+- ShareholdersUnite Forums (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb)
+-- Forum: Companies (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: InterOil Forum (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: New Upstreamonline article on IOC’s deal with XOM (/showthread.php?tid=4182)
RE: New Upstreamonline article on IOC’s deal with XOM - Getitrt2 - 07-18-2013
I agree with you, Art, on the need for a second pipeline for trains 4 to 6, and the need for more certainty on the gas for train 4. However, I feel sure XOM wants to expand to four or more, and would rather build them in pairs. If they can get assurance of enough additional gas in time, from OSH or elsewhere, dropping a second parallel undersea pipeline there is not that big a deal for XOM, and could be done simultaneously with other work. They've had the first pipeline done for some time, as work continues on other infrastructure and the first two trains.
RE: New Upstreamonline article on IOC’s deal with XOM - sydbod - 07-18-2013
'ArtM72' pid='25858' datel Wrote:This entire argument becomes somewhat more constrained if you accept at face value Jasper's comment the pipeline can handle three units and a second pipeline will be necessary for four. To me that makes EA the third train source with the decision on 4th and beyond pending the results of future drilling.
Art, I am no expert in this area but maybe this is worth thinking about.
From what I have read, LNG is sold via long term contract under a very tight heat content rating. ie: a tight fixed ratio or ethane to methane depending upon the original gas source.
If a shipment of LNG is made outside this band, then penalties apply to that shipment.
If the IOC gas is not close enough in this gas ratio with the gas that will be coming from the OSH side down the pipeline, and is already contracted for in trains 1 and 2, then there is little probability that the IOC gas will also be mixed and transported in that same pipetine unless the terms of purchase can be some how altered.
The other concern is one of train design.
As we all know, there are many different gas contaminants (eg: CO2 etc) that can vary greatly from one gas source to another (even between neighbouring gas finds at times)
Train 1 and 2 are already designed and nearly built to handle the OSH side gas.
Should the IOC gas be significantly better or worse in this quality then once again, what are the real chances of the IOC and the OSH gas being mixed in the same pipeline and finding its way to trains that are not designed for it?
From what I suspect, there could be a posibility that the IOC gas may require its own feed pipeline and LNG storage tank at the PNGLNG site with its individual contracted uptake parties. Can anyone comment on the validity of this?
RE: New Upstreamonline article on IOC’s deal with XOM - Stavros - 07-18-2013
CO2 and Water are removed at the same time the Condenste is recovered in the CSP plant, before the gas is sent down to the coast to tiue into the XOM pipeline.
It's my understanding that E/A gas is of higher quality than the gas coming from OSH/ XOM fields; its heating value is probably higher than needed to meet XOM's contractual commitments.
RE: New Upstreamonline article on IOC’s deal with XOM - sydbod - 07-18-2013
'Stavros' pid='25868' datel Wrote:CO2 and Water are removed at the same time the Condenste is recovered in the CSP plant, before the gas is sent down to the coast to tiue into the XOM pipeline. It's my understanding that E/A gas is of higher quality than the gas coming from OSH/ XOM fields; its heating value is probably higher than needed to meet XOM's contractual commitments.
Yes you are correct, the water and CO2 should be removed when the condensate is being stripped.
Looking at a site like http://www.beg.utexas.edu/energyecon/lng/LNG_introduction_07.php it appears that typical natural gas can be made up with up to easily 20% or more of its composition as other than the lite gasses that we want.
Some of the unwanted stuff like nitrogen can be of significant quantity also, and that can only be stripped out when super cooling to LNG levels.
If the heating value of the IOC gas is higher than needed, that is also no good if it is too high. I think you are correct in that IOC gas may be high heat since it has a high condensate content so it would have mostly methane with almost no ethane at all.
I know that some gas sources are randomly mixed when pipeline transported off the coast of West Australia to LNG plants, so if the various gas compositions are reasonably close, it appears to be no problem. I am just wondering if any one has some definitive information about this toppic? I just cant find anything relevant on the net.
RE: New Upstreamonline article on IOC’s deal with XOM - jft310 - 07-18-2013
Lets state the obvious. Exxon would have analyzed the NG from all sources before sending Billions to send them through the same pipe. Exxon doesn't fly by the seat of their pants!!. Thats not how yo get and get the number 1 crown. Before agreeing to terms with IOC such things of NG compatibility would be addressed. If Exxon is not concerned and are willing to spend Billions to buy IOC NG then those of us on the outside need to trust the Exxon engineers. Hint they know more!!!!!
RE: New Upstreamonline article on IOC’s deal with XOM - ArtM72 - 07-18-2013
I suspect the free water and condensates are removed at the CSP, leaving the CO2 and lower molecular weight hydrocarbons like ethane and propane to be removed at the LNG plant.
I doubt there is much of a problem mixing the dry gas in the pipeline from E/A with gas from the Highlands unless the Highlands gas has a significantly different composition than that from E/A. We know that E/A has very little H2S and its CO2 content is low as well. This is very good. I don't recall hearing of or seeing the specific mix of higher mw hydrocarbons, but that could likely change over time as the gas is drawn out of the formation. The question becomes whether there is sufficient flexibility designed into the LNG plant to handle the mix. I suspect there is no technical or capacity problem there, but possibly an item to be considered in negotiations. It might be that enough additional ethane, propane etc is "value added".
RE: New Upstreamonline article on IOC’s deal with XOM - Palm - 07-18-2013
Since XOM has been part of negotiations on the selldown, and since O'Neill has stated that they are in exclusive nogotiations for one or possibly two trains, and in its financing materials for the project the gas source for PNG LNG is described as having "High heating value with minimal impurities" (same as IOC's descriptions of EA and T2), I think it's safe at this point to assume Train 3 using the same pipeline and EA gas is a reasonable expectation.
RE: New Upstreamonline article on IOC’s deal with XOM - Getitrt2 - 07-19-2013
I have heard talk from the Company about E/A gas going into the current pipeline, so that I can't believe this is any kind of problem; and Morgan Stanley referred to it as gas for a train 3. I also feel sure it is something XOM has looked at.
RE: New Upstreamonline article on IOC’s deal with XOM - Tree - 07-19-2013
'Getitrt2' pid='25881' datel Wrote:I have heard talk from the Company about E/A gas going into the current pipeline, so that I can't believe this is any kind of problem; and Morgan Stanley referred to it as gas for a train 3. I also feel sure it is something XOM has looked at.
U B right Getit, Palm and others.
Proof the E/A gas is no problem for XOM pipeline is XOM placed a friggin insurance policy tee in the subsea at the point where IOC told them Gulf LNG gas pipelines would be placed to feed Gulf LNG!!
RE: New Upstreamonline article on IOC’s deal with XOM - Palm - 07-19-2013
Yes Tree there is that. Described to me last yaer by Collin and Phil as a "rounding error" amount in cost to XOM for the "insurance" to be able to tap IOC's gas for future use. This was done at Kerema/Bluff.