Ann: Revised Terms on Corporate Transaction with ERM Power, page-43

Yep.
there is simply NO comparison between the current board and mgt, and that of the previous mob.
NO comparison whatsoever.

S/h also need to remember that in this current proposal to purchase the ERM O&G assets in WA, just WHO is taking the biggest risk???

It's not us ---- it's ERM!

In return for selling its hard assets into EGO, ERM has to provide an interest-free loan of about $15m, and has to provide $7.5m equity in EGO. Its further "reward" is the Top-up facility! ie more equity in EGO.

So it seems to me that ERM is taking most of the risk here.
If EGO does not perform, ERM has its equity at risk ( in far greater qty than us), PLUS it has a $15m loan to EGO which would be worth SFA if EGO gets into trouble. If the wells EGO propose to drill with the funds it raises simply do not hit hydrocarbons, then ERM (and us) are stuffed.

IMHO, the business plan of this board seems to make sense.
This proposal simply provides EGO with the ability of a quantum leap in growth, access to funding which it simply would not have access to, and a REAL business plan for growth. Under the previous board, we simply would NEVER have seen this outcome of a documented way forward. All we ever got was rehashed maps of the WA coastline, with lists of drill prospects - then CR after CR.

The unresolved questions I have relate to the fact that ERM end up with 19.99%, and that we have an open-ended liability in that Top-up Facility.
And these questions really are an issue of pricing. We simply do not YET have the information to assess.

BUT we need to wait for the KPMG IER to before we make up our minds.