'Getitrt2' pid='73737' datel Wrote:

I prefer a US CVR to one on the AUX, but am more comfortable with a CVR with an Antelope 7.  What about the option of accepting a GLJ certification, preferably with Antelope 7, or especially if without Antelope 7 since that is essentially a relatively known quantity?!  GLJ would not be starting from scratch.

As Dr. Hession has pointed out in the even recent past GLJ has been the most consistently correct of those firms publishing public assessments of IOC resource numbers and thus the most logical choice for obtaining a valid certification.  As suggested by Stavros  another likely impartial certification would come by way of XOM as a purchase of IOC would make Total's binding committments subject to XOM's scrutiny.  Even in that scenario we might not see all of the upside but at least OSH and TOT would not be in a position to tell us what few crumbs they are willing to cast our way.

OSH suggesting Hession will be on the CVR board looking out for IOC shareholder rights is simply beyond human understanding.

'davidhmtk' pid='73718' datel Wrote:

According to the terms of the merger agreement between IOC and OSH, once IOC's financial advisors and BOD have evaluated a replacement bid and determined that it is a Superior Proposal, there is a mandatory 3 day period where OSH ( or Total ) can counterbid.  During that 3 day period, IOC is not allowed to announce that there is a Superior Proposal.  The bid was announced July 1 and if you believe Reuters, mirrors the OSH deal, but is larger.  So the evaluation process is perunctory, as XOM intended.  That can't take 12 days, they must be more than 3 days past their evaluation.  Since IOC hasn't announced that XOM's proposal is superior, I suggest that we can infer that there was a counterbid, which is being evaluated currently.

I think you are right.  OSH only has to match, make Exxon "not superior".  I would say Total is competing indirectly by working with OSH, which is ironic (It's all about money.), since their side deal is necessary for OSH to get it done.  Total probably does not want to compete directly with Exxon, but may have to at some point, perhaps if it gets beyond OSH capability.  I think Exxon has a lot to gain or lose, particularly given the needs and opportunities with PNG LNG relative to IOC's confirmed gas and controlling positions in other leases likely/potential gas, and also getting control of IOC's PRL 15 deal with Total, which is looking more and more lucrative as the likely certifiable gas grows.  I have to wonder how Antelope 7 would fit into this.  I think Exxon has been very conservative and coy with bids in the past when they had other possible alternatives and less information, and saw no need to hurry;  but I think they have now decided they need it and it's time to act, and have a feeling they are not likely to be willing to lose out to the likes of OSH, with Total being the wild card.  REAL competition is good for the target, and I hope Exxon or Total gets it done without OSH soon, although none of this is what I had been hoping for or expecting based on long-running previous management guidance.

'Getitrt2' pid='73740' datel Wrote:Art, I basically agree, except that the lower interest in Papua LNG would come along with some interest in the future of PNG LNG also. Of course, with Exxon we could participate in both to a limited extent, and with US securities and a dividend. Also, with Exxon owning IOC, I would bet on PNG LNG getting expanded more and much more quickly. Exxon might become more of a growth stock than it is now - ho ho!

Yeah, a little far fetched to think of it as much of a growth stock, but energy is kind of like water. You don't know its value until it is in extremely short supply. Of the hydrocarbons natural gas and gas liquids are the best place to be from an environmental standpoint.  Also I expect from a total cost of ownership for generating equipment standpoint as well. Polyethylene pipes are the greatest it seems for everything I do.