[quote='efi426hemi' pid='20610' dateline='1365744092']
CAC,
The dismantling of Petromin isn't/wasn't something that has been recently concocted in the past 2 months. It has been something likely brewing since O'Neill was relected in August. Indeed our own Palmstradamus picked up on this way back in November. Now, if Palm figured this out, I am fairly certain that IOC, internal government officials, and any bidders were informed straight from the horses mouth sometime last year.
Now this would likely raise some questions by IOC and any bidding parties. Questions and concerns that would require very strong written assurances from people at or near the top (O'Neill). In fact, it is inconcievable to me that written assurances were not completed long before any notification about disbanding of Petromin. This would mean that each and every bidder currenlty have legal binding documentation in the vaults guaranteeing quick legal addition to the PRL/PDL 15 regardless of the state of the national oil company.
So, with written assurances of acceptance in place, my question to you is: how does any bidder care about the disbanding of Petromin to the extent that it affects bid timelines? In fact why would IOC/IB's set bidding deadlines back in January if this was a concern at that time?
Bert and you are entitled to your opinions, but it is impossible for me to accept that multibillion dollar SMs/NoC/Utilities did not have the foresight to handle this many months ago.
+++++++++
efi -- That all makes sense. I hope you are correct and think that you might be. It is certainly a logical assumption that certain assuranances may have been given to IOC and the bidders, but since neither IOC nor PNG has specifically stated such, it remians an "assumption" all the same. Maybe that written assurance was sufficient to get a bidder to make a "contingent" final bid. But a bid contingent on a future event is obviously not binding until the future event occurs...so wouldn't that still mean we have no real deal until the contingency is met? I think that's the type of question that Bert was fairly asking. I don't assume that a SM is going to just "trust" a verbal assurance (or even a written assurance from O'Neil who may or may not have the constitutional authority to bind PNG in this instance) instead of requiring proper legal i's to be dotted first. Even O'Neil has said that this transformation will require legislation, so, yes, I consider it a significant governmental restructuring.
I don't see that it would violate the confidentiality agreements for IOC to clear-up this issue by giving a vanilla statement to the effect of..."The bid process and negotiations are continuing and we do not believe that the transtion from Petromin to its successor entity will affect timing in any way or otherwise delay our process."
