2015 - per the 10K, page-14

Cmon, my current focus is primarily future cashflow (1 year, 2 year) on existing assets, that is due to overall market conditions and challenges due to the OP. For this the sunk costs are not as important to me because imo the SP decline has reduced that risk and the annual accounts have been adjusted to reflect value as at June. This analysis does not consider SP entry level but only the SP today and how the company may perform in future relative to todays price.

My logic will be different on the new projects and to form a view on risk/reward that would take in account full cost and also include the possibility of dusters and delays (contingency) in the costing. Imo a flaw in some HC logic is the view "if this is successful this will fly" what that also means is "if this fails we are stuffed" and there are many examples of this. I'm trying to make sure I am not stuffed therefore before buying any stock I look at the 5 years cashflow and form a view on the management, strategy, where this fits in the lifecycle and how they spend money. A thing I have done wrong was not taking more interest in broader sentiment and the result is mentioned in your Oaktree post which suggests "if you invest you will lose money if the market declines".

In a round about way I think understanding those factors gives a reasonable view of the strategy and also the full cost of building a company not just SSN. Applying this and understanding the cycle I know my first purchase was after the peak of a cycle so I can understand some of he things I need to do better.

The Samson Resources comment is interesting and whilst not related to SSN I wonder if there is some confusion in the market which adds to negative sentiment here. It may be subconscious but does highlight the risk for O&G atm. There are other ASX coys that have changed their name to avoid such confusion although I am not sure if it is an issue here.

On the payback I should add my comment is a rough guide as some companies will have to drill to secure leases and therefore the motivation to drill is different. Also if the finance is from existing surplus cash or free cash generated from operations then the longer paybacks as you suggest can also make sense. Also as drilling costs have now decreased and confidence in existing assets and facilities in place are higher then this could also mean that the paybacks now are as good if not better than in the high cost scenario. I found this the other day which I think adds to our analysis Breakeven Historical prices at the wellhead from the ND gov site.

Interesting times for sure and plenty to consider.
Cheers