Palm, ALL of this is obviously of great interest, but it does not seem appropriate to me to be underlining the last unattributed statement by the author of the article, with the resulting de-emphasis of the actual statements and quote from Total:
'Total would not comment on whether it was open to processing the gas at PNG LNG.
"Our acquisition of those significant discovered resources is an opportunity to develop a new gas production and liquefaction hub in the Asia-Pacific region, where gas demand is very dynamic," the spokesman said.'
We have indication from elsewhere that Hession and Total have expressed an intent to appropriately modify the SPA and proceed as previously planned with respect to PRL 15. What concrete reason is there to believe that they are likely to change direction and sell that gas to PNG LNG? Why would the PNG government not want to have Total proceed to build a second LNG project as soon as possible, with potential for expansion of TWO projects from additional PNG gas?
'Total would not comment on whether it was open to processing the gas at PNG LNG.
"Our acquisition of those significant discovered resources is an opportunity to develop a new gas production and liquefaction hub in the Asia-Pacific region, where gas demand is very dynamic," the spokesman said.'
We have indication from elsewhere that Hession and Total have expressed an intent to appropriately modify the SPA and proceed as previously planned with respect to PRL 15. What concrete reason is there to believe that they are likely to change direction and sell that gas to PNG LNG? Why would the PNG government not want to have Total proceed to build a second LNG project as soon as possible, with potential for expansion of TWO projects from additional PNG gas?