perhaps pel 428 has massive black jack coal, page-2

Mr Lincoln Augustus/Holy

Its very kind of you to wave away the smoke of the Number 1 long enough to make this wonderous reply to my inquiries and to make us all aware of your most valuable insights and thoughts on OIP. I know its been a busy time for you with MEL and perhaps dreaming of an AOE type outcome for ESG (?) and also I'm sure OIP is rarely far from your thoughts almost constantly at this time .. which must interfere with your peaceful sleeping.

I did see your very direct post about the incentivising of RL and thought it was unusually intemperate but nevertheless quite commendable.

The way I am starting to see the whole OIP saga is that for some years now ESG has had its hands full financing, appraising and testing its "jewel" PEL 238 and all its other leases have had to take very much the backseat. In fact ESG "parked" a number of these in OIP and thought "we won't have to worry too much about them now". In fact what they were hoping to do was/is (when the time is right) make hay from them by "association" rather like STO is talking up its own leases by way of the good works of ESG next door in PEL 238.

Then along come a few bothersome investors and traders who see the potential for the CSG in OIP's leases and they very annoyingly start complaining about the lack of progress and the obvious lack of "intent" regarding the drilling program .. such things as why have the least prospective areas been drilled causing them concern .. when they should just assume ESG/OIP know what they are doing .. nuisances all!

I notice your contention that ESG has drilled Kurrabooma in the least prospective part of PEL 428 while being aware that there were thick Hoskisson seams in the southern part of PEL 428 that is in-between ESG/STO's PEL 434 and ESG/STO's PEL 238. I have assumed that this was part of a program to assess the prospectivity of the whole lease and perhaps intended to determine the western extent of coal formation .. and so it might be. The fact that you have pointed out that Strike Oil knew of the very thick coals in the south of the loicence area and Strike=Comet (wrt csg) may mean that they didn't need to drill there as urgently (I am trying to be kind in my interpretation here). BUT why give away 40% of the csg rights to assess an area unlikley to be anywhere near as prospective as the southern area? And why downplay the prospectivity as was the case in the recent "IE" report on the value of OIP's leases? Why would Comet or Davidson "collude" to underpaly the prospectivity of their JV lease??? We can only conclude that they are all trying to "fly under the radar" until the timing is right. But are they not in danger of missing out on all the excitement in the sector by this strategy?

Many of us bought into OIP seeing the CSG potential and both OIP and ESG have been very slow to assess it and seem to have downplayed it. I have often said this ONLY makes sense if ESG aims to acquire either OIP or all of OIP's csg rights. But in doing so they make OIP MORE vulnerable to a takeover by a third party as the sp has remained low and fallen on the recently proposed merger with GGX.

Its all very confusing and there are MANY questions that should be asked of all parties. I have tried on numerous occassions to get a convincing answer on all of this from OIP and ESG but the latter in particular are not saying much.

Enjoy your weekend also!

Regards

H