My take on the share buy back is a bit different to Dans. As it...

My take on the share buy back is a bit different to Dans. As it stands there is no net benefit to shareholders. You're reducing the SOI, increasing the proportion each share in the company represents, but by the exact same margin reducing the size of the company (by forking out money).

The buy back will only become beneficial for remaining holders if the share price of the company increases above the buy back value. If you think that will happen, then the buy back is good for you.

I would also support a general meeting allowing the company to buy back up to 50% of the stock. I'm also happy for the company to deplete it's cash reserves doing this, down to say $20m.

There are heaps of weak hands in Brookside, as demonstrated through this buy back. Reducing the SOI by a significant margin will concentrate that stock in to 'better' hands.

I disagree with a Dan that a monetisation event will not be a draw on capital. I think it's likely a JV will occur, far more likely than a straight sale. With that JV it's entirely possible BRK will need funds to contribute towards drilling wells, it may not be a simple case of BRK putting in the land and a partner putting in cash for drilling.

In that scenario I'd be very happy for a CR to occur. Even if it happens at 2c that's great if you're buying back at 1.5c now. You're increasing shareholder value.

We are a long way off 350m shares bought, I don't know how sticky holders are, maybe the last 50m are significantly harder to acquire than the first 50m. But the more the company buys back under 2c the happier I am.