Thanks PTWell both the auditors and ewc should respond now.As...

Thanks PT

Well both the auditors and ewc should respond now.

As for MW - when does a "reporter" cross the line into a regulated activity?

As I have said before, I can understand the modecular cost difference between projects - that is as simple matter of how the project is ringfenced and financed. Exploiting stranded gas circumvents that issue in ways - first the capex for the upstream is unnecessary as it is someone elses sunk cost, and secondly the lower capex has a lower finacing requirement per $ of LNG produced so is much less complex.

The next question is whether a modecular approach can work? Well This is where I might have been bs'ed. But as I understand LNG projects come in "trains" which are "bolted" together - I dont really understand why they couldnt be unbolted. There may be process economics in electricity generation (EWC avoid this by tapping into the grid), or scale for jettys and whatnot..but a jetty doesnt stop it working.

I would dearly love it if the auditors made some statement, or if EWC made a statement about the location of the kit and its eta in sengkang. The IOC guys appear to be hoping the kit is going to PNG - EWC, very unfairly - has not confirmed or denied.

At the moment I think ewc need to be as specific as possible. This MW guy is saying EWC is a fraud - trust is paramount in security markets - and the delays combined with poor IR makes investors trust in ewc very fragile.