it's as though they are singling out thermogas. ok to say oil is not there. ok to say bio is there. not ok to talk about the "t" word.
what is so darn special about the t-word? Would the stock tank much more than it did if they said no thermogas? no? ok, then say no thermogas.
on the other hand, wouldn't the mere hint of t-gas send the stock soaring? so why be adverse to that?
now you might say they can't talk about t-gas for strategic reasons...maybe SNP says gag order on t-gas, but why not say that?
why when referring to t-gas say, "we don't talk about things not found", yet not come out and say "t-gas was not found"? why is it such a leap to go from an inference/implication to an outright statement?
Probably because if t-gas was found and they say it was not found then that would be a lie, and they are trying not to lie. But why would they want to lead us into believing that t-gas may fall into the category of not found thing not to talk about?
is it that t-gas was not found and they are trying to hint at it without violating SNP gag order? or is it that they found t-gas, and they can't lie and say they didn't find it, so they just insinuate? And if we can't tell either way, why play this weird communication game in the first place?
I can go round and round on this...why put shareholders through that?
Krombacher
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
