media coverage on nsw and csg, page-36

Our "NO" vote is based on a decision as things are expected on face value right now.

ESG management "appear" to be capitulating on face value so on face value we will react accordingly.

On face value, SANTOS are making an opportunistic "grab" at an asset before it has reached its expected potential (and our management appear to be letting it happen).

Things are progressing slowly but steadily on Tintsfield which is connected to a massive seam. It is expected to add substantially to the reserves with just a little more time (relatively of course).. (I'm sure our existing cash in the bank will last long enough to sure up Tintsfield)

We have already spent our last dilution of funds on the infrastructure to get Tintsfield to where it is right now but we get little benefit for it??

Does it seam fair to give that upside to SANTOS/us in a heavily diluted fashion when we forked out FULL PRICE to get Tintsfield to this point in time??

I'm not so sure other bidders are fully aware of the potential of Tintsfield as yet. If and WHEN it becomes a massive boost to reserves, ESG's assets and therefor value is re-rated.

We are not affraid of the No vote and will use it.

The ball lies in the SANTOS court after the IER, if they get stingy, we will throw full support behind Origin or vote NO.

I also commend and draw everyone's attention to Bundalee's comment from his previous post which to me, is the bottom line here!:

3.
The gas is ours and the takeover price should reflect the value of our gas at the point of takeover - not some pie in the sky arrangement made with STO that may or may not happen.

His point above reflects a true free market position our board should be adopting for us, the shareholders, to realise our investment in this entity.

Are our board strategic market experts or just grossly intimidated by their 20% majority shareholder?? Handshakes behind the scenes or winks and nudges to have ESG taken out pending what ESG achieve in reserves upgrades by an arbitrary deadline is not market-transparent and misleads investors.

No, we would be more than happy for a fresh board in the form of Origin to take control and clean up the mess.