The comments are perfectly reasonable questions based on what's in the public domain. They would be answered by the company's publication of the detailed analysis, which is the next thing the CEO indicated would be coming.
Completely agree, negotiations will be ongoing and we know they've explored discussions before, and they've bags of experience on the board with direct connections into gas company development and commercialisation. But I can't imagine an agreement being announced before publication of a full analysis report. She said clearly in the interview what the short term priority was for next communication.
Excellent
"We did things differently at this well, we tested it, and had our own independent verification at site. The samples and flow-testing were analysed at site, so we’re very confident what that 4.7% tells us. We will be sending some samples off to the lab, but we’re not waiting on them to move to our next steps, and that’s an important message to get across.”
"Our immediate intention is to monetise as quickly as possible."
That will not be the 'next news', not a chance. The next news will be what she said it will be in the video. Short term, they will advise the market of the results of the detailed data analysis, probably with a research note or broker note.
What do you think are more appropriate estimates? So far we have the company's original estimate of about $34m for an aggregated plant (gathering from six wells) and LOTM's estimate of $15m for a pilot plant. What's your estimate for capex?
As she said explicitly in the video, they already have independent verification from the Field PVT lab they hired to be onsite at the well head. They are not waiting for results from an overseas lab. They are proceeding to make development plans on the basis of a confirmed and transformational discovery, albeit that still needs to be modelled and quantified for commercial development. It couldn't be clearer.
As there seems to be some misunderstanding (wilful or otherwise) about flow data expectations, it's worth underling that the helium generation system assumed in this drill is a migratory one, based on two stages. The primary migration is driven under pressure, but the secondary migration is driven by gas buoyancy in groundwater. The liquid isn't supposed to be gushing from the well under deep pressure (like an imaginary Hollywood oil well), the gas is liberated/bubbling out of heated ground water levels in the well. It may then be trapped on the way up, if there are seals in porous layers (like a typical gas reservoir) and/or it may rise in the well directly from the carrier liquid (unlike a typical gas reservoir). The data analysis has to accommodate and model these complex interactions.
It's unlikely to make a jot of difference because 'your' shares are being traded hundreds of times anyway, and very unlikely that thousands of share holders would all set limit orders, let alone at similar levels. But in that unlikely event a high sell target simply gives them more scope to lend out shares not less (because the assumption is you won't need them back any time soon). Third parties do like to get a sense of holders' sell prices and some use these boards as well as knowledge of order limits to help phis for that info. As we all know, there's plenty of organised pumping to raise price expectations on AIM and plenty of organised shorting from unrealistic highs when that happens.