Last week's comments about Woodside were about the risks associated with investing in Israel and its uncertain rules governing the level of gas available for export.
That was enough for a Woodside shareholder to suggest Israel was not the only new high-risk country on the company's agenda. What about Burma and Cyprus?
An interesting observation from a keen Woodside watcher, especially as the company's previous globe-trotting expeditions have ended in tears, including hefty financial losses in the waters off Mauritania and in the cauldron that is Libya.
Woodside, however, seems determined to fly its Australian coop. While there is no such thing as a corporate psychiatrist there seems little doubt that as a business it could be an example of what happens when you try to over-impress (or escape from) your parents.
In this case it seems Woodside is either keen to show its major shareholder, Royal Dutch Shell, that it can fly solo, or that it is desperately keen to leave home because of oppressive parental treatment.
Whatever the explanation Woodside's latest exploits bear the hallmarks of trouble long before they really start.
Why not, wonders The Slug, pursue opportunities closer to home where the rules are easier to understand and most people do not carry guns.
Stage two of the Pluto LNG project is an absolute natural for Woodside if only because doubling the size of the project would be an easy step up with minimal technical risk and the appeal of maximising the financial return on the $15 billion already sunk in stage one.
All that seems to be stopping that simply move is sourcing sufficient gas and while exploration has failed, so far, there is surplus gas on the North West Shelf looking for a home and Woodside would appear to be a perfect home, if a price could be agreed.
In time, Pluto stage two should take care of itself, either via discovery or deal, but it is the easy option for Woodside that can be taken now.
Then there are two harder deals close to home. These are Sunrise in the Timor Gap, which remains horribly political, and Browse as a floating development, an option Shell seems to be driving harder than its semi-captive Aussie partner.
With the close-to-home options in some sort of management limbo the push seems to be on for something as far from home as possible.
Burma, while a baby-step into South East Asia, will be challenging because even if the geology is attractive the politics certainly are not. Israel was well covered last week while Cyprus could be even trickier given its status as half-Greek and half-Turkish.
It might not be this simple but what seems to be happening is Woodside's management cannot make up its mind about how to trade off geological and political risk.
In Australia, there is geological risk and a dash of financial risk. Finding enough gas for Pluto two has been difficult but is surely just a financial exercise. Keeping costs down at Browse has been even more difficult - though in both cases there is minimal political risk.
Burma, Israel, Cyprus and even Ireland might well have more attractive geology but, as with Woodside's previous adventures in Mauritania and Libya, there is a high level of political and investment risk.
Achieving a balance is what management gets well paid for. While it must be tempting to toss more money into the Eastern Mediterranean in pursuit an LNG development or two, there is significant political risk, not to mention the potential for some hothead in Syria or Lebanon to make either project unworkable by simply pointing a missile at an offshore gas platform.
That suggestion of military/terrorist action will cause heartburn among Woodside's senior ranks who would rather such things were not mentioned.
Woodside shareholders are not so shy about discussing a topic in the bleeding obvious category. Indeed, some are questioning why their money is being sent to such high-risk destinations when there are safer options closer to home.
Perhaps those at-home options do not offer the same potential to earn big bucks, but neither do they offer the risk of a big bang.
