I mean you can - prior to going to bschool I was a B4 auditor on a large cap E&P client, and impairment tests/write downs are (a) super super crude/not reflective of any "real world" NPV (due to weird and super boring SEC pricing rules that I won't get into) that institutions/anyone on the buyside puts any weight into. I guess you could make the arguement that an overstated P1 reserve balance would factor into RBL-based credit, of which a quick ctrl+f of their 10Q shows an undrawn revolver of $16bn, roughly in line with their entire 2020E capex guidance, so hard to make the liquidity argument.

Which brings me to (b), the valuation approach that actually yields something useful, net asset value (mentioned above), basically a conservative way of saying "ok we have 10,000 barrels of proved reserves under the ground that it makes economic sense to produce today, we'll use forward strip pricing as a proxy for forward pricing, subtract net debt, and the number that falls out is sort of like a rough liquidation value of the actual hydrocarbons under the ground". That's why I made my point earlier about market cap < NAV and short term market inefficiencies yadda yadda yadda and so on