Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 3.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
REPORT: Hession Changed The Deal on XOM
#1


So it is Hession's fault.  



He put the skids on Byker's undervalued deal with XOM for 4.6 T gas sale and then Hession has the gonads to up the ante to XOM for an equity stake and more $.  Take your time Dr. Hession, get it right.  December will be fine if that is how long it takes.  I don't know if it's comforting or scary that it appears Russell does his DD on SHU.  


**********


 



ExxonMobil runs rule over InterOil gas proposals


Talks between ExxonMobil and InterOil over feedstock gas supplies into the Papua New Guinea liquefied natural gas project have slowed while the US supermajor takes stock of changes proposed by InterOil.

The pair agreed on major terms five months ago for ExxonMobil to purchase 4.6 trillion cubic feet of gas from InterOil’s Elk-Antelope field in Block PRL 15 to be used as feedstock for an additional train at the ExxonMobil-operated PNG LNG project.

The talks ebbed and flowed for the first couple of months, but the dynamics of the situation changed in July when InterOil made several management changes, including the appointment of a new chief executive.

Since then, InterOil has invited other interested parties to bid for Elk-Antelope gas while continuing to try to finalise a deal with ExxonMobil.

Neither ExxonMobil nor InterOil are commenting on the process.

Well-placed sources said the latest twist is that InterOil has made new proposals to Exxon­Mobil that the US player is taking its time to absorb and respond to.

In effect, InterOil’s new management would like to receive more in exchange for their 4.6 Tcf of gas from Elk-Antelope than originally envisaged.

It is understood the initial terms were based on a sales and purchase agreement of the gas, but InterOil now favours a traditional farm-in type scenario, and that an equity stake in any subsequent LNG train would also be desirable.

PNG-based sources said that, despite the apparent impasse, there is cautious optimism that a deal can be concluded before December.

The consensus is that InterOil is in a strong position, for several reasons.

InterOil has, evidently, a significant gas resource and the financial returns on an expansion train at PNG LNG are lucrative.

Other LNG majors including Shell and Total are understood to be waiting in the wings for Elk-Antelope gas, and the government is anxious for a deal to be finalised.

If ExxonMobil is successful in securing Elk-Antelope gas, it looks likely that those reserves will underpin the third train at PNG LNG following recent revelations by project co-owner Oil Search that resources such as P’nyang and Juha North and the Hides field expansion are still two years away from being ready for a final investment decision.

Oil Search managing director Peter Botten said this week that his company is keeping a close eye on the InterOil bidding process “for a majority share in PRL 15”.

“We are following the sale process closely and are engaged with key players on potential development options for the gas, “ he said.

“The Elk-Antelope resource could potentially be a source of gas for LNG expansion or could underpin a new LNG development.”

“We continue to believe that being an owner of core gas and liquids infrastructure in PNG places Oil Search in a strong position, as new developments take place in the country.”

In August, InterOil chief executive Michael Hession said his company’s focus is on furthering a non-operated liquefied natural gas project in PNG.

“We will not be operating an LNG project in the immediate future,” said Hession.

“We are all about working with an appropriate partner on a non-operated LNG project going forward, and that’s evidenced by our negotiations (with ExxonMobil).”

Reply

#2

What a freakkng nightmare.

What was the point in hiring three IBs around the world if we agreed to a simple gas sale agreement?  Was Phil let. Go because he objected to the in tree's words "undervalued" deal? Why did Gaylen accept the terms? Hessions decision to change the terms are very welcome but why didn't the BOD see the value in doing the exact same thing. I mean this cannot be rocket science here.

Reply

#3

But weren't you the one that was most vocal to a simple gas sale, Ass0? Correct me if I'm wrong.

It's not a negative report. I don't think Hession would risk alienating Exxon if he didn't have other interested parties at hand, and the consensus is that he has and IOC is in a strong position.

Reply

#4
Jft & Tree, for others here on the board what do you think the reason for the low PPS is then if ppl like Russell and others in the industry think IOC is in a strong position
Reply

#5
Last Dec. at the time some were organizing e-mail campaigns to BoD to demanding them to 'quit holding out for a great deal' and 'take a deal' I posted this which was met with venom by malcontents:

"The last thing we need is seller's remorse by selling cheap as many prescribe."

Well, it appears that perhaps the BoD may have been battle weary and were pressured to 'take a deal' and that can explain why Phil resigned or was fired. Enter Hession who apparently re-set the terms and brought over trusted Woodside negotiators to max IOC's deal. This has all been mentioned on SHU and none should be surprised it is now publicly reported that Hession did re-visit the terms of a crappy deal with XOM. And he opened the process up to a few other SMs.

The last thing we need is seller's remorse.
Reply

#6

'TxPm' pid='30208' datel Wrote:Jft & Tree, for others here on the board what do you think the reason for the low PPS is then if ppl like Russell and others in the industry think IOC is in a strong position

 That's simple.  We lost about $20 in mid August when Blair Price sloppily reported that the XOM deal was 'dead'.  That won't come back until we get 'bold color' or a deal outline.  Me hunch is if no deal announcement by CC then Hession will elaborate on state of negotiations as much as possible.  BTW, I won't be happy until we hit $125 so $65 or $85 doesn't matter to me.

What is your reasoning?

Reply

#7
Tree,

I agree with your $125 analysis...Id actually like to see closer to $150. My analysis is that the analysts cant value IOC right now bc they dont know really what the deal is for so we dont have much coverage which will change after the SD. Furthermore many of the longs are in a "show me" mentality where as the shorts are in a manipulate mentality...just my thoughts
Reply

#8
And that's basically it Tx; IOC's price has been derisked and strong hands continue to hold and even add based on some recent filings. Hession is said to be in frequent communication with the whales (to those who feel he should call each of us too; it ain't going to happen. Size matters), and they must be content. For now. With lips sealed with gorilla glue we are left with low volume days and a pps which drifts up and down. These journalists get little and like Tree says, some seem to cherry-pick from SHU.

Kind of a boring
Reply

#9

'admin' pid='30207' dateline='<a href="tel:1382663 Wrote:

But weren't you the one that was most vocal to a simple gas sale, Ass0? Correct me if I'm wrong.

It's not a negative report. I don't think Hession would risk alienating Exxon if he didn't have other interested parties at hand, and the consensus is that he has and IOC is in a strong position.

stp, I was the most vocal you're exactly right. I had no idea what the terms were but I was responding to the post here on this board on the assumptions of the deal.  Please remember none of us have been told what the deal terms are. My criticism was based on what was the board posted and selling gas on the cheap(~$1 which is less than the 1.20region average) and not getting anything else down the line. If I and many others could see this why did no one at Morgan Stanley, UBS or maquerie pipe up and same something. I mean seriously it took Hession and his team to realize the value of everything?  It is absolutely mind boggling that we are in Oct 2013 and there is still nothing concrete nor firm. We are two months away from 2014 and FID does not seem feasible this year which pushes reserves yet again. All the while oil search and their facility are within months of coming online despite our superior flow rates, string of pearls etc.

Reply

#10
Ass0, I have not expressed myself very well, perhaps. I in fact had considerable sympathy for your earlier concerns, with the proviso that I didn't know the terms of the deal either.

And yes, it appears that it takes a new CEO to put the ship right, but for me the main thing to take away is that it is being put right.

And what I particularly like is the recognition that IOC is in a strong position As a simple student of transaction cost economics I've argued that for all too long, but the simple reality is that there aren't too many Elk/Antelope's around in Asia.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)