yulleroo 4, page-51

They did pinpoint stimulation in Y-2 in 3 zones that extrapolated to 3-4mmcfd each, ie 9-12mmcfd and ~500bbl cndensate and LPGs.
It's very encouraging however everyone is aware commerciality is yet to be proven. It's a calculated risk everyone is comfortable with. If it was factually known to be commercial and a pipeline was under construction the SP would no doubt be a lot higher even with the dilution required to finance it.

You are misleading in suggesting that Ungani production has been both full actual production and not the higher cost production testing as well as suggesting the figure isn't the 6-9$ surplus to Brent figure published repeatedly. Which gives you a current margin of ~$25 and a further increase in margin during full production, and a further increase with full field development.

You also seem to be laboring under a high level of misapprehension in thinking the current market cap is a function of some kind of NPV of unconventional production 3-5 years in the future. It shouldn't have to be spelled out to you that Buru is still in essence an exploration company and is largely still valued as such.
Your inability to value the company on ~1kbbl oil production and a NPV of x mmcfd +x condensate in 5 years is largely explained when you stop deliberately trying to see that Buru is near the very beginning of exploration of it's assets.

Why would the market be stupid enough to value the company on current and nebulous NPV production when at the end of the year we could have additional contingent conventional resources of another 100mmbbl which would have an immensely larger immediate effect?

When there is a prospective 3 billion barrels conventional oil in the Ungani trend (not to mention large Acacia targets being drilled), to NOT include a risked factor of it is frankly not valuation or analysis, it's something else entirely unrelated to ascribing a value to an equity.

Personally I don't really see you as an honest actor here given you either purposely mislead (1000km of pipeline when it's REPEATEDLY published as 600km, not using published valuation of oil, not accounting for PUBLISHED higher initial costs at Ungani than eventual full production, incorrect cash and costs) or are completely ignorant of the figures you are using.

You could certainly however be right that Buru might not meet their gas production forecasts. There is hardly a company on the ASX in any sector that delivers to projected timelines. I can't honestly say Buru would be any different. What I can say however is that it doesn't worry me in the slightest for the next couple of years given the price drivers are FAR more related to current exploration. No one will give a fig this year or next if production looks more likely to happen a year later than forecast, they will have far more pressing concerns as to whether large conventional structures are either successful or unsuccessful this year and next and the results of full unconventional stimulation over the next 12 months.

At any rate the current market cap is easily justified on conventional and unconventional prospectivity. I think it will be at least another 3 or so years before Buru really starts being valued as a producer rather than an explorer after they drill a lot of their more promising conventional exploration targets, a better handle on the commcerciality of the unconventionals is known and significant production is imminent.

It's a function of having almost a whole superbasin with multiple trends and play types to explore - there is going to be risked upside reflected in the sp long after incremental production is in full swing.