I agree that the analysis ought to be objective. My version of...

I agree that the analysis ought to be objective. My version of this objective analysis with regard the bits of language you express concern about would be to say:

"Remains".. They were encouraged before and they still are. What negative connotation can there be? This has nothing to do with what other parties think.

"Considers that"..this is the bit where it is Neon's opinion. If they still owned 100% they could say 'we will proceed with production testing'. They don't, they are a minority owner. Neon considers that production testing is warranted. That doesn't mean that ENI and Kris don't they just don't have a definitive decision yet that they can announce. Many have been clamouring for an announcement and this is it. Neon are speaking for themselves. A more definitive joint statement will take longer. I doubt Neon would have even said this much if they didn't believe their partners were aligned with their views.

I did not suggest language is unimportant simply that too much was being read into what has been written. Take the language at face value. Analyse it correctly. Otherwise you will draw the wrong conclusions.

For what it is worth I agree with you that I don't particularly WANT inconclusive and frequent updates that lend themselves to this kind of speculation either. Unfortunately it is the way of things.