Posts: 2,623
Threads: 61
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
225
'Palm' pid='47959' datel Wrote:The important thing to understand in this is that analysts and Botten himself understand that overall a premium was paid on the basis of Total/IOC vs OSH/IPI and that premium has been recognized as being attributable to the preemption "rights" as perceived by OSH/Botten. Botten laid his cards on the table very early on when he acknowledged this. Likely that Botten is not a very good poker player as he allowed Total/IOC to see/know the strategy before they closed on their deal. So not only does IOC end up selling a subsidiary which still held/holds the PRL 15 rights they include a clause that says: "The Shares were validly allotted and issued and were not allotted or issued in breach of any: (I) pre-emptive or similar rights of any person, (ii) contract which is binding on the Company; or (iii) the Company's constitutional documents." So all of this will be taken into consideration in the arbitration and likely Total/IOC will prevail and OSH will get what it really wants; a say in how the resource is developed. How that development will take place is part of the panning they are doing right now.
Palm, when you say OSH will get a say in how the resource is developed, you mean they will get a vote on that equivalent to the weight or proportion of their ownership, i. e. about 23% (gross), right?
Posts: 6,851
Threads: 697
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
441
What does the JVOA say Getit?
Posts: 2,623
Threads: 61
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
225
'Palm' pid='47972' datel Wrote:What does the JVOA say Getit?
I have the March 26 SPA, but only with the page 75 title page for Annex 4, new PRL 15 JOA. Is that available, and where would I find it? Or is that your point?
Posts: 2,623
Threads: 61
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
225
Great posts, MRP and Palm, and it's not too "long winded", MRP.
Posts: 6,851
Threads: 697
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
441
08-01-2014, 02:26 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-01-2014, 02:34 AM by Palm.)
(08-01-2014, 02:06 AM)Getitrt2 Wrote:
(08-01-2014, 01:17 AM)Palm Wrote: What does the JVOA say Getit?
I have the March 26 SPA, but only with the page 75 title page for Annex 4, new PRL 15 JOA. Is that available, and where would I find it? Or is that your point?
That's the point. I'd rather not get into a marathon discussion of what I think and why without having the JVOA itself. Plus the final SPA mentions that an amended JVOA has been proposed and all parties need to agree to it. Not going there.
Posts: 12,025
Threads: 1,809
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
227
'Getitrt2' pid='47975' datel Wrote:Great posts, MRP and Palm, and it's not too "long winded", MRP.
Yes, I wholeheartedly share this, thanks guys.
Posts: 440
Threads: 58
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation:
198
I don't believe that I've ever seen that the JVOA is accessible anywhere on the IOC site or elsewhere. If it is, it would be useful to review it.
Posts: 6,851
Threads: 697
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
441
It's not; I found a "standard" JVOA for O&G which IOC once stated theirs are patterned after and posted a link to it, but it also had different variables which could be selected. So only so useful and not definitive. Then we have the final SPA which states that all parties will agree to a revised JVOA which names Total's subsidiary as the PRL 15 Operator. We don't have access to these, so can only guess and then get into endless "discussions" where you can be labeled as a liar, deceiver, criminal, etc. So, we need to just leave this where it is with some big uncertainties which will be known only when arbitration is done, or the parties resolve the issues outside of arbitration.
Posts: 2,505
Threads: 219
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
109
08-01-2014, 04:19 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-01-2014, 04:20 AM by Putncalls.)
Wouldn't we agree that OSH is the minority share holder? They did pay quite a bit less than Total (hopefully). I thought the paid less because their interest would not be controlling. Thus the legal dispute.
Posts: 6,851
Threads: 697
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
441
The legal dispute ultimately is to try and get Exxon into Total's position per the article in The Australian. If OSH simply wanted in to another LNG project, they would have figured things out with Total, again per the article. Total was negotiating with OSH to sell them part of their 60% interest while IOC was negotiating with the IPI interest-holders. If the article is correct (which a good part of it makes sense), Exxon wanted/still wants to control EA for the purpose of piping the gas to PNG LNG. We don't know what all has gone on behind closed doors, but OSH has dealings with both Total and Exxon, so they likely were shown an opportunity where they can hardly lose. If somehow they can convince the arbitrators that Total and IOC played dirty and OSH should have the right to match the Total deal, then they would try and make that play and possibly flip the 40% to Exxon. Then OSH and Exxon have control of how things go. If that happens, what will Total see their legal rights to be?
However, if things go the way most of us expect and the arbitrator says OSH has no pre-emptive rights, OSH becomes another partner in PRL 15 and Total/IOC likely push hard for a separate plant and maxing it out with gas from their license areas and if there is enough for everyone and Exxon still needs gas, IOC/Total/OSH can sell gas to PNG LNG as long as the price is right.
Way too many "what if's" to try and get definitive right now. But if you want to see a bunch more what-iffing, see what happens when/if IOC announces finds in any or all of Wahoo, Bobcat and/or Raptor. The fur will fly and will fun to watch.
|
