annual report, page-43

JT,

Still respectin' your point of view man.

I'll rephrase my question...

So you're tellin' me STO will TAKE the risk, (we're talkin; serious risks here, of losing out AGAIN altogether, you know the "ever the bridesmaid" stuff), to watch ESG sp decline, and I don't deny that likelihood, in the interim while the resource becomes open slather for another even cheaper bid?

JT, you say "...pretty obvious to me there is presently an operational/technical problem with the field..."

Been over all that several months ago, again I don't disagree violently with you EXCEPT to remind you that in the same way as you've just reiterated in your post: the same directors with so much skin in the game to gain from the surety and certainty of STO ownership ALSO have an awfully long time to contemplate their navels in a prison cell.

As you said, not only time, but money, so I'll just bring out my little promise noted so poignantly in a response from Monsters a while back.

JT,

If there IS an undisclosed technical problem, sufficient in ANYONES' mind to JUSTIFY circa .90cents for a share in ESG's resource (SCRIP only!) then you can join me as per below...

Dear John,

Thank you for your "professionally accountable" letter to ESG's valuable shareholders and funders.

Even if we were to take the current STO offer, you should consider you are liable for the impact of your management and disclosure, the latter arguably not being in accordance with regulations - both subject to proving at law of course.

My only surprise is that the Hon. John's letter was not on the Santos letterhead.

I wish you all, all the best in your future endeavours, however if it can be proven that you have been less than forward with shareholders at any point, (around which you ought to be made aware there is considerable discussion), I will seek to make sure your futures lay outside of ASX listed companies.

Yours faithfully,

DB & Ooork

ESG shareholders in joint and sole names.