Ann: Odin Resources significantly upgraded, page-11

I'm not going to pretend that I have the answers, as there are a lot of variables in play. My understanding is that the plateau rate was based off 3 Vali wells - so excluding Odin. The addition of Odin molecules means that a whole new field comes in to play with a considerable project life. There's three ways that they can play it: same production rate (greater project life), increased throughput (same project life), or a combination of both. I think they'll need to flow test Odin before deciding on a path. The conventional reservoir in Odin, along with the likely higher flow rates from the Toolachee in Vali 2 and 3 add another variable into the equation. On paper they'd want to be producing as much as possible as early as possible, given that they have a sunk cost in the wells drilled to date. An absolute nothing answer for you - but to loop around I think the plateau rate referred to the Vali field and that if they install a large enough pipeline that Odin can add to that plateau rate in an overall project sense.

The onshore gas industry has been CSG focused for the last decade, which makes things hard. The only non-CSG transactions that I can remember are STX buying into WGO and COI buying more of Mahalo.

Warrego had reserves of 513 PJ of 2c and 966PJ of 3c, with STX paying $22m for an 8.16% stake. That equates to circa 28c per 3C and 53c per 2C, noting that they are contingent reserves.

Comet Ridge paid $0.25/J of 2P and $0.15/GJ of 3P...however that is a messy deal that see Santos retain some ownership and has them over a barrel with a nasty loan arrangement that won't be able to be repaid without tapping shareholders or selling the whole project. As such, I see that as the absolute low case when looking at metrics.

When Santos took over ESG we were looking at 50c for 3P and 95c for 2P.

The issue is scale, maturity, and alignment with purchaser interests. In each of these examples the seller and purchaser were project partners.

Westside Corporation is a recent example of a hostile bid. I think that was $178m in the end with net 2P of 347PJ (51c/GJ) and 3P of 885PJ (20c/GJ)...effectively half of the ESG/STO deal. That was also a unique situation as they were producing around 12 TJ/d.

The big difference for MEL is the scale - we are looking at much smaller fields. However, proximity to existing infrastructure, high flow rates, lack of dewatering costs and ability to drill simple verticals all swing the equation. I think in the MEL case it will be more a case of looking at net profit margin once producing, multiplying by the volume of gas and then applying a present value discount.