Their market analysis, just like every other discussion of commercial space exploration I've ever seen, is circular. Space solar power, space manufacturing, space mining, space refueling... the only reason to do any of those things is if you have some other reason to be in space in the first place. (And in this case, near the moon!)
Don't we? We push objects from Earth to GEO all the time. If they could get their fuel along the way, it seems like that would reduce the cost of sending a satellite up to GEO.
It would also lighten the load of the launch, meaning we could put much heavier things in orbit.
Getting that fuel to objects in orbit will require a significant infrastructure, and huge up front costs, but someone clearly sees a calculus that results in a net savings over time.
If we can get that infrastructure built, it becomes much more reasonable to start looking at other things near Earth as potential resource sites -- asteroids in particular. All sorts of metals are out there in ahem astronomical quantities.
I see this as an exercise in improving what we're currently doing (let's get some gas stations installed between home and orbit), followed by innovation/new industries.
It could be environmental regulations are what finally push economic activity out into space. At the Recode conference a few weeks back, Jeff Bezos (Amazon, Blue Origin) stated his wish to see heavy industries and manufacturing moved into the celestial realm, beyond our precious atmosphere and land, leaving the earth pristine and less-polluted.
The problem is that moving heavy industry into space has to compete on a cost benefit basis not with doing those things in a dirty way on earth but with doing them cleanly on earth.
It may be more expensive to do manufacturing cleanly, but it's not that much more expensive.
I tend to think there are opportunities up there, but they're primarily in mining and the infrastructure support that. There are opportunities in tourism of course, but those are small compared asteroid mining.
