The most important line in Friday's Upstream article: "Sources said Exxon­Mobil is keen to close the deal as soon as possible, given the end of the exclusivity period and InterOil being receptive to other offers."

The lapse in exclusivity is about to result in deal closure with Exxon.

'Resourcearb' pid='28020' datel Wrote:

The most important line in Friday's Upstream article: "Sources said Exxon­Mobil is keen to close the deal as soon as possible, given the end of the exclusivity period and InterOil being receptive to other offers."

The lapse in exclusivity is about to result in deal closure with Exxon.

I would like to make 2 points that have not been mentioned:

1. Hession undoubtedly reviewed the XOM situation very carefully before joining IOC, and most likely would not have come on board if he did not believe there was a very high likelihood that the deal would be completed.


2. It is normal for deals of the size that is being negotiated with XOM to have some sort of termination penalties if either side withdraws, since each party will make a significant investment of time and energy in closing the deal. Even if other bidders can now be considered, it may be problematical for IOC to change horses.

'blue water' pid='28214' dateline='<a href="tel:1377965 Wrote:

'Resourcearb' pid='28020' dateline='<a href="tel:1377613 Wrote:

The most important line in Friday's Upstream article: "Sources said Exxon­Mobil is keen to close the deal as soon as possible, given the end of the exclusivity period and InterOil being receptive to other offers."

The lapse in exclusivity is about to result in deal closure with Exxon.

I would like to make 2 points that have not been mentioned:

1. Hession undoubtedly reviewed the XOM situation very carefully before joining IOC, and most likely would not have come on board if he did not believe there was a very high likelihood that the deal would be completed.


2. It is normal for deals of the size that is being negotiated with XOM to have some sort of termination penalties if either side withdraws, since each party will make a significant investment of time and energy in closing the deal. Even if other bidders can now be considered, it may be problematical for IOC to change horses.

Its been said that Exxon and IOC have hired additional persons to expedite the review.Thats a time and money commitment for both parties. Pavel thinks 3rd quarter.

The opening up for more deals is for Gulf LNG bids . Has nothing to do with a third train deal with Exxon. See what Pavel stated

'blue water' pid='28214' datel Wrote:

'Resourcearb' pid='28020' datel Wrote:

The most important line in Friday's Upstream article: "Sources said Exxon­Mobil is keen to close the deal as soon as possible, given the end of the exclusivity period and InterOil being receptive to other offers."

The lapse in exclusivity is about to result in deal closure with Exxon.

I would like to make 2 points that have not been mentioned:

1. Hession undoubtedly reviewed the XOM situation very carefully before joining IOC, and most likely would not have come on board if he did not believe there was a very high likelihood that the deal would be completed.


2. It is normal for deals of the size that is being negotiated with XOM to have some sort of termination penalties if either side withdraws, since each party will make a significant investment of time and energy in closing the deal. Even if other bidders can now be considered, it may be problematical for IOC to change horses.

Yes, thanks for that. As others have pointed out already, the end of exclusivity might be related to another possible deal, for the gas in excess of the 4.7T that Exxon needs for their third train, so these things might not bite one another.