LSE tonight, page-7211

The big difference is the HRZ is more than 40% above hydrostatic pressure. The CSG you are describing is at hydrostatic, so lowering the water table in the well reduces the hydrostatic head, thus reducing pressure and initiating flow. In theory the HRZ has more than enough overpressure to flow.
The question is what caused the pressure to drop when flow was initiated, it did initially flow nicely but the pressure dropped until there was very little flow in the week before shut in.
Having read a fair chunk of the links on artificial lift the assertion by some that it is normal in 95% of cases may be a misinterpretation. That 95% of wells use artificial lift at some point is no doubt true, but at what point in their life cycle and was it an over pressured well to begin with. Any thing that is normally pressured must have artificial lift to work. Add to that wells that are initially over pressured lose pressure in production and then require artificial lift assistance. The studies indicate imbibition will enhance initial flow but there has to be a decent flow to multiply ie 3 times an initial 10 is only 30
In my view the failure to initially maintain flow at IW2 is an unexpected and disappointing result. The coin has been flipped and came down on the wrong side with this first attempt.
If anyone can cause the coin the flip back its the 88e team, but it is now less likely IMO to produce the 100 bpd needed. I am sure they will persist, and get it to flow and from the results will be able to resolve the all important GOR Achilles heel. Which is more fundamental to the overall viability than the flowrate from this first attempt. They can always try again with a modified stimulation plan derived from the learnings of IW2, but if the GOR is not right the economics fall over and there is no point.