Hey all,

I have a few comments on the O'Neill Official PR of Cabinet Approving 50/50 Gulf LNG Project - posted here.

First, I have seen with other PM releases (think PM support of IOC back around the AGM) of draft versions of these documents.  The draft version appeared 100% formal with all the template format and wording, but the message still needed revision. So, what I am saying is that this "could" be a draft version of the document and not the final released one (although I think this is a longshot).  If it isn't the final wording release document that may be a possible reason to explain the discrepancy between what Phil was saying on the CC and what is in the document, re: 50/50 gov buyin.  I will try to verify this with management tonight/tomorrow.

Also, I would be very curious who posted this document?  Hypothetically speaking, could it possibly be Shell or one of the losing bidders to continue to try and promote government expropriation for the purposes of suppressing the PPS to support a takeover attempt?   Naaaah, way tooo much conspiracy in that thought, isn't it?

Second, lets examine the words carefully - "to negotiate the terms of the 50/50 proposal".  First word that jumps out at me is proposal - (the act of offering or suggesting something for acceptance, adoption, or performance).  The second word that jumps out at me is negotiate (to deal or bargin with another or others).  So this suggests very strongly to me that nothing is set in stone, it is going to be discussed and a agreement will be arrived at.  Perhaps that will turn into PNG buying only an additional 5% more or maybe it will end up as 25% more of T2.  This jives with what Evan asked Phil and Phil's response:

Evan Calio - Morgan Stanley

Any comments at this time - or is it too premature - on the government’s ability to buy, or option to buy, additional gas? I know it’s been reported a couple of times.

Phil Mulacek - CEO

It’s been reported, but it’s way too premature.

One thing I do know is that IOC management does not want to speak about this item - I suspect because it would significantly violate CA's and it probably isn't very strategic for the company to share those details.  When I called the temple a week or so ago, this was my first question regarding the WSJ and the 50/50 ownership.  The answer was (paraphrasing) - there were many false items in the WSJ article and I can't speak to the 50/50 suggestions at this time.  On a side note, that call was the least effective conversation I have ever had with management.  They are zipped up tight which, imho, suggests that they are at critical stages of negotiations.

So, just like everyone else, I don't have the answers, and I suspect we won't get them until Nov 30th - but I am willing to bet that Ken will dig up some useful color to help us paint a picture in the coming weeks.