Lamenting the prospect of EWC in our project and 'the market's' reaction to EWC and how their inclusion in Gulf LNG would affect ST pps is such a waste of time. Save that paranoia for YaHoo. I will be PO'd if EWC isn't in Gulf LNG. If you want the highest return on your IOC shares, you want EWC. EWC guarantees the most profit for you, partners and PNG. That is why they were chosen initially and why they are still in the mix. IOC's goal is to sell the minimal % of PRL15 assets to accomplish construction and exploration obligations. EWC allows that. The resource is worth many times more as LNG in a few years than present forward value today. Finding and selling resource is how small players get rich. Buying what others find is how SMs grow and get rich. Finding and developing your own resource in an LNG project is impossible unless you are a Major. Until Gulf LNG, that is.
Gulf LNG will never be included in an article like this if EWC is in place. It's called a pardigm shift and the LNG world needs one.
**********
More budget blow-outs expected at eastern Australian LNG projects: analyst
(Platts) - 13Nov2012
Further cost blow-outs are being tipped for the three eastern Australia coalseam gas-to-LNG projects, all of which are already over budget, following news of a $3.3 billion increase in capital spending at the ExxonMobil-led Papua New Guinea LNG project.
Rising costs and the stronger Australian dollar have this year affected forecast capital spending at all three LNG projects being built on Curtis Island in Gladstone, led by BG Group, Santos and Australia Pacific LNG respectively. Similar issues were behind Monday's announcement that the budget for the ExxonMobil-led PNG LNG project had risen from $15.7 billion to $19 billion, although that news was softened by a 5% increase in the plant's capacity to 6.9 million mt/year.
The budget for BG's 8.5 million mt/year Queensland Curtis LNG project rose from $15 billion to $20.4 billion, and upstream operator Origin Energy conceded that the A$23 billion ($24 billion), 9 million mt/year Australia Pacific LNG joint venture had also been affected by exchange rate movements. Santos meanwhile was forced to bring forward $2.5 billion in development spending at its 7.8 million mt/year Gladstone LNG project, taking the joint venture's initial outlay from $16 billion to $18.5 billion.
"Further upward cost revisions seem highly likely on all those projects following this announcement [about the PNG LNG blow-out]," Hong Kong-based Bernstein Research analyst Neil Beveridge said in a note Tuesday.
"Cost blow-outs and project delays are endemic to all Australian oil, gas and mining projects," Beveridge said. "With a shortage of skilled labor and high infrastructure costs for greenfield developments, project capex overruns are the rule rather than the exception in the LNG industry."
Beveridge added that Bernstein's analysis of global LNG projects over the past 10 years had indicated that they typically overrun on cost by 30% from the estimate at final investment decision and start up 12-15 months later than scheduled.
The increase in capex at PNG LNG was not a surprise, but the magnitude of the increase was, at 27% over the estimate at FID, the analyst said.
"While the start date of 2014 has been maintained, higher costs must reflect some schedule slippage, and we would expect start-up towards the latter half of 2014," Beveridge said. "Despite these cost increases, PNG LNG at $2,300/mt remains cheaper than other LNG projects in the region...While that is much higher than the cost per mt budgeted at FID, it is still significantly lower than other similar projects in the region which are as high as close to $4,000/mt."
