I should also point out that MEL shareholders do not get the...

I should also point out that MEL shareholders do not get the benefit of an Independent Expert Report.
It is ELK s/h who get that report, which will opine as to whether the deal is in the best interests of ELK and its s/h.
so there is no IER to investigate whether the deal is in the best interests of MEL s/h.
all you can do is read the ELK IER and try to see if the IER values ELK at, and then try to determine whether MEL is paying too much, and more importantly, you have to try and determine whether the operations/business case of ELK is appropriate for MEL.

I am not saying the deal is bad at all- because I do not know all the details (and the ELK IER will fill you in).

what I am saying, is that it appears to me this deal is a FUNDAMENTAL change in the business case of MEL. It is still O&G, but in a foreign country, foreign laws, risks, taxes, legal environment, and freakin thousands of klms from where the s/h base resides.
It is a new geological region, such that the operational aspects of O&G exploration will be different to that of Aust O&G. One size does not fit all.
Also, the MEL board appears to have already committed MEL to the deal- lending $2.5m of very, very scarce cash to ELK, on the presumption you s/h will be happy with the deal. It also states that MEL (presumably the expanded MEL) will assume the project debt liabilities of $12m). Am not sure what liability that entails, because it is "project debt" (maybe performance guarantees?).

If s/h are happy to invest in a US O&G business, no problem.
But at least you should have a say in the process imho.

cheers