Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
That GCA report
#1

See the annual meeting slides ,look at the left side of slide 11

It states:

"The 7.1 tcfe estimate is basd on a P50 recoverable raw gas estimate by Gaffney Cline and Associates. (GCA) of 7.0 TCF and ultimate recovery condensates of 96 MMBbl .The GCA estimate was reported by Oil Search in relation to their acquisition of a 22.8% gross stake in PRL 15 for $900 million on Fb 27. 2014"

Per the IOC slides we get paid from Total on the P50 number.For 7 T's we receive $1.6 Billion in aggregate. Those dollars received would be sufficent to fund IOC's interest with 30% cash and 70 % debt on a 2 train LNG plant estimated by Bernstein to cost $13.5 Billion with a 30% IOC interest.

Per Botten OSH further details were revealed that the 7 T's for $900 million has a second feature of an additional payment of 77 cents per mcf over 7 T's.

All of the research analysts belive that IOC has sufficient gas for a 2 train LNG plant based on the conservative GCA estimate and the payment to IOC and the decision to build the plant is on the P-50 number.

Credit Suisse on page 16 of their report states with 7 T's or more we get our 2 train LNG plant. That same 7 T's they state is worth $3,187 Billion to Interoil or $64.40 per share. They highlight this on that same page in their report.

This is the base cash from Credit Suisse and Caffney Cline . What Interoil with Total's money is attempting to do is prove out is the GLJ report P 50 number of 9.9 tcfe estimate and maybe get to the High Case GLJ number of 11.8 tcfe.

Important to note that Antelope Deep was not evaluated by GCA or GLJ.

Reply

#2
I sure as hell would LOVE to know what the GCA model expectation was for A4 in terms of pay zone depth and average porosity.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)