thoughts re mou, page-4

You raise an excellent question Occam, as a contract can constitute anything negotiated between two parties.

I think your second option is the only viable one. And it may simply take the form of the Chinese having first right of purchase of any gas Icon can get its hands on (with price formulae agreed). It would contain no obligation for Icon to provide the gas below a certain price (i.e. because they can't guarantee it will have it) but would provide a guaranteed buyer for Icon should it prove able to produce gas profitably given market conditions prevailing in the future.

Such a contract is obviously of MUCH less value than a 'concrete' contract tying the buyer and seller to specific sales schedule. It would, however, provide the Chinese with free option to competitively priced gas (with nothing to loose if nothing happens) and Icon with a guaranteed market should reserves be forthcoming. This sort of contract would have some positive impact on the share price, but its effect is miniscule compared to the signing of an 'actual' gas sales agreement ($32 billion or otherwise), which is extremely unlikely.

This sort of contract might benefit the two groups of management. The Chinese side get to say to their bosses, and the provincial authorities funding the terminal construction, that gas supplies are being secured (and that the terminal is useful). Icon management get to sell a 'contract' to the market.

This is all speculation, but if the MOU is ratified, i think it will be something along these lines.

Personally, would much prefer to see an up-to-date assessment of reserves position (even if its non-2P reserves) and a plan to progress the Beach project.