EL Interpretation or an argument in what constitutes an...

EL
Interpretation or an argument in what constitutes an institution is not the point I was making. As Mr Jacobson said at the last AGM, they are targeting institutions (boutique or otherwise) to enter the top 10 holder list. As shown in their 2007 distribution of equity security holders they need far less under 100,000 shareholders (3622 share holders) vs the 100,000 and over (788 shareholders). Putting 45/50%+ of the 660m securities within the top twenty shareholders is the goal over the next 2yrs. Tightly held shares are the aim of CVN. Rest assured the current board would never have issued the securities available (it was inherited).

This CVN vs POE share price comparison is non comparable. For a start POE don't just have the joint venture so its deceptive, shortsighted and rather foolish. These companies share only "one joint venture" in common, and they have vastly different structures. Not to mention POE is in Canada so all the currency, economic and market differences vastly influence comparisons.

As far as similar fiscal regime to Australia up to 20,000 bopd, my understanding is that for a "Foreign Company" who are taking profits out of Australia it is "very similar". As it should be, because these foreign companies are making money from commodities that are in fact owned by the people of that country. I don't think any Australian would want the government charging the same rates to foreign companies that the local companies pay.

The Thai fiscal regime charges royalties on a sliding scale with less than 2,000bopd charged at 5% of revenue, up to 12.5% at 20,000bopd. The Special Remuneratory Benefit (“SRB”) peaks at 60% on flow rates above 20,000bopd.