Maybe it wouldn't make any difference but the fact remains that Hession has never put a number on it. There are a number of reasons not to do this but at some point in time it will happen. Maybe it has to wait until the actual new estimates come in but I don't see a good reason for it to wait.
GLJ already has a certified number and two other estimators are going to make estimates that will assuredly be different from GLJ's. GLJ's latest estimate was as of year end 2014 and there has been lots of new well information in the mean time so there would be no problem with management discussing that.
Management has implied a number of times that the number will be over 7.0TCF but they have never explicitly said it. OSH has said "Elk-Antelope field has sufficient resources to underpin one 5 MTPA LNG train (basis for entry into PRL 15) with ~5 tcf 2P, or depending on outcome of appraisal, potentially two PNG LNG-sized trains requiring >7 tcf 2P"
Hession and others said six times on the last call "We believe the data confirms we have sufficient gas for two trains." I don't see the harm in putting a number behind that statement. He was asked to do so by one of the analysts and declined to do it. If you don't think it matters that is fine but I think it would make a difference.
There are two things that matter for this company in the next 12 months: 1. What is the new Elk/Antelope resource number and 2. when will we hear it.
GLJ already has a certified number and two other estimators are going to make estimates that will assuredly be different from GLJ's. GLJ's latest estimate was as of year end 2014 and there has been lots of new well information in the mean time so there would be no problem with management discussing that.
Management has implied a number of times that the number will be over 7.0TCF but they have never explicitly said it. OSH has said "Elk-Antelope field has sufficient resources to underpin one 5 MTPA LNG train (basis for entry into PRL 15) with ~5 tcf 2P, or depending on outcome of appraisal, potentially two PNG LNG-sized trains requiring >7 tcf 2P"
Hession and others said six times on the last call "We believe the data confirms we have sufficient gas for two trains." I don't see the harm in putting a number behind that statement. He was asked to do so by one of the analysts and declined to do it. If you don't think it matters that is fine but I think it would make a difference.
There are two things that matter for this company in the next 12 months: 1. What is the new Elk/Antelope resource number and 2. when will we hear it.