Difficult one to analyse quickly because there's so many...

Difficult one to analyse quickly because there's so many adjustments written into the loss.
But with adjustments taken out that I consider net zero (impairments, gain on assets, derivates gains/losses etc), their expenses for the year was about 11400 mil, compared the the 14040 mil, an overstatement of expenses of 2640 mil
Adding onto the stated loss gets us a profit of 350 mil
Compared to the MC a very modest 4.5% return
However, a glance at the cash flows shows that their cash position has been very reliable, they are paying the dividends with ease as well as have reduced debt significantly. This is worth a lot, because it derisks the business and allows big investors to pay higher prices for it than we'd probably care to pay.
Still, I don't see how ratings companies get their price targets. $6.50 seems incredible, and even UBS target of $5.10 implies a required return of just 3.9%.
They are counting on increased profits in future, partly from Beetaloo, but they are also applying very low risk ratings.

However, I doubt that utilities really are as risk free as that. Energy is currently undergoing a huge structural change and pressures for accelerated change continue to build. Risks from alternative industry and consumer energy choices are also significant if their cost continues to fall, and some of the most innovative companies in the world are trying to do just that. So these super low acceptable returns seem overdone to me. Also, Beetaloo itself has a particularly high uncertainty around it's viability, even if the current governments back such projects unquestioningly. At some point, international pressures, fairly or not, will build to a point where government will back away from these supports and there is a significant enough chance that it can happen before the project gets off the ground.

So yeah, the results weren't bad, but I'm skeptical towards the valuation, which I think requires better results to justify.