The problem with these reports are they take an assumption very...

The problem with these reports are they take an assumption very early on and run with it, and come up with huge numbers based on that assumption being correct.

Remember the CSG report? Something like 30 to 70 TCF of gas in CTP's tenements. Builds up a huge case for a massive value resource because the Purni is a Permian coal and the Bowen Permian coals in the sweet spots have gas contents of 7-11 cubic metres a ton so we'll assume that figure across the entire Purni...

Unfortunately the assumption was invalid, which made the whole report a total waste of time and money.

The problem I see here is the assumption of $2/GJ extraction cost. That figure might apply to Linc Energy who are producing at 120m below ground and four hours' drive from Brisbane, but what about CTP's coal up to 1000m deep, and with the added costs of a MUCH more remote site that needs to be hooked up to a market to realise any value?

I'm not necessarily saying it won't be economic but the uncertainty surrounding that figure is so great as to make the rest of the report meaningless. It might be $4/GJ?

Assumption, as they say, is the mother of all... Yet CTP pays good money for these reports.

Seems to have set the scene for a P&D anyway. At least somebody is going to make some good money on CTP today.