'Stavros' pid='75826' dateline='<a href="tel:1471597 Wrote:TOTAL wants to delay as long as possible to put all payments into 2017 when they have some CA$H. JFT has repeatedly (and correctly) reminded us that XOM sanctions LNG projects based on P1 certifications (ie 90% probability) rather than P2 (50% probability). It's my opinion that if XOM wants to sanction 2 trains (plus gas for a 10% expansion of the existing 2 PNG LNG trains), they want to see the P2 certification of E/A at close to (or even over) 10 Tcfe.

Interesting.  What about the theory that Exxon wouldn't want to pay us  $1.4 billion for 10T's now and therefore not gain that at final cert.?  That theory includes the assumption that their internal engineers will know what's in the ground.

'Li'loilady' pid='75827' d Wrote:

'Stavros' pid='75826' dateline='<a href="tel:1471597 Wrote:TOTAL wants to delay as long as possible to put all payments into 2017 when they have some CA$H. JFT has repeatedly (and correctly) reminded us that XOM sanctions LNG projects based on P1 certifications (ie 90% probability) rather than P2 (50% probability). It's my opinion that if XOM wants to sanction 2 trains (plus gas for a 10% expansion of the existing 2 PNG LNG trains), they want to see the P2 certification of E/A at close to (or even over) 10 Tcfe.

Interesting.  What about the theory that Exxon wouldn't want to pay us  $1.4 billion for 10T's now and therefore not gain that at final cert.?  That theory includes the assumption that their internal engineers will know what's in the ground.

I believe that Exxon wants a good certification number to use for its financing of the expansion/construction of 2 trains. It also wants a high enough number to use in the marketing of the gas in the current low-price market to long-term buyers. It will need those buyers lined up when it goes to the IBs for its financing loan.

'sageo' pid='75808' datel Wrote:

'2126' pid='75807' datel Wrote:

In his latest presentation on Concerned Interoil Shareholders.com, [pages 17 and 18] Phil M makes a good case that the present A7 location is not situated correctly. He also makes a very good argument that placing all the risk of the CRP on A7 results and then, subsequently, on IOC shareholders is fundamentally unfair. I wholeheartedly agree.

2126 - Hope your health continues to improve !  " I agree also" . I have felt all along that the Ant 7 location was chosen for nefarious reasons ...i.e. ,not in the best interests of the IOC shareholders . So sad for us that we got stuck with a creep like hession .

2126 - " Very interesting ' ! I just printed a copy of page 18 of the latest pdf that one of our great posters put up, showing the new location for Ant 7 . Maybe this isn't true,but if it is, I believe we stand an excellent chance of a successful well ! [ ...notice A and A prime possible angles for the western fault ] . As Pet well-noted some time back, 2 or 3 wells would very well give us a more exact size of the reservoir to the west,northwest and southwest .  Best to you and yours .