Australian article re Hancock, page-50

I can't say I agree with wot for the majority of time, but I do agree there will be consolidation in the PB eventually. Just unsure about timing window.

Hancock has a track record of taking partial non-controlling stake in lots of businesses, but it has also moved to full, controlling ownership in some of those businesses (Senex, Atlas, Warrego, Azure, etc).

All one can look at is the facts and try to make some logical speculative potential conclusion. So, Hancock spent 440mn buying 50% non-operating interest in EP469 containing the WE discovery with 2P of 211PJ and 3P of 52PJ and lots of contingent and potential resource. Similar to MIN, it has started an energy division but MIN's is now much more advanced. WA gas price has risen significantly over the past few years and is expected to remain well supported based on favourable supply demand outlook, with current prices more than enough to provide a very appealing return on capital. Having access to international prices will amplify the returns significantly, but the base case with the local price is still very appealing. With Hancock now allegedly taken a stake in STX of just under 5%, I am sure every person will have their own opinion as to why she has possibly taken that "strategic" position. The truth is that no one really knows what Hancock will do next.

All Bridget Carter did was to report Hancock lurking just below 5% threshold and that it may lead to a potential deal. There is nothing that either STX or Hancock has to respond to. So it is rather odd logic that a lack of response from the companies implies the original article was a bit "scuttlebutt". Between AFR Street Talk and Australian Data Room, there must have been over hundreds of inside scoops this year alone. Some (especially around actual transaction discussions/approaches taking place) have led to formal announcements, but others have turned out to be true without any response (because none was warranted).

618