Panda, "Now why would you do that if you thought the field was a...

Panda, "Now why would you do that if you thought the field was a no go" ?

Questions such as these have been posed on the GDN boards for years. Seemingly sound logic fails when you place those decisions and announcements in the context a long-standing record of failure with respect to their ability to professionally explore/develop the field, and to professionally manage the company. Announcements are always lacking in substance and are often obscure - perhaps deliberately. And they rarely do what they say they will. eg how long have we been hearing about the pilot plant, the ROW, the new era of shareholder relations etc etc?

Back to your question, I take a pretty dark view - I think they would proceed with a new drill simply to justify their own existence REGARDLESS of the commercial and engineering case that such a drill presents.

There's a simple test for this: Let's say that you owned the field and those three wells. Would you be putting $5m or so of your own cash into a new hole when commercial production is far from proven with the ones you have? Unlikely with your own cash, but easy when it's someone else's.

They can rattle the tin a couple more times before this thing implodes in on itself.

-Disco