Same spreadsheet for both companies - values side by side.
The major differences:
1. Hedging %
2. Corporate decline rate - deliberately put in favour of SSN with the OAS acreage on the assumption that the Madison wells do not decline as fast as Bakken/TFS and therefore certainly not as fast as EFS
3. Production efficiency - deliberately put heavily in favour of SSN due to the PDNP wells
4. No Capex spend by either company on anything but D&C (which cannot be true - there will be seismic and facilities to invest $ in)
Remember the concept is to not shrink (so keep production steady) and hopefully grow reserves (those become targets).
I've highlighted in the yellow boxes what I think are key metrics. For example it is very clear in the EBITDAX margin the effect of the lower hedging % in 2017. I would hope LNR address this and likewise for SSN.
GFTA.
Happy to clarify where necessary. Not making any judgement on whats a good/bad or indifferent number. The production efficiency is a best guess and could be way off (especially for SSN as I don't follow it as closely as some think). Most of the rest is determinable from public info.
SSN Price at posting:
0.4¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
