is this misleading?, page-4

Yaq

it is grossly misleading..and is frightening in the sense that had STO not moved on ESG this share price would be heading towards $0.40 and thats before the market found out about the fact that there will be no upgrade in 2011 or in the forseeable future...upon that news I would have expected to see ESG at $0.25 and my portfolio ruined..

these directors did not even have the balls to communicate to their own shareholders the kind of difficulties they are really having?? most of us had put two and two together and concluded that management were dudders but I for one believed that coreholes, consistent flow rates, seismic, etc etc over 18 months would deliver something??

and we got diluted by 200-300M shares since 2008?? it makes me want to throw up..

i am not surprised at this staggeringly under whelming IER which is little more than an insult to the intelligence of investors on this forum..

just after the scheme offer i speculated that the actual result of the IER could possibly be a reserves downgrade..i was steeling myself for the worst my analysis regarding ESG has for the last 18 months or so been more about the actions of Santos than the incompetance of ESG..when STO stumped up their stingy $0.90 and then KNox came out and declared that STO would not be matching the $0.90 paid to TRU regardless of the STO shareprice at the time of implementation..my heart sank because the actions of STO told me a lot about where ESG are really at...and that is ...nowhere... in other words, i deduced that STO must know plenty that we don't about ESG..and that what they know was not good..

The actions of STO over the period since the takeover led me to the horrible realisation that STO may in-fact be paying a fair price for ESG at $0.90..why else would ESG board roll over? they know it's the best they are going to get..leaving long suffering shareholders gutted and confused as to why they would take such action with such a strong pipeline of news coming up?..now we know why they took such action and i can't help but wonder...what is it that Santos really want ESG for? why would they pay $900M for what now appears to be pretty average reserves and a difficult gas field...why?? should there be a premium for potential?? there is obviously a discount for imcompetance..

i hope things get uncomfortable for the directors present at the scheme meeting and then the subsequent shareholders meeting...if i could be there i would not miss the opportunity to ask some fairly pointed questions..