Fresh From The Cupboard, page-962

Thanks BP, I know it’s time to move on from ‘poster’s personal approval ratings’ comments and get back to the business of the company.


My view on Chinese businesses is that to describe them as ‘cunning’ and ‘ruthless’ might be a bit harsh, describing them as ‘crafty’ is way too soft, and describing them as strategious is an understatement!!

Over the years the Chinese have been purchasing and attempting to purchase highly important infrastructure all over the world. Here in Australia they have acquired assets in property, agriculture, energy and other sectors. One such acquisition is Darwin Port and attempted acquisition is APA’s natural gas network of pipelines.

Chinese businesses are being scrutinized more than previously when acquiring infrastructure because of previous practices and the more recently pronounced practice of IP theft which is a major issue in the current trade dispute.

I have watched them stealthily take over companies such as Paladin Energy in the past and if you look closely enough you will catch glimpses of this in the Lithium sector.

State owned companies, in my mind, are more powerful than private companies and after giving my two cents worth on that, it’s time to have a look at IDG.

IDG is privately owned. Thanks to Champee we got recently announced information by the company regarding their earnings. I posed a question to readers about this but with no responses.


So here is a scenario for your consideration:

Recently GV told us that IDG has provided them with access to higher level discussions regarding offtake, where previously they only had access to lower level discussions.

IDG’s recent statement states that they received significant earnings of $9.53 Million (AUD) from their investment in LNGL. If IDG gained these earnings from their share purchase in LNG, this implies they may have sold some of their shares at a profit (as no one else is receiving ‘earnings’ in which case, given their position regarding providing access to higher level offtake discussions, and owning a portion of a proposed LNG import terminal in China, means they would be ‘inside trading’.

IDG’s statement also states that the $28 Million was primarily used to support downstream marketing efforts, and as IDG are heavily involved in the downstream marketing due to their position as a ‘go between’ between ‘higher level discussions’ and their affiliation with the proposed import terminal, this also bring s into play other legal practices as well as ‘insider trading’


I’ll continue to seek answers and do my best to provide facts!!!!