Some posting here may need to understand market capitalisation, which I suspect you do so not sure why your comment. The market capitalisation of BAS is significantly less than IVZ, MAY and 88e, so the reason for a higher shareprice for BAS is shares on issue.
While I am here as I don't mind yabbering LNG and gas.
Gas suppliers - taken from a post I did ages ago:1 TcF (trillion cubic feet) of gas equates to 20 million tonnes of LNG, and currently our export capacity with all current LNG projects coming onboard is roughly 50 - 70 million tonnes of LNG per annum (or roughly 2.5 TcF -3.5 TcF of gas per year).Australia's current conventional gas reserves, before considering tight and shale gas, are stated to be above 200 TcF, but with further upside with exploration, and obviously not all of this is economic to develop. Even assuming a 50 year lease, well our 50 mtpa of existing LNG operations will only use 125 TcF of gas (hence the argument Australia will be the new LNG powerhouse but we still need to ensure gas in domestic market).On the other and gas demand in the domestic market is actually not that large - take the Gorgon project, it is currently a 15 million tonne per annum LNG project and its gas exports are equivalent to 2 1/2 times total gas demand in WA. Therefore it is actually utterly embarrassing there is a gas shortage overeast.
Back to BASFrom the quarterly:
Results of an independent study identified a deep coal gas potential of 21 TCF and 845 million
barrels of condensate in place in Bass 100% owned PEL 182As 1 TcF is equivalent to almost 20 million tonnes of LNG should give a perspective on size here if what is assumed comes to fruition, or even half of that amount as a Measured and Indicated Resource. Obviously will need export markets is my point. Condensate is essentially a sweet oil and attracts decent prices as well, and the key with condensate is that in producing wells it comes out first (with gas) hence is seen in effect as a byproduct of gas production and a very good and economic byproduct. Basically the majority of your condensate when you decide to have an LNG project comes out in the first 10 years of operation.
Having said that there is a long way to go here and clearly a lot of drilling and assessments are going to have to be undertaken to determine the extent of the resource and the commerciality associated with extracting that resource.
This is coal seam gas type deposit and not your typical gas project like Gorgon, but it is onshore, and coal seam gas projects have been shown to be viable projects (and just have to look elsewhere in Qld to know that for the doubters on here - it is about proving up an economic resource here IMO and drilling will determine that). Not conceptual studies, but drilling. Whilst it might take time to get to market as it takes time to develop a LNG/domestic gas project, and the capex involved, confirming the estimates through actual drilling will go a long way to sustaining growth in the SP here.
BAS Cash flow:Key for BAS is to be cash flow positive from its other operations so as to remove any perception a CR is on the horizon. Just need its oil ventures to become cash flow positive so as to fund the required drilling in this prospective gas deposit
S
ome other points on LNG Markets - taken from a post I did ages agoAustralia is starting to be the 'leader' in LNG production, overtaking Qatar even, because of the quantity of gas it has, political stability and the fact it allows private entrants into the gas market. In terms of LNG pricing, at the end of the day pricing is based on end destination.If the LNG is destined for Japan, it usually is based on a form of JCC price (a % of that under long term contract of around 12% to 14%, which is about 70% to 80% of oil price parity but the link to oil pricing in LNG contracts is starting to tapper of btw. (There are 5.8 GJ of energy in a barrel of oil -https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/barrelofoilequivalent.asp- so 1 gigajoule at full oil price parity is 17.2%). But LNG exports to Japan IMO will always get the best price. Why - well Japan doesn't have other options because of resource constraints.Exports to China are either a combination of JCC or some other pricing formula - why well China has access to crap coal and possibly pipeline gas so won't pay what the Japanese pay for gas IMO.With gas been a transition fuel for replacing coal in power generation, suspect the outlook is very positive for gas markets. It also means LNG prices, in time, will ultimately break away from its traditional linkages to oil pricing IMO.I doubt the US can supply too much LNG into the Asian market because of the constraints themselves in the Panama Canal which probably caps LNG exports from the US at about 20 - 30 mtpa per year.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-panamacanal/panama-canal-to-carry-30-million-tonnes-of-lng-by-2020-as-global-demand-grows-idUSKBN1HR0VBBut distance to market a key as well because you have boil off and heed in vessels at a rate of about 0.15% per day, and that impacts your payable quantities on the other side as well. If it takes 20 days in a round trip you basically deliver 97% of your payable load etc and the US is a lot further to Asia than Oz, especially if you are constrained by the Panama Canal etc.That means more opportunity for existing LNG Australian producers to export more LNG into the growing Asian market. Also ship sizes are important to controlling transport cost. A 125,000 cubic metre vessel carries about 60,000 tonnes of LNG whilst a 160,000 one carries about 75,000 tonnes of LNG. Panama Canal will also be constrained in ship sizes that go down it meaning greater probability of LNG supplies increasing from.
I guess happy researching to those seeking to put a value here. Will keep an eye open on this one.All IMO