SELL?!? That's NUTS!

[Getitrt2]

Actually a third train at PNGLNG could be a clone of the first two trains and the pipe for one train is already in place . Very little work would be required to reach FID for PNGLNG 3 rd train with Antelope gas . The problem is the ownership redo for Antelope gas at PNGLNG that's the biggie but yes Total and Exxon work together in many places . Seems like a reach today with what we know but what are Exxon and Interoil/Total talking about ????some type synergy . ? Ruling out any of the possibilities seems silly unless one can describe the 3 concepts they have narrowed the build to . What are those possibilities??

Are you sure Antelope gas could be mixed with their Highlands gas for the existing trains?  Management has just contradicted your claim of "very little work" to reach FID for that and resolve the price and ownership issues, or the desirability to them of that.  I listed synergies they could be talking about, which analysts have also identified.

I have not "ruled out" any possibilities, just reported management's view of that one, as some have said I should do, and expressed my own view of the probability of it.  What is your view of that probability?

I think those three "concept" possibilities would include three different locations.  I don't know what those are, but some guesses I would have based on past information would be:

     1.  A site near PNG LNG and Port Moresby (could be more than one of the three)

     2.  A site on IOC's leased land near the refinery

     3.  The site previously selected in Gulf Province (lower probability, imo).

What do you think on those?

[Thylacine-2]

We need to put on our futurist hat a bit. IOC and Total are looking at a near future when there will be enough gas to pursue multiple options for monetization. When multiple options will be a necessity to keep the PNG government happy. Digest Pet's post this morning. Study slide 12 of the CC presentation. Think LOTS and LOTS of gas.

[Getitrt2]

The IR person in NYC is new take that into consideration . This new person stated it was okay for mgt to buy stock in IOC and her boss M Lynn corrected her . Anyone who states all of PRL 15 gas will be for a Total build needs to ask what are the 3 concepts under advisement and listen to the Hession comments during the call . Total has been quoted as saying they are looking at synergies also with Exxon. Ruling anything out seems foolish . Being rigid when looking at Interoil and OSH history of monetization and thinking it's done is again foolish when looking back . Be open to the possibilities and go higher up the food chain for more accurate comments history shows.

jft, you should try to make sure you are not starting out with totally erroneous ASSUMPTIONS (remember the definition of that) before you make arguments based on that.  I have never had any contact with the new IR person in NYC.  If you read my report carefully, you should note that I specified "senior" management.

I have been open to other "possibilities" and as stated not "ruled out" other possibilities, so by that definition I am not being "foolish".  What I did do is report what I confirmed from highly reliable Company sources the conclusions that I had previously reached from available information about Company intentions and the almost certain outcome, along with just some of many reasons for that  What I do think is "foolish" is trying to equate the current final arbitration-supported monetization contracts with Total with about half a billion dollars in the bank, and the government and financial community support of them, with the failed monetization efforts of previous management, as successful as they were in finding the Antelope resources.  I previously discussed "synergies".

[admin]

Is this worth the fierce debate, I wonder.. Since we still can't exclude anything, it's probabilities we're talking about. Doesn't seem to be worth the sometimes acrimonious tone here, and I know I'm not alone..

[jft310]

Amen admin

[ArtM72]

Just to add some new life to an old thread I thought it might be interesting to add a post related to how well experts saw the oil price crash and predicted its recovery. Thanks to Admin for all of his work...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...redictions

[admin]

Just to add some new life to an old thread I thought it might be interesting to add a post related to how well experts saw the oil price crash and predicted its recovery. Thanks to Admin for all of his work... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...redictions

My pleasure, Art, thanks. Sourcing these articles is quite interesting. Short-term much of it is noise, but medium to longer term, there are really very significant shifts going on with lots of implications.

[Thylacine-2]

Steven Kopits is a cut above the people mentioned in the article.

For those that would enjoy checking out Kopits' views in recent years, including his alternative oil model (and it's implications), supply constrained vs. the more commonly accepted demand constrained, check out his Blog at prienga.com. Among other absorbing items on the Blog section on the website is a Feb, 2014 presentation by Kopits at the Center for Global Energy Policy at Columbia. The presentation explains the differences between Kopits' supply constrained model and a demand constrained model. http://energypolicy.columbia.edu/events-...ey-drivers

[Stavros]

Thanks Thy... very interesting observations by Kopits/Douglas Westwood

The Presentation was given on 11 February 2014.
At the end he states the following:

"A supply-constrained approach will not be applicable if China falters, US short term latent demand is sated, and oil supply growth is robust."

So, as it turns out, the Oil Market is indeed Demand Constrained.