I've heard a number of fellow investors indicating that Woodside is probably waiting to see how upcoming drill results from Chevron, Total, and Azule will pan out before deciding on whether to take up their option, and then, if and when they do, they will take the approach Galp has in PEL83, drill first to derisk and add value, and then look to farm down. That sounds like a viable approach, and might serve as a good excuse for them biding their time, but I don't think that is the real reason...
I think the real reason is that now that they have the seismic licence, they can share the data with whomever they wish (if I'm not mistaken), and with whomever they wish is most likely, in my opinion: Exxon. Note that Exxon has been pretty silent regarding their Arcturus well in the Namibe Basin.
https://www.upstreamonline.com/exploration/intrigue-builds-over-exxonmobils-completed-african-wildcat/2-1-1739581If that well is a disappointment, and they likely already know if it is, they will most assuredly turn their focus back further south. They've already backed out on farming in with Galp. Why? Because I think they are much more interested in farming in with Woodside, with whom they likely have quite a cosy relationship. Meg O'Neill, Woodside's CEO was VP Africa for Exxon prior to joining WDS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meg_O'Neill
O'Neill also has a strong background in reservoir engineering, so there is little to no doubt in my mind that she is absolutely drooling over the Saturn Superfan. But I don't think Woodside as a company is interested in operating in Namibia for two reasons:
First, Woodside is a very woke organization, and I just don't think operating in Namibia is their cup of tea, especially given their history with Mauritania and the recent election in Namibia with all the wonkiness associated with that, along with the manner in which offshore licences were granted in the first place. Woodside seems to have had more lawyers in Namibia over the years than explorationists.
Secondly, their primary focus as a business, especially with their acquisition of Terllurian earlier this year, is clearly on LNG. I'm quite sure O'Neill would love to farm out a big piece of their interest in PEL 87 to Exxon, and could probably wangle a pretty sweet deal in so doing. No doubt PCL and Custos would also be involved.
If I'm on the right track with this, what could a deal with Exxon look like? First, I think Exxon would want at least 40% working interest, and preferably 50%. I could see Woodside giving up 40 of their 56%, while keeping 16% fully carried through production, plus more than enough cash up front to cover their expenses (3D seismic) and obligations (carrying PCL and Custos through the first exploration well). Woodside might even be willing to give up as much as 46 of their 56% on that basis, depending on the cash involved. After all, it's not like Woodside has been playing up their involvement in Namibia to their shareholders.
Then there are the possible side deals that Exxon might be able to wangle with PCL and Custos... Exxon might sweeten the deal with PCL and offer to carry them not just through a second well for 10%, but right through to production for that 10% along with assuming PCL's obligation to carry Custos and Namcor "through exploration."
Moreover, they might be able, perhaps through a cash deal, to wangle another 4 out of Custos's remaining 14% (remember, Custos has to give up 1 of their 15% to PCL if WDS takes up the option). Add all that up and it is at least conceivable that Exxon could glean a 60% interest in PEL 87, leaving Woodside, PCL, Custos, and Namcor each with 10% fully carried interests through exploration, and possible through production as well.
If any such deal is in the works, we might be hearing about it sooner than the May 18th deadline, and we might also be hearing about it as part of the same announcement that Woodside is taking up their option.
Imagine as well, if Exxon gains a controlling interest in PEL 87, they might decide to take another shot at farming in with Galp in PEL 83... Given their experience in Guyana, no other company in the world is better prepared at bringing Namibia's offshore oil to market more quickly than Exxon, imho.
Note that all of the above is pure speculation on my part. With, admittedly, a good deal of wishful thinking involved as well.
(20min delay)