The $GFL / $SES.TO merger getting this contentious wasn't on my bingo card. My position is unchanged: this isn't the optimal outcome for either party. That said, $SES.TO shareholders are getting a good price today. At 11x forward (announced price) or ~10.5x using current $GFL price, investors should take their ball and go home. For continued energy beta via OFS, I'd point you to $CEU.TO, a best-in-class specialty chemicals biz trading at 9.5x that's tied to production (vs. drilling activity), much like $SES.TO's base biz. My comment below on preferring $SES.TO standalone is b/c a combo with $GFL is sub-optimal for both sides. $GFL shareholders want truly non-cyclical CFs. Adding OFS pressures the multiple by muddying the story and weakens $GFL's ability to do accretive SW M&A, especially opportunistic M&A in economic downcycles. For $SES.TO shareholders, the standalone growth profile gets watered down by the broader $GFL. That's not to say $SES.TO is a "waste" biz whose chart will grind up and to the right, as many suggest. When the next energy downcycle hits (and it will), the multiple will compress dramatically. But $SES.TO holders should be given the chance to trade around that growth profile and energy cycle volatility. My near-term view on $SES.TO is positive: the Iran situation should inject a geopolitical risk premium into oil that we haven't seen in a decade . Layer on renewed focus on security of supply, which will point major crude and products buyers to NAM. $SES.TO's core business will benefit because it supports Canada's long-life resource base and an oil price anywhere close to US$80 is great for basin-wide profitability and will support healthy activity levels. If $SES.TO's multiple keeps grinding higher as generalists conflate commodity CFs in a constructive oil price environment with business quality, this opens the door to accretive M&A of actual waste assets and a longer-term pivot. That's the additional optionality in the $SES.TO thesis, but it requires that the oil price remains high enough for long enough. Once again, this highlights $SES.TO's exposure to energy beta.

Man, I appreciate the view, and a year ago I would have fully agreed with you, and argued against myself with the same "people miss the Tier 2 rock" case, but you're making some fairly dangerous implicit assumptions that I think you'd even agree are not defensible. Let's say you're right, and those collective plays get to 17 Bcf/d over the next 10 years, while maintaining current production (so 40 rigs, not 30). I'm assuming a generous 17 day cycle time for 615 wells a year, in reality downdip OK is deeper and has a median spud to rig release of 46 days, so I'm giving you a ~30 day drilling advantage. All-in, that's 15,000 locations and 3.2 million acres of undrilled rock, *on top* of maintaining current volumes. On an 11.5 MMcf/d IP type curve, and a 12 Bcf sales EUR (14 Bcf raw) you're going to get ~17 Bcf/d of growth running 30 new rigs nonstop for 20 years. But you need 15,000 locations. Where are there 15,000 locations in the midcon that are going to do 1.4 Bcf/1K' and IP at >12 MMcf/d raw -- and why haven't they been drilled yet? Assuming it's rich gas at even 30 Bbls/MMcf that's a 415 MBO EUR. In OK, the IP90 rate for *only wells with an EUR >0.5 Bcf/1K'* was ~5 MMcf/d, so I'm also giving you an 8 MMcf/d IP advantage and ~0.5 Bcf/1K' advantage. IN DJ/PRB it's closer to 2-3MMcf/d IP90 rate, so I'm giving a massive advantage there. In the Barnett the IP90 average is ~4 MMcf/d. In 2022 the Barnett averaged 3 rigs and grew <50 MMcf/d. If I slash that type curve in half, and cycle times to 23 days (WAY more reasonable), which is still a 7 Bcf EUR, that growth tops out ~7 Bcf/d, not 17 Bcf/d. The economics on that more reasonable type curve at ~3.2 year pay out and 29% IRR at $3.50 realizing 100% HH ($8MM D&C, $9/BOE GP&T OPEX, 55B/M liquids). And you're right, there needs to be more infra, so that 1.6x recycle ratio well also needs to build new plants, compression, etc.; at $4.50 it's more reasonable, 2.0x recycle, 55% IRR, and at $5 it's definitely doable. But it's absolutely not in the money at $3.50, unless you have a problem with these assumptions. So the statement that "they will grow 10-20 Bcf/d over the next 10 years" assumes that; - 30 new rigs are added, ontop of maintaining volumes, and there's inventory to support that growth and that we'll drill wells in 17 days instead of the typical 50 days - IP rates/EURs are going to be competitive with the Texas Haynesville but didn't breakeven below $3 before but will break even at $3.50 - At 35 Bbls/MMcf, that somewhere there are 15,000 locations that have a 2.5MMBOE EUR that *haven't* been drilled yet despite breaking even in the $2s - There is enough margin to support the infrastructure required to grow, and the cost structure to reach the USGC all-in is $1.50/MMBtu I think none of these implicit assumption are correct. The Barnett doesn't have inventory that will do 1.5 Bcf/1K', nor do the other plays have 15,000 locations like that. It's a dangerous generalization IMHO.