Seems to me that that's what's happening here (a lot)! Resources...

Seems to me that that's what's happening here (a lot)!

Resources being valued on a metric more suited to a reserve; compensation based on an improbable commercialisation some (indefinite) time in the future, etc.

I see no way the figure of $100sM will EVER be paid for a resource with no means of commercialisation in the medium term, and yet those are the sort of numbers being mentioned here.

In the long term who knows what the state's energy mix will be! Will coal or gas be a significant part of it or not? If not then MEL's resource will never be developed whatever changes of local opinion occur, ie in the unlikely event that 87%+ have a change of heart/mind.

What sort of metric is currently being applied to 2C resources? What discount factor has to be applied to that valuation to allow for the unlikelihood of this resource ever being developed? Answer those two questions and you have a ballpark figure for any likely compensation payout.

In that context perhaps the government's offer was appropriate, perhaps not, but keries is correct in saying it would be interesting to know just what it was.