Hard to always know who is or isn't a suspect on bullboards. They are frequently populated by psychopaths, wolves-in-sheep's-clothing, and assorted other ne'er-do-wells. However, for the most part most posters here have not been obnoxious or relentlessly nasty with personal attacks, thankfully.

Soly might be in the wrong here and a little excessive in his attack on Newtofo, who, I hope will continue posting here. But I will say, in defense of Soly, he has almost singlehandedly kept this a useful, positive, mostly respectful board. Most posters here are probably not aware of the previous history of FO boards which were dominated by endless personal attacks which served no purpose and were very unpleasant. That is why a new board was set up here on Agoracom where, under Soly's stewardship, it has remained relatively pest-free and focused. Of course, he is not above criticism, either, and I did add my recommendation to the nervesofsteel post.

"Every shale play presents unique geological challenges that have to be overcome. But that can only be done with a mixture of persistence and experimentation."

And therein hangs the long, sad tale of the Falcon. MAKO not the home run it was expected to be because, .....see above. Beetaloo likewise has required test wells and months and months of anaylsis. They all do. In the article it says about 1 in 3 of the shale plays in the US are big producers. That is where our hope has always lain - that at least one of our prospects (especially now that we have three) will ultimately prove itself one of those humongous producers, and preferably sooner than later.

China, Argentina and South Africa are all plausible candidates

Why no mention of Australia?

from the National Post June 7.

Radical voices within the African National Congress growing louder

Here are some relevant excerpts with some bolded for emphasis:

No final decisions have been made, but some influential factions in the African National Congress are pushing to “transform” the courts, the media, the economy, and even the much-praised constitution.

In South Africa, “transform” is code language for introducing a greater level of black ownership – and, with it, usually a degree of government control.

. . . . . . . .

The youth league is also repeating its demands for the nationalization of the mining industry, even though the government has rejected the idea. And some union leaders, allied with the ANC, are calling for the nationalization of all major industries, not just mining.

Chollo

Oh, Paul, I admire your voting integrity as well as your muffin-focused tenacity. However, I think it is almost certain that your little voting droplet (admittedly I am making a possibly unjustified assumption) will be as meaningless as your vote is in any federal election. (For those non-Canadians out there, because of the range of time zones in Canada the vote is usually decided before the polls even close in BC). The rebs have tens of millions and the MABists have who knows how many, but lots. The main thing is, enjoy the muffins and let us know what happened!

Chollo

P.S. I did not get my revised proxies until after the deadline to vote. However, Georgeson did call, and the mailed proxy was not necessary.

I don’t know which prospect I like less - the status quo MAB board or the Russians. But the rebs are not going the blue proxy white proxy route. They are not sharing hardly anything with us, since, after all, we don’t matter to them anyway. Nor do we know if their intent is to push the company in some direction, to just get rid of certain people, or perhaps even use the opportunity to maximize their own bottom lines (regardless of interests of lowly retail shareholder). We don’t know anything because we don’t matter. We are lowly dung beetles and the elephants are making love.
They have their 32% of the votes anyway and I presume that is enough to have some influence. (And maybe they have even more votes lined up if some instos and other large shareholder blocks are also prepared to back them.) Of the remaining at best 68%, the MAB crew can only use their own (how many is that?) and those proxies that have been checked FOR. How many shareholders typically remit their proxies? Of those, how many are going to vote for the MABus quo? Is it possible MAB & crew do not have even as many as 32% themselves? I am sure Soly has posted many times the % holdings of MAB and family and cronies and other supporters, but who can remember?

According to the fellow I spoke with at Georgeson, one can change one’s vote by getting your broker to get you a new proxy card. Too late for that now, probably.

re Rompp: You can’t dump the whole board, I don’t think. There’s too much vital knowledge and understanding of the play wrapped up in that group.

Chollo

I spoke with someone from Georgeson, the proxy solicitation agent, and this is what I am given to understand: With the meeting adjourned to December 22, we now have until the Friday before, December 18, to cast our vote (or rather, submit our proxies). If one has already done so, and now wishes to change one's vote, it can be done by contacting one's broker and getting a new proxy card. If one chooses not to vote, the vote is essentially wasted, not used by management or anyone else.

Personally, I would like some information from either side, preferably both sides. Management ought to make a case for their choice of directors. If the rebs want to take some out and install some others they should make their case to the shareholders. I've held other securities where competing proxies and arguments are sent out. (I say this knowing that both sides here are wealthy and powerful enough to regard us as the irrelevant riff raff we are).

Chollo