It was implied. From their announcement dated 24th August -...

It was implied. From their announcement dated 24th August - http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20140825/pdf/42rpvlf3yp2vbj.pdf (Page 7) - I couldn't quite figure out their breakeven calculation as it was off by about 30% from my calcs. So I summoned the help of one of my petro friend who indicated to me that it was most likely due to presence of Co2 (which is obviously not saleable thus can't be included in their calcs).

So the slide had a fixed EUR of 2BCF, and from the assumed 15 years production life, one can calculate a daily production rate of 360mCFpd, giving an NPV of 5mn. Given they had flagged an average well cost of 3.5mn, it didn't quite add up. However, if we take 30% off the EUR to 1.4BCF for saleable gas, it comes to an average daily production rate of 250mCFpd, and an NPV of 3.5mn.

I just happened to scroll down to the next few slides just now, and on page 8 of the said announcement, the graph shows that with perm of 1mD and gas saturation of 80%, the EUR is 6BCF. So we could be looking at an even higher EUR if gas saturation and perm is greater.

With regards to the fractures possibly caving in under the drawdowns, they have consistently stated that they have been choking back the well quite aggressively to avoid damaging the reservoir. As we know, once the well starts to shut in on itself, it is no longer of any use to us. So I would very much doubt they would open up the choke to compensate if pressure starts to drop off. It would contradict everything they have said to date, and risk losing a test well that we can't afford to redrill as a replacement.

PS. Loving this thread as there has been some great points raised and discussed. So many thanks!

618