RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:SharesBC, you are misquoting me - and sounding oddly argumentative. Did you think I was trying to make the case against the deal? I did NOT say ""worth that much more given the current oil price". What I said was that "many would argue that should the deal fall through BNK is worth that much or more given current oil prices". And many have made that argument on this bull-board. I wasn't "getting any stats" as you say, just stating a fact that people have made the case for a relatively high value of BNK ($2.20 or more). While I'm sure it's obvious to most BNK holders that the deal is in their interest even if they happen to be under water, the risk to investors of a no deal scenario is no doubt less with in a higher oil environment. My vote will help to ensure that the deal goes through. I hope I don't find out how much of a hit the SP would take in the event of a no vote. But if a no vote did take place I would expect the SP to drift back up to the current level, and maybe $2.20 or eventually even higher if oil prices stay buoyant - but that could take a long time. And yes due to the deal BNK is a "low risk investment in a HIGH RISK industry" -GLTA!
braincloud wrote: Chuba, That's a pretty bold statement "worth that much more given the current oil price" I don't know where you are getting your stats from , but I think you are wrong. I would suggest that you over-lay a chart of Brent on a chart of BNK. Much more, is a gross over statement!!! Also, saying BNK is a low risk investment needs a qualifier. It's a low risk investment in a HIGH RISK industry!!!