This consolidation is a definite NO for me. No No No 1 new share...

This consolidation is a definite NO for me. No No No
1 new share for 50 existing shares is far too much.
The share price has been capped for a long time and can't get past 1.1 c

..No matter how good a report BRK releases the share price gets blocked from rising to one would expect it to be.....

I have been noticing some very suspicious trading depths on the BUY and SELL side and they don't look like traders trying to just make .001c profits....it seems all too well organised

Have seen some huge parcels cross over but they appear to have been moved over before the start of retail trading...Massive volume on some days but when I have looked at all the trades for those days the big trade does not show up during retail trading hours..
I can only assume someone (probably a broker or two or more ) has been accumulating stock for a customer.

MST Access (a research platform of MST Financial) has sent out a report dated 16/09/24 stating their valuation for BRK is A$0.057.
Stuart Baker is the senior Analyst named on the report
[email protected]

I see no good reason for this consolidation at this point in time .
The company should first be disclosing the TOP 20 SHAREHOLDERS

Brookside should wait for all of the NEW 4 wells are in full production .
Brookside should wait till until MARCH 2025 so that shareholders can make an informed decision based on the Nett profits for 2 full quarters when all 8 wells are producing.

The are many better stocks on the ASX at 50c ,which is what the estimated price will be afer the consolidation.
Most retail buyers would not consider buying BRK at 50c ,so its NOT hard to see the stock being sold off .Or to put it another way ..the price being forced down by Very Large shareholders whose whole intent is to force out smaller retail investors.

Rarely have I seen a post consolidation price rise...they have normally collapsed to much lower levels ,where the cashed up buyers are waiting.

Waiting to accumulate sufficent shares to either take on board seats or move to buy a company at a cheap price.

BRK just does not,at this time,have sufficent economic positives to hold at 50c or higher till Nett profits from 8 wells are released. (after proposed consolidation)

The Permian Basin oil companies have been snapped up by major oil companies .
Refer to bloomberg article " Chevron,Exxon deals may spur oil land grab"

(The Big Oil Companies are looking for more Shale Oil fields)
(many big deals have already been completed)

The Basins that Brookside has leases over NOW offer major companies an opportunity to move on small companies in what has proven to be 2 producing OIL and GAS basins.

THIS Consolidation,in my opinion,is NOT in Australian shareholders best interests.....
It will potentially effectively end up removing most Australian shareholders from the BRK register.

1 BRK has No Debt Has CASH in the amount of $22 mill
2 has 4 producing wells
3 in OCT 2024 4 New Producing wells will all come on line.
4 Current activity is expected to drive production to approx 2,500 BOEPD by 4Q CY24 ..
....an incease of approx 230% over 2Q CY24
5 With the extra 4 wells in production BRK expects to increase its NETT Profit
(Nett profit figures will not be available till after DEC24 )
SO I ASK WHY is Brookside in such a rush to do this absurd share consolidation
6 Why incur the additional costs of a DUAL Listing

7 In my opinion the only people who will benefit from this ABSURD consolidation is the BIG shareholders who have been accumulating shares...
.....DEFER this Meeting about the Consolidation till the end of the March 2025....
....Let shareholders make an informed decision with Full Disclosure as to WHO the TOP 20 Shareholders are......
....Allow shareholders to make a judgement based on the profitability of the company after the March 2025 Qtr report is released.

As for the 1 -for 50- ratio Have a rethink ...this is excessive 1- for - 5 or 1 - for -10 maybe fairer to the shareholders who have supported the company from the beginning.

The present proposal only serves the interests of much larger NEWER shareholders (in my opinion)