are you guys really implying that ESG and BOW have so many times more "unfound" gas compared to MEL?
No, not really. I rate all three of them above the rest of the field. I don't know how much "unfound" gas they have, I can only go by what they've reported.
I just rate ESG and BOW slightly ahead of MEL, because of their stronger current Reserves positions. As you said, if you include 2C and 3C things are a bit more balanced, but going on net 2P alone MEL is substantially behind the other two.
MEL are of course due for a Reserves upgrade in the coming months after which I may re-consider.
And finally, if you think ESG is going to have a fight with the Greenies, spare a thought for MEL trying to establish CSG in the Byron Bay hinterland.
I dont think right now either are as advanced or potentially as large as ESG unfortunately.
You are probably right here because of the sheer size of ESG's acreage, but 'ultimate maturation' is not the only factor to consider and as you said is a bit dubious anyway. Synergy with existing projects is important, as is value for money/not paying for Resources you don't need. In these two factors I think BOW is better placed than ESG. If you can get the Reserves you need by buying out BOW for a third of the price of ESG (going by MC for argument's sake), why wouldn't you choose BOW over ESG?
ESG is also an unattractive target for anyone other than Santos due to the latter's 20% stake.
Anyway, there seems to be a general consensus that all three are takeover targets and significantly above the rest of the pack.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?