"If an ESG shareholder intends to vote YES - what BENEFIT arises from them communicating that decision before the vote?"
No 'benefit', Bundy. I simply say it because it is the truth about what I intend to do. So, no playing games, no posturing, no attempting to put pressure on Santos via HC. Just honesty.
Bundy, WE are not part of the negotiation - the negotiation has already taken place on your behalf by your Board. There is a SoA ready to be voted upon. Now if people want to vote NO, that is fine. I respect that. That is your right as a shareholder. I just happen to disagree.
But, it is the height of conceit to think that a handful of comments on HC, from me or anyone else, will put pressure on Santos to up their offer.
If people are really serious about getting a NO vote campaign up (and many of you are), I suggest you speak to the institutions and lobby them. Has anyone (apart from ESG and Santos) done that? They control large numbers of separate shareholdings. Ask them how they plan to vote with all their various holdings, and ask why. Ask Hardoak why he and his 'group' are planning to vote YES. Contact Dennis Morton or Doug Battersby, and ask them how they plan to vote and why. If you really are serious about trying to derail this SoA, then you have to get serious and talk to the heavy hitters. And find out why they are planning to vote the way they are.
I don't give my view to achieve some 'end' or 'benefit'. And I certainly don't give it to win favour on here.
You think ESG, without any decent reserves growth in the last 18 months, deserves 3 times as much per GJ of 3P as BOW? Fine. Tell me why. We are not the only company with contingent resources and a reserves upside. BOW and MEL would kill for such a metric as ours.
Our problem, (as we have just found out in the IER), is the lack of reserves progress, not the price.
Yaq
ESG Price at posting:
81.5¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
