perhaps also worth considering, page-2

There seems to be a number of misled individuals on this thread.

Firstly, Sandy is correct that flow rates often decline rapidly over production testing of an extended period. The short-term flow test that KEY and partners undertook is absolutely not long enough to accomodate for this fact. So you ask why the flow rates were not announced. It is beyond stupid to announce that the well is flowing at 20mmscfpd over two or three days, only to have production decline to 2mmscfpd - especially when the partners are cognisant of that fact that this can easily happen. You should be very excited that the overly conservative KEY team even mentioned 'strong' flow rates.

Secondly, this will take longer than four weeks. Production testing starts in four week and it can take up to six months to fully evaluate the gasfield.

And someone said 'oh well they didn't tell the market the result so it must not be very big.' This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding and overall pessimistic view of company disclosure. It is silly to quote figures after two or three days of testing given what has already been discussed above - KR is well aware of this phenomenon given he has worked for Shclumberger, Chevron, Shell and BHP Billiton Petroleum, the most notable of which is Schlumberger who specialise in production testing services and are the leading drilling consultancy firm in the world. So he has taken the conscious decision to remain silent due to the fact that this is not market sensitive information, instead of adoping an ill-advised, corrupt and quasi-legal mothed of only reporting the rates if they were good.

SS.