Posts: 8,568
Threads: 1,342
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
380
Quote WA all bidders are using GLJ. Not sure call and ask him. The GCA numbers were updated after the last well year end 2012. The original GCA estimate which only 9 pages were published stated in the undisclosed part that IOC would have 8 plus T's after more drilling was their estimate. Source WS analyst. Both reports stated IOC had sufficient NG for 8 mtpa plant. Thats two trains. And this ignores the condensates and IOC owns a refinery. How many persons are including condensate production at 30,000 barrels a day. Best to revise up those estimates. The govt only takes 50% if IOC doesn't chose a Super Major. We have reports of 3 SM'S. Why not chose a SM ??
The mistake retail investors make is they sell to soon and count their cash pile.
The purpose of this thread is to make persons focus on 30 years of LNG production and the condensate production. Many unknowns today . But the last full Morgan report had IOC's NAV at $235. Macquire was $215, RJ at $100 before the deal and Westlake $115 before the deal. All will put out full reports after the deal to explain the deal and give targets. One needs to read and understand before pulling the trigger. Part of the stocks move up will come post the FID.
Posts: 8,568
Threads: 1,342
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
380
YAHOO pickboone • 11 minutes ago Flag
2users liked this postsusers disliked this posts0Reply
Next Stage
There's been a slew of evidence in the past couple weeks that makes it clear the biggest majors are in a battle for Elk/Antelope. Most skeptics didn't believe this were possible.
The next stage that I'm anticipating is leaks on pricing unless of course a deal were announced in the next few days. Those who believe that there is any discrepancy in the size of the resource the majors are estimating should review InterOil's last presentation. It seems that even GCA is now aligned with GLJ, and once again, I expect the skeptics to be very surprised by the value of the deal terms.
Posts: 708
Threads: 135
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation:
77
I would love to hear some "pricing leaks" !!!
Seems strange that the IOC stock volumes are so low....
Posts: 2,623
Threads: 61
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
225
I don't believe IOC has made its final partner selection, although I think it has narrowed to what you might call finalists. There are strong indications that there is something of a bidding war going on between the finalists which is extending things some, an extremely positive thing for the Company in the final analysis. They are not going to rush things too much while the price and terms are improving. I can understand that, but I also am getting really tired of waiting.
I do think we may get a new CEO sooner than many think, since I hear the process of recruiting an experienced industry executive from outside is well along.
I disagree with bam in that I think E/A and the related certified resource amounts are the "anchor" for negotiations, and that "$/mcf" is a key ingredient. Of course, the sell down deal is actually for PRL 15, which includes other prospects; and I agree it may go beyond even that and/or involve multiple partners. I don't think they are "negotiating" over how much gas there is.
Posts: 190
Threads: 10
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation:
46
Good question Movie. I cannot (will not) cite specific deals, but can say that I have worked a few in similar type countries/similar political challenges: and this one is relatively lengthy. A bit of blame to go around. On one hand, the sell down effort didn't really start until the NEC approved a 3.8 mtpa plant late last year; but on the other, IOC pushed its own agenda well beyond Q4 2011 when it first "engaged" with international banks to find an acceptable operator (In fact, I'd argue Phil was pushing a "more control" strategy for quite some time...and agree with Gator, that there is more on his departure than we will ever know.). On one hand, the political situation was very difficult to navigate until the Prime Minister was made official in July? 2012. On the other, IOC didnt' take advantage of the less sophisticated PNG setup...meaning if IOC had fully switched its strategy to sell down earlier, I believe the deal would have been done months or years ago. i.e. the stock drop from 99 back to the 50's in 2012 was the stocks indication that a delay had occured (and it was right).
I'm assuming the subsurface work done by interested bidders confirmed the GLJ/GCA range of recoverable resources. That is a big IF. All companies will do their own subsurface work and from a timing perspective it takes 1 month minimum...2 months time to do the work..which puts us probably end January 2013 before this was done...
Overall, it doesn't really matter, as those days are behind us (I hope). But the company has made mistakes here...and they have cost shareholders time and value.
Bam - regarding $/MCF target. I agree with you. The language in the deal announcmet and details of terms will require a lot of analysis to acurately assess the net present value of the deal. Not simple.
Posts: 8,568
Threads: 1,342
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
380
I heard the new CEO is from outside IOC. Experienced in LNG project start to operation. Taru has good sources and may be onto
something with the major promoting someone.
I was told yesterday that Exxon needed NG and IOC had the only available NG. Exxon needs a 3rd and 4th Train. Exxon involved in some
manner.
Not to say Shell couldn't be the partner with a module of NG sold to Exxon to bridge them until they find their own NG.
IOC has plenty of NG for their project, and to help Exxon and to power up all the PNG gov't needs for the next 20 years.
More than 1 SM involved insures future success.
At $1 per mcf IOC will double in price and at $2 it quadruples so reality might the mid point. Plenty of money to drill and pay their pro
rata share of the LNG plant.
