Thx Rexsh and mir911,Some of this detail just looks weird.......

Thx Rexsh and mir911,

Some of this detail just looks weird.... for example:

• Walyering - looks like they're including 100%...so maybe they know something, and assume their doing this on a diluted basis....but valued at 2.47 which is near the Hancock 2.40 but is actually a producer whereas WE is not, but close enough, so OK.
• West Erregulla is in there at 1.80 even though the last transaction on this took place at 2.40 and spot prices have increased since then. Why have they marked it down 25% since the last transaction?
• South Erregulla makes the least sense...why on earth would they value this at 0.95 against last transaction of 2.40 nearby at WE when FID is basically a lock and will likely be in production before WE which they value at 1.80. Their 'at risk' modelling looks WAY off the mark here.
• No value at all given for Ocean Hill, Erregulla Deep or SW Erregulla (misspelling in there too) even though they have seismic and reasonable confidence in additional resources there, that could be meaningfully more than they show in this table.
• No allowance for changing LNG scenario - fair enough, but possibly conservative
• No value for Geothermal....OK but the asset has to have some value to someone
• No value for carbon sequestration, even though that's been part of their recent announcements. Wouldn't be doing it unless there was value in it.

Then ditto the question from 618, what is the difference between PJ (net) on LHS vs PJ (net) on RHS?

Frankly this piece looks like complete dog s..t....and possibly written more to justify a sell down of their holdings internally? I would have thought STX would be talking to them about this work as it undermines their working relationship.