Some further thoughts following my comments above : Firstly, in...

Some further thoughts following my comments above :

Firstly, in response to Second's reply above - I think it was the accumulated exploration costs that were written off the balance sheet. At the same time the reserves were reclassified in the Company's statement of reserves. Both of these were a choice by management. Being a choice, I doubt it would qualify as an objective loss of value. Yes, the share price fell and that was clearly a loss of market value...but that was shareholder value that fell. However, it is the Company that is protecting the value of its assets in court. Shareholders are not protecting the value of their assets in court ie shareholders are not an adversary in the court. The Company is a seperate legal entity to shareholders. As I mentioned above the Company's loss of brand value etc is grey - it is difficult to put a value on it.

Secondly, it just occurred to me that the possible course of action I mentioned above of negotiating a takeover by a much larger business is an option that current Directors and Executives might not favour or contemplate because it would likely render them unemployed. However, it seems to me a course of action that might be one of the least worst options for current shareholders. Perhaps it should be insisted by current shareholders that an option of this nature (probably more broadly worded than I have done) should be included in options that are put to a vote in December. After all....it is our Company and we have the right to decide its future.

Thirdly, a reasonable return on investment in a business is around 10% . If the Government's offer is accepted that means that, effectively as a new business, Metgasco has an investment value of around $25 million. A return of 10% would mean a profit of $2.5 mill which would equal an EPS (earnings per share) of around 1/2 a cent per share - tiny! This would be under "unrealistically ideal" circumstances. There is no way in the world that such a return could be immediately earned on the $25 million. There would firstly be a gestation period thinking up plans for a new business, then there would be up front investment costs that would not immediately earn a return and all through this period the CEO would earn his $400k per year ....not to mention what the CFO and Directors get. In other words the $25 mill would dwindle by the time the 1st $ was earned which , if it was ever earned, would be vulnerable to a lot of risk associated with a small enterprise. A very likely consequence of these thoughts is that shareholders would be asked for more funds for the new enterprise. How would that make you feel! Moreover, if the board's recommendation that the State Governments offer is accepted it would mean that the Directors and Executives continue to earn their income without risk for the next five years or so, but the shareholder's historical investment is lost and they wear the risk of developing another business and will most likely be called upon to stump up yet more cash. I don't think that the Directors have thought through this thoroughly. They will undoubtedly say that some of them too are shareholders .....but I would guess that the majority of their holdings are through special grants by the Company rather than paying for them out of their own pockets.

Understandably, I think that there must be a large element of the Directors just being tired of the grind that they have endured for so long. I am a little sympathetic to how they must feel.....but at the same time I think they have gone a bit soft and cannot muster the imagination to understand what their recommendation really means for shareholders or to develop alternative courses of action. Perhaps also, they are reluctant to be up front about what their recommendation means for shareholders as they do not wear the risk .......eg further cash from shareholders. In the very worst case I think it would be a better option to put the business in something like "care & maintenance" until the political climate improves. Even if it took years to revive the business I think that the shareholders would stand a better chance of getting more money back than going into a new venture altogether.

Without bitterness or vindictiveness I vote NO to the Directors recommendation. I also vote to sack the current board and Executives and replace them with a management team to come up with alternative plans for the business- or perhaps some consultants. At the end of the day my position is that Metgasco is in a situation of "all or nothing". There is little to lose. Despite seeming rather rabid I think this is the reasonable position. Very tragic indeed. What about Glenda....would she come back? We need a hero.