Max # of trains at PNG LNG site

[Palm]

I have been looking for some support for what is the accepted max nr of trains that the PNG LNG site will accomodate.  Not what the current plan is, but what it will accomodate.  I think this is important because it will dominate Exxon's thinking and negotiating as well as define how interested they are of being involved with another standalone project.  A recent story stated that XOM want to "maximize" the capacity it has at the PNG LNG site which makes complete sense.  I believe it was Resourcearb who said (possibly in a SA post) that he believes that there is a possibility for 8 trains at that site.  Was that you RA, or was it someone else or in an article somewhere?  TIA for any help on this.

[sageo]

Palm- Was it Ancilla Wrakuale's article in the Post Courier ?? Maybe, but not sure.

[Resourcearb]

I have been looking for some support for what is the accepted max nr of trains that the PNG LNG site will accomodate.  Not what the current plan is, but what it will accomodate.  I think this is important because it will dominate Exxon's thinking and negotiating as well as define how interested they are of being involved with another standalone project.  A recent story stated that XOM want to "maximize" the capacity it has at the PNG LNG site which makes complete sense.  I believe it was Resourcearb who said (possibly in a SA post) that he believes that there is a possibility for 8 trains at that site.  Was that you RA, or was it someone else or in an article somewhere?  TIA for any help on this.

Palm, I believe Exxon SVP Mark Albers discussed 8 trains of potential capacity at the PNG LNG site at its recent analyst meeting.  I can't find the article that specifically references 8 trains, but here's the PNG Industry News article that discusses expanding to up to 5 trains - http://www.pngindustrynews.net/storyview.asp?storyID=795159147&section=Search&sectionsource=s2377 ;

[Palm]

Thanks RA; five trains seems to be the most quoted max for the site. So even with that it's 13.8 Ts of gas for Exxon to be focusing on. How excited will they be about being pinned down to talking about a new standalone plant while maxing out PNG LNG is their real priority? Probably not real. So my guess is that the first 4.6Ts is basically done as far as negotiations and IOC may be stating that they need to know if a 2nd 4.6Ts will be committed to by Exxon, or whether they should move ahead with Shell(?) discussions because they need to come out of this with plans for an LNG plant in Gulf and others are interested, and now being negotiated with for that.

[efi426hemi]

Hey Ducks, if my memory doesn't fail me I believe Wayne mentioned at the AGM that XOM has enough land to construct 20 trains if they wanted.  If we actually have the gas in the IOC PRL's that Holland and Jairo Lugo are suggesting, there may be another big boy moving onto the Qatar block.

Keep it on Ice,

Efi

[petrengr1]

I have been looking for some support for what is the accepted max nr of trains that the PNG LNG site will accomodate.  Not what the current plan is, but what it will accomodate.  I think this is important because it will dominate Exxon's thinking and negotiating as well as define how interested they are of being involved with another standalone project.  A recent story stated that XOM want to "maximize" the capacity it has at the PNG LNG site which makes complete sense.  I believe it was Resourcearb who said (possibly in a SA post) that he believes that there is a possibility for 8 trains at that site.  Was that you RA, or was it someone else or in an article somewhere?  TIA for any help on this.

If you look at the Exxon LNG Plant site on Google Maps- Earth or Satellite- you can see that the present Plant layout leaves room for three more trains to the Southwest of the first two. If push comes to shove they could probably add a couple more to the present layout by putting them Northwest of the  first two.

[Palm]

Thanks fellers; so we have Exxon saying 5, but if they can aggregate enough gas in PNG and get permission from the government (why would they say "No"?) the idea of 8 trains is not outside the realm of possibilities. Again, with Exxon saying they want to maximize the use of the site; that's going to be occupy a majority of their efforts and likely capital commit to PNG.

Exxon may have been dragging things out a bit not only because they felt they have IOC by the short ones, but also to float all of the possibilities through their own planning, but also the government's. And if they get a green light from PNG on max expansion for Ping Ling, they may just open the coffers and scoop up lil ol IOC. Meanwhile Shell and others likely have plans of their own for IOC.

The iron has been put back in the fire with the end of exclusivity and there may be more than one iron in there.

[ArtM72]

There is a lot of land available for sale along PNG's Gulf Coast. Some of it costs more to develope than others. It is not Manhattan. It is not Hong Kong.

[jft310]

Art is suggesting I think that Exxon can buy more land if needed for more trains. No I have not looked at Google Earth but Exon has the money to move earth we all should know that.

[Palm]

They could buy the whole island but these companies normally have limits on how much investment risk they take in developing nations. Not sure what Exxon's might be but lenders look at that also. That's why they employ chief risk officers also.