It would appear that a lot of the commentary that has been on...

It would appear that a lot of the commentary that has been on the WPL threads is also being expressed in the papers and by WPL shareholders that matter.

"Woodside yesterday indicated it could have been prepared to sweeten its offer if the meeting had taken place, which will spur speculation it has a plan B.
“Woodside is surprised and disappointed that the board of Oil Search has rejected the proposal without meeting with Woodside to understand the benefits of the opportunity, or to negotiate the terms of a possible merger,” the company said in a statement to the ASX yesterday morning. But it stressed it would maintain a disciplined investment approach." The Australian

"Even so, Woodside shareholders, like the target’s board, are questioning its fit and whether it is the right choice in a buyer’s market of reduced energy-asset valuations and amid a wide field of candidates on which a careful Woodside could choose to splurge.
Some investors are concerned Woodside may still mess up even after it has been so careful and waited so long. The chief complaints are that straightforward asset purchases would be simpler and that the complications of working in Papua New Guinea introduce unnecessary political risk.
"Woodside risks firing it's one strong-balance-sheet bullet at a sub-optimal target -- worse if the terms are sweetened,” says Morningstar analyst Mark Taylor.
The deal is “not particularly good for Woodside,” chiefly because it ignores PNG sovereign risk and also because such a significant proportion of value sits in one project, Taylor argues. He thinks the energy major could "do better elsewhere”.
Other objections from the Woodside investor camp are that increased complexity will distract management as they integrate the two businesses.
“Woodside clearly needs to do more to convince investors of the synergies that it can extract from managing Oil Search’s assets,” says Evidente analyst Sam Ferraro.
Business Spectator

HT1