Another interesting comment on 'shareholdersunite' re: PNG Gulf...

Another interesting comment on 'shareholdersunite' re: PNG Gulf LNG poject with quite some references to EWC in all of this (see below). In any case, it pays to remember that, other than the actual parties involved in these final negotiations, nobody actually knows what is really going on. Nevertheless, some interesting comments to digest in the meantime.

Shareholdersunite comments:

RE: How big is the BUT?
A couple of big buts are out there and I'm not talking about Bertha. When we take into account all of the things being said by IOC, the government, bidders, Duma, Kavo; Buts stick out.
1. The government- Not wild about EWC right now; like their concept but we are watching indon, Don't want cost blowouts so we want cost guarantees, Gulf location is conditional, we want up to 50% option, the project is very important that it gets up and running quickly, IOC is a loyal PNG partner
2. Bidders- Not wild about EWC, not wild about Gulf, we are being asked for cost guarantees, we believe we believe we believe that resource is very good and valuable, we need LNG for customers/our own use, PNG is less risky now, IOC must be flexible, But costs are much more predictable at Napa Napa, and that port at Napa Napa is a thing of beauty
3. IOC- Come to Papua, we have lots of liquid rich, low cost to develop gas and it's in a very big continuous structure and we have T2 and the rolodex of reefs, we like EWC because we can keep more for ourselves and like Gulf location but we also have this great site at Napa Napa where we have already done massive amounts of excavating and some of it is prepping for the possibility of a traditional LNG project, and we have a very deep port already, we have done tons of road/bridge work in EA that will make things move quickly.
4. Duma- What approval?!! It's conditional and the 2009 approval is still the requirement
5. Kavo- Show me the money! How can I make more money? We have an agreement with EWI/EWC for a petroleum port that they will do on BOT basis and that will include power plant to bring much needed electricity to Kerema hospitals, schools, homes, etc. We want LNG and CSPs in Gulf. And I was just on EMTV last week saying that the 50-50 venture we signed is anticipating that EWC signs project agreements. No, really it's on EMTV's website.

So what Buts are the biggest and baddest? Bidders and National Government have the biggest Buts and for their needs and wants they may well be saying we will give permission/good price/financing/cost guarantees/best LNG plant BUT the first plant needs to be at Napa Napa and since you (IOC) have already done so much work it can go very quickly. And if that BUT is agreeable, then once EWC proves that their modules work in Indon and EWI is still saying they will fund the petroleum port and do it on BOT basis, you can do an EWC project at Bluff and stage it so that the power plant takes gas in-kind from the CSPs to provide power for the project and Kerema, and you can add modules to make LNG to be shipped to other parts of PNG for additional power plants, etc., and export any excess. This all works since you have comparative low costs in your upstream as proven by your recent presentation and this will work for all of us. Now who would say "But, But..." to those Buts?