Ann: Investor Roadshow Presentation, page-10

Gm and Salt
Coe bought an undeveloped gas asset that needs a massive spend , and even worse their production and revenue is and has always has been a fraction of DLS , so comparison is not great
In regard to the comment about access to pipelines , if one was negotiating a purchase of gas assets that required delivery , one would negotiate access to infrastcture. If STO sold the gas assets ( not suggesting they will) there would be no point in having multi million dollar infrascture stay dormant. The pipelines could be part of a transaction , or sold off to a pipeline company that would charge for their use

It's all just hypothetical , but using COE and CTP experience doesn't make sense as both a low revenue companies who had very little productive reserves , and were desperate for growth. They also acquired these assets early in the downward cycle . As for the pipes, the idea that access would not be provided is in my view also unrealistic. DLS has the ability to move assets forward quickly in an environment with higher oil prices and also has the luxury of being able to delay development of any assssts and focus on the higher margin parts of the business. In an 65-70 oil environment DLS free cash flow would be 140- 150 million ( assuming similar AUD to today )