Liquid NIUGINI Gas Project Positioned for Success in Papua New - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
liquid niugini gas project positioned for success in
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Liquid NIUGINI Gas Project Positioned for Success in Papua New - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aug 09, 2023 697 likes •866 views

Liquid NIUGINI Gas Project Positioned for Success in Papua New Guinea 15 th Annual Asia Upstream LNG conference Henry Aldorf President Pacific LNG Operations PTE.LTD April 21, 2010 Pacific LNG 100% owned by Strictly Private & Confidential

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Liquid NIUGINI Gas Project Positioned for Success in Papua New Guinea

15th Annual Asia Upstream LNG conference Henry Aldorf President Pacific LNG Operations PTE.LTD April 21, 2010

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Pacific LNG 100% owned by Clarion Finanz AG.

Pacific LNG owns :

Strictly Private & Confidential

  • ~ 20% of Elk Antelope fields
  • 47.5% of Liquid Niugini Gas
  • Major Shareholder of InterOil
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Condensate >60,000 B/D Gross Acquired 2002 First Cargo 2007

Equatorial Guinea Alba Blue Print for PNG Elk Antelope

LPG >20,000 B/D Gross Methanol >20,000 BOE/D Gross LNG 75,000 BOE/D Gross Total >175,000 BOE/D Gross

Maximizing value through the value chain

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Capital Cost / mmtpa

  • f LNG Output

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Qatargas Nigeria RasGas ELNG T1 Oman ALNG T1 ALNG T1-3 ELNG T1-2 EG LNG $ MM/MMTPA

EGLNG Train 1 : SIX Months Early and Under Budget Delivery and Cost Performance

Capital for Expansion Capacity Train 1 Capital

Commit long lead equipment Agreements signed with EG Government Feed gas introduction FID & signed EPC contract All long lead equipment

  • n site

First LNG cargo

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Source: BG, Marathon internal estimates

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Nigeria Qatargas Oman RasGas Atlantic LNG Egyptian LNG EG LNG T1

Years LNG Project to EPC Contract EPC Award to First LNG

slide-5
SLIDE 5

EGLNG & Liquid Niugini Gas share more than just the name Guinea

  • Liquids driving the LNG development - allows

early cash flow and increases Financing Options

  • Low marginal gas costs
  • Strong Alignment with the PNG Government
  • Favourable tax treatment
  • Strong Alignment among the Partners
  • Brown Field LNG Project
  • Off the Shelf Liquefaction Plants
  • Close to the premium Asian Markets
  • High BTU Gas
  • Similar Management Team

Some Market Voices said “Right project wrong Company” They will be proven wrong again!

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Liquid Niugini Advantages vs. EGLNG

  • The Elk/Antelope Gas Condensate resource

is much larger : 8.2TCF vs. EGLNG „s. 5.5 TCF Gross gas resource with only 3TCF available for Train I

  • Upstream Tax and Royalty system
  • Onshore Development with highly productive

Wells resulting in the lowest regional gas cost

  • Highly prospective Exploration Acreage in a Proven

Basin

  • Multi Train Development with Economies of Scale, not

dependant on foreign resource

  • The Fiscal Stabilization Agreement with the PNG

Government signed upfront – (LNG Project Agreement)

  • PNG is on the LNG Map with Exxon Project
  • PNG has a Credit Rating
slide-7
SLIDE 7

Project Agreement

  • On 23 December 2009, the PNG

National Government signed the Project Agreement with Liquid Niugini Gas for the construction of an LNG Plant(s) in PNG

  • The agreement secures the fiscal terms

for a 20 year period, which include a 30% company tax rate and certain exemptions applicable to large scale projects of this nature

  • The agreement also provides for a up to

20.5% ownership stake to be held by the Government of Papua New Guinea's nominee, Petromin PNG Holdings Limited

  • A further 2% ownership stake will be

taken by landowners directly affected by the plant

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Disadvantages vs. EGLNG

  • Higher EPC Pricing for Equipment and Pipelines but :
  • Liquefaction pricing have come down recently

from >$ 1000/ mt - $650 to $500/mt

  • Hydrocarbon prices especially liquids are much

higher now

  • No Australian Labour constraints
slide-9
SLIDE 9

LNG Liquefaction vs Demand (Mid Case Scenario)

Existing, under construction and possible liquefaction & regasification projects

Source:- Woodmac

0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025

MTPA

Arzew LNG (GL3-Z) QCLNG - Queensland, BG PNG LNG Gorgon GLNG - Curtis Island Angola LNG Pluto Qatargas-4 Qatargas-3 Peru LNG Existing Liquefaction LNG Demand

Mid Case = existing, under construction and possible liquefaction and regasification projects are built

LNG supply & demand gap occurs in 2017 (7 MMTPA) increasing to 70 MMTPA by 2020 70 MMTPA LNG needed

slide-10
SLIDE 10

0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 MTPA

Darwin Expansion ELNG 3 Greater Sunrise Peru LNG Expansion Wheatstone LNG Libya Additional EG LNG 2 Brass LNG Angola Additional Yemen LNG Expansion Tangguh Expansion Qatari Megatrain Debottlenecking Sakhalin Expansion Prelude LNG Ichthys GLNG Expansion Australia Pacific LNG NLNG Seven Plus Marsa El Brega Expansion Damietta 2 Arzew LNG (GL3-Z) QCLNG - Queensland, BG PNG LNG Pluto Expansion GLNG - Curtis island Gladstone LNG (Fisherman's Landing) Gorgon Angola LNG Pluto Qatargas-4 Qatargas-3 Peru LNG Existing Liquefaction

LNG Liquefaction vs Demand

Woodmac Adjusted Scenario

Source:- Woodmac, Marathon

slide-11
SLIDE 11

0.0 0.4 0.7 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.6 5.7 6.0 6.1 6.6 7.5 7.7 8.8 11.2

  • 2.0

4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 ADGAS Qatargas-4 Arun

  • 1. Liquid Niugini Gas

Atlantic LNG 1 Bontang Qatargas Atlantic LNG 2&3 Qalhat LNG Atlantic LNG 4 EG LNG ELNG 2 Damietta ELNG 1 Darwin Brunei LNG OLNG MLNG Tiga Tangguh Brass LNG MLNG Yemen LNG MLNG Dua Peru LNG North West Shelf Angola LNG Kenai US Shale gas Snohvit QCLNG PNG LNG Pluto Gorgon Sakhalin 2 FOB Breakeven Price (US$/mmbtu)

FOB Gas Price necessary to yield 12% Return (NPV12=0 )

  • 1. NPV (@ 12%) Breakeven – recovering capex and opex

Source: Wood Mackenzie, InterOil data

slide-12
SLIDE 12

571.7 1,363.3 156.5 59.3 0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1,000.0 1,200.0 1,400.0 1,600.0 mmboe

Condensate Sales Gas

InterOil Resources

Case As at 31 December, 2009 Low Best High Original Gas-In-Place (tcf) 9.65 11.03 12.54 Initial Recoverable Raw Gas (tcf) 6.87 9.08 11.04 Initial Recoverable Sales Gas (tcf) 6.19 8.18 9.94 Initial Recoverable Condensate (mmbbls) 117.1 156.5 194.7

1GLJ certification prepared in accordance with the Canadian Oil & Gas Evaluation Handbook and Canadian Securities Administrators National Instrument 51-101.

31-12-2008 31-12-2009

*Resources are presented on a 2C basis ** 6 mmscf = 1 mboe * * * * ~ 9.12tcfe

Additional 5.33 tcfe*

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Elk/Antelope – Condensate and LNG

13

Condensate Stripping Project Q2 -2010 2012 Q3 -2010

IOC Refinery Condensate Stripping Plant Elk/Antelope

LNG First 2015/2016 Land LNG (4 mtpa) – Train #1

Land Based LNG

Q3/Q4 -2011 Condensate

N

Barge Condensate to Napa Napa

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Elk/Antelope – Full Development

14

IOC Refinery Condensate Stripping Plant Land Based LNG

N

Barge Condensate to Napa Napa Condensate Stripping Project Q2 -2010 Q3 -2010 Q3/Q4 -2011 2012 Condensate LNG First

Train 2 2017 Train 3 2017/2018

Land LNG (4 mtpa) - Train 1/2/3

Train 1 2015/2016

Elk/Antelope & Condensate Stripping Plant

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Elk/Antelope – Fixed Floating LNG – 3 MTPA

15

Fixed Floating LNG

FEED 1 Year Floating LNG 3 Years First LNG

N

Q3 -2010 2013/2014

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Condensate 60,000 B/D gross Elk Antelope fields Train I First Cargo 2015

The Pacific LNG Vision for the Elk Antelope fields

LNG 75,000 BOE/D gross Total >210 000 BOE/D gross

Maximizing value through the value chain An additional train every 9 months up to 4-5 trains

Condensate splitter 100,000 B/D gross LNLNG 75,000 BOE/D gross Train2 First Cargo 2016