I agree with your thoughts but remember the high liquids content...

I agree with your thoughts but remember the high liquids content of the Fitzroy Trough gas. The main profits would be in the stripped liquids even if the gas was near break even.

But most importantly for gas is scale. The larger the production, the bigger market to access and the lower the per unit production cost. And of course more exploration/development would be more attractive due to the improved add on economics.

Booked and potential reserves in the ground are important but most important is how much you have to spend to flow - how much per day, day in a day out. The balance of spend vs gain on a gas operation is partly the reservoir, gas market and corporate skill but in the end the big issue is scale. This is why big companies do gas and smaller companies flourish producing oil. Deep pockets and the patience for a medium/long term payoff is needed.

Of course in this century, politics has a large and even overpowering role in the western world with some Australian companies feeling more comfortable is the more expensive federal waters than onshore for gas.

Mitsubishi spent a lot of money doing the initial fracs with Buru at Valhalla/Asgard, proved a very large potential reserve but are not able to monetize due to the frac 'moratorium'. Note I have no inside knowledge of their evaluation or plans but simply note they thought 50% of this gas was worth 50% of the Ungani Oil Field and followups so they see value in the gas.

I became a Buru shareholder right after the 'divorce' since I could believe in the oil but had a much harder time understanding how the gas (even with liquids) would have an impact given the current political landscape. With Buru focused on the oil in the short term, their future is in the hands of the eventual size of Ungani, their profit margin from the field and the results of this years drilling campaign (hopefully with some funded exploration).