oil slumps to $44.20, page-7

IMHO, shareholders should not wrap all these different issues into the one parcel.
the issue of whether the ELK investment as a business proposition is just one of a number of issues.
the issues to be decided before that are even more basic imho.
1. should MEL transfer its current business/operations to a foreign country? operating in a foreign country has all sorts of very real risks.
2. given the magnitude of the potential investment relative to MEL's current position, shouldn't MEL shareholders be given the opportunity to vote on the proposal?
3. if ELK s/h are required to be provided with a IER, why are the MEL s/h denied one?
4. should the board of MEL have lent $2.5m of MEL's very scarce cash to ELK, prior to ELK s/h getting their IER, and prior to their voting? Whilst the loan might be convertible to equity in ELK if the loan cannot be repaid by ELK on due date, why would MEL want to end up with shares in ELK in a foreign country, in a company of which it has no majority control? And to a coy which has no cash? Question is, would MEL have lent $2.5m to ELK if this deal was NOT on the table???

So imho, these questions need to be answered, THEN decide IF the ELK business/operations are the most appropriate for MEL to invest in.

Given the current POO, surely there are very good opportunities in Aust?