Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Exxon raised $5.5 billion this week
#41
I agree for most part but we have to question what OSH's goal in all of this is. They did pay up to get in, but you really need to read all of what they have said. We know that while IOC was finalizing things with Total, OSH was also stating they were negotiating. Then I have yet to see O'Neill praising the IOC/Total lash up. From there OSH continued to say they were negotiating still at year end while O'Neill was telling the Mining and Petroleum conference that the government was now looking at the viability of a new plant versus aggregating gas and maximizing current facilities first.

Then while IOC was negotiating to try and close the PAC LNG interests we hear it's not going well and suddenly OSH halts their stock from trading for a couple of days, and they announce that THEY are acquiring those interests and they are either selling shares to PNG or will do a capital raise set up with UBS. Meanwhile O'Neill cans Duma, then Polye for not supporting coalition plans. Polye says the process was too hasty and not sound and today it comes out that he accuses OSH of "insider trading" and O'Neill of bypassing policy and taking on unplanned and unnecessary debt. We have to question why OSH had this sudden sense of urgency right when IOC and Total are trying to get their deal closed, and OSH openly admits that they had no discussions with Total about their purchase of interests. IOC and Total then had to scramble to respond to OSH's move.

Then we see OSH and the government calling EA the largest undeveloped PNG resource and look forward to monetizing this asset the quickest and most economical way for PNG. An interesting presentation to look at is OSH's recent Goldman Sachs investor presentation. OSH talks about its Gas Growth Strategy and clearly states that it has "brownfield" (existing plant) maximization and LNG expansion as their primary goals which are "aligned closely with the PNG government". Listed resources for that strategy include EA gas in PRL 15. Botten has been using this LNG expansion language continuously as has O'Neill. OSH mentions the possibility of a new LNG plant for EA gas but mentions that both the expansion of PNG LNG and a standalone plant are economically viable.

I think we need to understand that for a long time OSH has been the PNG government's strategic public O&G company and OSH is seen by companies coming in to PNG as the strategic company to work with because of their influence with the government. And OSH understands their status very well. Botten is not bluffing or exaggerating their ability to influence decisions of how resources are best used in PNGs best interest. Total and IOC understand this also I believe. OSH's move clearly changed things for IOC/Total. Total says OSH is a great strategic partner but IMHO they did not plan on OSH coming in this way.

IOC and total clearly want a separate LNG plant and I think they believe they have plenty of gas for this and more. The big question of where gas goes from PRL 15 if far from decided I think and even when they prove up plenty of gas there will be plenty of discussion. I believe OSH made this swift and unexpected move now for the purpose of influencing PRL 15 petroleum resources instead of waiting to possibly buying a % from Total down the road after IOC and Total close their deal. If they just wanted in on a new plant, that's what they they would have done, unless Total had someone else they were talking to that we don't know about.

While I don't believe that Total is trying to work against IOC in some way, I do believe that OSH made this very bold move in this way so that their close alignment with the PNG government wants/needs could have influence very early on. Exxon may be playing a direct or indirect part in this also. Again, had the deal with the government not worked so that OSH could buy the PAC LNG interests, they were going to do a capital raise to pull it off. That was a very quick move. That plus what they and the government have said during this and after beg the question of why it was done this way. It won't take long for us to get the answer to that and more.
Reply

#42
Palm,

Your comments are very thorough. Here is how I see things and I think all of this talk about Total or Exxon or both must be looked at through the correct lens.

When IOC and XOM went exclusive, peter O'neill announced it. Conversations I had were that XOM had the best bid. That tells me IOC wanted the XOM deal and XOM wanted it as well. Then Hession comes aboard, and the XOM deal is off. WHy? Well, we don;t know for a fact (unless I have missed something) that Total's deal was best. We heard that Minister Duma was leery of a monopoly. Hession comes to an agreement with total on Dec. 5th. I do not believe the former and the latter are unrelated.

Flash forward to Oneill sacking Duma and Polye, (keeping in mind that IT WAS ONEILL WHO ANNOUNCED that IOC and XOM were in negotiations with a 60 day timeline last year). OSH buys out the minority interest and is clearly aligned with PNG. Take that with your comment above which I will quote now:

"Then we see OSH and the government calling EA the largest undeveloped PNG resource and look forward to monetizing this asset the quickest and most economical way for PNG. An interesting presentation to look at is OSH's recent Goldman Sachs investor presentation. OSH talks about its Gas Growth Strategy and clearly states that it has "brownfield" (existing plant) maximization and LNG expansion as their primary goals which are "aligned closely with the PNG government". Listed resources for that strategy include EA gas in PRL 15. Botten has been using this LNG expansion language continuously as has O'Neill. OSH mentions the possibility of a new LNG plant for EA gas but mentions that both the expansion of PNG LNG and a standalone plant are economically viable. "

Total and IOC are yet to close and we are getting nothing in terms of communication regarding the transaction. Only that total sees OSH as the "perfect partner" in this etc. So clearly Total doesn't want to go away, they want to close.

Now back to Oneill. Politicians want results quickly because they do not have the luxury of waiting years down the line for political reasons. My feeling is that Oneill has made train 3 THE PRIORITY in regard to PRL 15, and that is what we are waiting on. I believe XOM is very much involved right now either directly with IOC, or IOC and Total. Perhaps wanting to buy all of EA?? perhaps wanting to assure they have train 3 locked down? Perhaps a partnership using tolling for their existing plant? Perhaps some combination of those options. But in my opinion, XOM has to be involved if we are reading all of the above correctly. I believe that is a very good thing for IOC short term (and short term is what I am most concerned with RIGHT NOW with my investment) so this, if true, pleases me greatly. If my thinking is correct, IOC now has Total and XOM at the table either competing, OR negotiating a stake which IOC controls. These are all positives.

So based upon all of the above I don't find Mikesioc's characterization of needing to pull a rabbit out of a hat, an accurate characterization of what I feel is going on. I think IOC is in a good position right now with two SM's sharpening pencils, determining how much they want to spend to be involved in a project(s) that OSH and the PNG govt painted as the largest undeveloped resource in PNG. Of which IOC currently has the largest stake. Another thing that comes to mind, is how bad would Total look if after their announcement about the deal with IOC, they lose out to XOM????? Many things can happen here and the way I see it is that they are all positive for IOC.

HOpefully that all makes sense, it's late here.

Good luck longs
Reply

#43
Total has apparently stated or "is known to have stated" that they are committed to PNG gas (conspicuously not noted as IOC gas) and there are now possibilities that were "previously unattainable." Before the SPA IOC was valued over $4 billion and a deal was thought to be a catalyst, not a catastrophe. The present market cap combined with the value put on PRL 15 by OSH puts IOC in a corner. Why would anyone pay up to $5.3 billion for 61% of the gas from one lease and give up 30% upside from production to a company now worth $3 billion? Total's goal of "PNG gas" is attainable by joining/cooperating with Exxon and OSH. PNG rubber stamps that deal. Most here seem to agree that PRL 15 has enough gas to support expansion and a new LNG facility. Let alone Triceratops, Bobcat, Wahoo, etc. It defies logic to wax poetic about the string of pearls and how IOC will be a $10, $15 or $20 billion dollar company in a few years when someone can own it all for what they will pay for 61% or less of PRL 15. I find that bizarre. At the current market cap it will be a small miracle for IOC to remain standing and get an interest in either PNG LNG or a new facility with Total. Not my expectation a few months ago but we are in a situation with previously unattainable (unimaginable) possibilities. $100 is still a great upside. Let's hope Hession is successful in his rabbit hunting.
Reply

#44
"Why would anyone pay up to $5.3 billion for 61% of the gas from one lease and give up 30% upside from production to a company now worth $3 billion?"

Because to get it they have to compensate IOC. Your numbers are good, but IOC has to agree to sell.
Reply

#45
It defies my imagination that once a takeover auction for IOC started bids would not quickly escalate to levels much higher than $3B. It was suggested a day or two ago companies would rather have a share of an independent IOC's resources than engage in a very expensive auction for the entire company. I believe that to be the case as well.
Reply

#46

'ArtM72' pid='39510' dateline='<a href="tel:1395309 Wrote:It defies my imagination that once a takeover auction for IOC started bids would not quickly escalate to levels much higher than $3B. It was suggested a day or two ago companies would rather have a share of an independent IOC's resources than engage in a very expensive auction for the entire company. I believe that to be the case as well.

Arts got it right.

Reply

#47
'ArtM72' pid='39510' dateline='
Well said art. That is the point I was trying to make. Just because the numbers are laid out, doesn't mean that's what you can buy it for. Economics 101, what is something worth? What someone is willing to pay for it."
Reply

#48
Agree and feel IF IOC ever gets bought it will be well down the road. OSH has been a better buyout candidate than IOC and that is only recently because of the LNG plant nearing production. The bigs want more certainty and cash flow. And it seems that since IOC hit at Ant 2 they have been a buyout candidate in some people's minds, but yet it hasn't happened. And IMHO won't in the near term.
Reply

#49
The present has companies like OSH putting up a billion dollars, the past did not. Exxon and OSH have the favor of PNG, not to mention their wallet, so getting anyone else involved at this point is unlikely. Total joining them gives them everything they want without IOC. IOC is being squeezed out here. $100 to $120 gets it done. Conference call anyone? This is getting a ridiculous.
Reply

#50
A buyout, if it were to happen, would be a stock deal to my opinion.
Drivel Maven with Personality
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)