Sorry, I misinterpreted that graph from the report (Fig 2). The...

Sorry, I misinterpreted that graph from the report (Fig 2). The way the data is combined with the heading "Walyering FCF put STX on path to self funding" suggests that Strike is in a high net debt position and paying it off with Walyering cashflows (what they are actually reporting is STX's net liquidity, a much more positive way to frame the data). Also, it could be argued STX will be self-funding a long time before that graph suggests (perhaps already).

Nonetheless, I asked to have it removed.

However, the treatment of debt remains dodgy IMHO. Their NPV analysis assumes debt of $105 million by June next year

And their foreward balance sheet estimates assume debt growing yearly by $267 million.



To achieve this 'finding', they must be assuming the STX will draw down its contingent debt facility, but everyone knows this is contingent on SE progressing, which it won't be, at least in its original form.
Some of this debt must also be attributed to WE going ahead. Who knows?
But then, when you look at future revenues, their estimates out to 2026 are not much more than what Walyering will produce alone.


So my basic point is you can't have it both ways, i.e. assuming debt will be drawn for both WE and SE, but not properly accounting for future revenues.
Finally, in the last quarter, STX stated it had only drawn down $25 million in total debt (after already repaying ~$6 million).
How do we reconcile this reality with the picture presented by the Macquarie report?