your votes for the election of directors at that meeting.
Gidday team and many thanks to Wiremu for his recent post. I know that both new nominees for the NZOG Board, Samantha and Brian are working hard behind the scenes. Clearly, they don't necessarily post everything in public in this forum - but a lot going on to try and get the best for shareholders.
Just voted online for Brian, and voted against Rod.
Logic being, the current director's did absolutely nothing to look after and protect the interests of the small shareholders in the recent scheme of arrangement, whereas Brian was working hard behind the scenes to assist the small shareholders in NZO.
Even if as a group, the small shareholders are unsuccessful in having Brian elected and/or preventing the re-election of Rod, it should serve to send the current board a powerful message if all the small shareholders were to vote against Rod's re-election.
Hopefully given the recent public statements from Beach Energy and Cue regarding the chances of success with Ironbark, the Takeover Panels will take a long hard look at the statements made by the NZO directors, and call them to account.
so where did you get the info for voting. I have been waiting for an email message but nothing yet. Did you go to computershare? Seems I missed the action up to now but sure want to you as you have done. Your reason is sound and I sure hope small voters take it up.
Hi Digger,
Following recent posts from Wiremu and Blackcap I went online to Computershare and voted.
To the best of my recollection I haven't received anything from NZO in regards to voting.
From what I understand shareholders can vote online up until 10th December ready for the AGM.
I had a quick skim through the AGM notice while online at Computershare and noted with interest that NZO was doing their utmost to protect the old boys network by recommending shareholders vote for their man Rod, and vote against Brian and Samantha.
Given the total contempt they have shown towards the small shareholders recently I figure that voting against NZO's recommendation to re-elect Rod is our best and safest course of action.
Hi CD_ChCH,
I see that you voted online for Brian and against Rod. There is another director standing (Samantha Sharif) who is aligned with our interests and it would be worthy to give both Brian and Samantha our votes (and against for Rod) to show the Board that we have no confidence in BOTH current independent directors (although only 1 is standing for re-election) and want 2 alternatives. Samantha and Brian have no show at all of getting elected to the board as OGOG have the veto vote. However if both Samantha and Rod could get the majority of minority votes then that will be sending a statement.
I would consider you also vote for Samantha if you have not done so already. I am voting for both Samantha and Brian and against Rod.
This is outrageous, just eight days from when voting closes and there has been no communication by post or email from the company about the AGM.
I will be voting through computershare, thanks for the "heads up" guys.
Hi Blackcap,
Good point and forgot to mention in my original post that I had also voted for Samantha.
I note that NZO have recommended shareholders do not vote for Brian or Samantha - could it be they are terrified of having a truly independent director on the board and the fresh scrutiny that would bring?
So to recap my voting was as follows:
Rod - voted AGAINST
Brian - voted FOR
Samantha - voted FOR
Haha well I am not sure they are terrified as you put it :) but I think they want their own "independent" directors who are maybe more "pliable" (just my opinion of course). Standard practice from a board. Normally a board chooses who they want to represent the company and then put it to shareholders for a vote. Brian and Samantha are not who the board wants. But under NZX listing rules they have to open nominations from other shareholders. Normally no one gets nominated but in this case some shareholders feel are exceptional circumstances are warranted and have nominated Samantha and Brian. Who incidentally also both spoke at the SOA meeting in Wellington recently.
I do know a notice of meeting was sent to the NZX:
https://www.nzx.com/announcements/344306
however I have checked my email and snail mail and nothing has arrived from the company. That is a bit of a worry.
Resolutions 2,3, 4, are for the election of independent board members. Does anyone have any thoughts about resolution 1 and 5. Number 1 seems to be house keeping re the NZX listing, and number 5 is about opening the company's books and accounts to public scrutiny.
Apologies to NZO. Just found the notice of meeting sent to me via email from New Zealand Oil and Gas on the 14th November.
I know that Brian and Samantha have both been working hard behind the scenes meeting with stakeholders and other minority investors.
I am going to vote for both Brian and Samantha (and against Ritchie) – and suggest everyone does the same. We need to replace both current so-called Independent Directors and so it will be good to send a strong signal of who our choices are. I think these two will work well together for our interests.
If you log on to computer share there will be a general alert notification. This will be the NZO AGM vote. I could not find any link or reference to it when I clicked on the NZO holding in my computer share registry.
Have voted against Rod and in favour of the other two as well.
I agree entirely. It was not intuitive at all. Very poor of ComputerShare really. I went in 3 times to try and find it, and eventually did only because (thanks to this thread) I knew it had to be there somewhere. Certainly was not linked to from within the section detailing my NZO holding.
Regarding Director resolutions, my votes:
Rod - AGAINST
Brian - FOR
Samantha - FOR
I also got my email from NZO on the 14th of November about the meeting, with all the links for information and voting.
OK got my vote in for Brian. It's a protest vote as only an act of parliament will get it past OGOG.
Still as many as possible should vote as they see fit.
Have voted along the same lines as you digger. I want as many votes for Brian as possible to formalise our feelings regarding the way we have been treated.
Beyond that, and once OGOG re-elect Rod to the Board...the focus needs to shift to a constructive dialogue between minority shareholders and OGOG.
Ultimately, we want a positive outcome for all long-term. So, for what it's worth, I don't see any value continuing to read management the Riot Act at the AGM as some activist shareholders intend to do.
I agree. By now I think they have the message.When making a point you have to be aware of when to stop. Look at Hong Kong as an example. The protesters claim they are protecting freedom of speach--- then when someone speaks against them they pour pertrol on him and set it alight. china could not have done a better job of shutting down free speach.
So yes we have made our point very well and now should leave it for a time and see what eventuates. I am not planning to go to the AGM.
I see the NZ Shareholders Association have come out with the PVI's.
Resolution 1: In Favour
Resolution 2: Against
Resolution 3: In Favour
Resolution 4: In Favour
Resolution 5: In Favour
Resolution 6: In Favour
So they seem to be saying vote No for current independent director and are supporting the 2 independent directors being nominated by minority shareholders.
They also support resolution 5 a private resolution brought forward by Peter Cormack a shareholder.
You beat me to it Blackcap. I was about to post the same report.
Good to see NZSA taking a stand regarding this company. Here's a link to their proxy intentions.
Looks like an interesting meeting coming up!! GLH.
Gaynor commenting in the Herald:
There are four contentious resolutions on the agenda, particularly the re-election of independent director Rod Ritchie. Ritchie strongly recommended the recent low-priced takeover offer from NZOG's controlling shareholder, which was comprehensively rejected by minority shareholders.
Ritchie's re-election, which is Resolution 2, is strongly supported by the NZOG board, but the board has opposed Resolutions 3 and 4, which are the election of shareholder-nominated candidates Brian Roulston and Samantha Sharif.
Roulston and Sharif have more impressive CVs than Ritchie, including energy experience, yet the NZOG board opposes Roulston and Sharif because Ritchie's election "would fill the seven person quota of board appointments".
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12291703
I think there are those that are still hoping that OGOG will grow a conscience at the last minute and abstain from the Director vote.
They will not, and Rod will continue with his snout in the trough unless he finds some self respect and resigns. But even in that situation we would not get anyone we put forward on the Board. OGOG would just find someone else more agreeable and install him or her.
So unless there is some kind of rule change for Independent Director voting in a situation like ours where we are a listed company with one large majority owner...OGOG are well within their rights to select whoever they want, and they will do so.
So this amounts to a protest vote from minority shareholders, but it does serve the purpose of reminding OGOG not to forget about us as we do still have rights, and expect fair dealings in future plans. When the final votes are tallied it will also give Gaynor some talking points in his next article to point out how minority shareholders have very little say when it comes to selecting 'Independent' Directors.
Must be a good gig working for NZO.
16 employees out of a total of 20-25??? earn over $100k per annum. Of these 9 earn more than $200k and the average of the 16 is $273k The total is $4.3m.
Wonder what they did this last year for all that money. Sign me up!
Oh yes, money for jam alright! Especially considering very little was achieved over the last 12 months. The Ironbark deal was finalised, that's it.
When you add in wages for Cue staff that are doing the same roles as NZO I bet the cost double-up is even more stagerring.
Can't help but think we would be better off long-term with a single Cue-NZO entity so we could cut out a lot of the costs between staff and Director fees.
That is a very sensible suggestion. It would be a matter of getting CUE shareholders on board but even then that should not be too difficult as there are a lot of benefits for CUE as well in cutting costs, one could even argue that there are more benefits for CUE. Although it would mean the profile of a cue share changes and would not be as supercharged with the Ironbark drill. (i am guessing the cue shareholder has more to gain/less to lose than an NZO holder)
I decided to do the arithmetic on that question, blackcap. (I mean if there is no amalgamation, which, I agree, seems like a good idea)
An Australian ShareAnalysis article from June this year says a successful strike at Ironbark would have a ‘discovery value’ for NZO of $6.51 a share, for CUE of $1.31 and Beach (BPT) of 40c.
It’s not clear to me whether this discovery value is what the share price might become, or if it is on top of the existing SP.
Taking the lower option, the % increase on yesterday’s prices are 1042% for NZO, a remarkably similar 1048% for CUE and just 15% for Beach.
CUE does have less to lose though if Ironbark is not successful, as they have substantial other producing assets (and a drill result due any day now!)
NZO currently hold half of CUE, too, of course.
I think it is much simpler than that.
NZOG Market cap = approx $102M. If Cue thinks that $102M represents a fair value for NZOG and will generate a more attractive spread of costs over a combined asset base then they should be keen to do a merger (but in reverse whereby we end up with one entity listed on the Aussie stock exchange. A much better place for an Oil & Gas company to live given the current NZ political environment).
If Cue don't think NZOG is worth $102M then no point trying to go any further. Clearly, given I rejected both 62c and 74c I think NZOG is still on sale at 62c. But I don't speak for Cue.
We end up with a larger Cue listed on the ASX, with current NZO shareholders holding the majority of the shares in the 'Larger Cue'.
My question is purely SP driven. If Ironbark were to fail what would the CUE SP be? If Ironbark were to fail what would the NZO SP be? I am guessing the NZO sp would go to about 45 cents (bottom) so that is a loss of 25%. I would think the Cue SP would go to 7? cents which represents a loss of 40%. But I could be wrong and on first glances you are right it does look very similar (the risk/reward trade off) so the merging of the two entities might be easier than at first thought.
To further clarify my thinking...
NZO MC = NZ$102M. That market value in theory takes into account the 50.04% of Cue shares held.
Cue MC = NZ$90M. Cue minority holders have ~50% of that, so their MC = NZ$45M.
The combined entity of NZO + minority Cue holders would theoretically have a Day 1 MC of NZ$147M then.
Cue ownership of 'Larger Cue' = $45M/$147M = 30.6% of the new entity. So the total value of their shares would be unchanged, however they own a smaller piece of a larger organisation that is much more efficient so far as costs go.
The combined entity will have a 36.5% stake in Ironbark. Current Cue minority holders would have 30.6% equity * 36.5% Ironbark = ~11% ownership. Right now they have ~50% equity of 21.5% Ironbark = ~10.75% effective ownership.
So at current market cap they would likely benefit slightly in terms of their Ironbark exposure. But the 0.25% is negligble in the scheme of things, and I reckon NZO shareholders would still go for it because the cost savings long term are so large.
Bought some at 0.625 coz hoping for change of government direction on the next election, fingers crossed
http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-websit...739/313697.pdf
Looks like the Operator for Mahato is playing silly buggers.
Does not bode particularly well for the ongoing JV relationship.
Yes not happy CUE is my largest holding and was very much looking to a positive drilling ann. too now see the major JV partner now wants CUE out !!! I just don't get it did CUE not front with the correct J/V agreed funds ??? for their 12.5% what are they in breach of ???
Progress on Ironbark: https://info.nopsema.gov.au/environm...82/show_public
Ironbark-1 will be the first well BP has drilled as operator for more than a decade.
Cue Energy Resources Limited (CUE or
Company) advises that the claimed cash call from the Operator of the Mahato PSC, Texcal
Mahato EP Ltd, which was the subject of the disputed default notice referred to in the ASX
announcement of 10th Dec 2019, has been paid by Cue.
Cue is not receiving information from the Operator as required under the Joint Operating
Agreement and is evaluating all available options to address this and other breaches under
this agreement.
The Company will keep the market informed of any material developments on this matter.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12294692
Some pressure for the Climate Change Commission to review the offshore ban.
Meanwhile Megan Woods thinks everything is A-OK because we will have 11 years of proven gas left...and a bunch of existing exploration permits of which we have no idea how many will actually be drilled now due to the government's policy...and of those that are drilled...how many will actually strike.
The current lot are unlikely to listen to reason (they haven't so far!). Only a change in government will lead to a policy change in my view.
We can only speculate about changes in government.
The truth needs to be known so people not governments force changes.
Your link is good and worth reading-Huntly is burning more coal than it has for a decade.
This is a very dirty deed and needs to be stopped.
The only way it can be stopped is more natural gas supply(technology can make natural gas carbon neutral and pollution free)
I am concerned the confidence oil explorers and developers had that the New Zealand Government behaved in a deliberative and rational way towards their industry has been destroyed.
A new government from a different political party would probably overturn the exploration ban but given the long development time and long productive life of an oil discovery why would any oil company risk a further change of government and reinstatement of the ban.
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
I am hoping for a rational climate change strategy to emerge where their is a clear differentiation between oil and gas discoveries where Gas is promoted at Oils and Coals expense. With Gas CO2 emmisions at 1/2 of Coal's we have a viable strategy for a future Hydrogen generation and export economy once the Carbon Capture issue is sorted. Gas has to be available as a transition energy source for the baseload generation in Dry years. and Coal boilers have to be switched to Electric and Biomass where feasible. The only downside to Gas is the issue of methane leakage which has to monitored by satellite. Methane has 25 times the impact of CO2 and can reduce the overall benefits of Gas if not tightly controlled. Legislation should be brought in to at least burn any previously flared methane and generate power eg in Capstone turbines.
I agree with the sentiment. It may well be that the damage is done now to New Zealand’s reputation in terms of a place to invest in hydrocarbon exploration. NZ was always viewed as ‘frontier’ - so spooking investors with an outright ban out of the blue was just damned foolish.
Reversing the damage will be hard for a future government. Let’s say National get back in next year (and that is a big ‘if’ given labour have already started planning the next round of large bribes...)
...So National overturn the ban right away. Good. Beyond that I actually think they would now need to utilise taxpayer dollars to provide additional sweeteners and assurances to would-be explorers.
In the case of Ironbark - BP has a good working relationship with OGOG and NZOG...but before they went anywhere near Ironbark they would have to like the odds of success for Ironbark AND be absolutely sure they would not get screwed over in 3 years time should the government change again.
Now we are in a situation whereby if we still want the gas (and we very much do) taxpayers are going to have to effectively pay towards the drills.
Just my opinion.
Lets not point the finger at Labour with respect to election bribes...
"National to replace 10 single lane bridges in Northland
Monday, 9 March 2015, 3:48 pm
Press Release: New Zealand National Party
National to replace 10 single lane bridges in Northland
National Party Northland candidate Mark Osborne today announced National will commit to replacing 10 single lane bridges on Northland's Twin Coast Highway over the next six years. "
They are both as bad as each other with respect to that !
Oh absolutely. Don't get me wrong - I am not suggesting Labour (or any other political party) is better or worse than National at coming out with big bribes close to an election.
They all do it, no doubt about it.
I am just pointing out that Labour have already advised what their hefty bribes are and we are yet to learn what National's counter-bribes will be.
Interesting Beach Energy farm-in:
https://yourir.info/resources/0c5a44...-In_Agreed.pdf
Has anybody seen this? Bit of a bombshell to drop just as NZ Inc goes on holiday. Looks like the Cap has been put on Cap-in-Trade:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...to-ets-pricing
"This means businesses will be paying at least $20 for every tonne of emissions and possibly up to $50. The fixed price at which the Government sell the credits would move from $35, up from $25 now.
Climate Change Minister James Shaw said research showed that a $40 price was around the point where businesses started seriously investing in cleaner technology.
The aim is to see net emissions peak at around 2020 levels and then begin falling from 2022, according to a draft "emissions budget" for the years 2021-2025. This budget would be superseded by the first emissions budget from the Climate Change Commission in 2022."
The biggest resource at this time is Cash.
They are gambling on 2 massive Gas Prospects each worth billions.
Ironbark-to be drilled soon-my unqualified opinion odds of success around 1 in 3(NZO say 1 in 20,CUE 1 in 4, Beach approx one in 3 and a retired BP employee close relation to me one in 2-BP itself does not state odds but they are excited by this prospect)
Barque is slightly smaller and lacks infrastructure but OGOG ,majority owner NZO makes FPSO solutions(converts big old tankers to production LPG and storage)so no other infrastructure necessary.We cannot count on Barque being drilled.
https://www.nzx.com/announcements/346459
Sudden departure.
Big increase in sp on small volumes.
I can only speculate as to why.
Fortunately I bought a lot recently at 61 cents and certainly will not consider selling any until they reach a minimum low price -an honest fair price was 90 cents last year( mista tea low end valuation).
Might be a lot more now-we might see Australia changing from coal to gas-and Ironbark as likely as not could provide this(although NZO recently confirmed Northingtons assessed only a 1 in 20 chance so clearly no one would want to buy and the Independent Directors stated the sp could fall back to previous levels around 50 cents)
interesting price increase on no news, good to see, I rejected offer too.
Whether or not 'Global Warming' (or whatever you want to call it) is responsible for the latest bush fires, I imagine the Aussie government is going to be under sustained renewed pressure to speed up their transition to cleaner fuels. The warming climate certainly hasn't helped, that's for sure. The footage I have seen is bloody awful to watch - I really feel for them.
If there is a lot more pressure on their well-regarded and much-loved PM, I agree - when he is not surfing in Hawaii he will look to gas as the most likely stepping stone in a decades-long transition to lower emissions. Perhaps that will help generate more interest in the NZO stock as we get closer to drill.
Especially after Beach confirmed recently they don't do frontier exploration unless there is a 1/4 - 1/3 probability of commercial success minimum. Given their jubilance (shared by our CEO until recently for some strange reason...) we can assume the estimated success rate for Ironbark exceeds this.
Not a given that it will be successful later this year by any means - but if you are in the hydrocarbon exploration business, these are the best odds you could ever hope for really.
I have been trying to buy lately as well. Order not filled but got some. I was the first in at 64 so i guess that is still me. Cue is also doing well. In fact I was going to buy more Cue but it is relative to NZO in my opinion it has less upside.
Trump certainly has stirred up the oil market. Have just come back from town where I bought 430 liters of Diesel. By the end of this week that amount of diesel will cost 80 dollars more. By keeping an eye on the WTI you have about a week before a large movement hits the pump. So I would say fill up before the end of the week to save a few dollars.
The Sun still has not penetrated the smoke-24 hours of dark hazy sky.
Last night it was pretty dark at 7pm.
I think Digger you should think twice about using that Diesel !