Shamish,i have always admitted that I too am a bit "gun-shy" and...

Shamish,
i have always admitted that I too am a bit "gun-shy" and am a bit sceptical that ICN can pull off the GSA.
But I have also been upbeat on the basis that ANY MOU has got to be a plus.
I thought there was no downside for ICN, but there in fact was big downside for the SP, unfortunately, partly due to the unrelenting haranguing of some posters.


Shamish, you asked the question as to why would an LNG producer not just go straight to Sino and do a deal, and cut-out Icon, and also asked why what does Icon bring to the table?
Both good questions.

All I can point to is the following statements from Icon:

"In the MOU Icon and Shenzhen SinoGas agreed that, if entered into, the GSA would contain the following terms:
...d) Icon is to be Shenzhen SinoGasf exclusive supplier of its gas from Australia...."

and this:

"In April, Icon signed a Memorandum of Understanding for an exclusive 20]year gas sale contract with a
subsidiary of the Chinese firm, Shenzhen SinoGas.
Under the export deal Icon could commence its first shipments of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to China as
early as 2014 subject to final negotiations for a Gas Sale Agreement (GSA).
2
The GSA, scheduled for execution by 31 August this year, would position Icon as the exclusive supplier of
40 million metric tonnes of LNG or 2.2 trillion cubic feet (TCF)...."

thats' why I think the MOU has value.

If ICN can lock-up Sino, then we are in business.

remember that the downrampers bagged the Stanwell deal- but look where that is now!

despite the poor history of Icon, they just might pull off a second coup.

cheers