Mrwallstreet, no criticsm meant in my post towards yourself, but think you had been 'conned' and lead down the garden path by other posts made on the thread.
With regards to the in ground valuation figure of c.$12.00, it doesn't mean that's where the shareprice should be. Actually I personally don't even believe its an appropriate model to be using but the method is widespread for some reason.
In most cases, the emphasis shouldn't be how much you have in the ground at any one point, it's how much you can produce which is reflected in the shareprice over the longer term. If you had 1 billion barrels but could only produce 100 barrels per day would you still value it at $12.00? That's a pretty dramatic example I know but over the longer term it comes down to a specific oil and gas DCF (discounted cash flow) valuation model and the NPAT to measure true shareprice impact.
For example, a few months ago I asked the question: Is the full in ground value of Olympic Dam factored into BHP's shareprice? Definitely not and nor should it be.
I'm not saying the shareprice won't spike to some unaccountable level on any oil find but ultimately it will come back to settle.
That said, albeit 'potential' at this point, the stock IMHO should be trading at several levels of where it is at present based on current fundamentals. The company has brilliant assets (on a global scale), and in all occasions the assets are only as good as management behind them - and in Centrals case IMO there's a brilliant management and technical team capable of developing the company to it's true value.
Should they find success it should theoretically trade at a much higher premium to many other o/g investments given the potential for rapid and continued momentum.
In regards to your other question about Woodside, they're ok but not for me...
Anyway all IMHO only.
Ya thanks for the summary, good work ;)
CTP Price at posting:
7.7¢ Sentiment: LT Buy Disclosure: Held
