Ann: Guidance and operations update, page-47

no, it would not be anywhere as simple as that.
I meant how they (the contract conditions precedent) is worded, to determine just when and how that 68tjd "nameplate" capacity is reached.
COE/APA would have entered into contract based on condition that APA delivered a plant which would deliver 68tjd of processed gas produced by Sole wells.
So is nameplate of 68tjd reached when Orbost produces 68tj of gas in one day? I doubt it.
Is it reached when Orbost averages 68tjd over a 1 mth period? If so, given Orbost cleans absorbers every few weeks, and production drops to around 35tjd for 3 days, then Orbost would need to produce at rates of maybe 72tjd-74tjd for rest of mth to average 68tjd.
But I would imagine contract would state that Orbost must produce nameplate for longer than 1mth.
Way longer.
As i said, I don't know how that 68tjd average to attain the "nameplate" requirement is established/calculated according to contract.

And this is why I reckon it is one factor in WHY COE and APA will seek to do a deal to sell Orbost to COE.

We all (and the media) contemplate that COE might purchase Orbost outright from APA, requiring equity and debt as funding.
But, COE could see an Insto purchase Orbost, and lease to COE such that COE is Operator.
COE could "rent" Orbost for a fee.
Given purchase price would be way less than cost of APA construction, numbers might stack up.
Advantages for everyone.
Capital light for COE.
COE gets control of prodn - gets rid of middleman in prod process.
Numbers game - COE now paying a toll - so rent plus costs of prodn must work out less than current toll.
COE has experience managing gas processing plant.
COE has had experience and input into working on "fix" of Orbost.
Just a thought