Share
4,503 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 174
clock Created with Sketch.
30/10/14
14:24
Share
Originally posted by topender
↑
Yeah Joewolf, I am sorry as well.
Sorry? Well maybe sorry isn't an adequate term for feeling like we (shareholders) are being manipulated towards a transaction which doesn't appear to fit with the sentiment we are told it is based on.
1 The mantra we hear over the other huffing and puffing is "We are going to unlock Shareholder value!"
2 Noble idea - But I am struggling to understand how taking on a very onerous finance package to fund the
borrowings involved in the buy-back ($15+Million over two years- plus the top-up provisions) is going to unlock
anything but - a world of grief for shareholders. I am obviously blinded to the virtue involved in the ERM terms.
3 More likely this deal would further lock-up any value for shareholders, and probably ensure income from
Tranche 2 is drained off to fund the borrowings, until the loan is paid off.
4 Claiming that 100% ownership of the tenements is vital to opening up any future JV
opportunities leaves me thinking that might be just a bit lame and lacking in substance, perhaps even a little
patronizing.
- ERM want to get out of the tenements? WHY?
- If EGO wants them out of the tenements? WHY?
- Why is this so vital NOW when the debt involved will almost certainly further curtail plans to drill
another well?
5 If the tenements are prospective enough JV interest will occur, whether ERM are in or OUT. The problem with ERM
agreeing to sell down their interests in any new JV, means they wouldn't necessarilly reap a premium on their
holdings in the deal. The idea that a heavy weight JV Partner will loom up to the plate as soon as the 100% buy-back
deal is finalised seems to fit conveniently into the proposal. But why is there a lack of explanation about where the
money is going to come from to repay the loan? Unlocking value for whom exactly?
6 Under a JV, a bulky farminee will take up a fair chunk of equity, which is understood, but it will dilute existing
shareholders, and that is understood.
7 So can somebody tell me where this big deal is about Unlocking Value for share holders?
8 Oh excuse me! Has someone mentioned anything about getting something done about drilling?
9 Maybe SORRY might be an indication of the yield we may have to expect from this proposition.
Expand
Its a dumb deal in my opinion.
As an ERM shareholder I dont want it as it just ties up more capital in OIL and GAS. I want ERM as a minority ( Less than 15% shareholder) in EGO. I dont want to sell ERM JV share I want them to invest in that rather use capital to invest as JV partner.
As an EGO shareholder I dont think anyone wants to buy more of what we already own - we need to drill and that needs cash. I want a CR for a small amount to just get us to at least drill one hole or get the planning done. Or have a big CR and lets get drilling.
This deal doesnt meet with the logic of anything in my opinion - its moving assets around but creates nothing new.