Acorn,Yes, that is correct. Which is why ESG knew what the...

Acorn,

Yes, that is correct. Which is why ESG knew what the reserves were going to be. There were no surprises to Casey and Lansom from MHA's certification.

All the more reason to update the market once ESG became aware that anything material had changed from their 'strong reserves upgrade' statement.

And, in retrospect, this is exactly the reason ESG delayed the end of 2010 reserves upgrade - they KNEW that the Bohena and Namoi seams alone were not going to provide a reserves lift. And yet, they chose not to inform the market of this material change to their previous guidance in the November statement to the ASX.

You know what I think? They probably thought they could 'test their way' out of a reserves hole with the Tintsfield pilot. But when the NSW Government delayed approvals on Tintsfield, then ESG were stuck with a misleading reserves upgrade statement to the market (which they felt they couldn't correct because it would crash the price even further).

And now that misleading statement has been laid bare for all to see.

As as for the JP Morgan and their research note (ESG's corporate advisor) - they release that piece of fiction at the same time that ESG and Santos were drafting their merger deal. How can anyone in good conscience publish such a misleading piece of research, when it is based on information supplied to it by ESG? It simply reiterates the previous fiction about strong reserves upgrades.

An absolute disgrace.

Yaq