Good post Hardmano,Another of many. I still believe there will...

Good post Hardmano,

Another of many.

I still believe there will be a fight for ESG's reserves, unless there is such a huge issue with water, (and we've been kept in the dark on it), that STO has included dealing with same in its metrics, and the issue gives cause for would be competitive bidders to reconsider. In that case, I'm glad I hold MEL!

But what I really wanted to say was this; the rationale for establishing "fair value" to ESG in your post, as others have done occasionally amidst the more emotive talk, is what needs to be captured in document form and adopted by a group of those of us who really feel it may come down to a NO vote (in the absence of another bid).

Whether we seek to be represented by a body such as ASA, or to speak for ourselves, we have every right, and I think quite a real need NOT to leave formally presenting our concerns to ESG management (and therefore STO), until the deathknock.

Whilst the logistics of this appear daunting, some of us are in contact off HC, without the cover of our aliases, and I guess if enough of us signal a wish to get this underway, then some discussion will have to occur by phone, email, whatever to establish how we start, gather private details of those posters who wish to be party to this document etc.

It won't further our cause simply nashing our teeth on here about being screwed over will it? The activism by Nervous & one or two which saw some coverage in the press was admirable, and cannot hurt, but ultimately carries no legal imperative on ESG to address us.

Nor do I think it is safe to assume ESG/STO anticipate a large and angry NO vote from us. If recommending the lowball offer proves to be (in the words of one Baldrick, "a cunning plan my Lord") I'll be the first to congratulate them and sigh with relief, BUT we must have a strategy of our own in the meantime.

Your thoughts H?

Rgds,

Lilac