c/b shale, page-3

Goodaye Richie,
" So interested parties would have to play on BPT's terms, if they wanted a stake in PEL218. Price and control would have been the issue, ..."

yep, thats probably the issue - got no idea, but it makes sense.

I am not sure I about this:
"On these terms, BPT's financial firepower was also an advantage, BPT don't really need any big dollar partners to fund the projects, cos its got the $$$ to go it alone..."

Its my understanding that shale gas well are a heck of a lot more expensive to develop, and they cost a heck of a lot more to maintain as producers.

To develop these fields will probably cost hundreds and hundreds of millions of $.
That would be well out of reach of BPT on a stand alone basis.
Thats where a BG or Conoco or Shell etc would be brought in as a J/V partner.

I expect that BPT ( and by default ICN) wants to do a "BOW" and add greater value to the permits, and then seek j/v partners. Which is what I think you are saying above.

When one looks at the above map, it just seems logical that a joint development makes sense.
The other fly in the ointment, is the SA LNG concept.
The SA Govt is grabbing at the idea of an LNG export project - but it seems that it is economical for CB producers to send gas to Glady.
Am unclear as to comparative costs though.

whatever happens, Beach seems to be doing a good job, and whatever happens, ICN, with its 40% and 33%, is going to be dragged along.
It sounds as though now we are going to see the shale gas resource being developed in conjunction with the other conv gas resource.
and thats what will add extra value to ICN.

and I still think THAT was the issue with that BPT/ICN argument ie how the exploration of the different resources within each of permits would be undertaken.

FYI, have a read of the Reserve Bank media article i posted on BOW thread.

cheers