New Oil Search slide on IOC/XOM agreement

[kommonsents]

  The fact that the Citi writer offered a "simple way to gain alignment" to me suggests that the writer had in mind a scenario in which the partners would not simply go along with whatever scheme XOM and IOC settled on.

There is never a time where a block of majority partners would simply go along with whatever scheme a minority partner wanted. Remember, XOM is a minority partner.

Why try to grab a snippet of information from a report without understanding the context under whitch it was presented and just apply whatever context you happen to have in your mind?

Is my understanding of the english language really so different to other peoples?

If you are trying to convince us that having veto power does not equal a potential obstacle, then yes, your understanding of the English language is certainly different than mine.

Thank you for your clarification of your position on the issue.

[sydbod]

You win ....... I give up.

[Palm]

People may also want to read up and consider what the title of Operator means for Exxon in conjunction with the power of the government. Santos and OSH need to be treated fairly in bringing in IOC, but they also have to consider what consequences trying to be a roadblock in the process means for their own futures in PNG. Exxon has significant power and influence as owner AND operator; a fair deal will be presented and the other partners will be foolish to not go along with the plan.

[calaban48]

[/quote]

Is my understanding of the english language really so different to other peoples?

[/quote]

Well, you DID use/make up the word "pregidies" which is an already Googlable word for "pregnancy comedies" and has nothing to do with a pre-existing bias ...

But I digress ... <g>

[katytrader]

Is my understanding of the english language really so different to other peoples?

[/quote]

Well, you DID use/make up the word "pregidies" which is an already Googlable word for "pregnancy comedies" and has nothing to do with a pre-existing bias ...

But I digress ... <g>

[/quote]Calaban, you deserve another gold star for that observation!!....lol

katytrader

[jft310]

Two IOC Senior Exexs have stated this is more than a Gas deal its an LNG deal. Confirmed with an IPI investor. No links to verbal conversations. I was also told the Citi report was an OSH propaganda piece and to be ignored.

[sydbod]

Well, you DID use/make up the word "pregidies" which is an already Googlable word for "pregnancy comedies" and has nothing to do with a pre-existing bias ...

But I digress ... <g>

Well done , I do lose it many times.

Now for a pregnant pause ........... <g>

pregidies prejudices

[kommonsents]

Thanks for the laugh, guys! A fitting ending to a good week.

[Tree]

People may also want to read up and consider what the title of Operator means for Exxon in conjunction with the power of the government. Santos and OSH need to be treated fairly in bringing in IOC, but they also have to consider what consequences trying to be a roadblock in the process means for their own futures in PNG. Exxon has significant power and influence as owner AND operator; a fair deal will be presented and the other partners will be foolish to not go along with the plan.

All this discussion about a non-issue floated by a Citi eport author is unecessary.  OSH and Santos and the other PNG LNG JV partners cannot block IOC gas from fuelling PNG LNG expansion.  There is also no economic reason they would even try.  PNG LNG will be expanded with or without JV partner participation.

From Wood Mackenzie write-up a couple of weeks ago.

*  XOM has a number of options to bring E/A gas into PNG LNG, these include:    1)  Revised unitisation agreement with XOM increasing it's interest in the project    2)  Existing unitisation extended to cover E/A, with the partners reimbursing XOM    3)  Tolling agreement, where XOM pays a fee to liquefy E/A gas through PNG LNG *  These options would allow all partners to benefit from expanding the existing project.  However, the level of reward available may depend on each partner's ability to commit to the sizeable investment required to expand the project. *  PNG LNG expansion appears to be XOM highest LNG priority.  Perhaps more than Gorgon expansion, Scarborough FLNG, NA shale plays, far eastern Russia and East Africa

*  XOM has a number of options to bring E/A gas into PNG LNG, these include:

   1)  Revised unitisation agreement with XOM increasing it's interest in the project

   2)  Existing unitisation extended to cover E/A, with the partners reimbursing XOM

   3)  Tolling agreement, where XOM pays a fee to liquefy E/A gas through PNG LNG

*  These options would allow all partners to benefit from expanding the existing project.  However, the level of reward available may depend on each partner's ability to commit to the sizeable investment required to expand the project.

*  PNG LNG expansion appears to be XOM highest LNG priority.  Perhaps more than Gorgon expansion, Scarborough FLNG, NA shale plays, far eastern Russia and East Africa

[sydbod]

Tree, that is totally correct.
XOM is a large multinational and not a small backyard organisation.
XOM would be professional and have prearranged any deal with their PNGLNG partners before making a deal with IOC.
We can safely conclude that whatever the deal outcome , 1/2/3 or other, authorisation with the partners has already been acquired for some weeks or more.