strategic value implicit con

Once upon a time the noisy minority, as they were then, began collating material for use at a later date, should the Scheme pass but ESG shareholders remain unsatisfied.

In other words, preparation of a Brief Of Evidence to be of assistance to the Litigator chosen to act on their behalf to pursue the unpaid fair value...of what lies beneath, above...AND BEYOND.

So, today we find as much as 65% of OUR funds, (the $60mil CASH some posters thought we might still have), has gone, in some part toward a project (NLNG), which to all intents and purposes has been shown the door, by Santo and by extension the "pseudo santo".

Yes, some portion also no doubt in the field, but NOT in the installation of those large de-watering submersibles, or in supplying power to same.

NO! This expenditure appears to be directly on work essential to have N'castle...AND the next (STO)PLANNED field work AS FAR ADVANCED as possible, so as to be able to be IMMEDIATELY CRYSTALLISED upon the successful merger/TO with/of ESG's "monster" assets.

At this point I acknowledge Yaq's frequent, well crafted replies to previous posters who felt STO shouldn't stand to gain (disproportionately) down the line from what we have so recently paid to set up.

While I agreed with Yaq's rationale in a business sense, espec. from a suitor's perspective, I NEVER agreed in a moral sense, and I doubt Yaq was presenting it that way.

But did we ever envisage this sleight of hand that is ever unfolding before our eyes?

Of course, with hindsight, we realised our Board was too weak, or worse...conflicted(!) to negotiate better on our behalf. Given the nature of the material, including "material omissions", of the last 18mths being collated by our team, it has been exceptionally dangerous of ESG NOT to ensure the offer reflected this expenditure, AND all that it facilitates, in terms of rapid realisation / conversion to MAGICALLY MARKETABLE, or "immediately crystallised", as the blurb said.

And downright MORONIC to come out NOW and pronounce "...reflects...strategic value implicit...". Who the hell wrote THAT for you John?

The Litigator is going to tear you guys to shreds.

Strategic:

One might say most companies strategies (as in Planning) are to achieve longer term aims, however in the same sentence "immediately crystallise" rather destroys THAT notion.

So, I contend that in this case Santos' planned strategy for ESG's ASSETS are decidedly NEAR-TERM and IMMINENTLY QUANTIFIABLE.

Implicit:

Oh Yes, John, your obedience to Master Santo has been absolute, unquestioning, unreserved...even implicit! But I toy with you, and you, and you...

Try "implied though not plainly expressed". Plainly expressed! NO WONDER the poor I.E. coughed and spluttered his way through the report, he wasn't allowed to PLAINLY EXPRESS what he thought he ought...

For God's SAKE ASIC, S & G. Maurie Blacksmith et al, doesn't THIS get you excited? A huge set of legal proposals, required to be understood by plebs and noisy minority annoyances, and you won't indulge in plain expression? What's to hide? What's to lose?

What's to GAIN more like!

Unless John, by "implicit" you mean "virtually contained".

Well you've certainly been contained recently, in terms of transparency, whether your masters have contained or restrained you I cannot say without a medical assessment.

Virtual, being "almost or nearly as described, but not completely or according to strict definition". Remember fellow ESGSAGs, this still pertains to "implicit" as used today in a public document by Johnboy.

The Litigator pauses, and repeats to the Court, "almost or nearly as described..."

Pretty much covers the defence "strategy" I foresee ESG trotting out, "...but not completely or according to definition". ( but here I go toying again...)

Value:

Humph! Where do you wanna start John? Is it about "estimated", "desirable". Could I add GREED, and the associated DECEPTION? Of course not, UNLESS it can be proven.

Tell you what, we'll let the Corporations Act define value on the day, 'cos it aint nowhere to be found in the offer YOU and OUR Board are recommending.

SUMMARY: (thank Christ)

If we accept that ESG for whatever reason felt it couldn't go much further alone, and arrived at this decision independently; **remember no Santo representative on the Board, then the upbeat nature of releases NEVER hinted at that.

I don't for a minute think they arrived at that point alone OR independently. Do you?

So the SoA should have come on 3 months ago, when we still had $60mil in the bank, and instead they've issued these "critical to the success of Scheme" letters, and released a potentially unnecessary and IMHO definitely damaging, please explain better Quarterly.

Irrespective of the result on the 28th my friends, it is not final.

Cabbage, would you say your tennis match has been delayed for rain?

Regards,

Lilac