I posted the following response to what I considered some distortions by bonk in a posting under "Now it is September...". Anyone see any problems with it?
"And you, bonk, need to stop picking and twisting details and incomplete quotes, with or without Jim Beam, to present your distorted version. Let's start with the complete quote: "The proposed transaction would monetize sufficient resource to cover our share of infrastructure costs and fund exploration while retaining maximum upside for IOC EQUITY INTERESTS. Post-negotiations, InterOil and Pacific LNG have clear path to resource monetization. InterOil believes the best strategy to develop its resources is a dual-development path; which includes EMPNG at its PNG LNG facility, and an LNG facility in the Gulf Province." They obviously feel like they are getting an excellent combination of up front cash and financing and long-term participation and payments with "maximum upside". What more could we ask for?
One thing obvious from those attending and consulting at the AGM, is that XOM is in a hurry to get this done and get on with it, as is IOC, and that PRL 15 gas is almost certain to be in train 3 or 4. It is absurd to say XOM would want to depend on P'yang, which is even more remote and costly than Hides, much less the much closer and developed and certified PRL 15, to "be casually developed over the next years". Furthermore, PRL15, PPL 237, etc. of IOC's represent potential gas for additional future trains for PNG LNG. A second undersea pipeline from there would feed a total of six trains. You are right in that trains 3 and 4 could be cost effectively built together with IOC and OSH, IF OSH can provide enough gas on a timely and cost effective basis, which is not certain at this point.
By the way, there will be cash payments not just "after the recert", but well before, to make that clear. Anyone who doubts that should read the available information. We will know a lot more soon!"