'Libtardius Maximus' pid='39316' datel Wrote:
'Getitrt2' pid='39313' datel Wrote:I can't believe this debate over Exxon vs Total with respect to PRL 15 keeps popping up, even in a thread for an RJ report predicting a close with Total. As far as I am concerned, we have an extremely intelligent, experienced, and competent CEO who has thoroughly evaluated the best proposals of Exxon and Total and decisively selected Total's, in conjunction with on-going consultations with the government, and that is good enough for me. Furthermore, however, what I have learned and evaluated in conjunction with that from all sources pro and con seem to back that up. Without some significant change from Total and/or Exxon, I don't see any reason why there is any debate left on PRL 15 at this time. On one point, as I have discussed elsewhere people keep referring to "sooner cash flow from a PNG LNG third train", even though MS puts that at four years. They should be saying "operating cash flow", because much sooner cash flow comes from the fixed and resource payments from Total, which are apparently greater than Exxon was willing to offer. I might add that, as I have also discussed elsewhere, according to the Feb 27 MS report on OSH, Exxon and OSH are currently focused on developing and evaluating Hides, P'nyang, etc. as sources for PNG LNG train 3. If there is any worthwhile debate left, barring circumstance changes as indicated above, I think it arises from other gas from Triceratops, new discoveries (likely, imo), or perhaps certification of much larger amounts than expected in PRL 15; and I think that debate would be on expansion of either or both when of the two LNG facilities, a debate I would love to enjoy. The first two of those sources have also been cited by our CEO as possible sources for PNG LNG.Getirt,
While you have made your point over and over why is it so hard for you to come to the reality that there really is no deal with TOT at this time. The promise is there but a signed deal is not. One of the stipulations of the IOC/TOT SPA was for IOC to buy out IPI. Did that happen? Nope. So as I see it and others here as well, we have no agreement at this time. Some here are trying to float XOM entering the picture ( Include me in this group) and a scant few are pulling for the wild card to emerge ( I favor this one). There has never been a better time to own IOC than right now. No IPI, Duma, PNG government in support, drilling, low cost gas, terms of winning bid known. We have been told for years that there is huge interest in IOC finds and licenses. I for one favor letting the competition play out in full view of shareholders. Remember, Hession stated on his 40% off cc in December that it was competitive to the very end. This may strike you as strange, but this is not over. Not until a deal is signed and money changes hands. If someone else wants EA more than TOT than I support that. Next up for IOC shareholders is a cc which is overdue. I hope there is some good news involving more than what we already know.
*********
I agree, Lib. We have no deal right now.
And the truth is we don't really know why IOC "chose" Total. Of course it could be just because TOT offered more up front money than XOM (as GetIt speculates). But it could also be for a variety of other reason which may or may not have changed. Maybe there was a desire from OSH not to relinquich ownership of the existing plant to IOC...which could have changed with their IPI purchase. Maybe there was political pressure from PNG (Duma) to build a new plant which has now lessened. Maybe XOM "called IOC's bluff" while negotiating but is now willing to step-up their offer when faced with a more daunting/real prospect of losing out on E/A. I could see it going either way...and just to stir the pot a little more...where the heck is Shell while all of this is going on?