db,You seem to be missing the point. (or prefer to obscure the...

db,

You seem to be missing the point. (or prefer to obscure the point).

The upside to ESG's 2P reserve is sales into LNG markets - that is the only thing holding back the 2C resource from being a 2P reserve.

(And, this is probably why ESG preferred not to set a 2P target - because it all depended on two key events - the commerciality of Tintsfield, and the 'unconstraining' of the 2C resource by showing likely LNG markets for their gas.

db, you seem to want to dwell on the existing 'mouldy' MOU's - does that suit your purpose better?

As discussed, ESG isn't going to limit their options by signing a large GSA with anyone - why would they? - all that does is limit their potential acquirer to 1 party. Sign their gas over to GLNG, and it would be the end to BG's takeover interests in ESG, the end to Origin's interests in acquiring the gas, the end to anyone else's corporate interest apart from Santos and friends.

And we all know (unless your mates at Origin get hold of ESG), the majority of ESG's gas is going to end up being liquefied into LNG. That is all upside to the 2P reserve. There is not one single joule of gas accounted for in ESG's current reserves. ALL UPSIDE

Yes, I am sure the past MOU's served their purpose. And I agree that the ERM Power MOU is the pick of the bunch. But these domestic MOU's are not where ESG's upside and future lies - world class resources need bigger markets, and those markets are overseas. ESG can and will do far better than their current MOU's.

Even David Knox himself, as Santos reported on HC, now admits that Santos want ESG gas to end up in GLNG. That means extra (LNG) markets for ESG gas. It means a higher LNG cut-off for ESG's reserves. Upside.

But, here is a challenge for you db - give us your prediction for ESG's 2P at the coming upgrade. You seem to be suggesting that it will go down. lol

Yaq