After morning CC discussions this coud well be the begining of buy-out bidding.

The new article in whole makes no sense, in part it may.  Money quote is:

PNG needs present revenues.  Future revenues do no good today and ultimately there will be several LNG/Oil projects throughout Gulf and Western Province.

What if PNG has a deal with, say RDS as they are obvious choice to deliver 50% of PRL15 at a discount $/M?

PNG owns 20% at no cost as State and the source alludes to PNG buying another 30% at PRE prices, giving PNG 50% of PRL15.  Discount that $2.85? PRE price presently and cash out IOC.  Phil would sell at those rates.  PNG would then sell all or most of their 50% of the project  at present value to Shell at much less than $2.85.  PNG could be happy with almost giving away their initial 20% stake.  This gives Shell half the project at way less than PRE prices, PNG is liquid and IOC has cashed out.  Shell can say they didn't pay Phil's price as PNG's share lowers their $/M costs.

That would leave PAC LNG an option to sell out at same present value which they would likely do as it is based on PRE #s.

Net is IOC has minor stake at most in Gulf LNG or they sell all to Shell or whoever the buyer is.

IOC moves on T-2 with EWC/FLEX and is to market in 2015/16 if exploration is fruitful.

'sltibbs' pid='10004' datel Wrote:I find it hard to believe that PNG would accept a lower price than IOC would receive. The political opposition would love such and would use it as ammunition. Something like, anti-corruption taskforce needs to start with Oneil's office. Why else would Oneil sale the country's resource that is supposed support our growth for the next 40 years below market price? The obvious implication is they were bribed and that is what such would look like.

Obviously all speculation on our part's Sam.  The way PNG would take a lower price than IOC is because the bids are low, and they need $ today.   By blending value of IOC's 30% chunk at PRE discounted values and PNG's 20% stake which presently is 'free' O'Neill can make the case they nabbed 50% of Gulf LNG to, to facilitate an immediate sale of their  50% stake at higher $/M higher than the bids were prior to this act.

Of course this whole article could be BS but it sure smells like it is coming from a bidder's perspective and the framework could be a possibility.

'ArtM72' pid='10011' datel Wrote:The "deal" sounds too clever by half. Shell (or whoever) would be better off buying PNG's share directly together with whatever part of E/A IOC wants to sell at that price. Everybody happy, nothing under the table. Personaly I think the whole article is nonsense with PNGIndustryNews (Blair Price in particular) taking a credibility hit. The OMG goes back to Price's source who gave him "the lead" which lead him to get Colin to confirm more than one SM is in on the bidding. OMG? LOL.

Anytime a "journalist" quotes unnamed sources it's a red flag. Blair Price is notorious for his use of anonymous quotes. He has been -- if not a Shell shill -- a useful tool for RDS in the past. The two things that struck me were the quote "not going to get it" and the sleight of hand with regard to the resource size.

I hope there is a meaty announcement tomorrow, because speculation is off the charts. Of more interest today is what Price's tale will do for/to the PPS. You guys are great, by the way.

'Tree' pid='10003' datel Wrote:

After morning CC discussions this coud well be the begining of buy-out bidding.

The new article in whole makes no sense, in part it may.  Money quote is:

“They are gearing up for some big announcement on Thursday which they will clearly try to dress up and say that the state will buy the gas at the same terms PRE paid, which the state may well try and hawk around for a carry on those terms but it will never get it,” the source said. The $2.85 is the Present Value of the PRE price. The price PRE is actually paying is actually higher. I think $3.65 per mcf then discounted back to today to get $ 2.85.

PNG needs present revenues.  Future revenues do no good today and ultimately there will be several LNG/Oil projects throughout Gulf and Western Province.

What if PNG has a deal with, say RDS as they are obvious choice to deliver 50% of PRL15 at a discount $/M?

PNG owns 20% at no cost as State and the source alludes to PNG buying another 30% at PRE prices, giving PNG 50% of PRL15.  Discount that $2.85? PRE price presently and cash out IOC.  Phil would sell at those rates.  PNG would then sell all or most of their 50% of the project  at present value to Shell at much less than $2.85.  PNG could be happy with almost giving away their initial 20% stake.  This gives Shell half the project at way less than PRE prices, PNG is liquid and IOC has cashed out.  Shell can say they didn't pay Phil's price as PNG's share lowers their $/M costs.

That would leave PAC LNG an option to sell out at same present value which they would likely do as it is based on PRE #s.

Net is IOC has minor stake at most in Gulf LNG or they sell all to Shell or whoever the buyer is.

IOC moves on T-2 with EWC/FLEX and is to market in 2015/16 if exploration is fruitful.

'Tree' pid='10009' datel Wrote:

[quote='sltibbs' pid='10004' dateline='1348056492'] I find it hard to believe that PNG would accept a lower price than IOC would receive. The political opposition would love such and would use it as ammunition. Something like, anti-corruption taskforce needs to start with Oneil's office. Why else would Oneil sale the country's resource that is supposed support our growth for the next 40 years below market price? The obvious implication is they were bribed and that is what such would look like.

Obviously all speculation on our part's Sam.  The way PNG would take a lower price than IOC is because the bids are low, and they need $ today.   By blending value of IOC's 30% chunk at PRE discounted values and PNG's 20% stake which presently is 'free' O'Neill can make the case they nabbed 50% of Gulf LNG to, to facilitate an immediate sale of their  50% stake at higher $/M higher than the bids were prior to this act.

Of course this whole article could be BS but it sure smells like it is coming from a bidder's perspective and the framework could be a possibility.

[/quote

Article is total B/S I was told.Yes its from a bidder perpective. This is like Hollywood. Any deal talk is positive the ball is movin down the field.

'jft310' pid='10024' datel Wrote:

'Tree' pid='10009' datel Wrote:

[quote='sltibbs' pid='10004' dateline='1348056492'] I find it hard to believe that PNG would accept a lower price than IOC would receive. The political opposition would love such and would use it as ammunition. Something like, anti-corruption taskforce needs to start with Oneil's office. Why else would Oneil sale the country's resource that is supposed support our growth for the next 40 years below market price? The obvious implication is they were bribed and that is what such would look like.

Obviously all speculation on our part's Sam.  The way PNG would take a lower price than IOC is because the bids are low, and they need $ today.   By blending value of IOC's 30% chunk at PRE discounted values and PNG's 20% stake which presently is 'free' O'Neill can make the case they nabbed 50% of Gulf LNG to, to facilitate an immediate sale of their  50% stake at higher $/M higher than the bids were prior to this act.

Of course this whole article could be BS but it sure smells like it is coming from a bidder's perspective and the framework could be a possibility.

[/quote

Article is total B/S I was told.Yes its from a bidder perpective. This is like Hollywood. Any deal talk is positive the ball is movin down the field.

Wonder what time the Blair article was released?   just wondering after jft's comments since snake alluded to it at 4am EST this morning on the other board.  was it released before or after 4am?????