Media report, page-17

Thats a bit of specious reasoning there. The only basis for the Beetaloo Sub-Basin being developed first up is the fact that it has been explored extensively and source rocks have been clearly delineated. If you would like to highlight for me where exactly in the report that it say that BUL tenements are outside the prospective zone of source rocks I would really appreciate it. The only reason the Wiso Basin has not been proven to have source rocks containing gas is the fact that it hasn't been drill tested, however still forms parts of the greater McArthur Basin which is well known for it's petroleum potential. AJQ and EEG tenements are also in the greater McArthur Basin but not within the Beetaloo Sub-Basin. Based on your logic neither of these would be prospective either however from memory AJQ have already proved up some decent reserves around the McArthur River district which is also 100's of km's from the Beetaloo Sub-Basin also.

Might be worth having a little read of this report from the NT Geological Survey titled
"Petroleum geology and potential of the onshore Northern Territory, 2014", it actually has a fair bit about the Wiso Basin contained within it.

https://geoscience.nt.gov.au/gemis/ntgsjspui/handle/1/81558

Also FYI, from Page 175 of the report you are quoting:


and BUL tenements to cross reference with



and AJQ tenements



and EEG tenements