Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Petroleum Economist
#1


Toocents posted this on yahoo.


anyone have the rest of the article ,interesting


Petroleum Economist


ExxonMobil expands LNG footprint

Damon Evans, BRISBANE: ExxonMobil is on track to expand its $19 billion Papua New Guinea liquefied natural gas (PNG LNG) project, and, separately, to take a final investment decision on what would be the world’s largest floating LNG (FLNG) plant off Australia. 

The US supermajor is primed to at least double its two-train 6.9 million tonne per year (t/y) PNG LNG export project if exclusive negotiations to use InterOil’s Elk and Antelope gas resources as feedstock prove successful. 

ExxonMobil’s head for Middle East and Australia, Mark Nolan, told reporters that the size of the resource, now estimated at between 4 trillion and 5 trillion cubic feet, will determine the size of the expansion. Analysts believe the

Reply

#2

03 June 2013

 

 
Damon Evans, BRISBANE: ExxonMobil is on track to expand its $19 billion Papua New Guinea liquefied natural gas (PNG LNG) project, and, separately, to take a final investment decision on what would be the world’s largest floating LNG (FLNG) plant off Australia.

The US supermajor is primed to at least double its two-train 6.9 million tonne per year (t/y) PNG LNG export project if exclusive negotiations to use InterOil’s Elk and Antelope gas resources as feedstock prove successful.

ExxonMobil’s head for Middle East and Australia, Mark Nolan, told reporters that the size of the resource, now estimated at between 4 trillion and 5 trillion cubic feet, will determine the size of the expansion. Analysts believe the Elk-Antelope gas could underpin at least one LNG processing train. As part of the agreement more drilling will be carried out to fully appraise and certify the fields.

PNG LNG is 80% complete and due to start up next year. ExxonMobil and its partners, Santos and Oil Search, are currently considering other expansion options, with a decision on a third train expected soon.

Drilling of the highly prospective new petroleum system in the Gulf of Papua could provide feedstock for a fourth, and, potentially, a fifth train.

Speaking to reporters at the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association’s annual conference, Nolan said that it was yet to be decided how the InterOil gas fields would fit in with the possibility of a third or fourth train.

“Where all that comes together and how much we expand, I’m not sure,” he said.

He added “the expansion options look attractive to us, so I wouldn’t expect we wait too long”.

Canadian independent Interoil said it would still have the option of either developing a second LNG project in the Gulf Province using gas from licence PRL-15 – home to the Elk/Antelope fields – and potentially other discoveries, such as Triceratops, or pursuing further development with ExxonMobil.

Nolan also reaffirmed his company’s commitment to developing the Scarborough gasfield off Western Australia with an FLNG scheme that will have nearly double the production capacity of Shell’s pioneering Prelude vessel, which is under construction in South Korea.

ExxonMobil’s floater will have an LNG processing capacity of between 6 million and 7 million t/y.

Nolan said ExxonMobil has spent the last three to four years “qualifying the technology” for FLNG and that the focus had shifted to “optimising” this component.

However, he added the development still remains challenging from a cost perspective.

ExxonMobil has not provided any capital cost estimates but some analysts predict it could be between $16 billion and $19 billion.

Upstream challenges include the remoteness of the field, which lies almost 300kms offshore in waters 3000 metres deep. Scarborough’s gas is dry, without any of the liquids that help improve project economics.

Nolan added that the field is “a shallow broad field, so there will be expensive horizontal drilling”.

The operator and 50:50 project partner BHP Billiton aim to take a final investment decision in 2014 or 2015.

ExxonMobil’s move follows in the wake of Woodside’s recent to decision to pursue FLNG for the Browse LNG project as soaring costs make greenfield onshore plants commercially unattractive in Australia.

“When we look around the world, we look at the most attractive place to develop – Australia has some great advantages but it has some significant disadvantages in labour cost and labour productivity,” Nolan told the conference.

He joined other industry heads in warning high costs were making Australia an unattractive place to invest, adding that these issues drive development decisions.

FLNG ships are built in Asian shipyards thereby avoiding the soaring cost inflation experienced by onshore projects in Australia.



Read more: http://www.petroleum-economist.com/Article/3213632/ExxonMobil-expands-LNG-footprint.html#ixzz2VFM4iKCV

Reply

#3

4 to 5 TCF!?  This is why stock is down...somehow very very low estimates are out there.

Reply

#4

I think the issue is the reporter did not really reflect what Nolan said.  He has said that 4-5 Tcf is needed for one new train, and that the new drilling will determine the size of the resource.

'Petro2458' pid='23703' dateline='<a href="tel:1370348 Wrote:

4 to 5 TCF!?  This is why stock is down...somehow very very low estimates are out there.

Reply

#5
Petro-Same people feed the market through other articles , they have said water wells, propane fed flares, IOC will never get a deal, see Bonk's comments below the April 30th Resource Arb article. Pure nonsense. Let them have fun. Add if you have the funds . ADD!!!,if not laugh cause the longs day is coming very soon. Exxon needs our NG. Period end of discussion. Trading IOC is difficult . The price per share needs a closed deal not an announced deal. Thats why they are working on the FID now!
Reply

#6

'Petro2458' pid='23703' dateline='<a href="tel:1370348 Wrote:

4 to 5 TCF!?  This is why stock is down...somehow very very low estimates are out there.

************

I agree.  It looks to me that the deal structure is changing because XOM is only willing to pay (maybe overpay) for the gas they feel they "know" is there, but is taking a conservative approach to spending money on anything related to gas beyond 5T.  That leaves IOC with the assets (the remainder of E/A and Tri) but also all of the risk.  This would mean delays to "prove up" the extra E/A gas (and then eventually the Tri gas) before being able to make staged deals.  On the other hand, if a full buyout is on XOM's radar...this comment (questioning the asset size) could be an intentional part of their negotiation strategy.

Reply

#7
Thanks, Tree. At $16-$18B for 6-7 mtpa that's about what they are spending on PNG LNG, except the number doesn't appear to include the "shallow broad field...expensive horizontal drilling" in 3,000 meters of water. Helps the rumors of an Exxon/IOC deal that "makes everyone happy" increasingly plausible.

I continue to worry a bit though about the issue with Gulf Province and their stated desire to process all gas locally.

The statement by Nolan of a 4-5 TCF resource at E/A is the lowest number I've seen since before Antelope 2 was appraised.
Maybe the phrase "currently available to XOM" was somehow omitted from the statement. Then that 4-5 number would fit quite well with a 9+ TCF resource.

Future drilling in PRL 15 of Bighorn, Grizzly or Raptor/Duckbill could in the next year or two kick the resource to the 12-15 TCF level. That would allow an initial 4 MTPA feed to Gulf LNG AND an 8 MTPA feed to XOM from PRL 15. This I think would go a long way in satisfying the Gulf Province leadership without even tapping Ttops. And then you have all those red and green drops covering the western flank of Mule Deer best viewed in the 6/15/12 AGM presentation. Gulf LNG certainly seem viable in almost any scenario with the XOM takeoff.

And some people want to sell all of IOC for $200/sh?
Reply

#8

I can assure you Exxon knows what is there . Listen to PRE when they say each structure has 5-10 T's of NG. Or listen to the shorts who are betting against you. The SR VP of PRE does not have any motivation to over state whats in the ground. GCA is misquoted all the time. More short nonsense. All bidders are using GLJ . Not sure call WA have a CC. Listen to the taped LNG conference call with Henry Aldorf where he states IOC has 13 T's at E/A alone. GCA stated IOC with two more wells would have 8.3 T's. Had enough for two trains in the partial release of the 38 page report. Has that quantity of NG disappeared????Geez guys get real. The PPS has nothing to do with the assets, the sell down and especially has nothing to do with the deal prices IOC will receive. More sure nonsense. Stop buying calls and wait with common stock

Reply

#9

'jft310' pid='23708' datel Wrote:

I can assure you Exxon knows what is there . Listen to PRE when they say each structure has 5-10 T's of NG. Or listen to the shorts who are betting against you. The SR VP of PRE does not have any motivation to over state whats in the ground. GCA is misquoted all the time. More short nonsense. All bidders are using GLJ . Not sure call WA have a CC. Listen to the taped LNG conference call with Henry Aldorf where he states IOC has 13 T's at E/A alone. GCA stated IOC with two more wells would have 8.3 T's. Had enough for two trains in the partial release of the 38 page report. Has that quantity of NG disappeared????Geez guys get real. The PPS has nothing to do with the assets, the sell down and especially has nothing to do with the deal prices IOC will receive. More sure nonsense. Stop buying calls and wait with common stock

Two resource estimates trumpted by one article, I don't think so.

Reply

#10

CAC- To expand a little on your words. Remember also that Exxon took a lot of "flack" from the 'bright ones' for over-paying for XTO ! Maybe they are trying to under-pay for prl 15 (containing E/A and 3 other "possible" pearls) just to balance out their cost ) .Also, there are a lot of "shadows" out there who want to purchase shares as cheaply as they can. Hang tough !

Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)