Perhaps I should post the entire post again, verbatim, so that readers today can read it in greater numbers than they did on Sunday when it was posted?
Then, we can all see what was so controvercial that it needs to be not only moderated, but expunged entirely from the record.
But, the argument is pretty simple - when 'i' spend almost $500m on an investment, such as Santos did on PEL 238 and ESG, I usually like to have a say how that company is managed. :) WOULDN'T YOU?
HGO did. NHC does at Arrow. Everyone does. Large Money wants a large say.
Can you imagine letting such a large investment run independently for years, as a separate company, with no say as to how ESG was being run?
Clearly, Santos don't invisage ESG remaining independent for too long. Their lack of board representation is a wonderful insight into their future 'acquisitive intentions'
Such an obvious point. I can't believe I have overlooked it for so long! After DA resigned, I just sort of forgot about the issue.
Cheers,
Y
p.S. If this gets moderated or removed (again), I have kept a copy, and will happily email it to anyone who may want to know the contents.
ESG Price at posting:
78.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
