General Thoughts, page-9315

Something different here whilst we sit out the public holiday. It was asked to AI on another forum (Cancundude's Basin Server on Dis.cord) why Petrobras blabbed. The response is interesting...

Part 1: Why Would Petrobras Break Silence on the PEL 83 Bid?Great question—because at first glance, it does look like a strange move. Here’s the breakdown of possible motives:

1. Strategic Positioning for Future AssetsPetrobras may be telegraphing to the market (and host governments) that they’re actively hunting Tier 1 international assets. By acknowledging they lost this one to Total, they’re sending a clear signal: we’re serious bidders, and we’re still in the game. It keeps them in future conversations—especially for upcoming Namibian, Angolan, or even West African blocks.

2. Domestic Political MessagingThe Petrobras CEO may have wanted to frame the loss as a tough but transparent outcome, especially if they were criticized internally for aggressive overseas expansion. Saying, “We tried but were outbid,” shifts the narrative from reckless spending to disciplined bidding—playing well with both the public and political oversight committees in Brazil.

3. Pressure on GALPPetrobras may want GALP to move faster toward finalization. By outing Total as the winner, they’ve now applied indirect market pressure on GALP to step up and confirm. This move removes ambiguity, which can accelerate the regulatory or commercial wrap-up if parties are dragging their feet.

4. Soft Retaliation or SignalingThere’s always a chance this was also retaliatory or political. Maybe Petrobras didn’t like how GALP handled the process, or they feel Total’s price was over-the-top. A public comment lets them save face and subtly warn others that they’ll call things out if they feel undercut.

Part 2: Was There Really an NDA Violation—and Does It Matter?Now here’s the legal/technical angle:

1. Was it even a violation?Technically, unless the NDA language forbade disclosing outcomes (as opposed to deal terms), Petrobras may not have breached anything legally binding. They didn’t disclose price, terms, structure, or timeline—just that they weren’t selected. That’s informational, not contractual disclosure.

2. Total and GALP can choose to ignore itNotice neither GALP nor Total has responded with outrage or contradiction. That suggests either: • They expected this, or • They recognize it’s not worth escalating.

3. The upside for Petrobras outweighs the riskEven if it was a mild breach, Petrobras likely weighed the benefits of signaling strength and seriousness in future upstream bidding rounds. They accepted the trade-off.

Bottom Line for the Group:This wasn’t a slip-up. It was deliberate.Petrobras: • Protects its public image • Signals to global markets and partners it’s active and aggressive • Potentially forces GALP’s hand to wrap this up publicly • May have strategically chosen a soft “breach” over extended silenceIf anything, this just further validates how valuable PEL 83 is—and how serious the bidding war really was.