db,Strangely, I agree with you about the strategic signifigance...

db,

Strangely, I agree with you about the strategic signifigance of ESG in NSW. And yes, I think the ACCC probably got it wrong. Santos (if they do secure ESG) would have a truly dominant position in the NSW market and as the Carbon Tax opens up a whole new industry.

I guess Grant and the Origin Crew must be absolutely spewing. Never mind, I am sure that Grant will enjoy going cap in hand to David Knox and asking to be supplied with gas for all those new power stations.

Actually, the irony of it is beautiful. There were a lot of people who thought that Origin taking such a commanding position in the retail market was anti-competitive and they had too dominant position. But, they secured it anyway. So Origin can hardly now complain about Santos' dominance of the upstream resource, can they? :)

Lilac, remember that I am predicting multi-party action on ESG. The whole issue of the NO VOTE is a hypothetical one and assumes no 'intervention'. Lots of wasted angst, if you ask me. Origin and BG will have to act. ESG know it, and so do Santos.

All I am advocating is that ESG be taken over at the highest price in the market. They have put themselves out for sale, and committed themselves to this Santos deal, in the absence of a better offer. Now, why do we think they did that?

(A) Because it is the best deal they could get, OR
(B) Because they are expecting a better offer, having had certain parties through their data room for some time?

My position is the same as ESG's position. But I think some people have confused what that position is.

Yaq