TSV/TMK entry point, page-44

So you claim its dumb logic to use a multiple that another entity achieved. Peer comparison is dumb. Analogous acreage is dumb. All those presentations from Stein are dumb because they use comparisons from another entity - is that true?

How come then when other entity comparisons are used by other posters, mgmt and sell side broker research that only illustrate high valuations, that logic is perfectly OK?

BTW, on a point of correction, our lands, but for a small fraction remain undeveloped. Developed acreage has producing wells on it. How many acres do you think these 2 wells have developed. All the rest remain undeveloped. That is an industry definition.

When the reserves report comes out, these 2 wells will have Proven Reserves associated with them. Proven Reserves have 3 general class - PDP (Proven, Developed & Producing), PDNP (Proven, Developed, Not-Producing) and PUD (Proven Undeveloped) and then onto 2P & 3P.

We will have PDNP ... hydrocarbons "behind pipe" but not producing (no pipeline).
We wont have PDP ... unless trucking is the option.

Undeveloped is acreage that requires wells (and therefore capital to be invested) to be drilled to achieve production.
But you knew that right ... you just wanted to attack my logic ... why?

Per your tag line ... As always, DYOR


@cwhite688 ... No guesses from me on what Reserves will come out to be or what % of total land will be given as "developed" ... only it is a small %. I do think the drilling supported the prospective resources report.