1000 GJ = 1 TJ, but that's pretty irrelevant. The key number you...

1000 GJ = 1 TJ, but that's pretty irrelevant. The key number you need to know is that according to AEMO there is 75 TJ/d of gas demand in Mt Isa and the NGP can supply 90 TJ/d - in other words, there is a market for nearly all the gas that flows through the NGP in Mt Isa alone, and the pipeline tariffs to get to Mt Isa are similar by either route, so CTP should be able to supply gas to Isa at a competitive price, while the gas currently flowing from Wallumbilla to Mt Isa goes elsewhere.

So while EY is assuming as a base case that CTP's gas needs to go to Wallumbilla at a cost of $5.20/GJ, it seems to me there's a good chance a significant portion of CTP's gas won't need to go further than Mt Isa at a cost of perhaps $3/GJ. That makes a very big difference to the potential margin and it all goes straight onto CTP's bottom line.

CTP may not even need to actually sign new contracts to supply users in Mt Isa to do this because of the use of backhauling or gas swaps. EY make a passing mention to backhauling but don't seem to have included it in their calculations. A gas swap via backhauling would mean CTP could sell gas to a user at Wallumbilla but only have to pay to transport it as far as Mt Isa. The gas CTP delivers to Mt Isa then frees up gas at Wallumbilla that would otherwise have been committed to Mt Isa.

If the pipeline companies have to publish more cost and volume information to increase market transparency (as Vertigan apparently somehow concluded was all that was necessary to fix the problem) that should hopefully at the least make it easier for suppliers to negotiate backhaul contracts.