"I can hear Yaq (sic) now banging on about "if we vote NO then...

"I can hear Yaq (sic) now banging on about "if we vote NO then someone else will come in with an offer""

Boris,

You clearly haven't read my posts. I was, in fact, advocating the exact opposite.

I was suggesting that, (in the absence of a better offer), a YES vote is the prudent course to take - a position for which I copped quite a lot of flak on here.

There is enough data out there, (and in the data room), for the Majors to make up their minds. They either want ESG, or they do not. If they do, then they will have to intervene, thus pushing out the timetable and hence bringing Tintsfield into reserves calculations. If they do not, then ESG goes up the foodchain to Santos before that happens.

The choice seems pretty clear. Either ESG management haven't added any reserves value in the last 18 months (and hence are selling to Santos), OR ESG know there is another bidder who will intervene.

But either way, I still cannot see the logic of the NO VOTE. The NO VOTE, returning to more of the same, seems to me to be self-flagellation.

Yaq