An interesting and positive recent development that has seemingly gone unnoticed was the inclusion of a new slide (#15), which details the impending deal between InterOil and Exxon for the development of PRL 15, in Oil Search's most recent presentation delivered at the UBS Resources Conference last month.  The slide was inserted in the segment of the presentation detailing the prospects for expanding PNG LNG's capacity, and interestingly it is in front of Oil Search's Gulf of Papua slides.  The slide provides additional external evidence that the SPA is about to be concluded and that the PNG LNG partners have been informed and accepted that InterOil's gas will be used to supply at least one of the PNG LNG Project's trains.

http://www.oilsearch.com/Media/docs/1306%20UBS%20Resources%20Conference_PRINT-1714936e-98ca-4159-9a84-068380bed0d1-0.pdf

'Resourcearb' pid='25646' datel Wrote:

An interesting and positive recent development that has seemingly gone unnoticed was the inclusion of a new slide (#15), which details the impending deal between InterOil and Exxon for the development of PRL 15, in Oil Search's most recent presentation delivered at the UBS Resources Conference last month.  The slide was inserted in the segment of the presentation detailing the prospects for expanding PNG LNG's capacity, and interestingly it is in front of Oil Search's Gulf of Papua slides.  The slide provides additional external evidence that the SPA is about to be concluded and that the PNG LNG partners have been informed and accepted that InterOil's gas will be used to supply at least one of the PNG LNG Project's trains.

http://www.oilsearch.com/Media/docs/1306%20UBS%20Resources%20Conference_PRINT-1714936e-98ca-4159-9a84-068380bed0d1-0.pdf

Oil Search also wrote on slide 25, “Potential third party gas could result in further LNG expansion”, obviously referring to gas from InterOil’s PRL 15.  Recall that InterOil’s stock tanked upon the publication of a misleading report by the Citi analyst covering Oil Search, as he alluded to the PNG LNG partners’ required approval of the use of gas from PRL 15 being a potential obstacle to InterOil’s SPA closure with Exxon.  Well, that certainly is not the case.

'Resourcearb' pid='25647' datel Wrote:

Oil Search also wrote on slide 25, “Potential third party gas could result in further LNG expansion”, obviously referring to gas from InterOil’s PRL 15.  Recall that InterOil’s stock tanked upon the publication of a misleading report by the Citi analyst covering Oil Search, as he alluded to the PNG LNG partners’ required approval of the use of gas from PRL 15 being a potential obstacle to InterOil’s SPA closure with Exxon.  Well, that certainly is not the case.

Now you are making up things ......

Quote:If the deal is concluded, and if appraisal confirms sufficient resource, then how
would the gas be brought into the PNG LNG JV? We understand that the PNG
LNG JV partners have veto rights over bringing non-JV gas into the JV, and that
unanimous agreement is required.

How would alignment be obtained with the PNG LNG JV partners? There are many
potential scenarios. In our view, one simple way to gain alignment would be for
Exxon to offer the JV partners (Oil Search, Santos, JX Nippon) farm-in rights to the
Elk/Antelope reserves at similar terms to Exxon's acquisition price and to offer the
same % stake to each JV partner as they hold in the foundation project.

There is no mention of potential obstical as you put it.

There is only a mention of ways that the deal CAN be executed.

Please stay with the facts  as you are misleading people.

Regards sydbod.

(07-13-2013, 07:12 PM)sydbod Wrote:

(07-13-2013, 02:04 AM)Resourcearb Wrote:

Oil Search also wrote on slide 25, “Potential third party gas could result in further LNG expansion”, obviously referring to gas from InterOil’s PRL 15.  Recall that InterOil’s stock tanked upon the publication of a misleading report by the Citi analyst covering Oil Search, as he alluded to the PNG LNG partners’ required approval of the use of gas from PRL 15 being a potential obstacle to InterOil’s SPA closure with Exxon.  Well, that certainly is not the case.

Now you are making up things ......

Quote:If the deal is concluded, and if appraisal confirms sufficient resource, then how
would the gas be brought into the PNG LNG JV? We understand that the PNG
LNG JV partners have veto rights over bringing non-JV gas into the JV, and that
unanimous agreement is required.

How would alignment be obtained with the PNG LNG JV partners? There are many
potential scenarios. In our view, one simple way to gain alignment would be for
Exxon to offer the JV partners (Oil Search, Santos, JX Nippon) farm-in rights to the
Elk/Antelope reserves at similar terms to Exxon's acquisition price and to offer the
same % stake to each JV partner as they hold in the foundation project.

There is no mention of potential obstical as you put it.

There is only a mention of ways that the deal CAN be executed.

Please stay with the facts  as you are misleading people.

Regards sydbod.

So, you don't believe that the JV partners having veto power over bringing non-JV gas into PNG LNG is a "potential obstacle" to doing so??? I'd like to see an explanation of that line of thinking.

I believe that anything that has the power to say "NO" is a potential obstacle.

'kommonsents' pid='25699' datel Wrote:

'sydbod' pid='25692' datel Wrote:

'Resourcearb' pid='25647' datel Wrote:

Oil Search also wrote on slide 25, “Potential third party gas could result in further LNG expansion”, obviously referring to gas from InterOil’s PRL 15.  Recall that InterOil’s stock tanked upon the publication of a misleading report by the Citi analyst covering Oil Search, as he alluded to the PNG LNG partners’ required approval of the use of gas from PRL 15 being a potential obstacle to InterOil’s SPA closure with Exxon.  Well, that certainly is not the case.

Now you are making up things ......

Quote:If the deal is concluded, and if appraisal confirms sufficient resource, then how
would the gas be brought into the PNG LNG JV? We understand that the PNG
LNG JV partners have veto rights over bringing non-JV gas into the JV, and that
unanimous agreement is required.

How would alignment be obtained with the PNG LNG JV partners? There are many
potential scenarios. In our view, one simple way to gain alignment would be for
Exxon to offer the JV partners (Oil Search, Santos, JX Nippon) farm-in rights to the
Elk/Antelope reserves at similar terms to Exxon's acquisition price and to offer the
same % stake to each JV partner as they hold in the foundation project.

There is no mention of potential obstical as you put it.

There is only a mention of ways that the deal CAN be executed.

Please stay with the facts  as you are misleading people.

Regards sydbod.

So, you don't believe that the JV partners having veto power over bringing non-JV gas into PNG LNG is a "potential obstacle" to doing so??? I'd like to see an explanation of that line of thinking.

I believe that anything that has the power to say "NO" is a potential obstacle.

Where did I say that????? have a closer look at what I posted.

I disagree with the statement " as he alluded to the PNG LNG partners’ required approval of the use of gas from PRL 15 being a potential obstacle to InterOil’s SPA closure with Exxon"

The analyst said nothing of the sort.

The analyst said that although "We understand that the PNGLNG JV partners have veto rights over bringing non-JV gas into the JV, and that unanimous agreement is required " he elaborated on this with " In our view, one simple way to gain alignment would be for Exxon to offer the JV partners (Oil Search, Santos, JX Nippon) farm-in rights to the Elk/Antelope reserves at similar terms to Exxon's acquisition price and to offer the same % stake to each JV partner as they hold in the foundation project ".

Nowhere did the analyst say that it was a "potential obstacle to InterOil’s SPA closure with Exxon" . Or even implied it. If anything, the analyst implied that it should NOT be a significant obstical as there are so many ways around it.

'sydbod' pid='25701' datel Wrote:

'kommonsents' pid='25699' datel Wrote:

'sydbod' pid='25692' datel Wrote:

'Resourcearb' pid='25647' datel Wrote:

Oil Search also wrote on slide 25, “Potential third party gas could result in further LNG expansion”, obviously referring to gas from InterOil’s PRL 15.  Recall that InterOil’s stock tanked upon the publication of a misleading report by the Citi analyst covering Oil Search, as he alluded to the PNG LNG partners’ required approval of the use of gas from PRL 15 being a potential obstacle to InterOil’s SPA closure with Exxon.  Well, that certainly is not the case.

Now you are making up things ......

Quote:If the deal is concluded, and if appraisal confirms sufficient resource, then how
would the gas be brought into the PNG LNG JV? We understand that the PNG
LNG JV partners have veto rights over bringing non-JV gas into the JV, and that
unanimous agreement is required.

How would alignment be obtained with the PNG LNG JV partners? There are many
potential scenarios. In our view, one simple way to gain alignment would be for
Exxon to offer the JV partners (Oil Search, Santos, JX Nippon) farm-in rights to the
Elk/Antelope reserves at similar terms to Exxon's acquisition price and to offer the
same % stake to each JV partner as they hold in the foundation project.

There is no mention of potential obstical as you put it.

There is only a mention of ways that the deal CAN be executed.

Please stay with the facts  as you are misleading people.

Regards sydbod.

So, you don't believe that the JV partners having veto power over bringing non-JV gas into PNG LNG is a "potential obstacle" to doing so??? I'd like to see an explanation of that line of thinking.

I believe that anything that has the power to say "NO" is a potential obstacle.

Where did I say that????? have a closer look at what I posted.

I disagree with the statement " as he alluded to the PNG LNG partners’ required approval of the use of gas from PRL 15 being a potential obstacle to InterOil’s SPA closure with Exxon"

The analyst said nothing of the sort.

The analyst said that although "We understand that the PNGLNG JV partners have veto rights over bringing non-JV gas into the JV, and that unanimous agreement is required " he elaborated on this with " In our view, one simple way to gain alignment would be for Exxon to offer the JV partners (Oil Search, Santos, JX Nippon) farm-in rights to the Elk/Antelope reserves at similar terms to Exxon's acquisition price and to offer the same % stake to each JV partner as they hold in the foundation project ".

Nowhere did the analyst say that it was a "potential obstacle to InterOil’s SPA closure with Exxon" . Or even implied it. If anything, the analyst implied that it should NOT be a significant obstical as there are so many ways around it.

If one wants to be (more) pedantic, no one wrote that there was a "potential obstacle" but in my reading the Citi writer certainly implied it, or "alluded"  to it (to use Resourcearb´s verb of choice.)   It is entirely possible that the Citi writer simply set up veto rights as a straw man to be blown away by his proposal, but his language certainly suggested there could be a "potential obstacle."

Stavros, I appreciate what you are saying, but is it really that significant to the posts?

Apologies if I am pedantic here but:
Resourcearb posted " Oil Search also wrote on slide 25, “Potential third party gas could result in further LNG expansion”, obviously referring to gas from InterOil’s PRL 15. " No one has any issue with that factual and informative statement.

Then it is continued with " Recall that InterOil’s stock tanked ....  Well, that certainly is not the case. " . This added absolutely NO new information to the point he was making and at the same time was wrong.

It was just an unjustified bitch about the Citi analysis. This sort of thing is happening very often by some members and honestly, I don't understand the need for it. It is not important  how people interpreted and then used that report in this particular thread, so why the need to include information from it? Can't we be above this sort of thing?

I do have shares in OSH, Santos, IOC and Woodside, so I try to make sure anything that I post dealing with any one of these shares, or even companies that I do not own shares in, is factual and not colored by my pregedies.

'katytrader' pid='25703' datel Wrote:

  The fact that the Citi writer offered a "simple way to gain alignment" to me suggests that the writer had in mind a scenario in which the partners would not simply go along with whatever scheme XOM and IOC settled on.

There is never a time where a block of majority partners would simply go along with whatever scheme a minority partner wanted. Remember, XOM is a minority partner.

Why try to grab a snippet of information from a report without understanding the context under whitch it was presented and just apply whatever context you happen to have in your mind?

Is my understanding of the english language really so different to other peoples?