Well put sjhm, albeit a little emotive between the lines!My...

Well put sjhm, albeit a little emotive between the lines!

My reading is that there is not enough focus on the strength SGL holds including:

1. It is a gas producer (Is QGC?)
2. With free cash-flow; and producing cash for ITS shareholders. At a previous presentaion last year a then director & then CEO advised this was then $1M per month.
3. Demonstrated ability to service normal debt to refinace expensive C/Notes (say at 8% on $30M = $2.4M p.a available now in SGL?)
4. SGL has $25M+ cash in bank now?
5. AGL to pay additional cash of up to $50M for additional reserves; with work being done on this matter now.(I assume).
6. This alone underwrites what QGC are proposing to offer (i.e. if the value of QGC paper can be properly valued and relied upon).
8. Camden producing good cash. Other projects on the Board (e.g. Hunter Valley)
8. QGC offer underwritten by:
(A) 1/2 of Camden; or
(B) The Hunter assets (which SGL could obviously elect in its own right to put a gen-set on); or
(c) Other leases owned by SGL;etc
9. SGL holds the premier position in the largest underserviced market in Australia; Sydney projected to have insufficient power by 2010 (46 months away and how long does it take to build a major plant). SGL can offer the market distributed power servicing regional/local demand.
10. Infrastructure (pipe & wire) already going thru' SGL leases. (Is QGC in that position?)
11. Access is not a problem and demand for energy is rising and the demand for "clean green energy". The communities will get behind these projects.
12. Strong board & management with the leading professional team in Australia that pioneered the CBM industry & regional developments.

There are lot lots more favouring SGL. Why would the shareholders give in now. The rewards are surfacing. The SGL shareholders have proven resilience and that should remain because they have been believers. The rewards are in the SGL shareholders hands and, I would expect, the new board are not likely to award this proposition any support.

It seems that SGL may have been let done by the previous administration; but the most interesting issue is the position of QGC advisers who:
(A) Obviously they see value in SGL in order to be proposing the offer.
(B) Were previously SGL advisers and thus have information on SGL (query if this would be classified inside information which may then constitute inside information held by QFC directors & officiers). I must admit I am perplexed by this and wonder what is the view of the previous directors & management of SGL on this matter as they appointed and entrusted these people.
(C) Do any conflicts arise? Particlarly in the nature of the offer and its conditions etc etc

Your comments have been thought provoking sjhm. Thanks from SGL holder