'Gator' pid='20592' dateline='<a href="tel:1365720 Wrote:

'jft310' pid='20591' dateline='<a href="tel:1365720 Wrote:Think Christian Vinson might know more than any of us??? Please explain why he was quoted in Kavo's National story that a deal was weeks away. Think a principle of a company makes statements like that lightly?? Just curious how to explain that statement. Further how do we get our hands around the Phil M comment we will know more in 30-60 days. Fits with Vinson comments is non argueable. Think O'Neil might be on a mission to generate revenue for PNG?? Is earlier revenue better or worse.?? If the bidders were worried about the government why did they bid now with a final bid???Why did Wayne say at IPAA that IOC had 2 Super Major bids , 1 NOC and 1 Utility company bids. More important what will Wayne say Monday AM at IPAA????Why Monday at 9:35 AM?? These are tea leaves for all to read . Some of us will read them differently than others.

Actually if you read the article he was never quoted with direct quotes. What was written:
Christian Vinson told The National that the Gulf LNG project was going on well.
He added that InterOil had to find the right partner to operate the project.

++++++++++++++++++++

Correct. I don't see any quote from Vinson indicating we would have an announcement "in a few weeks".  And I'm not sure the "30-60 days" comment is as JFT states either.  It could be interpreted as he infers, but my initial reaction to that quote was that it didn't have anything to do with a representation as to "when an announcement would be made", but rather was in response to a question about the specific structure of the project.  My take was that he thought we'd have a deal announced by now and that we would then (within 30-60 days) learn more about implementation specifics.  I believe something is delaying an announcement now. Maybe it's the Petromin shake-up...or maybe it's the Board having to weigh the deal against the new, huge buyout offer!!!!

I can absolutely guarantee any delay is not due to Petromin.  Delay is most likely due to rebids (which I am sure was made know with the final bid notice for the 28th).   Think about it, if IOC has to wait 8-12 weeks longer to get another round of bids from the losing parties that may then:

• increase the bid/mcf by 0.25
• get a guarantee that any cost overruns are absorbed by the bidder
• gets a bigger upfront cash injection
• bidder takes a smaller percentage of the resourse

Don't you think that is worth the wait a measly 60-90 days.  We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars here and a relatively short timeframe.  E/A is the prom queen and everyone wants to take her home, just ask Woodside.

'CAC' pid='20590' datel Wrote:

'Getitrt2' pid='20585' datel Wrote:

[quote='bertl05' pid='20575' dateline='1365709388']

Shhhh dont wake the baby. I wonder how long the reshuffle of DPE and Petromin will delay things. Realistically if I was a NOC or SM I would want to see that all was in order before I signed on the dotted line. I believe a deal will come, I just feel its further out than we hope. Thoughts? I bet I'm not alone in tiring of the endless complications, wether the fault of IOC, Shell or the PNG Govt ineptitude.

Am I alone?

By the way I have no options, and no margin. But I'd like to make some money.

bert, what is being "reshuffled" at DPE?  As far as Petromin and Kumul and that reorganization is concerned, I think that is something desired by bidders, especially Japan, and will increase confidence and actually facilitate completion of the deals, and one reason for O'Neill to be announcing and pushing it.  It seems to me that the information that has been coming out on that recently and the previous indications from the Company about the readiness of all bidders to progress and finalize the process since the NEC approval points in that direction.  What facts, if any, do you have to support your comment?  If "you were a NOC or SM" (lots of experience there?), what would you consider "all in order", legislation in September?  Are you calling that another "endless complication"?  Give me a break!  I think you are dead wrong and engaging in unjustified and inappropriate speculation.  It sounds like something a short basher would throw out as a scare tactic, and something you should be using a different channel for, if any.

By the way, I have reason to believe the Company thinks it is a good thing. Does that matter to you?

Seems to me a lot of inappropriate whining about past years that can only be damaging going on here right on the verge probably of what many of us have been waiting for so long, and I don't understand and don't like it.

++++++++++++++++++

I think you two can both be correct.  Can't it be both "a good thing in the company's eyes" (for long term stability and fair-dealing)...and also an event that may delay the announcement of a deal?  In my mind there is a significant difference between the PRE deal (which was largely between the two parties) and the upcoming deal (which creates a new partnership with PNG).  Forinstance, a bidder's rights and obligations could be significantly different if PNG does or does not want the extra 27.5%.  It is quite possible that a bidder might be willing to participate in different ways depending on PNG's decision in that regard.  Has that decision been made...in writing?  If it hasn't...is Petromin going to make it?  Tree and others have proclaimed "yes they will" but that is just as speculative as someone guesssing "no".

Also, announcing that the Board would be meeting "during the first week in March" created (maybe unintetionally) expectations that they would meet and we would have a relatively quick decision.  That has not occurred.  This could be for a variety of reasons of course...but one plausible explanation for this is that PNG is the problem.  Although they appear to be "getting better", there is a long history of instability so I don't see that as an outlandish hypothesis in this situation.  In fact, I raised the same questions ("Is PNG currently in a position to sign off?"...and more importantly, "will an entity about to commit billions of dollars prefer to do soafter the offensive departnment is officially gone?" in my posts a few days ago. 

No, cac, Petromin will NOT be making that decision, but rather the Gas Committee and O'Neill who IOC is working with; and that decision has probably already been made.  I stand by the rest of what I said.

Bertl or anyone else, can you please explain how Petromin's removal can adversely effect the SD process?  No one has shown how that's even possible.

However, It's easy to show why that thought is baseless.

Elimination of Petromin has no bearing on the SD process whatsoever.  It neither can delay the process or speed it up.  SD  is a commercial transaction between IOC and chosen bidder(s).  Petromin has no say or influence on which bidder IOC chooses.  Petromin has the right to opt into the project and will then be obligated to pay sunk costs of their stake and their share of development costs.  Petromin would have only managed the State's equity and by no means carries any weight in the SD partner decision.

Unwinding Petromin is a Gov't decision.  Petromin will no/cannot t sign any contracts with chosen bidder or IOC  until they opt in to Gulf LNG and commit at FID.  Petromin appears to be dismantled as it was universally claimed to be poorly managed by industry, was incriminated in a bribe scandall with Shell, took liberty of promoting Shell as preferred operator for Gulf LNG when they had no authority and illegally reneged on JAPEX/Petromin 2010 MOU to assist Petromin in training and development of PNG's hydrocarbon industries.  Summer of 2011, Petromin signed a similar MOU with RDS supplanting JAPEX of their association.  Last month, JAPEX resigned MOU with JAPEX, booting Shell,  a clear indication of O'Neill administration's will.  It is likely JKM consortium, and maybe others, helped force this move.

Duma and DPE have not hinted one bit that they are problematic at all since O'Neill's re-election.  Drilling commitment extensions and Duma's public support for Petromin's elimination are evidence.

It works best if people back up their conclusions or they are just gratuitous.  It works best if people don't count on rumors and fear for their DD.

There is a big difference between legit concerns and falsehoods fueled not by reality but emotion.

And yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion.  They are are also obligated to scrutiny and making the case.   We all benefit that way.

[quote='Tree' pid='20602' dateline='1365729966']

Bertl or anyone else, can you please explain how Petromin's removal can adversely effect the SD process?  No one has shown how that's even possible.

However, It's easy to show why that thought is baseless.

Elimination of Petromin has no bearing on the SD process whatsoever.  It neither can delay the process or speed it up.  SD  is a commercial transaction between IOC and chosen bidder(s).  Petromin has no say or influence on which bidder IOC chooses.  Petromin has the right to opt into the project and will then be obligated to pay sunk costs of their stake and their share of development costs.  Petromin would have only managed the State's equity and by no means carries any weight in the SD partner decision.

Unwinding Petromin is a Gov't decision.  Petromin will no/cannot t sign any contracts with chosen bidder or IOC  until they opt in to Gulf LNG and commit at FID.  Petromin appears to be dismantled as it was universally claimed to be poorly managed by industry, was incriminated in a bribe scandall with Shell, took liberty of promoting Shell as preferred operator for Gulf LNG when they had no authority and illegally reneged on JAPEX/Petromin 2010 MOU to assist Petromin in training and development of PNG's hydrocarbon industries.  Summer of 2011, Petromin signed a similar MOU with RDS supplanting JAPEX of their association.  Last month, JAPEX resigned MOU with JAPEX, booting Shell,  a clear indication of O'Neill administration's will.  It is likely JKM consortium, and maybe others, helped force this move.

Duma and DPE have not hinted one bit that they are problematic at all since O'Neill's re-election.  Drilling commitment extensions and Duma's public support for Petromin's elimination are evidence.

It works best if people back up their conclusions or they are just gratuitous.  It works best if people don't count on rumors and fear for their DD.

There is a big difference between legit concerns and falsehoods fueled not by reality but emotion.

And yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion.  They are are also obligated to scrutiny and making the case.   We all benefit that way.

++++++++

Really? Not even "possible" that a bidder (the same bidder that required the gvt restructuring as a condition of the deal) might want to be 100% sure that their multi-billion dollar partnership with IOC and PNG would be consummated with the legally authorized, completely-revamped, governmental entity that they may have requested be created as part of the deal?  It still takes two to tango. Just because you think PNG can do it now doesn't mean a bidder feels comfortable with that.  The truth is that we are all speculating here, however, a conclusion that it is "impossible" for a major governmental shakeup to cause a bidder to want to delay the process is also gratuitous and emotional.  It is not my opinion that this is definitely the case...but it is far from impossible.

CAC,

The dismantling of Petromin isn't/wasn't something that has been recently concocted in the past 2 months.  It has been something likely brewing since O'Neill was relected in August.  Indeed our own Palmstradamus picked up on this way back in November.  Now, if Palm figured this out, I am fairly certain that IOC, internal government officials, and any bidders were informed straight from the horses mouth sometime last year.

Now this would likely raise some questions by IOC and any bidding parties.  Questions and concerns that would require very strong written assurances from people at or near the top (O'Neill).  In fact, it is inconcievable to me that written assurances were not completed long before any notification about disbanding of Petromin.  This would mean that each and every bidder currenlty have legal binding documentation in the vaults guaranteeing quick legal addition to the PRL/PDL 15 regardless of the state of the national oil company.

So, with written assurances of acceptance in place, my question to you is: how does any bidder care about the disbanding of Petromin to the extent that it affects bid timelines?  In fact why would IOC/IB's set bidding deadlines back in January if this was a concern at that time?

Bert and you are entitled to your opinions, but it is impossible for me to accept that multibillion dollar SMs/NoC/Utilities did not have the foresight to handle this many months ago.