Ann: Perth Basin Strategy & Proposed Merger Update, page-218

@rahrah a really interesting thought that I had never considered to be honest. As far as SE is concerned, I am 90% positive that they have sufficient confidence that SE contains sufficient feedback to fulfil their GSA commitment or Haber. Whether SE alone can potentially fulfil both can only really be answered via more appraisal wells. Until they drill more step outs to confirm the aerial extent of the field and homogeneous nature of the reservoir, it's really hard to know. I mean, SE definitely has the potential to fulfil both based on pre-drill estimates and 2Ds.

But... what they could potentially offer, by way of separation/asset sale, is to bundle WE with the GSA. So the bidder will be paying for 50% of EP469 + operatorship + commitment to fulfil the CSBP GSA. This means the new owner of EP469 can work with MinRes (unless MinRes ends up being the ultimate buyer) to build shared gas processing facilities + pipeline. STX will then use the sale proceeds to fund their SE appraisals + get Haber to FEED/FID stage before issuing out term sheets for binding equity partnership deal.

Not sure about your question on SE's margin. While there is some differences in productive rate and therefore, development cost, the entire PB Permian play is very low cost in general. So the margins of using SE for Haber will still be massive regardless of whether we have WE or otherwise Noting that the original plan, before all these M&A activities started, was to use WE to fulfil GSA and SE for Haber.

The biggest downside of selling EP469, as far as I can think of, is that it would remove some flexibility and optionality for STX. Personally, given the LD and WE3 drill results, I'd rather we keep WE and stick a drill pipe into Erregulla Deep play as I think there is enormous potential there to unlock a lot of additional 2P.

618