not a stupid question at all- but no definitive answer I'm...

not a stupid question at all- but no definitive answer I'm afraid.

It's either commercially viable to move ahead or it aint- with the minimum threshold at 2.5mm+
Of course 5mm would make it more viable, 6mm moreso- better flows = less expensive to extract etc etc.
It then of course depends on actual GIP (gas in place) and accessibility to it.
We are unconventional (apart from that bonus Lorelle free flowing zone) so lots of cost to frac & stim.
But we're advantaged by proximity to infrastructure, rising demand, supply deficit, rising gas prices, enhanced technical efficiencies via innovative micro-proppants as we've demonstrated-etc etc.

There's been a bit of mention from different sources that the challenge is now pretty much "just" a technical one (not a challenge of "is there any gas to harness?"- we know there is- and lots of it).

If it's then "only" a technical challenge to extract the gas, it boils down to the cost of doing so- and we're drilling at depth with frac and stim- all more expensive to do than shallow depth conventional free flowing gas extraction.

Our potential partner/JV will be looking (in very simple terms) at:

• How much GIP there is (remembering potentially Block A of Diona ATP2077 might be bundled in to a deal- adding circa 14-17% more Taroom gas)
• The cost of a (potential) say 500+ well program to extract that gas (and potentially condensate as a wee sweetener to aid the economics)
• Time horizons, Gas market sale prices and supply contracts- domestic/offshore, etc

Of course if they want to take Grandis from us, they'd want to minimise asset acquisition cost whereas we want to maximise shareholder value in letting Grandis go.

There's the rub!- Grandis will cost loads of wonga to get to production- the more we enhance our resource clarification the more valuable Grandis gets, but there's a cost to that process and we have very little of that currently so it will be interesting to see a potential partnership arrangement and associated terms germinate.

In VERY simplistic terms, let's assume a $1billion AUD per tcf of GIP. (we've bandied this about a bit historically- it might be more valuable than this, might be less but let's assume this as base case). That's the "value" of gas in the ground-lots of costs involved extracting that.

So given 1.3billion shares on issue (it's currently 1.12 billy but lets allow for performance shares etc) each tcf of GIP is "worth" 77c a share on this very basic metric. (DYOR- not advice- yadda yadda)

Like any asset takeover attempt, particularly in difficult to value greenfield assets, the first bid alerts the market & determines an asset value (well-at least a value that party attributes to the asset, and they'd want it to be attractive enough for us to bite, but not overpay to acquire).

We hope that a 1st bid manifests into multi party asset bidding