Anthony,good post, as usual.For every Fortescue, there a dozens...

Anthony,

good post, as usual.

For every Fortescue, there a dozens of companies who have come and gone, with the shareholders and directors taking the money and running. It has to be that way. Lonely at the top, crowded down the bottom. There has to be a process of rationalisation, of getting very big or getting out. Arrow, QGC, ESG, BOW and the others - they are all just part of that process. Some, like db, like to argue that even LNG for Santos is a stretch. So realistically, how would a company of ESG's size go?

Few people would criticise ESG for not wanting to be involved in LNG themselves; far more people are critical of ESG not getting a bigger slice of the pie on the way up the foodchain. It is just about the price.

So Anthony, whilst I think your sentiment is noble, I think it ignores the landscape. We have 4 LNG projects, all short of the reserves they need to make their desired economies of scale. How likely is it that juniors stay independent in such a situation? It isn't about what the juniors want, it is about what the majors need.

So when I hear MEL or others talk about LNG in 2019, I laugh. As if they will be here in 2019! Let's just be honest about what the game is for these guys. It is about getting the most value, demonstrating the biggest reserves, before you get taken out.

Yaq