'ArtM72' pid='25858' datel Wrote:This entire argument becomes somewhat more constrained if you accept at face value Jasper's comment the pipeline can handle three units and a second pipeline will be necessary for four. To me that makes EA the third train source with the decision on 4th and beyond pending the results of future drilling.
Art, I am no expert in this area but maybe this is worth thinking about.
From what I have read, LNG is sold via long term contract under a very tight heat content rating. ie: a tight fixed ratio or ethane to methane depending upon the original gas source.
If a shipment of LNG is made outside this band, then penalties apply to that shipment.
If the IOC gas is not close enough in this gas ratio with the gas that will be coming from the OSH side down the pipeline, and is already contracted for in trains 1 and 2, then there is little probability that the IOC gas will also be mixed and transported in that same pipetine unless the terms of purchase can be some how altered.
The other concern is one of train design.
As we all know, there are many different gas contaminants (eg: CO2 etc) that can vary greatly from one gas source to another (even between neighbouring gas finds at times)
Train 1 and 2 are already designed and nearly built to handle the OSH side gas.
Should the IOC gas be significantly better or worse in this quality then once again, what are the real chances of the IOC and the OSH gas being mixed in the same pipeline and finding its way to trains that are not designed for it?
From what I suspect, there could be a posibility that the IOC gas may require its own feed pipeline and LNG storage tank at the PNGLNG site with its individual contracted uptake parties. Can anyone comment on the validity of this?