milestones - part 2, page-9

Cmonaussie, the August report quotes $8.3Gj too.
The point for me is that the assumptions and financial modelling may or may not be suitable.
The latest August report is here:
http://www.aemo.com.au/Gas/Planning/Gas-Statement-of-Opportunities/Production-Costs

On the same page is a spreadsheet showing their assumptions. For example, Cooper unconventional is modeled to peak flow at 8mmscfd and EUR is 8bcfe (8.6mGj) per well.
The tab in the spreadsheet labelled Model Ouptuts had low, reference and high costs of production for each province.
These costs include processing and transport.
It is modeled twise, once with a nil Rate of Return on capital. This gives a reference cost of production for Cooper unconventional of $3.05Gj (again including transport and processing).
It has a second table showing cost of production with a 10% RoR, again including transport and processing, but this time the reference cost is $8.30Gj.
This large discrepancy is because the expansion to Moomba to accommodate the huge resources in the Cooper would cost billions of dollars.
If the capital fairy came and gave us a loan for a processing plant for free, we could produce, process and transport gas for $3.05Gj (including paying back the interest free loan).
The $8.30Gj assumes that the loan costs 10% p.a.
This huge difference is because the resource is so large, and will produce for so many years that the cost of financing the processing facility is very high, but the underlying capital cost per Gj of gas is quite modest.
The issue is that the cost of financing the processing and transport makes up such a high proportion of the cost of production that it disproportionately effects the costs.
For example, if the actual cost of finance is lower (say 8% RoR), at the stroke of a pen the cost of gas produced drops to $7Gj. At 6% RoR the production costs drop further to $6Gj.
And if interest rates rise and RoR required grows to 15% the cost of production soars to $10.50Gj.

The take home for me is that the cost of production figures in the Core report are almost entirely driven by how much their model says the processing and pipeline compression facility will cost, not the geology factors. And a variation in that (unstated, I believe) figure, and in the cost of financing the facility, single handedly determines whether the project is commercial at projected market prices.
Considering the focus on geology throughout the report I think it is fair to conclude Core are geo experts, not necessarily experts on building and financing processing plants, so their conclusions on the cost of cooper production need further scrutiny, IMHO.

And having Chevron on board seems likely to improve both the economics of building a processing plant, and the cost of capital.