Shell Joins Battle for IOC"s Gas Output - 23 Aug 2103
By RUSSELL SEARANCKE Wellington 23 August 2013 00:00 GMT
The InterOil-ExxonMobil episode in Papua New Guinea has taken a new twist, with at least one other liquefied natural gas major again vying for InterOil’s gas resources.
The recent lapse of the exclusivity clause in the ExxonMobil talks has enabled InterOil to be open to other offers, and well-placed sources said Shell has submitted a new offer, and possibly another party also.
It could not be confirmed if Shell’s new offer is in direct competition with ExxonMobil’s, or is a separate play for other InterOil resources.
InterOil confirmed the ExxonMobil talks are continuing, though a spokesperson refused to be drawn on the Shell offer, saying only that the company would not be making public comments about any of its negotiations.
A Shell spokesperson did not confirm or deny a move in PNG, saying: “Shell continuously reviews our global upstream portfolio in line with our strategic approach to capital allocation.
“In light of our strategy, we may talk with third parties from time to time. Any conversations are confidential.”
Well-placed sources confirmed that third parties are free to make new offers to InterOil, given the expiry of the exclusivity clause.
ExxonMobil’s requirements are well documented, and major terms have already been agreed with InterOil for ExxonMobil to buy 4.6 trillion cubic feet of gas from the Elk-Antelope field to be used as feedstock for another train at ExxonMobil’s PNG LNG project. Sources said ExxonMobil is keen to close the deal as soon as possible, given the end of the exclusivity period and InterOil being receptive to other offers.
Shell’s motivations are also LNG driven, with the company said to be keen on operating either a new floating LNG project in PNG or an onshore scheme in Western Province near the Elk-Antelope fields.
InterOil said earlier this month that it wants to be a non-operating owner of an LNG project through t
I've been around this thing long enough to avoid making calls on pps direction, nor do I think there's any merit in doing so. Here's what we do know however; there are innumerable people involved in this "deal" and people like to talk so anecdotal datapoints are going to start bubbling up. Russell Searnacke's piece this am is evidence of that.
In United States business law, a forward-looking statement or safe harbor statement is a statement that cannot sustain itself as merely a historical fact. A forward-looking statement predicts, projects, or uses future events as expectations or possibilities.
Under U.S. law, section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, businesses must comply to standards of communication that limit risk factors. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a "safe harbor" for certain forward-looking statements. Businesses usually include a form of a disclaimer that states that any instance of a forward-looking statement found in their material is only true at the time it was written, and they further claim that they are under no obligation to update such written statements if conditions change or that unexpected occurrences happen to affect the statement afterwards. Such forward-looking statements, however, must be identifiable by the use of certain prescribed words.