question for dbk, page-11

double bay king...

I took you off ignore after ironfist's comments...thinking you may have presented a serious exercise...sorry to say, it fits smack within the sort of agenda I put you on ignore for.

Quite a bit of effort from someone who has just spent two hours of research...lol...please give us a break.

Clearly you would have taken nearly two hours just to put that "effort" together, let alone any time to actually understand what you were doing...so it is painfully clear your research goes back considerably further.

Doesn't improve it any however...lol

There is so much wrong with this piece I do not know where to start...from your lack of reference to Galoc crude discount prices, to your equal lack of accountability of Cameroon premium to brent crude prices.

Further, you dismiss scale and reserve/expansion considerations, proximity to shore and shollow nature of the development, long-term upscaling capacities due to pipeline access, significant gas flows of +30mmcf/d and associated value add options via the quest sponsored power equation.

You compare NDO's horizontal drilling flow rates with that of CVI's vertical drills at Cameroon...and you compare NDO's numerous deep water targets with Cameroons significant shallow targets in one of the most prolific production regions in the world?

You also failt to mention NDO's market cap was in fact $300m some 12 months ago...more or less when NDO was at a similar stage with Galaoc as what CVI are at now with Cameroon.

Further...lol...too much to comment on...NDO are suffering under the weight of significant institional "damage" due to the passing of control and register weighting from retail to institions back at the 15-18c mark.

This too will happen to CVI no doubt...but not this side of 60c...and possibly even much much higher.

Do not get me wrong...I really like NDO...but they do not in my opinion, when we compare apples with apples (ie NDO 12 months ago with CVI now), improve on CVI who are currently less than a quarter of their comparable market cap.

As for "the rest" of the assets...comparing NDO's other assets, as good as they are, with CVI's Kwanza Basin, Bakassi, Niger Delta...if they get them of course...in fact anything in this immediate region, I think even Whitby would agree is simply not appropriate.

NDO may well have signicant reserves within their leases...but they will spend most of what Galoc produces just to get at it...which of course was always the plan.

This is a similar situation with CVI by the way...they will use Cameroon to fund what every they might get their hand on...but where NDO will be looking for 100-200m barrels oil fields, CVI will be looking for billion barrel oil fields, but with the same, (likely much less), basic exploration expenditures.

Very foolish by the way to distcount Catabola as "the rest" in some sort of throw-away...it may well eclipse the current market cap in multiples on it's own.

So much more I could comment on, from incorrect share issues you have used, options issues, NPV assumptions, ownership issues...not to mention government reationships, tax concessions, investment sinks...and of course, the expected "Dubai premium" via specifically targeted corporate incentive.

lol...I could be here all day arguing against your assumed "measure" between the two companies.

In fact, there is so much misleading stuff in your offerings, that given the nature of your research and obvious effort and with due reference to your previous history of less than genuine posting...and consideration of time expended on a stock you say you do not like...I can only assume you are in fact doing nothing more than provide your usually very carefully prepared, self-serving "argument" aimed fair and square at the dweeb factor on these threads.

Good luck picking up your stock.

My only disappointment in all of this is that I actually took you off ignore and spent the time, not only to read your post, but respond to it!

I will not however show you the respect of reading back over my "offering" to correct the numerous spelling/typo errors that will obviouslt prolifirate due to due the fact I am spending as little time as possible with an on-the-fly response.

Such offerings simply do not deserve the efforts required of genuine debate.

Welcome back to ignore.

Cheers!