'Ass0ciatedPress' pid='22965' datel Wrote:
'CesiumFormate' pid='22962' dateline='<a href="tel:1369397 Wrote:I believe that there is a good chance that IOC will never build a plant. The next best step will be to monetize Triceratops with Oil Search / Total. Who needs the stress and risk of the LNG plant? Leave that to the big boys. CFthis may be the reason Phil decided to retire. If IOC is not going to proceed with building a LNG plant and instead will sell gas before liquefaction we will in essence be leaving a lot on the table. This comment is not to say that we will not be profitable but thoughts of $14-15 gas in the Asia market should be dispelled.
There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.
Well, if we would sell all of our gas to Exxon, you had a point. I'm not sure how many T's are needed for 20 years single train Exxon extension, it also depends on what IOC, and indeed OilSearch is going to find more.
This is basically the gambit scenario I was hoping for, we sell part of the E/A gas for somewhat elevated in the ground prices (Exxon can pay up until OilSearch marginal gas cost), we don't have to fund any plant (at least not yet, we might very well have our own plant in the future), we get near instand Fid, resource bookings, and as JFT has suggested, it will be interesting to see what happens to the liquids.
This derisks much of it, Chandler was buying for a reason. This isn't the end of the story, not by a long shot. The gambit scenario involves conceding on E/A selldown in order to derisk and enable accelerated exploration, I think we get that with this, if concluded successfully.