New Oil Search slide on IOC/XOM agreement

[sydbod]

Oil Search also wrote on slide 25, “Potential third party gas could result in further LNG expansion”, obviously referring to gas from InterOil’s PRL 15.  Recall that InterOil’s stock tanked upon the publication of a misleading report by the Citi analyst covering Oil Search, as he alluded to the PNG LNG partners’ required approval of the use of gas from PRL 15 being a potential obstacle to InterOil’s SPA closure with Exxon.  Well, that certainly is not the case.

Now you are making up things ......

Quote:If the deal is concluded, and if appraisal confirms sufficient resource, then how
would the gas be brought into the PNG LNG JV? We understand that the PNG
LNG JV partners have veto rights over bringing non-JV gas into the JV, and that
unanimous agreement is required.

How would alignment be obtained with the PNG LNG JV partners? There are many
potential scenarios. In our view, one simple way to gain alignment would be for
Exxon to offer the JV partners (Oil Search, Santos, JX Nippon) farm-in rights to the
Elk/Antelope reserves at similar terms to Exxon's acquisition price and to offer the
same % stake to each JV partner as they hold in the foundation project.

There is no mention of potential obstical as you put it.

There is only a mention of ways that the deal CAN be executed.

Please stay with the facts  as you are misleading people.

Regards sydbod.

So, you don't believe that the JV partners having veto power over bringing non-JV gas into PNG LNG is a "potential obstacle" to doing so??? I'd like to see an explanation of that line of thinking.

I believe that anything that has the power to say "NO" is a potential obstacle.

Where did I say that????? have a closer look at what I posted.

I disagree with the statement " as he alluded to the PNG LNG partners’ required approval of the use of gas from PRL 15 being a potential obstacle to InterOil’s SPA closure with Exxon"

The analyst said nothing of the sort.

The analyst said that although "We understand that the PNGLNG JV partners have veto rights over bringing non-JV gas into the JV, and that unanimous agreement is required " he elaborated on this with " In our view, one simple way to gain alignment would be for Exxon to offer the JV partners (Oil Search, Santos, JX Nippon) farm-in rights to the Elk/Antelope reserves at similar terms to Exxon's acquisition price and to offer the same % stake to each JV partner as they hold in the foundation project ".

Nowhere did the analyst say that it was a "potential obstacle to InterOil’s SPA closure with Exxon" . Or even implied it. If anything, the analyst implied that it should NOT be a significant obstical as there are so many ways around it.