03-19-2014, 04:41 AM
'Palm' pid='39367' datel Wrote:This licensing I think shows how O'Neill and NEC see development in the future. Note that the "strategic" designation is very important because it means infrastructure and things like CSPs are to built for use by aggregated resources. This shows how serious they are about maximizing plants/infrastructure to minimize investment and maximize cash flow. IOC's license corridor development likely will have different players owning PRLs but sharing "strategic" licenses. If you look at what Eaglwood says, they have two PRLs (PRL 28 and PRL 21) which have different players (except for Mitsubishi), but they will share a CSP and pipeline under terms to be worked out. It could be that that type of discussion is going on now between IOC, Total, OSH and Exxon with the government holding the "heavy" of strategic licenses over their heads.
I don't think there will be that kind of shared infrastructure involved with PRL 15, and I do not think Exxon is involved in the discussions on it now, just IOC, Total, and the government, and maybe OSH on the periphery, with nothing hanging over their heads, except perhaps unneeded urgings to "get it done".