more bad press for qgc/bg, page-15

When I said that ESG should distinguish itself from QLD CSGers it's not correct to assume this means ESG should "bag" QLD CSGers or its industry.

I'm suggesting that ESG makes BIG of its natural advantages but without making a comparison.

Using your poisoned hot dog example, a company producing an organic bratwurst using meat products grown in a pristine valley untouched by civilisation could have distinguished itself on its own merits and without running down the other players.

Also, we are missing a number of major points.

Firstly, ESG has a number of interested groups to whom it must "sell" its message absolutely separate from QLD and an industry.

On its own merits and circumstances, it has to "sell" the local community, the state government bureaucrats, the state pollies of all persuasions and the populace of NSW.

These groups don't give a tinkers cuss about Qld...but they will use the negative facts enmanating from that region in their arguments which is why it is inevitable that a comparison and a rebuttal will have to be made by ESG.

When Alan Jones says "what about the movie "Gasland", surely the citizens have a reason to be concerned?" ESG have got to be able to trot out a distinguishing argument of why the Gasland facts and the Qld facts don't apply and why ESG and PEL238 are different and why these "issues" do not pose a problem in NSW.

My other point was that if we need to make these distinctions, and I think we do, then let's get on the front foot on it and use a well known independent scientific type person to push the barrow.

And of course there is another group of people to whom we must push our major points of distinction...potential JV partners and offtakers.

If you were sitting in Tokyo right now and had to make a deal with a Qld company beset with issues or ESG (and assuming all other points were equal), which would you take?

Answer: the one with the less "baggage" and potential for interference by the local citizens.