General Thoughts, page-8418

Cognitive biases:

1. False Equivalence ⚖️
“Good 3D = Deal must be signed”
→ Oversimplifies farm-in decisions; ignores capital constraints, strategy, risk appetite.

2. Argument from Ignorance ❓
“No one walks away from good 3D”
→ Just because the commenter can’t imagine it doesn’t mean it’s untrue.

3. Confirmation Bias
“$35M spent — must mean it was bad”
→ Misinterprets sunk cost; ignores that even good data may not pass internal hurdles.

4. Black-and-White Thinking ⚫⚪
“It was either good and drilled, or it was bad”
→ Real-world decisions are probabilistic, not binary.

5. Appeal to Finality
“End of story”
→ Attempts to shut down discussion without actual evidence or alternative explanations.

6. Lack of Commercial Context
→ Ignores possible deal breakdowns unrelated to geology (e.g., promote size, operatorship terms).

7. Neglect of Strategic Repositioning ♟️
→ Fails to consider that Woodside might reprioritize post-Sangomar or shift capital to LNG/CCS.