lateral ... as in thinking , page-7

Yes, I've held shares in ESG since 2006 and I'm well aware of the proposed NLNG.

The proposed Lions Way pipeline heads north and I think that posts on this forum sometime back indicated that piping the gas south may be more problematic due to the topography. Not sure that my recollections are correct though.

The main point of my post is that LNG's acquisition of MEL shares is not a speculative investment. The Board of LNG cannot afford to be making a speculative investments and further damage their credibility.

Imagine the questions at the next AGM if MEL's shares slip back to below 40 cents. MEL's share price has been volitile to say the least. Any Board of a listed company would require a sound strategic reason/s for investing a significant proportion of their cash in MEL.

Further, given the bath taken by participants in their last capital raising, no Board trying to maintain and/or restore credibility will take a punt on turning capital funds raised at 80 cents a share into 40 cents because they thought they were on a good thing. (Race 7 number 4 at Randwick may look good too).

More importantly, it will not be easy for LNG to raise capital next time they go to the market unless they have sound strategic objective secured by tangible committments.

Directors value their reputation and percieved credibility in the market far greater than getting lucky on an investment. LNG's board has no mandate to make speculative investments given recent events.

If the above holds true, what is LNG's strategic objective? Whatever it is, it cannot be bad for MEL.