stars aligning, page-8

"a foothold on a potential prospective resource of 3tcf of gas."

I had the same confusion initially but realised the $12b was based on the 1.2tcf (P50), not the 3tcf (P10) potential. So $30b could be implied.

An interesting situation would be if the prospective farm in partner/investment community agrees that on the 482m of probable gas pay interpretation from logs is the right input (not 1956's 48m), then we have a situation where we aren't fighting over a $12b or $30b resource, but something like $96b (P50) to $240b (P10).

Exciting times.