Remember this article from last year?

[Palm]

Yeah but Syd, you've always said you only deal in the knowns and what can be confirmed by actual statements. Why the sudden delve into the world of speculation?

[sydbod]

Yeah but Syd, you've always said you only deal in the knowns and what can be confirmed by actual statements. ....

You are correct, I only ever deal in the knowns, I would never invest on that wild speculation that I presented. I only presented it as a demonstration of one possible way to develop and make sence of what is going on, but in no way am I suggesting that it is correct or the only way.

[Tree]

Plan all along was to feed XOM expansion and host a 2nd LNG Project,........

Hi Tree,

Just a bit of wild speculation on my part.

PNGLNG plant was originally designed to take 5 LNG trains.

Now let us make a wild assumption for the moment and assume the possibility of XOM getting a slice into PRL 15 from the current stake holders somehow (some sort of sell down).

Let us also assume PRL 15 proves up enough gas for 2 LNG trains and the current partners of PNGLNG scrape together and prove up enough gas for one train from their own resources.

If these resources  together providing enough gas for 3 trains (the extras what PNGLNG is designed for) and with XOM also a stake holder in PRL 15, the probability of the E/A gas being directed to PNGLNG plant would be  high.

This would give IOC a stake around 15% into 2 trains at PNGLNG and some more money also from XOM buy in. It would  leave all the other IOC gas resources looking for a stand alone LNG plant at a later date when they get proved.

It would bring E/A gas on line faster than otherwise.

It would increase the PPS of IOC possible faster than any other development path and bring it ramping up to $300 to $400 mark within a few more years.

(or am I dreaming too much?)

EDIT: UGGGG jft310 .... you were too fast for me.

Syd-

Now let us make a wild assumption for the moment and assume the possibility of XOM getting a slice into PRL 15 from the current stake holders somehow (some sort of sell down).

There is no 'somehow' about it.  Gov't has the right to take 50% equity in PRL15, at arms length.  If O'Neill wants XOM in PRL15, he simply agrees for PNG  to match TOT terms at arms length and assume up to a 50% PRL15 stake, then flip this chunk above Gov't back in of 22.5% immediately to XOM.  This stake would come from TOT's share IMO.  Gov't controls JV makeup and will control JV makeup.  Gas goes where the Gov't determined JV dictates.  If you trust GLJ and GC and Dave Holland's opinion, a shortage of gas feeding only PNG LNG expansion is not possible.  A bull will plan on 3 PNG LNG trains and a 2-3 train standalone plant FID.

Now let us make a wild assumption for the moment and assume the possibility of XOM getting a slice into PRL 15 from the current stake holders somehow (some sort of sell down).

[jft310]

I am 100% in Trees camp.

[Spartina]

I'm right there witcha.

[Getitrt2]

Why would IOC want 15% in two trains at PNG LNG plus cash, rather than 25-30% in two trains at a Total project with PRL 15 plus MORE cash AND further expansion opportunity AND the likelihood of gas to sell to PNG LNG from elsewhere per Hession? Total has already beaten Exxon's best offer on PRL 15, and I doubt that is going to change. I agree on doing both; it's a matter of how, which probably won't be certain before further drilling at PRL 15 and elsewhere. In the meantime, CLOSE THE SPA WITH TOTAL. Not to say I couldn't be wrong.

By the way, Justin, with respect to who's "steering the ship", I feel absolutely certain it is NOT Mulacek. Try Hession, in coordination with O'Neill.

[jft310]

Getit's gotit , close the SPA like now. A 6th grader can redo the math. It's time Dr Hession your 2 conditional elements are complete. After that drill then sign LNG deals.

[Palm]

Why would IOC want 15% in two trains at PNG LNG plus cash, rather than 25-30% in two trains at a Total project with PRL 15 plus MORE cash AND further expansion opportunity AND the likelihood of gas to sell to PNG LNG from elsewhere per Hession? Total has already beaten Exxon's best offer on PRL 15, and I doubt that is going to change. I agree on doing both; it's a matter of how, which probably won't be certain before further drilling at PRL 15 and elsewhere. In the meantime, CLOSE THE SPA WITH TOTAL. Not to say I couldn't be wrong. By the way, Justin, with respect to who's "steering the ship", I feel absolutely certain it is NOT Mulacek. Try Hession, in coordination with O'Neill.

It's called risk management Getit.  IOC already has enough risk just having all eggs in PNG.  PNG LNG will be up and running in a few months and expansion trains are much more certain than a new plant in a sparcely populated Gulf Province.  As a shareholder I like taking a smaller % in 3 future trains where IOC has to put in less cash.  And the government looks at it the same way.  I'll take the separate plant on top of it, but PNG LNG can be seen, touched and felt.

[Getitrt2]

Why would IOC want 15% in two trains at PNG LNG plus cash, rather than 25-30% in two trains at a Total project with PRL 15 plus MORE cash AND further expansion opportunity AND the likelihood of gas to sell to PNG LNG from elsewhere per Hession? Total has already beaten Exxon's best offer on PRL 15, and I doubt that is going to change. I agree on doing both; it's a matter of how, which probably won't be certain before further drilling at PRL 15 and elsewhere. In the meantime, CLOSE THE SPA WITH TOTAL. Not to say I couldn't be wrong. By the way, Justin, with respect to who's "steering the ship", I feel absolutely certain it is NOT Mulacek. Try Hession, in coordination with O'Neill.

It's called risk management Getit.  IOC already has enough risk just having all eggs in PNG.  PNG LNG will be up and running in a few months and expansion trains are much more certain than a new plant in a sparcely populated Gulf Province.  As a shareholder I like taking a smaller % in 3 future trains where IOC has to put in less cash.  And the government looks at it the same way.  I'll take the separate plant on top of it, but PNG LNG can be seen, touched and felt.

I'm not concerned about all IOC's eggs in PNG;  it's the best place for them.  Address that through your own investment allocation.  Hession concluded the deal with Total has less risk and more certainty of full PRL 15 monetization/development than the best Exxon would offer on PNG LNG expansion, the opposite of what you are now saying, and I trust him on that far more than anyone on this forum.  Total will not build the plant in Gulf Province if that's not the best place.  IOC expects to have enough cash for that, and as a shareholder I like investing it with much greater returns.  Gas from elsewhere is likely for PNG LNG, for the right price.  No one has yet shown me any convincing indication the government has a decisive problem with that, nor any indication from Hession of that, although we may have more information on that before month end.  The SPA and hundreds of millions in cash from Total, followed next year by billions in cash, can be seen, touched, and felt, not to mention banked.  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, respectfully so on my part at least.

[jft310]

Hession was interested in Total for several reasons. One mentioned by him was the opportunities outside PNG. Hession disagrees with you getit about your eggs.
The reason the Exxon deal failed was LNG participation there was none offered.
You need to study O'Neils comments about Exxon. Try to build a balance sheet PNGLNG vs Gulf LNG. Your one sided commentary doesn't reflect your intellect. Use what GOD gave ya man. Please.