re: nxs in trading halt, page-12

re: nxs in trading halt a trading halt was necessary to prevent more from buying at 1.7 so they could vote no. if yeses win, they sell at 2.0 a real win win.
so is this manipulating the voting? I'd say yes!
Now, what does a bully do when confronted? he fights. this is a true case of bullying and as the no voters gather momentum, the bullies get more angry and spiteful.
A white knight would be great. I don't see it as Osaka Gas, who are servants to their Shell partnership.
Perhaps selling Echuca Shoals and Crux might be the go. If I had my way, I would compel Fowler to buy it at $37MM a point, as it was he who stated that this was the deal of the century.
Isn't it a shame that such behaviours from the past Directors should have yielded such profits for them.
But what do you expect? Fowler sold the Crux gas for $50mm, that's 3 tcf of gas for a song. Gas in place should sell for about $100mm to $300mm a tcf. Fowler then spent another $200mm finding more gas for Shell, Fowler agreed with Shell that Nexus would then have to pay to abandon the wells rather than have them as producers.
Then Fowler sold the liquids, about 85mm barrels for what seems a song (say $75mm plus $100MM). He should have got more than $2.25 a barrel. Even $5 a bbl is bad business. For orchestrating this type of business, Fowler was paid $4mm (including redundancy)for 2 years foul play.
I think we shareholders have a right to be angry. We may not see proper revenge, but having Fowler barred from other boards would seem a charitable thing to do for other unwary shareholders.
What happened to the PRRT credits? I thought they alone were worth a couple hundred mill. I assume Shell got those too, so the net benefit to Shell was a great result for them and an utter embarrassment for the likes of Fowler et al on the board at that time.