Jump to content



Recommended Posts

Following the release of the Notice of Meeting and accompanying statements, I feel compelled to make some comments.




Mitchell & co might have had the expertise to buy assets well, BUT they are a miserable failure at delivering on time development. Additionally, with the exception of the sale of Gloucester, there is no evidence to suggest that the current board is able to make positive deals. And Gloucester was sold at a time when deals were a lot easier to undertake.



The current management team needs to be held to account for the dismal share price and the lack of production performance. And for these reasons alone the group of 7 shareholders has made it possible for the lazy and incompetent board to be brought to account. That is the reason for suggesting that a change be made. The current encumbents have failed and must go.


They don't have a sense of urgency, they fail to understand the need to get deals made, they fail to understand that one cannot promise and then fail to deliver.



The current invisible Chairman has to go, no doubt about it. We want someone who is going to promote the company, not just chair a meeting. Even chairing a meeting is beyond him when you look at the way he floundered his way through the 2009 meeting. Beard is past it, and must go.


Hobday was given the job as a mate of the Mitchell family. He left MPO years ago and then came back after he retired from his other commitments which precluded him from continuing as a director of MPO. We do not want dead wood. What did Hobday bring to MPO this time? He sent us off in another direction (India) at a time when management should have been concentrating on existing projects. And was paid hansomely as a consultant for causing the distraction.




It is all very convenient to use the 4 year performance data. Looking at other timeframes presents a totally different picture.



Holders need to read the statements carefully and not take them on their face value.


Beard and co have been very selective about the dates that they have chosen to use to justify their stance about the share price performance:


MPOÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s share price (on a consolidated basis) is as follows:


1/1/07 21c


31/12/07 82c


31/12/08 83c


31/12/09 $1.31


31/12/10 $1.06


Additionally, whilst MPO is part of the ASX300 Energy Index now, I do not think that it has been for the whole 4 years that they have chosen to use, so in my view it is irrelevant to use it as a benchmark for comparison. MPO at the beginning of 2007 was considered an extremely speculative stock so one would expect the return would have to be in excess of the index to compensate the level of risk associated with an investment in MPO.



From the statement from the current board enclosed with the Notice of Meeting, "Growth of Mungi/Harcourt (Queensland) coal-seam gas asset." Oh please tell me that they have not chosen to try to sell this assetÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s performance as a positive. In Mitchell's own words "it is way over budget and a year behind its timetable"



From their statement, "While the potential for a Canadian IPO or secondary listing was initially announced by the Company in late 2008, the global financial crisis, the significant reduction in North American gas prices, and the acquisition of the Canadian oil assets led to the initiative being deferred until early 2011 to maximise value for the Company?s shareholders." That statement is purely trying to justify a constant changing of strategy, which is one of the major critisizms of the current board of directors. They don't know where they want to be positioned.


Furthermore on two occasions since the initial announcement of the IPO referred to above, directors have given other dates that have not been fulfilled. In answer to a question after a broker briefing in early 2010 Mitchell stated "if it was not completed within 6 months, he would be extremely disappointed". And more recently at the 2010 AGM in answer to a question from the floor, the chairman indicated that the offering would be completed before the end of the calendar year.


From their statement, "The requisitioning shareholders refer to a "friendly approach" to the Chairman." It was put to him that he could retire, without any need to embarrass anyone, but their sheer arrogance got in their way, and so shareholders are now faced with this costly manner of having to remove them.



We cannot afford to let these directors to continue to fail to deliver what they indicate they are going to achieve time after time, and continue to act as directors. We must act now and dump them.



Proxy voting can also be done online - it is very convenient and easy.



I strongly urge all holders to vote in favour of all resolutions.


We have been given a gift, being an opportunity to rid ourselves of this incompetant and lazy board. Seize the opportunity and vote. It can be done online, it is so simple. These resolutions are extremely important. Don't be apathetic - please vote. We have an extremely good chance of being successful.




Beard is used to being around a horse stud, so he might be accustomed to smelling some buckets of ...., and he can guarantee if he chooses to go ahead with the meeting, rather than do what the majority want and resign, that he will get bucket load tipped over him. It will be symbolic of his performance as chairman and as a director.




On another forum it has been suggested a replacement board will sell off company assets as this is a quick option to release value to shareholders. If this does occur and the net proceeds after tax are a multiple of the current share price, like double or treble, then there would not be a shareholder with reason to complain. They will have then seen a massive return on their money, unlike the current losses that so many are sitting on at present, and have been for some time.


We will never know about the potential, if they are never given the opportunity BUT we do know that they have a sense of urgency and drive to see change. We also know that we cannot let the current members remain.




My sentiment is short term buy on the basis that there will be change at the top very shortly.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Howdy FinC you are really getting behind this revolt!! Right beside you there!!

The stagnation over the last 12 months of the SP is beyond a joke now and this is not helping things one iota

Lot of shareholders will find it a difficult choice and may opt for the "Devil You Know" scenario given the sketchy unknowns of the newcomers and their ability to sway the rest of the camp into fast tracking something to please shareholders.

Biggest problem is the very open register and the large amount of holders that will not "lift the pen" to vote!!

The downside is that if this does not go as we would like and the large holders decide to opt out of MPO then there can be expected a short term selloff and SP damage that may take a while to recover unless the current board has something up its sleeve to turn it around fast.

Going to be an interesting few weeks in the lead up and i am wondering will they release more info on the IPO issue??

Not sure how long the Tsx takes to review the prospectus and come up with its decisions. The listing price is so very important to the short term direction of MPO at present as knowing the value they put on it over there will have a big factor in the above!!

The newcomers i note mention:

" This will include urgent implementation of strategies to transform Molopo from a resource accumulator to a company that is production and value driven."


Would they have a plan to halt an IPO?? Sell other assets and concentrate on production?? V1


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Put to the straight thinkers. I have voted for change and urge all to follow. I would hate to see another VCR happen here. Been burnt tooooo many times watching the incompetance at the top blunder away our funds and take bonus's and payments on the way out. good Luck for the future. Cheers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't be conned by the board's statement.


In defence of the Invisible Chairman the board have made some ludicrous remarks in their response to the statement from requisitioning shareholders.


The board seem to be content to believe that the share price has performed in the last four years. Try telling that to any shareholder who bought into either of the share placements (at $1.25 & $1.15) or even the rights issue at $1.03. If that is performance that they are content with, then in my opinion that equates to telling a beggar on the streets of Calcutta to be content and happy with what life has dealt them.


Reference is also made to comparison to the ASX300 Energy Index. In my view, that is an irrelevant comparison. To my knowledge Molopo has not always been a component of that index for the period being analysed. Four years ago, Molopo was a highly speculative share, and one would expect it to outperform an ASX300 index. That is the compensation holders expect for taking on additional risk.


Reference is made to value realization. Shareholders have not seen any rewards from that realization. Since the placement in 2007 I think that the board have spent something like $200M. What rewards have they seen? Certainly not any share price appreciation.


There is the suggestion that should Beck and Lewin be successfully be appointed, and Beard and Hobday removed, that there will be a lack of technical experience on the board. Ian Gorman is the Chief Operating Officer, and a Director, and he has heaps of technical expertise. Additionally, boards are not expected to have the technical knowledge to operate the company. They rely on their staff having those attributes, and this is the case with Molopo. The staff have ample expertise. Boards are there to direct the company on behalf of shareholders.


There is the suggestion that Investor Relations are not the responsibility of the Chairman. He is the person in charge of the whole board and company, and it should be expected that the person holding that position does promote the company. Mr. Invisible does not, and by their response, looks to be abdicating responsibility. That is not acceptable.


If this company had been directed properly with a sense of accountability and responsibility for shareholders over the last decade, it would not still be trading at a significant discount to the true value of the assets it owns.


Mr. Invisible, we do not want excuses, we want action. This seems to evade your comprehension, and therefore you have to go.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend telephoned this morning to tell me that MPO are now going to the extreme of utilizing the services of a call centre, that is making calls to shareholders to obtain their views.


That is a wicked waste of shareholders' funds. How much are they being paid Messrs. Beard & Hobday? What gives you the right to use our funds in this manner.




Apparently the caller states that the board recommends that one votes against the motions.




If directors want to canvas holders for their election, then they should use their own funds, not company funds.


IMO it is an abuse of company funds.


Perhaps we should ask the directors to refund the cost of this defense, out of their own pocket.


I'll bet that if they had been required to fund it out of their own pocket, that they would not have been so willing to spend that money.




Readers can rest assured that this matter will be raised assuming that there is the possibility of speaking to the motions.




Perhaps the question should be canvassed along the line of "Wouldn't that being comparable to a Labour Government using government funds to pay for the Labour Party's campaign."


I am sure that Stephen Mitchell, as an unsuccessful Liberal Party pre-selection candidate would then be able to understand our position and objection!



I reiterate my call for all holders to vote. The share register of this company is very wide. Therefore your vote is likely to count more than one thinks. There are not huge blocking stakes on the register.


Let the current directors know that they are not looking after your interests properly. Vote in FAVOUR of all resolutions.



If you appoint the Chairman of the meeting as your proxy, please make sure that you direct him to vote in FAVOUR of all resolutions, OTHERWISE he will use your vote against all resolutions.


If you direct the chairman to vote in FAVOUR of the resolutions, he must vote your shares the way that you have directed.







Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fin C got my call yesty just before market open! I wonder if the board will be playing back all the recorded calls for research as they say at the start of the conversation?? Bet there will be some great comments to hear!!


On another note came across this item this morning and certainly is something to think about in regards to what is happening with Molopo at present.........

Might or might not be more going on behind the scenes than we think but something not to be dismissed Imo.

We Know (Greg Lewin has more than 30 years of international oil and gas experience ....... He is also a non-executive Director of Sasol Limited)


Now there is always a good reason to have ones fingers in as many pies as possible just in case the future plans out as you might be contemplating...............Sasol has a good history with this type of business..........

this line sums it up very well!! V1


Michael E. Webber, associate director of the Center for International Energy Environmental Policy at the University of Texas, Austin. "You wouldn't do this if you could find easy oil," he said.


...A South African firm, Sasol, announced Monday that it would spend just over 1 billion Canadian dollars to buy a half-interest in a Canadian shale gas field, so it can explore turning natural gas into diesel and other liquids.

Sasol figures that the natural gas needed for a gallon of diesel, plus operating costs, comes to about $1.50 a gallon. In comparison, a gallon of diesel made from crude oil now costs more than $2, even before refining, and many forecasts are for the price of oil to go higher.


In the deal announced Monday, Sasol acquired a 50-percent stake in Farrell Creek shale gas assets, in British Columbia. With the other owner, Talisman Energy, it will begin a feasibility study early next year on building a gas-to-liquids plant, and Talisman will have the option to own 50 percent of that.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that you gave them plenty to think about V1. In one way, I feel sorry for the poor people from Link making the calls. It is not their fault they are working on behalf of a company with an inept board. Then again, that is part of their job description. Strangely, I have not had a call! I wonder why! No doubt my holdings are blacked out/deleted from the list to call.


That was a very interesting find about Sasol.


Perhaps MPO could decide to actually drill the hole that they have the permit for, and potentially advance the project so that we holders might see some reward from its ownership. That would be novel, wouldn't it?


Mitchell, Beard & co have tried to argue that Lewin's directorship with Sasol potentially places him in a position of conflict if he were on the board of MPO. But in the event of a conflict arising, there are ways to resolve that problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...