We will vote "NO"!  Hope all large long shareholders do the same!

'MartiniStocks9756' pid='69560' datel Wrote:Probably need to read the fine print and ensure that it is a potential $76 deal. Someone said the CVR may be limited to 8.tcf. Is that true.

Not true. Payment not capped.

mid-case GLJ number is 10.2, fwiw. and gets us $1.824 at recertification from the Q1 2016 presentation

What about the FID and first cargo payments under TOT deal?  As someone said, need to read the fine print

Yea, of course you're right Indo, I took the figure from an older article I wrote and forgot to update for the new GLJ figures, my mistake. It's not a huge difference, but they all count..

[quote='admin' pid='69566' dateline='1463707111']

["Right now, 2C third party estimates are already 9+ tcfe"]

Given the size of the CVR payment at elevated gas levels, a take-over attempt was always likely, and whatever his history, Phil was essentially right. Those that didn't trust Hession, more especially his lack of skin in the game and the way his incentives are aligned also have a point. IHMO.

• A 7.1Tcfe certification (presently the mid case number of an older Caffney Cline report) delivers a $594M payment at certification and $1.6B in total.
• A 9.9Tcfe certification (presently the mid case number of GLJ) delivers a $1.717M payment at certification and $2.8B in total.

*****

The only rational reason I could see for the Board to recommend this deal would be if they thought/knew the certifications were going to be very low.

[The only rational reason I could see for the Board to recommend this deal would be if they thought/knew the certifications were going to be very low.]

Well, if they think that they sure managed to hide that very well in the CC.. Here is Hession:

when we put Antelope 5 in the ground, we expected to be testing the western flank. That proved actually to be much further out to the west. So very simply, the field is a lot bigger.

The fact of the matter is volumes are trending up and, Evan, [indiscernible] talked about this. The GLJ, their view of the reservoir as we continually drill four, five and six GLJ again and again are being proved to be more correct with respect to the reserves and the nature of the geology that we are dealing with.

CAC dateline='<a href="tel:1463708072">1463708072</a>' Wrote:

[quote='admin' pid='69566' dateline='1463707111']

["Right now, 2C third party estimates are already 9+ tcfe"]

Given the size of the CVR payment at elevated gas levels, a take-over attempt was always likely, and whatever his history, Phil was essentially right. Those that didn't trust Hession, more especially his lack of skin in the game and the way his incentives are aligned also have a point. IHMO.

• A 7.1Tcfe certification (presently the mid case number of an older Caffney Cline report) delivers a $594M payment at certification and $1.6B in total.
• A 9.9Tcfe certification (presently the mid case number of GLJ) delivers a $1.717M payment at certification and $2.8B in total.

*****

The only rational reason I could see for the Board to recommend this deal would be if they thought/knew the certifications were going to be very low.

that

'Stavros' pid='69581' datel Wrote:I WILL VOTE NO All IOC shareholders should vote NO ... 1. We must get fair ownership of the merged company (30%) 2. TOTAL must pay all of what they owe based on the Transformational Deal 3. Hession CANNOT be the IOC Board Member who joins the OSH Board IF we vote NO, and get over 33.4% to vote NO, then the deal will be increased appropriately; they will not abandon the deal

Start campaigning for 17 million votes.

Again, the IOC shareholders are taking all of the risk on the recertification.  This deal would be ok if we were guaranteed 9.2Ts.