(07-29-2014, 11:31 PM)jdeo1969 Wrote: I understand that tree. I was pointing to what viable expansion exists, and they reference our gas. It was on reference to what would make sense.
After following IOC in PNG for many years, any of us in that category would hesitate to rule anything out as a "possibility", but you are arguing for E/A gas now going to PNG LNG as a "viable" option or even a better and preferable direction for IOC, and so far have NOTHING factual or rational to support that, just wild speculation and wishful thinking about the great (but nonexistent) deal you (and most of us) thought IOC was going to get from Exxon in December. Tree is spot on about the Citi report, on OSH only, you reference above. It provides NOTHING to support your argument as you claim. They did NOT "reference our gas" for PNG LNG expansion. "It was on reference to what would make sense", as you say, actually most sense from a cost viewpoint, for an LNG project or expansion thereof in a generic sense, but NOT as a sensible option now for expansion of PNG LNG now from IOC's viewpoint. For PNG LNG expansion they "reference" only Hides and P'nyang. IMHO, it is time for you to DROP THIS and look forward on what is really happening and what are really viable options or "possibilities", especially what really might be best for your investment in IOC AND viable. Constantly and repeatedly looking back and second guessing management on this can do no good now, and maybe do harm, especially without any real support.
I will say, imo, the Citi comments are not very well written, and as a result can easily cause confusion, for example where they reference Hides and "a 2 train Antelope" (which is obviously not a PNG LNG expansion) in the same sentence in which they subsequently refer to "T3 cost synergies". They also say there that "most other gas resources (other than Hides and a 2 train Antelope) are costwise "less attractive" and "marginal" without mentioning P'nyang, and yet that statement is under a heading, "PNG gas cost curve supports expansion from Hides/P'nyang/Antelope only", subsequent to which they state, "we expect Train 3 sanction will require both Hides GWC upside and P’nyang", sort of contradicting themselves on P'nyang. Then they say that beyond resources at Hides, P'nyang, and Antelope they think other (unnamed) "resources are marginal to develop as expansion (T4)". T4? Definitely confusing. I think probably the thing to understand here is they are commenting mostly on the relative costs of developing different gas sources in PNG for LNG.