[quote='.........So it does look like Elk-Antelope has a very high probability of being used at the PNGLNG site. If I interpret what is written in that document correctly (???) it is looking like the PRL 15 gas may not be actually a direct part of the PNGLNG partners operation, but may be some sort of special agreement (process or adjacent construction) add on operation. Do others get the impression that maybe IOC and XOM may be doing an independent partnership agreement for that gas and therefore the impression that IOC may get a slice of the first 2 trains at PNGLNG is not a probable event? Or am I just misreading the OSH document? [/quote]
Hey syd,
Your take is a possibility with this explanation.
Wood Mckenzie laid out XOM's options to integrate EA gas into PNG LNG Project:
|
* 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 |
To participate in expansion train #3, PNG LNG Project partners would be required to ante up a sizeable amount of capital. Will they, can they? It's possible that IOC/XOM alone do have an independent deal for expansion and will process the gas under a tolling agreement with existing PNG LNG project partners. My view, this is remote as incentive is great for existing PNG LNG partners to participate in expansion.
Could be the following quote from OSH presentation is referring to a 'seprate project' which is IOC/XOM agreement separate from the existing PNG LNG project agreement partners which will process gas at PNG LNG. How else can E/A gas utilise existing PNG LNG infrastructure if PNG LNG partners are not involved in expansion?
|
# Alternatively, PRL 15 resources may be developed independently of PNG LNG as separate project which may still utilise existing PNG LNG infrastructure |