'Palm' pid='19117' dateline='<a href="tel:1363727 Wrote:

'Tree' pid='19106' dateline='<a href="tel:1363723 Wrote:

We have partner selection in March and I think the bids are firm, no back and forth. It was give it your best shot. Where does it say otherwise?

“Our board intends to meet our advisors during March for the purpose of evaluating the proposals received and selecting our partner for the development of the LNG project.

Eller, did you happen to catch this Q by McDougall who just penned the best analysis of IOC I've seen?  How else do you explain it?  Unless a bidder met IOC's asking price/terms I would expect IB's to solicit re-bids within a reasonable time window.  They get paid commission and they only sell this once.  To expect IOC to operate on firm timelines which they never laid out for this bid consideration is foolish.  It can be completed anyday, just not  by some specific date.  USE or FLUSH as normal with all I or anyone posts.

William Christopher McDougall - Westlake Securities LLC, Research Division

I'm looking forward to hearing the results on the bidding process. I wanted to understand a little bit of the process with communicating with the market over the next few months, will it be kind of one update at the end when you accept the bid? Or will there be some interim updates?

Phil E. Mulacek - Chief Executive Officer and Director

I mean, as we need to disclose under law, we'll complete and comply with proper disclosure. We -- it's -- I don't want to say it's too premature, but we wouldn't want to talk and be prejudicial where any comments affect the final outcome. I mean we have waited this long. We have never had better interest. LNG prices this winter have been some of the highest. We saw over $20. We saw $19 earlier this month, $19.50. And when everyone was claiming 6 months ago, we're going to see some U.S. parity and that was an absolute falsehood. So I mean we're coming together on the timing at no better -- we don't want to jeopardize that. So as we have requirements, we'll complete and we'll announce it to the market.

“Our board intends to meet our advisors during March for the purpose of evaluating the proposals received and selecting our partner for the development of the LNG project."

That statement was of course CV's from the CC:

"Thanks, Phil, and welcome to everyone listening to today's presentation. You can see from our filed financials, we continue to progress and expand on the Gulf LNG Project to monetize existing, resources, and we also continue to invest in our exploration portfolio, which David Holland will cover in more detail. I know that you are all eagerly awaiting the announcements on the asset sell-down process, and I can assure you that we are all excited about our future, especially given the certified resources that we have.

As publicly disclosed and highlighted by Phil, the final bid solicitation period for the partnering process will close today, and our board intends to meet our advisors during March for the purpose of evaluating the proposals received and selecting our partner for the development of the LNG project. The asset sell-down, once completed, will fund the Gulf LNG Project and our longer-term exploration program. The timing and execution of agreements will be advised in accordance with our continuous disclosure requirements. Also, we may not extend existing agreements as we move forward towards an integrated LNG project and conclude documentation with the selected strategic partner."

Then on March 1 in the official PR announcing that final bids had been received they stated:

"The InterOil Board of Directors will meet the Company’s advisors during March 2013 for the purpose of evaluating bids received for the development of the Gulf LNG Project utilising gas from the Elk and Antelope fields in Papua New Guinea."

That's the official, official, official filed with SEDAR/SEC company line; no mention of "selecting". Probably a wise move.

[/quote]

Some would say a waffling move. Well we are, no were not.  Well we are, no were not.

[quote='Palm' pid='19122' dateline='1363730134'] Most would say wise move based in advice from IBs. As Phil has said, "We only get to do this (PRL 15 sell down) once". The first one is the toughest. Wise to take counsel of guys who HAVE done it before.

Where does it state the IBer's gave such counsel.  I run a business where we do IT bids and acquisitions.  Slow is not always efficient or the winning strategy.

'Palm' pid='19127' dateline='<a href="tel:1363732 Wrote:Where does it state that it was a waffling move? Point is they have stated that they are meeting with their "advisors" and on Feb 28th "the advisors" informed them that they had received the final bids and that during March they would be meeting with their "advisors" to evaluate the bids. Pretty safe to assume that the "advisors" had seen the bids and laid out their proposed plan on reviewing the bids; during March.

Thanks I am not opposed to them being deliberate just as long as they are done by Mar 31.  It is not me but the market that may school IOC shares if it is perceived this is dragging on.  The market won't remember the last release, just the one that stated they would pick a partner.  I would like the stock to start it"s run from $75 rather than $55 for selfish reasons.

'Getitrt2' pid='19130' datel Wrote:Tree, to repeat: Where are you getting something about "IBs soliciting re-bids", just an IMO? Did McDougall say something about such as that in his report?

Read your 4:45 mail

"The company did not put a deadline on the sale process."

Well then who did then??

'Tree' pid='19846' datel Wrote:

"The company did not put a deadline on the sale process."

Well then who did then??

They did say they would pick a partner in a release then hastly retreated from that.  Their words and statement, not mine. 32 days but who is counting.