03-18-2014, 05:00 AM
'Brew Swillis' pid='39321' 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.
I would suggest taking off your IOC-colored glasses and putting on a PNG-colored pair.
Amen, Brews...Dec 6, 2013 a date that will live in infamy for IOC supporters, best to learn from it!