Ann: 2Q FY24 Quarterly Report & Appendix 5B, page-304

You have utterly missed the point. Congratulations.

I was referring to Hancock’s ability to put Strike under pressure especially financially. Of course they will want to do that to keep Strike on its toes and maybe persuade Stuart to prioritise WE over the finding of water in SE and doing 3D on ocean hill.

The precinct is not a good option for processing and I don’t see how you think no EPA consents needed. What about the gas gathering network and the gas transport pipelines for example?

Why on earth would Hancock worry about Strike’s gas? As long as it can process its own gas and sell it, it has achieved a good outcome surely? I would have thought that any deal with AGI was
long dead . I am always willing to be proved wrong but through hard facts not idiotic assertions based on nothing more than opinion.

what other low or no capex processing options does Strike have. The adage that there is no such thing as a free lunch comes to mind.

Finally, why on earth would anyone buy 50% of SE? There’s no 3D seismic, the 2D was shot on roadways and firebreaks only and two wells out of three drilled have failed. Feankly, SE 1 isn’t a gusher either. Paying cash for 50% of that would be a remarkably poor use of capital.