media coverage on nsw and csg, page-50

I respect people's opinions about the NO VOTE. And also that the current deal undervalues ESG. I get that.

But the challenge I have for all holders is this:

ESG have thrown open their data room, and have drawn a line in the sand with this deal with Santos. Now if other majors are not willing to pay more than Santos, why will they pay more later on if we go back to production testing and drilling?

TO WHOM will ESG sell themselves later on?

Other parties will have been shown all the data. They will have more information than any of us. So if the quality is there, they will be prepared to pay more. And if it isn't, they won't.

Okay, so you think $900m worth of Santos scrip isn't enough. That is fine. So, if that is the case, won't another players such as Origin or BG want to pay more than that? And if they don't then WHY NOT?

If another major isn't willing to unseat Santos NOW, why will they attempt to do so in a year? Do you honestly think Santos will be prepared to pay more in a year's time?

I am comfortable with my position. It is out of our hands now. If ESG is worth a lot more, then another party will force ESG to pay more. And if another parties doesn't intervene, then from whom are you going to get your money later on ..?

And note that I am still predicting a multi-party auction. That prediction HAS NOT CHANGED. The only difference is there is no point holding out for a multi-party auction if the others do not come.

I welcome someone explaining to me what the strategy is, going forward, after a NO VOTE gets up. Tell me who the buyers will be (and why they didn't appear previously), tell me about the funding, and tell me what the commercialisation strategy is.

Yaq