We Need a few T's?

[Tree]

As, 2 TCF = 2Mtpa x 20 yrs.
then, ennerOle needs 10 Tcf recoverable for 10 Mtpa plant x 20 yrs. life.

GLJ @ 8.6T
GC @ 6.6T

An unamended 2009 PA could require an approximate additional 1.4 - 3.4T's and we are counting on T-2 for that.

With JKM and T-2 success and a scheme for larger start-up volumes it will be a slam-dunk. C'mon T-2 resource engineers, you can do it!

[Palm]

But tree, can they possibly have enough? If you split the diff on those estimates of EA you are at 7.5 TCF. We need 7.6 mtpa for minimum startup per PA. If T2 is at least same as EA that means we have 15 TCF. Doesn't that mean we have to have 50% recoverable then? Think that's even possible? I'm gobsmacked by the possibilities.

[Tree]

Duckstein, it does appear as a gimmee.
We can agree the PA needs amending -or- ennerOle meets the requirements within, above reproach. Until T-2 is estimated they likely do not even know what amendment is required, if any. Me hunch is, O'Neill and NEC will do nothing until, and if it is shown through T-2 results, that the PA needs amending. PNG/IOC/JKM has until mid-late 2012 to start construction to meet the late early 2015 1st gas goal.
If IOC needs an amendment, then I think we see O'Neill making it happen Cap'n.
In the perfect world, IOC needs the amendment to allow initial 15Mtpa production facilities, not just the wimpy 10.6!!

[sltibbs]

I too have wondered if getting some extra tcfs would do for various project sizes and lifespans. Here is a simple spreadsheet to show the relationship. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?...3cXc#gid=0

No doubt any PNG politician in PNG would like to say that through their leadership IOC is now able to meet the high end of the project agreement which over the next 25 years (not sure we will have enough for 30 years) will generate so much tax revenue that all my election year promises will actually be met.

Best,
Sam

P.S. Didn't want to make a post, but just to thank Pet, so I will use this one. Thanks Pet for your excellent work!

P.P.S. Once we get some additional info, in the spirit of Pet's contribution, I will update my FCF model.

[Getitrt2]

Tree, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. It is my understanding from IOC that they have submitted a slightly modified PA to the NEC for the Gulf LNG project that they expect to be approved, and that it is covered by E/A and does not require any additional resource amount from T2, although
T2 could provide for further expansion later. Are you saying you do not think that is correct?

[Tree]

Getit,
Good that IOC has submitted modified wording to NEC. Point is NEC has not amended PA. Why? We do not know what is literally all required of IOC as to the burden proof of recoverable gas. Competition (SHELL) could be requiring NEC to stand firm on their 2009 PA. Who knows.

This from the Somare era Q3 2010 CC implies Somare was allowing IOC leeway.

Phil:
'We are not drilling in Q4 10 because we DO NOT NEED to drill anymore to achieve 3mtpa EWI plant and Mitsui CSP.'

Could it be larger start-up is requiring larger recoverable T count, hence the T-2 spud now? Either way, my point is we have no PA amendment and we are drilling and will likely have shown plenty of gas and may not need an amendment anywhoo.