the 200-300 faceless men (and women), page-9

minerva.

A carbon constrained world. That is what we are looking at. Check out the MEO presentation to SEAOC today. There is a slide in their about carbon intensity per tonne of LNG. CSG is topping the charts, not without context though.

If you consider some rough figures, at 55PJ production for 1 mtpa of LNG, and an intensity of 0.9tCO2e/LNG tonne, and a price on carbon of 20$/t, thats a $20m carbon tax on CSG/LNG, or $10m more than your NW rivals. Not peanuts, but it is against a backdrop of $440m revenue pa for your product which tips it to the less portion of risks to pricing. we will after all all be tarred with the same brush.

speaking of which, the figures in MEOs presentation probably also need to be tested for validity or at least context. we need to consider the purity of our respective products. the conventional gas has a higher energy content. their fields unfortunately also have a SIGNIFICANTLY higher CO2 content. It would be interesting to know how much of the

We all know that CO2 weighs less than CH4 (methane), however it is much less dense, or simply - it is much bigger. CO2 can be used to enhance production of CSG fields in later in a fields life. CO2, preferentially over CH4, adheres to the coal wall using the van der waal :) enhancing desorption or the forcing out of CO2. So we should also not think that we have CO2 disposal methods at our hands.


Not that I want to shout down the risks you have pointed out with respect to capital and produciton experience; but we all need to consider that Woodside wasnt built in a day, nor was Santos a CSG expert in the year 2000. ESG are the premiere operator in Gunnedah basin with several functioning pilots. This is production experience that no one else has.

If you were referring to LNG production experience, I guess that is why they are undergoing studies with tech partners at present.

I dont think that we should discount the local power options or gas supply to the market. There are some substantial power stations just outside of Syndey that will be very gas hungry. With rising electricity costs, domestic gas demand will also increase.

I certainly agree with some of the risks you have mentioned, and there are actually a plethora of others that are not mentioned.


kc,
and I can tell you that board rejection is something that an interested party is very scared about. those few hundred are easier to herd than several thousand.



db,
keep trying mate. nice to see you have dropped the faux cheering for ESG. Nothing worse than watching a cheerleader shout when she is actually dating the opposites teams captain.

The fundamental hole in your argument is that you are treating ESG like some sort of profit station. the true value is in the resource it sits on - not the current share price and a VWAP.

Context...Please!!
Strike Energy today announced an upgrade in 2P reserves to 13.22 BCF or 14PJ give or take. They have a MC of $78m. Lets round it to $70m.

ESG, their poor unproducing cousins, are sitting on 988PJ 2P. They are sitting around $900m MC excl dillution. Now with some mathematical wizardy, watch me convert ESGs resource into something you finance geeks can understand 70/14*988 = $4.9B...give or take.

Now I know that you are the first to admit that I am an extremely unintelligent person, and that this figure by no means represents the value of ESG, because we need to factor in all those extra resource upgrades and low cost production techniques, but at least its a starting point :)


I feel your frustration. I wouldnt like to be in your position as it must be like pushing it up a hill.

Cheers,

SF