Pretty much the only thing that could bankrupt MRM was the...

Pretty much the only thing that could bankrupt MRM was the bankers right? They flinched, finding themselves on the same boat as MRM and are now willing to get one major payment, deferring the rest for another 2 and a half year.

So of course the bankers are not being generous and are hoping for a brighter future where MRM does well and the bankers don't sink all their $400M with them.

That's a good thing as far as MRM is concerned.

So how could we still say that that's a bad thing? When the last time bankers ease off on you or me?

-----

As to losing the whole logistical, one-stop shop convenience that the bases would supply MRM's customers. We're speculating aren't we?

I don't know the industry well but it doesn't make sense that a customer like Woodside would suddenly drop MRM because it doesn't have a base anymore.

Couldn't MRM tell Woodside to contact Tolls, have their stuff delivered there and MRM will pick it up?

Offshore services such as those MRM provides require reliable vessels, a heck of a lot of skills and experience at sea. Not having a convenient base.

That's not to say that it's great without a base - it is a selling point, MRM would have a cheaper place to dock its vessels... but note that it weren't all MRM's in the first place. It was a JV and as far as I know about JV, the costs are not at mate's rate. It's at the same rate they charges others, just MRM get a discount in that they also get a cut of the profit too.

Ideally, yea keep the bases. But given the current situation of either pushing the bankers to call it quits or doing a cap raising at below book value... trading in a $1M profit asset for $52M immediately doesn't sound like an idiotic thing to do.

Not when it avoids bankruptcy or massive dilution. Not when it might also dissuade potential takeovers from competitors wanting to take advantage of the downturn to expand down under.