Thanks for posting those excerpts, petrengr1. Here is my effort at a corrected version:
"The PNG LNG project construction is currently 88% complete and is achieving project milestones towards a 2014 startup.
Commissioning activities for the first train at the LNG plant are ongoing while construction activities for the second train continue. Progress also continues at the Hides gas conditioning plant for equipment including gas turbine generators and utility systems that’s being received and installed. We are also advancing expansion opportunities, including negotiations with InterOil Corporation and Pacific LNG on the future development of the Elk/ Antelope resource. Major terms have already been agreed, and should negotiations successfully conclude, Exxon Mobil is proposing that 4.6 TCF of the gas resource from the Elk/Antelope field be used to underpin the construction of an additional train at the PNG LNG project site, subject to partner and government agreement.
Evan Calio - Morgan Stanley.
My first question is on PNG. I mean it’s clearly a differentiated position for Exxon. I know you discussed your negotiations required for additional supply and you picked up some exploration acreage in the quarter, but could you discuss how additional expansion trains compare within your portfolio versus other projects that I know you have reviewed globally. And additionally with trains one and two I think there were five years from FID to expected first gas. I would presume expansion trains could be much faster than that. And then based upon the availability of gas, does Exxon envision replicating a (inaudible) style development here of a train per type of a concept. I have a follow up.
David Rosenthal
Yeah, let me kind of start at the back of your question first. Clearly as would be true of our project, once you’ve got all the facilities in play, the pipelines, the capacity, the trains, the utilities, all the common facilities, any addition is typically going to be quicker and have quite attractive incremental economics. So I wouldn’t want to give a specific time frame on an additional train at Papua New Guineau beginning, other than to say we have plenty of land space there, we have plenty of infrastructure. So we certainly have the ability to as rapidly as possible expand that facility over the course of the next few years, and we do have a number of opportunities for gas. We mentioned the InterOil discussions are going on, we have had some success in exploration recently in P’nyang South, and we have got some other exploration opportunities in the area. So we are optimistic on that.
In terms of relative economics of Papua New Guinea versus other projects, I wouldn’t want to give any specific comparisons or numbers other than to say we do view that project as quite attractive for us; and we certainly look forward to bringing forward some expansion opportunities and continuing to improve further on those economics.
And we go to Pavel Molchanov with Raymond James.
Thanks for taking my question. First just a quick one on PNG LNG. Any sense of when you’re looking to make a decision on project expansion on (inaudible - train three?)?
David Rosenthal
No, I really don’t have an outlook on that. We’re still in the commercial discussion on the potential for expansion. So until those are concluded it would be difficult to give any forward guidance on timing after that, other than we’re working on it, and if those negotiations are successfully concluded, we’ll be in a better position to talk about the going forward time frame."
NOTE: Further revised after reviewing Seeking Alpha version.
"The PNG LNG project construction is currently 88% complete and is achieving project milestones towards a 2014 startup.
Commissioning activities for the first train at the LNG plant are ongoing while construction activities for the second train continue. Progress also continues at the Hides gas conditioning plant for equipment including gas turbine generators and utility systems that’s being received and installed. We are also advancing expansion opportunities, including negotiations with InterOil Corporation and Pacific LNG on the future development of the Elk/ Antelope resource. Major terms have already been agreed, and should negotiations successfully conclude, Exxon Mobil is proposing that 4.6 TCF of the gas resource from the Elk/Antelope field be used to underpin the construction of an additional train at the PNG LNG project site, subject to partner and government agreement.
Evan Calio - Morgan Stanley.
My first question is on PNG. I mean it’s clearly a differentiated position for Exxon. I know you discussed your negotiations required for additional supply and you picked up some exploration acreage in the quarter, but could you discuss how additional expansion trains compare within your portfolio versus other projects that I know you have reviewed globally. And additionally with trains one and two I think there were five years from FID to expected first gas. I would presume expansion trains could be much faster than that. And then based upon the availability of gas, does Exxon envision replicating a (inaudible) style development here of a train per type of a concept. I have a follow up.
David Rosenthal
Yeah, let me kind of start at the back of your question first. Clearly as would be true of our project, once you’ve got all the facilities in play, the pipelines, the capacity, the trains, the utilities, all the common facilities, any addition is typically going to be quicker and have quite attractive incremental economics. So I wouldn’t want to give a specific time frame on an additional train at Papua New Guineau beginning, other than to say we have plenty of land space there, we have plenty of infrastructure. So we certainly have the ability to as rapidly as possible expand that facility over the course of the next few years, and we do have a number of opportunities for gas. We mentioned the InterOil discussions are going on, we have had some success in exploration recently in P’nyang South, and we have got some other exploration opportunities in the area. So we are optimistic on that.
In terms of relative economics of Papua New Guinea versus other projects, I wouldn’t want to give any specific comparisons or numbers other than to say we do view that project as quite attractive for us; and we certainly look forward to bringing forward some expansion opportunities and continuing to improve further on those economics.
And we go to Pavel Molchanov with Raymond James.
Thanks for taking my question. First just a quick one on PNG LNG. Any sense of when you’re looking to make a decision on project expansion on (inaudible - train three?)?
David Rosenthal
No, I really don’t have an outlook on that. We’re still in the commercial discussion on the potential for expansion. So until those are concluded it would be difficult to give any forward guidance on timing after that, other than we’re working on it, and if those negotiations are successfully concluded, we’ll be in a better position to talk about the going forward time frame."
NOTE: Further revised after reviewing Seeking Alpha version.