"Can you see him describing in graphic detail about how "Gasland" doesn't apply to ESG...and what fraccing means and how much better non-fraccing is via coal that is already naturally vertically fracced.
Then our talking head addresses the emotional issue of contaminated water getting into acquifiers etc etc...and how the GB is different via the deep drilling insoider cement filled wells and the layers of impervious rock etc etc."
PP,
I suspect the reason ESG don't engage in trying to differentiate themselves from the QLD projects in this way is they do not want to talk down the industry. What is good for Shell, BG and Santos collectively is good for ESG.
Were ESG to say "we don't use any fraccing, unlike the QLD companies, and we don't have issues with the acquifers, unlike the QLD projects" ... well, it is soiling the CSG nest. All the media would hear is "blah blah blah CONTAMINATION.. blah blah blah... FRACCING IS BAD ... blah blah blah ... FIGHTS WITH LANDOWNERS"
Counter-productive, IMO.
The buyers for ESG know about ESG's benefits - the land access deal with the State Government, the lack of fraccing, the huge resource, the LNG and power-gen market ... these things are not lost on the major energy companies. They are the market. And as long as ESG have multi-party interest and defensive plans in place, the low share price does not necessarily threaten them.
I am sure, when ESG want to bring on action, they will be out there spreading the message, talking up the company and making deals that will provoke a response. In the meantime, let's get the data from Tintsfield and get the reserves certified. No need to start anything just yet.
Yaq
ESG Price at posting:
64.5¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
