lwpl, page-5

good post HS and interesting observations, as its quite timely considering the upcoming Qld state elections, and the Newspoll that reckons majority of Qlders are against CSG. Love to know what the questions actually were, and how they polled the respondents - because we know that any poll can elicit the specific results they want the poll to achieve.

(those speed cameras facing each other, sound just like the article i just read, where the Nth Koreans are facing-off against the Sth Koreans over their border!)

Anyway, I thought I should just clarify the WCL t/o response, because its important, particularly as it relates to MEL/LNG.

The Proposal from the mystery bidder was not rejected.

The Board has made no decision or recommendation.
They have advised s/h to take no action.
they will work with the bidder to progress the proposal.
they have agreed to allow the bidder due diligence
that due diligence will be non-exclusive.
WCL will also keep going on evaluating its other options (and this is the relevant point for MEL/LNG - because if WCL is looking at some sort of deal/GSA with LNG and/or MEL, then the "proposal" by the mystery bidder will not cause that prospect to be "killed-off".
On the contrary, WCL says it will look to evaluate which option/course of action is in the best interests of s/h.
(Frankly, a very similar situation to BOW!?)

Importantly, the Chairman of WCL was quoted in the media as saying that the offer price of 65c did not properly value the assets of WCL based on comparable metrics offered under recent t/o of CSG coys.

thats probably what you were referring to.
But you may well be quite correct when the WCL eventually comes up with a recommendation.

LNG has not got much time to decide what to do, and of course one would think MEL would be involved.

cheers