According to Chapman, BG's proposed takeover price of $15.50 is not just fair and reasonable, it's actually very generous compared with the price of Origin in the pre-bid days of last April.
Not only is $15.50 said to be some 48% higher than the Origin price on the day before BG made its first move on April 29, but it is said to be 72% above the 90-day moving average price for Origin.
Given that information, and nothing else, The Slug reckons Origin shareholders would be stampeding to take Chapman's $15.50 and thank him for being so big-hearted.
They will not, of course, for a number of reasons. Firstly because any talk of the $15.50 being generous is purely a look back at an historic point in time. The reality of Origin today is that it is not trading at a discount to BG's bid; it is trading at a 5% premium.
Only an extremely silly Origin shareholder wanting to sell his or her shares would hang around waiting for Chapman's $15.50 when he or she can get $16.34 on the market today.
But, it's not daily market movements that have led The Slug to the belief that BG is struggling to convince anyone, including its own management team, that it has a consistent, coherent and convincing case for acquiring Origin.
The second half of Chapman's June 24 letter, in which he formally "went hostile" with his $15.50 offer, is confused to the point of raising doubts about much of what he says.
In a nutshell, how on earth can Chapman claim that he is being generous with his offer, and really (cross my heart) wants to own Origin - and then rubbish the target as an over-priced, risk-laden, problem-ridden business that sounds as if it's one foot from the grave?
That little rant might sound like The Slug is exaggerating to make his point, and perhaps he is. But consider Chapman's attack on Origin. According to him, Origin shareholders have "limited visibility" of the risks in Origin's current reserve position and liquefied natural gas joint venture alternatives.
If that's true, then why on earth does Chapman want to buy Origin.
As well as being concerned about "reserve visibility" Chapman is worried about whether Origin has sufficient coal seam methane reserves for an LNG project - then why does he want to buy Origin?
Then there are said to be "third-party contractual rights" over a number of Origin's tenements that have not been adequately explained - then why does he want to buy Origin?
Next are concerns about Origin meeting domestic market requirements - then why does he want to buy Origin?
And finally, the fact that there are no existing coal seam-to-LNG projects anywhere in the world (though there are competing coal seam-to-LNG developments in Australia) and "many billions of dollars of capital investment required" - then why does he want to buy Origin?
Sorry cobber, you protest too much. In an effort to talk down Origin, and argue that $15.50 is a good price, you destroy your entire argument.
How is it possible to take the $15.50 offer price as final when the market is already much higher, and your argument in support of the bid price is hollow.
If Origin is such a mess, as BG says, then it must walk away. It's not, the market says it's not, and the fact that BG is persevering with a takeover bid proves that it's not.
All we need now is for reality to dawn. BG to stop rubbishing a business it wants to buy on the cheap, and for a rival bid for materialise or for BG to lift its price - for a business it says is in deep trouble.
