Pear I hope we can disagree without it being personal. Though...

Pear I hope we can disagree without it being personal.

Though it's hard learning not to be married to any fixed viewpoint is an invaluable tool.

There's a few different things here, did the company make bad decisions (GLNG and debt) yes very clearly it did - causes not addressed but let's put that aside noting it is a reason money was lost and the offer is low relative to 2014 shareprices.

Then should the company discuss takeover offers behind closed doors - yes it should. Deal with the argy bargy, ditch the tire kickers encourage competing offers if it can.

Should the AFR the force disclosure, yup those guys are hilarious.
Their job is to be in the know and if it's reached lots of others know and are latching into the old insider trading.
Harbour flew over for the steak LOL, that translates as we have heard about an offer - good sleuthing.

Is insider trading a big deal, no just buy a bunch of cheap stocks and donworryaboutit. Just hang on until the rumours play out.
I didn't need any insider information for the 3 stocks I owned that got taken over last year, they just smelled cheap and I bought them for long term earnings.

Turns out Harbour, Crescent, Mitsui, Persol and Bain like cheap stocks too. More power to them, in each case existing shareholders sold out too low I don't doubt.

Then finally what of this offer, kudos to the board for acting like adults and not doing an AWE or a filthy dirty stinking MRM and shafting their holders. Any offer is conditional on their agreement or a counter offer - I guess we will see how China Inc. feels but it's quite a big bite for there to be competition.

Don't know how many have read barbarians at the gate but that was 30 years ago and LBO's are bigger and bolder than ever - anything is possible.

By being open to harbour the board says it will engage in any proposal that maximises profits.

The objection I have and those that have followed will know, is that the $6.5 proposed is based on oil price forecasts at $60 U.S. per barrel. Where oil costs $100+ to make and renewables presently in the pipeline are uneconomic.

The directors and the market believe this is the future but I believe are selling them short.

For me I could say yay I made $100,000 U.S on this stock, who cares that everyone called me nutjob and fool - who's laughing now?
To be clear that's what almost everyone said, no-one addresses my arguments - I am not thin skinned at all. It's just being a contrarian is tiresome with all the voices shouting against me.

I am certainly considering condensing this oil price spike thesis briefly and writing to the top 100 shareholders, also suggesting we look seriously at renewables where they could be economic. With a view that although good on you for looking out for our interests STO board perhaps we are selling ourselves short?

When I say renewables I don't mean a multi-billion dollar ponzi scheme like Tesla Motors, more like recognising the fact that global warming is already happening and the economics of the oil and gas industry continue to get worse.

Just channeling a bit of the vast amount spent on pointless depletion each year into alternatives and a lasting solution.

In the 200 year scale, which we should look at (not just this quarter) dig and burn is not a viable strategy. All the other species on earth are much wiser than we are in this - the only sustainable system is a closed loop.

Not having fixed ideas and thinking beyond our own narrow self-interest to future generations - surely we can do that.