'Palm' pid='25716' datel Wrote:People may also want to read up and consider what the title of Operator means for Exxon in conjunction with the power of the government. Santos and OSH need to be treated fairly in bringing in IOC, but they also have to consider what consequences trying to be a roadblock in the process means for their own futures in PNG. Exxon has significant power and influence as owner AND operator; a fair deal will be presented and the other partners will be foolish to not go along with the plan.
All this discussion about a non-issue floated by a Citi eport author is unecessary. OSH and Santos and the other PNG LNG JV partners cannot block IOC gas from fuelling PNG LNG expansion. There is also no economic reason they would even try. PNG LNG will be expanded with or without JV partner participation.
From Wood Mackenzie write-up a couple of weeks ago.
|
* XOM has a number of options to bring E/A gas into PNG LNG, these include: 1) Revised unitisation agreement with XOM increasing it's interest in the project 2) Existing unitisation extended to cover E/A, with the partners reimbursing XOM 3) Tolling agreement, where XOM pays a fee to liquefy E/A gas through PNG LNG * These options would allow all partners to benefit from expanding the existing project. However, the level of reward available may depend on each partner's ability to commit to the sizeable investment required to expand the project. * PNG LNG expansion appears to be XOM highest LNG priority. Perhaps more than Gorgon expansion, Scarborough FLNG, NA shale plays, far eastern Russia and East Africa |