'Spartina' pid='39300' datel Wrote:What ever happens, compared to the whole IOC life timeline things are going to happen quite fast now. Either way there is more clarity and less uncertainty. Brill bits are going to be approaching the tops of target zones. This next cc may be one of the most important yet and it's fast approaching. I want to remind everybody what happened after The good Dr's second cc when the pps was almost exactly where it is right now….I'm feeling a little foolish because I'm starting to get excited again for the $200th time Silly me.

What was that definition of insanity again? lol

(03-17-2014, 10:48 PM)TomCrooz Wrote:

(03-17-2014, 08:22 PM)Spartina Wrote: What ever happens, compared to the whole IOC life timeline things are going to happen quite fast now. Either way there is more clarity and less uncertainty. Brill bits are going to be approaching the tops of target zones. This next cc may be one of the most important yet and it's fast approaching. I want to remind everybody what happened after The good Dr's second cc when the pps was almost exactly where it is right now….I'm feeling a little foolish because I'm starting to get excited again for the $200th time Silly me.

What was that definition of insanity again? lol

Next time you're found
With your chin on the ground
There a lot to be learned
So look around

Just what makes that little old ant
Think he'll move that rubber tree plant
Anyone knows an ant, can't
Move a rubber tree plant

But he's got high hopes
He's got high hopes
He's got high apple pie
In the sky hopes

So any time you're gettin' low
'Stead of lettin' go, just remember that ant
Oops, there goes another rubber tree plant
Oops, there goes another rubber tree plant
Oops, there goes another rubber tree plant

When troubles call
And your back's to the wall
There a lot to be learned
That wall could fall

Once there was a silly old ram
Thought he'd punch a hole in a dam
No one could make that ram, scram
He kept buttin' that dam

'Cause he had high hopes
He had high hopes
He had high apple pie
In the sky hopes

So any time you're feelin' bad
'Stead of feelin' sad, just remember that ram
Oops, there goes a billion kilowatt dam
Oops, there goes a billion kilowatt dam
Oops, there goes a billion kilowatt dam

All problems just a toy balloon
They'll be bursted soon, they're just bound to go pop
Oops, there goes another problem kerplop
Oops, there goes another problem kerplop
Oops, there goes another problem kerplop, kerplop

'jft310' pid='39312' datel Wrote:Its interesting RJ does not mention Total by name. Could??? is it possible IOC cuts a deal with Exxon for train 3,4,5 ???. Gets a payment upfront a nice slice of LNG participation of 25-30 percent?????Just an idle thought.

Agree JFT; one has to be nearly blind to not see how O'Neill and NEC are strongly backing OSH and that IOC and Total were caught off guard with the OSH purchase of the Pac LNG interests.  The fact that O'Neill removed both Duma and Polye in the last weeks is highly indicative.  The government "needs" the ownership in OSH to help fulfill some of the LT goals of having stong and lucrative government owned entities.  O'Neill strongly made this point again in December when addressing the group at the PNG Mining and Petroleum Conference.  He again mentioned Petromin as a model.  For these things to happen they need to maximize cash flow with least cost/investment.  It was clearly stated by O'Neill on Friday that Polye was removed because he would not sign off on the UBS loan for the government to buy into OSH even though O'Neill and NEC approved of it.  It's pretty widely believed that this has Exxon prints all over it.

I think the fact that OSH is letting some license options expire and drilling of P'Yang etc is basically on hold points to the anticipated drilling results that IOC has started.  It's also quite likely that the end of March will come and go with no deal signed with Total because of all of this.  IOC and Total may end up closing on their deal, but it will be surprising if there aren't some things they will have to agree to regarding PNG LNG. And OSH's first loyalties are most likely to the PNG Gov and Exxon.  They and Total have really done very little together and Total knows that OSH it a critical player as far as having the government's backing.  Again, just look at O'Neill's own words last week when he spoke of the importance of the government's "need" to maintain an investment in OSH.

One can talk to WA and get some info, but he can't be the only source for what is going on at the moment.

'Getitrt2' pid='39313' datel Wrote:I can't believe this debate over Exxon vs Total with respect to PRL 15 keeps popping up, even in a thread for an RJ report predicting a close with Total. As far as I am concerned, we have an extremely intelligent, experienced, and competent CEO who has thoroughly evaluated the best proposals of Exxon and Total and decisively selected Total's, in conjunction with on-going consultations with the government, and that is good enough for me. Furthermore, however, what I have learned and evaluated in conjunction with that from all sources pro and con seem to back that up. Without some significant change from Total and/or Exxon, I don't see any reason why there is any debate left on PRL 15 at this time. On one point, as I have discussed elsewhere people keep referring to "sooner cash flow from a PNG LNG third train", even though MS puts that at four years. They should be saying "operating cash flow", because much sooner cash flow comes from the fixed and resource payments from Total, which are apparently greater than Exxon was willing to offer. I might add that, as I have also discussed elsewhere, according to the Feb 27 MS report on OSH, Exxon and OSH are currently focused on developing and evaluating Hides, P'nyang, etc. as sources for PNG LNG train 3. If there is any worthwhile debate left, barring circumstance changes as indicated above, I think it arises from other gas from Triceratops, new discoveries (likely, imo), or perhaps certification of much larger amounts than expected in PRL 15; and I think that debate would be on expansion of either or both when of the two LNG facilities, a debate I would love to enjoy. The first two of those sources have also been cited by our CEO as possible sources for PNG LNG.

Getirt,

While you have made your point over and over why is it so hard for you to come to the reality that there really is no deal with TOT at this time. The promise is there but a signed deal is not. One of the stipulations of the IOC/TOT SPA was for IOC to buy out IPI. Did that happen? Nope. So as I see it and others here as well, we have no agreement at this time. Some here are trying to float XOM entering the picture ( Include me in this group) and a scant few are pulling for the wild card to emerge ( I favor this one). There has never been a better time to own IOC than right now. No IPI, Duma, PNG government in support, drilling, low cost gas, terms of winning bid known. We have been told for years that there is huge interest in IOC finds and licenses. I for one favor letting the competition play out in full view of shareholders. Remember, Hession stated on his 40% off cc in December that it was competitive to the very end. This may strike you as strange, but this is not over. Not until a deal is signed and money changes hands. If someone else wants EA more than TOT than I support that. Next up for IOC shareholders is a cc which is overdue. I hope there is some good news involving more than what we already know.

'jft310' pid='39312' datel Wrote:Its interesting RJ does not mention Total by name. Could??? is it possible IOC cuts a deal with Exxon for train 3,4,5 ???. Gets a payment upfront a nice slice of LNG participation of 25-30 percent?????Just an idle thought.

WRONG, jft, RJ DOES mention Total by name, more than once!

'Libtardius Maximus' pid='39316' datel Wrote:

'Getitrt2' pid='39313' datel Wrote:I can't believe this debate over Exxon vs Total with respect to PRL 15 keeps popping up, even in a thread for an RJ report predicting a close with Total. As far as I am concerned, we have an extremely intelligent, experienced, and competent CEO who has thoroughly evaluated the best proposals of Exxon and Total and decisively selected Total's, in conjunction with on-going consultations with the government, and that is good enough for me. Furthermore, however, what I have learned and evaluated in conjunction with that from all sources pro and con seem to back that up. Without some significant change from Total and/or Exxon, I don't see any reason why there is any debate left on PRL 15 at this time. On one point, as I have discussed elsewhere people keep referring to "sooner cash flow from a PNG LNG third train", even though MS puts that at four years. They should be saying "operating cash flow", because much sooner cash flow comes from the fixed and resource payments from Total, which are apparently greater than Exxon was willing to offer. I might add that, as I have also discussed elsewhere, according to the Feb 27 MS report on OSH, Exxon and OSH are currently focused on developing and evaluating Hides, P'nyang, etc. as sources for PNG LNG train 3. If there is any worthwhile debate left, barring circumstance changes as indicated above, I think it arises from other gas from Triceratops, new discoveries (likely, imo), or perhaps certification of much larger amounts than expected in PRL 15; and I think that debate would be on expansion of either or both when of the two LNG facilities, a debate I would love to enjoy. The first two of those sources have also been cited by our CEO as possible sources for PNG LNG.

Getirt,

While you have made your point over and over why is it so hard for you to come to the reality that there really is no deal with TOT at this time. The promise is there but a signed deal is not. One of the stipulations of the IOC/TOT SPA was for IOC to buy out IPI. Did that happen? Nope. So as I see it and others here as well, we have no agreement at this time. Some here are trying to float XOM entering the picture ( Include me in this group) and a scant few are pulling for the wild card to emerge ( I favor this one). There has never been a better time to own IOC than right now. No IPI, Duma, PNG government in support, drilling, low cost gas, terms of winning bid known. We have been told for years that there is huge interest in IOC finds and licenses. I for one favor letting the competition play out in full view of shareholders. Remember, Hession stated on his 40% off cc in December that it was competitive to the very end. This may strike you as strange, but this is not over. Not until a deal is signed and money changes hands. If someone else wants EA more than TOT than I support that. Next up for IOC shareholders is a cc which is overdue. I hope there is some good news involving more than what we already know.

*********
I agree, Lib.  We have no deal right now. 

And the truth is we don't really know why IOC "chose" Total.  Of course it could be just because TOT offered more up front money than XOM (as GetIt speculates).  But it could also be for a variety of other reason which may or may not have changed.  Maybe there was a desire from OSH not to relinquich ownership of the existing plant to IOC...which could have changed with their IPI purchase.  Maybe there was political pressure from PNG (Duma) to build a new plant which has now lessened.  Maybe XOM "called IOC's bluff" while negotiating but is now willing to step-up their offer when faced with a more daunting/real prospect of losing out on E/A.  I could see it going either way...and just to stir the pot a little more...where the heck is Shell while all of this is going on?  

'Libtardius Maximus' pid='39316' datel Wrote:

'Getitrt2' pid='39313' datel Wrote:I can't believe this debate over Exxon vs Total with respect to PRL 15 keeps popping up, even in a thread for an RJ report predicting a close with Total. As far as I am concerned, we have an extremely intelligent, experienced, and competent CEO who has thoroughly evaluated the best proposals of Exxon and Total and decisively selected Total's, in conjunction with on-going consultations with the government, and that is good enough for me. Furthermore, however, what I have learned and evaluated in conjunction with that from all sources pro and con seem to back that up. Without some significant change from Total and/or Exxon, I don't see any reason why there is any debate left on PRL 15 at this time. On one point, as I have discussed elsewhere people keep referring to "sooner cash flow from a PNG LNG third train", even though MS puts that at four years. They should be saying "operating cash flow", because much sooner cash flow comes from the fixed and resource payments from Total, which are apparently greater than Exxon was willing to offer. I might add that, as I have also discussed elsewhere, according to the Feb 27 MS report on OSH, Exxon and OSH are currently focused on developing and evaluating Hides, P'nyang, etc. as sources for PNG LNG train 3. If there is any worthwhile debate left, barring circumstance changes as indicated above, I think it arises from other gas from Triceratops, new discoveries (likely, imo), or perhaps certification of much larger amounts than expected in PRL 15; and I think that debate would be on expansion of either or both when of the two LNG facilities, a debate I would love to enjoy. The first two of those sources have also been cited by our CEO as possible sources for PNG LNG.

Getirt,

There has never been a better time to own IOC than right now. No IPI, Duma, PNG government in support, drilling, low cost gas, terms of winning bid known. We have been told for years that there is huge interest in IOC finds and licenses. I for one favor letting the competition play out in full view of shareholders. Remember, Hession stated on his 40% off cc in December that it was competitive to the very end. This may strike you as strange, but this is not over. Not until a deal is signed and money changes hands. If someone else wants EA more than TOT than I support that. Next up for IOC shareholders is a cc which is overdue. I hope there is some good news involving more than what we already know.

I couldn't agree more Lib.