« It’s time to clean up the mess | Main | O’Neill wants early poll to end power struggle »

28 January 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Matate, thanks for your reply to my concerns about the reported transfer of some of PNG's interest in the LNG project to other parties.

As I understand it (and I am happy to stand corrected), PNG has/had an interest in the LNG project via its approximately 15% shareholding in Oil Search (OSH) -196,604,177, shares held by Independent Public Business Corporation worth about AU$1.3 billion at today's share price, with OSH having a 34%? stake in the LNG project.

This gives/gave PNG about 5% of the LNG project as a result of its OSH shareholding.

Now, while West's article says, "... the PNG government is there for a 20 per cent free carry. ..." you and others say that PNG's approximately 20% stake in the overall project is being financed by the sale of its already held, by virtue of its OSH shares, 5% share in the project.

Thus it is converting a 5% holding into a 20% holding. On the face of it, a good deal but, by no means the "free carry" that West asserts.

West is usually quite reliable in his reporting so I would be interested to know where the "free carry" idea came from. Perhaps you can clarify the situation?

The article is half informed rubbish. PNG funded its equity share of the LNG project by issuing an exchangeable bond against its shareholding in Oil Search to the Abu Dhabi government's energy investment company IPIC.

Although at the time this was supposed to value the shares at about $10 (while they currently trade for less than $7) the funds raised have resulted in a shortfall which the PNG government now needs to fund.

The income stream from the project stream was never sold, only the smaller exposure to the project through the OSH shares.

From Michael West's article.
... Cash-strapped as it is, Port Moresby has flicked on a part of its share to the Kuwaitis for cash. ...

It would appear from this that the previous PNG administration has already sold off some of the revenue stream from the Exxon LNG project to raise money for current budgetary commitments (...best case, worst case, trousered by the usual suspects).
I'm not sure this could be considered prudent financial management. Issuing bonds to cover the current expenditure requirements would probably have been a better idea. Where is Mr. Khemlani when you need him? :-)

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.