prow - please challenge this

EPC 1045. BWN buy it for $2.7m, spend a couple of million on it and then Minnelex value it at $1.09m (100%) despite valuing it at $5.1m in the 2008 IER using the Prospectivity Enhancement Multiplier approach?

Please explain how the $ per sub-block method should take precedence over the PEM method.

Also please explain why you would use such a low PEM as per your previous post where you stated 1.25 would be appropriate. In the 2008 IER a PEM of 3.0 was used for EPC 1045. All other EPCs had PEMs of 2.5 or 3 with the exception of Tarong and Cape River which had 1.5 (whereas I would have used 1.0).

I look forward to your response.