Posts: 1,080
Threads: 26
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
137
12-31-2015, 02:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-31-2015, 02:24 PM by Tusker.)
(12-31-2015, 05:05 AM)ArtM72 Wrote:
(12-30-2015, 10:52 PM)jft310 Wrote:
The Basis of Design is per the press full speed ahead thus Ant 7 gas is not a determinant of train size since the well has not even been approved yet .
Are there any news releases or authoritative sources that give examples of how the "Basis of Design" is "full speed ahead". Examples might be contracts, HOAs, MOUs or other similar vehicles with companies outside the JV. I have to thinki at least they know the unit size to be installed for layout to begin in order to generate probable cost.
On second thought, maybe not. A unit size decision having already been made might influence someone's buy/sell decision thus be material. So it couldn't be material. So confusing.
MH please help. You're our only hope. MH please help. You're our only hope. MH please help. You're our only hope.
Are there any news....
Got $15B USD for Yamal?
Tusker
Posts: 8,568
Threads: 1,342
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
380
12-31-2015, 11:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-31-2015, 11:28 PM by jft310.)
Art - newspaper article from the Dec 11 2015 Downstream Energy posted on these boards states Total is full blown working on basis of design . Bumped the article up for you .. That's my source .
Posts: 2,623
Threads: 61
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
225
01-05-2016, 09:00 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2016, 09:20 AM by Getitrt2.)
(12-30-2015, 10:52 PM)jft310 Wrote:
Getitrt2 dateline='<a href="tel:1451431589">1451431589</a>' Wrote:
[quote='jft310' pid='65575' dateline='1451398743'] Getit=disagree if they find more gas before their appraisal process within PRL-15 is complete then Oil Search pays more.Thus OIl Search would not want to start on Ant 7 before their deal is complete with PACLNG. Oil Search has zero incentive right now to approve Ant 7. Since we have enough gas for a two train then Total would be best served to defer Ant 7 so any gas found with required payment would roll into the second appraisal.Additional gas helps with trains above two. Hession would love to receive more money on this first payment but has not convinced the others . Been talking about it for months but no approval yet. Easy to see why no approval yet.
What are you basing that on about Ant 7, why do you say that? I have not gone back to verify it, but I seem to recall OSH projecting its certification in the April timeframe. If Ant 7 were to be spud tomorrow, which it certainly will not even if approved tomorrow, it would not provide adequate information in time for that. IOC does not require OSH approval, just Total's, and Total potentially could use more information for properly sizing the trains, whether two or three, and to better understand the project potential
Getit - Oil Search has moved their certification to June/July 2016 . Any gas found within PRL 15 they must pay for . So Ant 7 doesn't get a positive call till after closing the sale with PACLNG. If then . In 6 months Interoil has not received Ant 7 approval . Why would Oil Search vote to pay more to PACLNG ????
The Basis of Design is per the press full speed ahead thus Ant 7 gas is not a determinant of train size since the well has not even been approved yet .
jft, where are you getting that supposed June/July OSH certification change and "any gas found" claim? As far as I know the OSH/Pac LNG agreement has not been released, but I would certainly think it provides for what the certifications will be based on and processing time frames, which would not appear to provide for an Ant 7, whether drilled or not. IOC does not need an Oil Search vote to approve an A7, although I am not predicting such an approval but would not be surprised.
They can use any information in the BOD they so choose.
Thanks for the "Upstream" article.
Posts: 2,505
Threads: 219
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
109
'Getitrt2' pid='65692' datel Wrote:
'jft310' pid='65598' datel Wrote:
'Getitrt2' pid='65591' dateline='<a href="tel:1451431 Wrote:
[quote='jft310' pid='65575' dateline='1451398743'] Getit=disagree if they find more gas before their appraisal process within PRL-15 is complete then Oil Search pays more.Thus OIl Search would not want to start on Ant 7 before their deal is complete with PACLNG. Oil Search has zero incentive right now to approve Ant 7. Since we have enough gas for a two train then Total would be best served to defer Ant 7 so any gas found with required payment would roll into the second appraisal.Additional gas helps with trains above two. Hession would love to receive more money on this first payment but has not convinced the others . Been talking about it for months but no approval yet. Easy to see why no approval yet.
What are you basing that on about Ant 7, why do you say that? I have not gone back to verify it, but I seem to recall OSH projecting its certification in the April timeframe. If Ant 7 were to be spud tomorrow, which it certainly will not even if approved tomorrow, it would not provide adequate information in time for that. IOC does not require OSH approval, just Total's, and Total potentially could use more information for properly sizing the trains, whether two or three, and to better understand the project potential
Getit - Oil Search has moved their certification to June/July 2016 . Any gas found within PRL 15 they must pay for . So Ant 7 doesn't get a positive call till after closing the sale with PACLNG. If then . In 6 months Interoil has not received Ant 7 approval . Why would Oil Search vote to pay more to PACLNG ????
The Basis of Design is per the press full speed ahead thus Ant 7 gas is not a determinant of train size since the well has not even been approved yet .
jft, where are you getting that supposed June/July OSH certification change and "any gas found" claim? As far as I know the OSH/Pac LNG agreement has not been released, but I would certainly think it provides for what the certifications will be based on and processing time frames, which would not appear to provide for an Ant 7, whether drilled or not. IOC does not need an Oil Search vote to approve an A7, although I am not predicting such an approval but would not be surprised.
They can use any information in the BOD they so choose.
In the Q3 update OSH said that their certification payment to PAC would be based on A6 results.
Posts: 2,623
Threads: 61
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
225
'Putncalls' pid='65693' datel Wrote:
'Getitrt2' pid='65692' datel Wrote:
'jft310' pid='65598' datel Wrote:
'Getitrt2' pid='65591' dateline='<a href="tel:1451431 Wrote:
[quote='jft310' pid='65575' dateline='1451398743'] Getit=disagree if they find more gas before their appraisal process within PRL-15 is complete then Oil Search pays more.Thus OIl Search would not want to start on Ant 7 before their deal is complete with PACLNG. Oil Search has zero incentive right now to approve Ant 7. Since we have enough gas for a two train then Total would be best served to defer Ant 7 so any gas found with required payment would roll into the second appraisal.Additional gas helps with trains above two. Hession would love to receive more money on this first payment but has not convinced the others . Been talking about it for months but no approval yet. Easy to see why no approval yet.
What are you basing that on about Ant 7, why do you say that? I have not gone back to verify it, but I seem to recall OSH projecting its certification in the April timeframe. If Ant 7 were to be spud tomorrow, which it certainly will not even if approved tomorrow, it would not provide adequate information in time for that. IOC does not require OSH approval, just Total's, and Total potentially could use more information for properly sizing the trains, whether two or three, and to better understand the project potential
Getit - Oil Search has moved their certification to June/July 2016 . Any gas found within PRL 15 they must pay for . So Ant 7 doesn't get a positive call till after closing the sale with PACLNG. If then . In 6 months Interoil has not received Ant 7 approval . Why would Oil Search vote to pay more to PACLNG ????
The Basis of Design is per the press full speed ahead thus Ant 7 gas is not a determinant of train size since the well has not even been approved yet .
jft, where are you getting that supposed June/July OSH certification change and "any gas found" claim? As far as I know the OSH/Pac LNG agreement has not been released, but I would certainly think it provides for what the certifications will be based on and processing time frames, which would not appear to provide for an Ant 7, whether drilled or not. IOC does not need an Oil Search vote to approve an A7, although I am not predicting such an approval but would not be surprised.
They can use any information in the BOD they so choose.
In the Q3 update OSH said that their certification payment to PAC would be based on A6 results.
If so, that should take care of any concern about an A7, which those resource engineers could not use.
Posts: 8,568
Threads: 1,342
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
380
Getit PACLNG would take issue with your statement as would their lawyers . Or it gets complicated . Thus the no vote from Oil Search so far no well no results to pay out on . Same with Total no well no pay out so far .
Posts: 2,505
Threads: 219
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
109
Why does JFT assume a no vote from OSH? A no vote from IOC is good for shareholders but is it good for the Doctor?
Posts: 8,568
Threads: 1,342
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
380
Been 6 months with no approved of well at 7 . When IR is asked they say not approved yet . Doesn't mean it doesn't happen . Appears to be getting late in the game to include 7 and a summer payment . If they cut a deal for TBR the extra dollars are not as important .
Hession is quoted as saying 6 is last appraisal well see quote above this thread . Oil Search says July payment with 6 as last well before appraisal from their 3rd quarter slides on this board .
Not looking good for 7 .
|
