You might also want to consider the fact that, apart from the shorts
(who are generally not versed in o&g exploration and have not seen
the proprietary data), no other party has clamoured for a long-term
production test
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And there in is the real issue and the clue for investors willing to read between the lines...
In the absence of this production testing on the field then valuing the field is near impossible due to the wide variance of possible recovery rates. That is exactly what GLJ's report tell us, a 50% probability of recovering our estimates for the field at 9.08 TCF , flip a coin, not great odds when you want billions in investment to come your way.
If a firm were to buy in on the limited drilling and testing now complete they would be buying blind. That is the problem with contingent resources, proving them out to make them commercially viable is part of the process that oil and gas firms go thru to reach the market. It is costly but necessary. Remember the infill drilling that was promised early this year between Ant 1 and 2, where is it? That is also part of proving out the field. We have seen some of that with the condensates with the horizontal but nothing at all on the NG side on the way to commercialization. GLJ's report is all about theory and probablilties of recoverable gas , testing and flow rates in multiple locations on a field over time help to prove probable production rates and justify the economics. That is fundamental analysis that drive business cases , costing, production models, DCF etc.. etc.
IOC's pull back from testing and drilling suggests to me that they are not in serious negotiations on the LNG side for this field at this point. Then again they won't call you to tell you that it's up to investors to figure this stuff out. Henry Alford raised this concern in his slide presentation , "Right Project , Wrong Company" , maybe the market voices he referred to are correct.