'admin' pid='72432' datel Wrote:Irrelevant. His argument is irrelevant. It lacks context of a very high probability of IOC current reality as I laid out. His argument is based on assuming 10.2 T and that we are getting screwed and in fact, it may just be that it's the absolute best IOC can do in view of realities we will not admit or know about. When cert #s come in much lower than 10.2 then Hession is vindicated. The lower the #, the less life IOC has. IOC would not be able meet exploration obligations to hold leases. As time would pass our next and final offers would be much lower.Just because you claim it is irrelevant doesn't necessarily make it so. IOC's current reality is that we have a deal with TOT, under which they are liable to a whole range of stuff, which they have wiggled out of under the new arrangement, the takeover of IOC by OSH and dividing the spoils with TOT.
WIthout the new arrangement the old arrangement stands.
The whole idea of this seems driven by the realization of both OSH and TOT that they are liable for large sums of contingent pay if the certification comes up high.
Everything we've learned from the last three years of appraisal has increased that possibility.
Your fallacy is assuming TOT/OSH lacked a very clear and accurate view of volumes in E/A in 2013/Jan 14 when they bought in. They crafted an upside deal with IOC and PacLNG happily agreeing to buy more chap gas if there was proven to be more cheap gas. Same posters back then, griped about being ripped off at the $/M in the deal and that TOT/OSH based size on ~6.2 T. You and Pet now telling us TOT/OSH wouldnt want much more 'cheap' gas to ship JP/SK?? That's absurd. The more gas the better, if it's cheap and can be sold at profit.
I can see it now....Re-cert # is 7.7 TCF and you guys will cry we're ripped off again! Admit it or not the whole marked fell for Phil's lies of $/MCF deal options he had in his pocket and potentially the size of what he's been claiming.