Exclusivity, no longer.  Lack of exclusivity only strengthens IOC's position for reasons Pavel mentions in his update.  IOC/XOM are still working to close the deal. IOC appears to be positioned to squeeze their best deal from XOM/partners and the Gov't is surely doing the same.

In the meantime, we suffer from flat out false doomsday headlines last Friday from Schwab, Reuters and every business section in every major newspaper in the US that IOC/XOM talks failed without a deal.  Easily predicted a couple weeks prior.

Top it off late yesterday with a 'credible' appearing headline that RJ's Pavel droped his guidance from $100 to $65.  Flat out criminal.  So what happens?  Some posters here lash out at others when nothing has changed in the development of the deal except the pps.  Key is by all accounts the deal(s) are in tact and will be successful.

Every long can make the case they are frustrated, pissed or maligned.  Only a few are lashing out and my suggestion is for those, if you want to 'whine' (for no better word) please support your thinking with news, insight or cite DD so the rest of us can get beyond being annoyed and maybe learn something.  That is the essence of what SHU is intended for.

Thanks!

'Tree' pid='27622' datel Wrote:

Exclusivity, no longer.  Lack of exclusivity only strengthens IOC's position for reasons Pavel mentions in his update.  IOC/XOM are still working to close the deal. IOC appears to be positioned to squeeze their best deal from XOM/partners and the Gov't is surely doing the same.

In the meantime, we suffer from flat out false doomsday headlines last Friday from Schwab, Reuters and every business section in every major newspaper in the US that IOC/XOM talks failed without a deal.  Easily predicted a couple weeks prior.

Top it off late yesterday with a 'credible' appearing headline that RJ's Pavel droped his guidance from $100 to $65.  Flat out criminal.  So what happens?  Some posters here lash out at others when nothing has changed in the development of the deal except the pps.  Key is by all accounts the deal(s) are in tact and will be successful.

Every long can make the case they are frustrated, pissed or maligned.  Only a few are lashing out and my suggestion is for those, if you want to 'whine' (for no better word) please support your thinking with news, insight or cite DD so the rest of us can get beyond being annoyed and maybe learn something.  That is the essence of what SHU is intended for.

Many seem to be suggesting that IOC is negotiating/demanding a piece of the 3rd train and that this may be what is holding up the negotiations.  Wouldn't ownership of the 3rd train been included in the term sheet?  Kind of a large item to throw in when we are supposedly in the attorneys dotting i's and crossing t's phase.  Comments?

'TomCrooz' pid='27628' datel Wrote:

'Tree' pid='27622' datel Wrote:

Exclusivity, no longer.  Lack of exclusivity only strengthens IOC's position for reasons Pavel mentions in his update.  IOC/XOM are still working to close the deal. IOC appears to be positioned to squeeze their best deal from XOM/partners and the Gov't is surely doing the same.

In the meantime, we suffer from flat out false doomsday headlines last Friday from Schwab, Reuters and every business section in every major newspaper in the US that IOC/XOM talks failed without a deal.  Easily predicted a couple weeks prior.

Top it off late yesterday with a 'credible' appearing headline that RJ's Pavel droped his guidance from $100 to $65.  Flat out criminal.  So what happens?  Some posters here lash out at others when nothing has changed in the development of the deal except the pps.  Key is by all accounts the deal(s) are in tact and will be successful.

Every long can make the case they are frustrated, pissed or maligned.  Only a few are lashing out and my suggestion is for those, if you want to 'whine' (for no better word) please support your thinking with news, insight or cite DD so the rest of us can get beyond being annoyed and maybe learn something.  That is the essence of what SHU is intended for.

Many seem to be suggesting that IOC is negotiating/demanding a piece of the 3rd train and that this may be what is holding up the negotiations.  Wouldn't ownership of the 3rd train been included in the term sheet?  Kind of a large item to throw in when we are supposedly in the attorneys dotting i's and crossing t's phase.  Comments?

Size matters.  What if Hession is confident he can extract a larger stake?  What if the term sheet items have been adjusted across the board?  If they are bottom lining a deal it is good.  Phil's 'win-win' comments imply perhaps at this point that hasn't been the case.  I do not want IOC to take an inferior deal if they can do better else where.

'Movieguy' pid='27637' datel Wrote:I do not believe IOC should let a great deal stand in the way of a very good deal. The company has NEVER made a deal of this type, despite having talked about it for years. It has had every long, including the big boys, expecting a deal for months and not achieving it. As for Hession, we know his resume, which is excellent, but little else. We really don't know his abilities or his quirks. He might be deftly moving the negotiations to a quick agreement with IOC coming out better than expected, or he might be on an ego trip to show how important he is. We just don't know. I say accept a good deal that positions the company in vastly better shape than it has ever been in before and which validates the company in everyone's eyes. Then keep exploring, drilling, partnering and monetizing. This first deal is the stepping stone, admittedly a huge one, but not the end goal. It is just the first deal of many beneficial ones to come.

MG,  Who believes they should?  Answer:  no one.  Why imply this is reality?

'TomCrooz' pid='27628' datel Wrote:

'Tree' pid='27622' datel Wrote:

Exclusivity, no longer.  Lack of exclusivity only strengthens IOC's position for reasons Pavel mentions in his update.  IOC/XOM are still working to close the deal. IOC appears to be positioned to squeeze their best deal from XOM/partners and the Gov't is surely doing the same.

In the meantime, we suffer from flat out false doomsday headlines last Friday from Schwab, Reuters and every business section in every major newspaper in the US that IOC/XOM talks failed without a deal.  Easily predicted a couple weeks prior.

Top it off late yesterday with a 'credible' appearing headline that RJ's Pavel droped his guidance from $100 to $65.  Flat out criminal.  So what happens?  Some posters here lash out at others when nothing has changed in the development of the deal except the pps.  Key is by all accounts the deal(s) are in tact and will be successful.

Every long can make the case they are frustrated, pissed or maligned.  Only a few are lashing out and my suggestion is for those, if you want to 'whine' (for no better word) please support your thinking with news, insight or cite DD so the rest of us can get beyond being annoyed and maybe learn something.  That is the essence of what SHU is intended for.

Many seem to be suggesting that IOC is negotiating/demanding a piece of the 3rd train and that this may be what is holding up the negotiations.  Wouldn't ownership of the 3rd train been included in the term sheet?  Kind of a large item to throw in when we are supposedly in the attorneys dotting i's and crossing t's phase.  Comments?

I have little to no doubt that it was part of the Term Sheet based on the initial PR that stated one of the main "Items under consideration":

"InterOil and Pacific LNG selling ExxonMobil Papua New Guinea Ltd. an interest in PRL 15 that is sufficient to supply gas to develop an additional LNG train at ExxonMobil Papua New Guinea Ltd.’s Konebada site. There will be staged payments before and after production commences."

Having an item on the Term Sheet and getting all of the details worked out and agreed to are 2 different things.  As an IOC exec recently stated, "The devil is in the details" on these items.  We know that OSH is not wild about this idea and that Exxon has had discussions with them, so Exxon must play its role as operator and do what's best for the overall project and PNG.  Different partners for different trains is not rocket science, but we are dealing with public companies and big egos.  Exxon has done this many times before.

Personally I am glad that Hession ended the exclusive period.  Word is that internally he is a refreshing change and has done this kind of thing more than once.  As people get used to his ways he will be known as an almost perfect hire for IOC.  Could have used him sooner, but we are where we are and can look forward with some confidence.

'Palm' pid='27646' dateline='<a href="tel:1377008 Wrote:

'TomCrooz' pid='27628' dateline='<a href="tel:1377005 Wrote:

'Tree' pid='27622' dateline='<a href="tel:1377002 Wrote:

Exclusivity, no longer.  Lack of exclusivity only strengthens IOC's position for reasons Pavel mentions in his update.  IOC/XOM are still working to close the deal. IOC appears to be positioned to squeeze their best deal from XOM/partners and the Gov't is surely doing the same.

In the meantime, we suffer from flat out false doomsday headlines last Friday from Schwab, Reuters and every business section in every major newspaper in the US that IOC/XOM talks failed without a deal.  Easily predicted a couple weeks prior.

Top it off late yesterday with a 'credible' appearing headline that RJ's Pavel droped his guidance from $100 to $65.  Flat out criminal.  So what happens?  Some posters here lash out at others when nothing has changed in the development of the deal except the pps.  Key is by all accounts the deal(s) are in tact and will be successful.

Every long can make the case they are frustrated, pissed or maligned.  Only a few are lashing out and my suggestion is for those, if you want to 'whine' (for no better word) please support your thinking with news, insight or cite DD so the rest of us can get beyond being annoyed and maybe learn something.  That is the essence of what SHU is intended for.

Many seem to be suggesting that IOC is negotiating/demanding a piece of the 3rd train and that this may be what is holding up the negotiations.  Wouldn't ownership of the 3rd train been included in the term sheet?  Kind of a large item to throw in when we are supposedly in the attorneys dotting i's and crossing t's phase.  Comments?

I have little to no doubt that it was part of the Term Sheet based on the initial PR that stated one of the main "Items under consideration":

"InterOil and Pacific LNG selling ExxonMobil Papua New Guinea Ltd. an interest in PRL 15 that is sufficient to supply gas to develop an additional LNG train at ExxonMobil Papua New Guinea Ltd.’s Konebada site. There will be staged payments before and after production commences."

Having an item on the Term Sheet and getting all of the details worked out and agreed to are 2 different things.  As an IOC exec recently stated, "The devil is in the details" on these items.  We know that OSH is not wild about this idea and that Exxon has had discussions with them, so Exxon must play its role as operator and do what's best for the overall project and PNG.  Different partners for different trains is not rocket science, but we are dealing with public companies and big egos.  Exxon has done this many times before.

Personally I am glad that Hession ended the exclusive period.  Word is that internally he is a refreshing change and has done this kind of thing more than once.  As people get used to his ways he will be known as an almost perfect hire for IOC.  Could have used him sooner, but we are where we are and can look forward with some confidence.

Fact  Dr Hession cut two $3 Billion dollars for Woodside in his last year there and they both closed in timely fashion.