Yref,Thanks for an interesting reply.Thumbs up, are on most...

Yref,

Thanks for an interesting reply.

Thumbs up, are on most occasions I would say given, much more based on the sentiment of the readers feelings about a posting rather than its factual content and usefulness of the info within it.

A positive view on a company's shareprice/prospects will get given many more thumbs ups compared to the vast majority of negative views posted no matter the factuality of it. Which is sad & wrong.

Some people here on this thread will thumb down any & every post I make no matter what it says, even if it was positive in nature, as they perceive everything of mine to be negative. Rather than trying to look out for shareholders in a factual way.

That's up to them, does it bother me, 99% of the time not in the slightest. Only when the data is crystal clear & you've spent ages writing a post to try to help others, but they just can't see it, do I feel frustrated, (more so in the past than now) as the saying goes you can only take a horse to water you can't make it drink it.

Sometimes though like on the vote issue, thumbs up or lack of them, can be a guide as to how many are likely to do something about it and are much less sentiment driven.

On to your main question, how to fix it

Firstly I doubt we'll be given the chance, once the institutional shareholders realise the game is up for the existing directors, they will suddenly become proactive and put forward candidates that they know or believe they can work with and sadly tend to work in concert with each other (self interests etc to try and protect or recover the money they've already put in).

However if we were given the chance to seriously invoke change, then we need a board of directors mainly made up of oil & gas people with many years of experience. Who want to build a company starting with the existing assets.

They will know that costs are the key to success in the Permian basin. So start to hire your own staff or purchase a small drilling company and frac crew. Follow the Pioneer type model. Doing so will realise cost savings of over $500M in drilling and fraccing alone on the existing leases.

Not only that, it changes the whole model (including horizontal drilling). Because it now costs $1.5-1.6M per vertical well instead of $2-2.2M, so each well reaches break-even much more quickly, therefore much less cash/capital needs to be tied-up in growing the production base.

It will make it easier to raise debt finance as the true return on capital per well is so much higher than currently etc.

That's how this should be done and it achieves massive returns for shareholders over time.

I've not tried contacting the company in a long time Yref - no point personally with my tiny holding nowadays.

The only one I would really want to talk with is the non exec director (who I've never been able to reach even although I've tried and been blocked previously [by both those named in your posting]), because he needs to know first hand what's gone on at Antares, so that things change going forward to protect shareholders.

If you can organise that, then I'll invest the time making the call.

Have a good Easter

LOTM