'Palm' pid='39367' datel Wrote:This licensing I think shows how O'Neill and NEC see development in the future. Note that the "strategic" designation is very important because it means infrastructure and things like CSPs are to built for use by aggregated resources. This shows how serious they are about maximizing plants/infrastructure to minimize investment and maximize cash flow. IOC's license corridor development likely will have different players owning PRLs but sharing "strategic" licenses. If you look at what Eaglwood says, they have two PRLs (PRL 28 and PRL 21) which have different players (except for Mitsubishi), but they will share a CSP and pipeline under terms to be worked out. It could be that that type of discussion is going on now between IOC, Total, OSH and Exxon with the government holding the "heavy" of strategic licenses over their heads.

I don't think there will be that kind of shared infrastructure involved with PRL 15, and I do not think Exxon is involved in the discussions on it now, just IOC, Total, and the government, and maybe OSH on the periphery, with nothing hanging over their heads, except perhaps unneeded urgings to "get it done".

'jft310' pid='39370' datel Wrote:Using the Englewood deal as a model one of best use of dollars should be gas for train 3 Exxon. The provider of the gas is well treated when allocation of LNG participation are decided using OSH as a model. Could IOC trade its gas ownership for LNG participation??Lots of possibilities.

Perhaps for IOC gas from somewhere else, but not from PRL 15 I don't think.

(03-19-2014, 04:41 AM)Getitrt2 Wrote:

(03-19-2014, 12:51 AM)Palm Wrote: This licensing I think shows how O'Neill and NEC see development in the future. Note that the "strategic" designation is very important because it means infrastructure and things like CSPs are to built for use by aggregated resources. This shows how serious they are about maximizing plants/infrastructure to minimize investment and maximize cash flow. IOC's license corridor development likely will have different players owning PRLs but sharing "strategic" licenses. If you look at what Eaglwood says, they have two PRLs (PRL 28 and PRL 21) which have different players (except for Mitsubishi), but they will share a CSP and pipeline under terms to be worked out. It could be that that type of discussion is going on now between IOC, Total, OSH and Exxon with the government holding the "heavy" of strategic licenses over their heads.

I don't think there will be that kind of shared infrastructure involved with PRL 15, and I do not think Exxon is involved in the discussions on it now, just IOC, Total, and the government, and maybe OSH on the periphery, with nothing hanging over their heads, except perhaps unneeded urgings to "get it done".

I do, especially with OSH in the picture; that wasn't planned and OSH clearly stated after IOC and Total made their deal that they were still in negotiations.  And if the government wanted to just "get it done", O'Neill would have been singing praises about the deal.  Instead he has said basically nothing.  Duma talked about it and said he wanted it fast-tracked, but O'Neill's only real mention of Total and IOC was after the government buy-in to OSH was figured out and OSH had announced that they were buying the Pac LNG interests.  He said that he "understood" that OSH was talking with IOC and Total.  That's it.  Then he sacks Duma and Polye.  He is in charge and he has NEC support in this consolidation of resources change.  He and NEC granted the "strategic" licenses to Eaglewood contingent on all parties figuring out how the CSP and Pipeline licenses can be shared.  He said he would move projects this way back in December and he has just done it in Western Province and he has full support of NEC and the PNC coalition.  Why would he do any different with IOC on PRL 15 and forward?  How do O'Neill and the NEC explain the exception allowed for IOC/Total to those who are pouring in investment dollars just as IOC/Total have/will?  The thing is, it makes good business sense.

O'Neill did make these great comments about the project:

"The government has embraced this joint venture between these two companies, given their requisite LNG experience, financial strength and market for the product to help implement PNG’s third LNG project,” Prime Minister Hon. Peter O’Neill said. He welcomed the proposal for the gas to be engaged in the domestic market.

“This is good news as it will provide for our energy needs in the country,” the Prime Minister said.

But the project was not the IOC/Total JV.  It was the Horizon and Osaka Gas joint venture to, "explore and develop the substantive acreage and reserves in the Western Province including the Stanley Project."  These statements were made by O'Neill on February 18, 2014.  From December 5th to now O'Neill has not made any statements close to this regarding IOC and Total. The Horizon and Osaka deal also has contingensies before it's final.

Palm was the original poster . It was a lead story that I remembered and reposted it here because many had not read the story or had not remembered it if they did.

I cut and pasted what Palm posted .I added no commentary. The line you ask about has quotes after it and it implies it came from the Total spokesperson.

The link worked on Palms  post. May have been corrupted when cut and pasted.

(03-19-2014, 12:15 PM)jft310 Wrote:

Palm was the original poster . It was a lead story that I remembered and reposted it here because many had not read the story or had not remembered it if they did.

I cut and pasted what Palm posted .I added no commentary. The line you ask about has quotes after it and it implies it came from the Total spokesperson.

The link worked on Palms  post. May have been corrupted when cut and pasted.

Wrong, I'm afraid.  The quotation mark after that last sentence is the one at the end of the article that partners with the one at the beginning of the article, which stand for the quoting of the entire article.  The next-to-the-last sentence is presented as a quotation from the Total "spokesman", with quotation marks at the beginning and end of it, indicating that the last line is NOT a continuation of the spokesman's statement.  That statement by the Total spokesman actually contradicts the last following sentence, which very clearly appears to be a statement by the reporter who wrote the article, with no indication of where he got it or how he reached such a conclusion!

The original article posting by  Palm is the 3/4/14 thread with the same heading as the article, "Total hails Oil Search as perfect PNG partner".