'Petro2458' pid='23703' dateline='<a href="tel:1370348 Wrote:

4 to 5 TCF!? This is why stock is down...somehow very very low estimates are out there.

**********

[Petro-Same people feed the market through other articles , they have said water wells, propane fed flares, IOC will never get a deal, see Bonk's comments below the April 30th Resource Arb article. Pure nonsense. Let them have fun. Add if you have the funds . ADD!!!,if not laugh cause the longs day is coming very soon. Exxon needs our NG. Period end of discussion.

**********

Jft, I disagree with the notion that any data disseminated which isn't a glowing endorsement of everything we hope to be true is necessarily misinformation fed to the market by shorts or others determined to keep the pps down.  Nor do I believe it is our job to go out of our way to skew all information in a positive light (sometimes dubiously) because of the perceived need to shape public opinion or to "fight back against the shorts".  This seems to me to be a quote directly from Nolan that should, at least for now, be taken at face value.  Nolan stated what he stated so until there's an explanation or clarification, I assume he really thinks that...or that he's got a reason to want the World to believe he thinks that.   

Nolan's statement as reported initailly was corrected the following day:

May 27, 2013|Reuters

(Corrects to show that 4 to 5 tcf is the gas required for one
train, not the amount being considered in Interoil deal)

BRISBANE, May 27 (Reuters) - Exxon Mobil's talks
with Interoil to develop the Elk and Antelope fields
could lead to an expansion of its $19-billion Papua New Guinea
liquefied natural gas (PNG LNG) project, an Exxon executive said
on Monday.

The company did not have a timeline for when a deal could be
finalised, but Mark Nolan, Exxon Mobil vice president for
development in the Middle East and Africa, signalled it may be
soon.

"The expansion opportunities look attractive to us, so I
wouldn't expect we'd wait too long," Nolan said, speaking to
reporters at an industry conference.

Exxon said 4 to 5 trillion cubic feet is typically the
amount of gas required to expand an LNG plant by one train. LNG
plants are typically made up of several "trains," or
self-sufficient plants that chill gas into liquid.

Interoil Corp announced on Friday that it had entered into
exclusive negotiations with Exxon.

(Reporting by Rebekah Kebede; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)"

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-27/news/sns-rt-exxon-interoil-urgent-correctedl3n0e80lj-20130527_1_lng-plant-png-lng-exxon-mobil

As usual I think publications are quick to report, but once incorrect info is out there, it sticks in some places.  This Petroleum Economist writer likely picked up the initial report but missed the correction.

'Palm' pid='23735' datel Wrote:

Nolan's statement as reported initailly was corrected the following day:

"CORRECTED-(OFFICIAL)-Exxon eyes Interoil assets for PNG LNG expansion

May 27, 2013|Reuters

(Corrects to show that 4 to 5 tcf is the gas required for one
train, not the amount being considered in Interoil deal)

BRISBANE, May 27 (Reuters) - Exxon Mobil's talks
with Interoil to develop the Elk and Antelope fields
could lead to an expansion of its $19-billion Papua New Guinea
liquefied natural gas (PNG LNG) project, an Exxon executive said
on Monday.

The company did not have a timeline for when a deal could be
finalised, but Mark Nolan, Exxon Mobil vice president for
development in the Middle East and Africa, signalled it may be
soon.

"The expansion opportunities look attractive to us, so I
wouldn't expect we'd wait too long," Nolan said, speaking to
reporters at an industry conference.

Exxon said 4 to 5 trillion cubic feet is typically the
amount of gas required to expand an LNG plant by one train. LNG
plants are typically made up of several "trains," or
self-sufficient plants that chill gas into liquid.

Interoil Corp announced on Friday that it had entered into
exclusive negotiations with Exxon.

(Reporting by Rebekah Kebede; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)"

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-27/news/sns-rt-exxon-interoil-urgent-correctedl3n0e80lj-20130527_1_lng-plant-png-lng-exxon-mobil

As usual I think publications are quick to report, but once incorrect info is out there, it sticks in some places.  This Petroleum Economist writer likely picked up the initial report but missed the correction.

***********

Very good.  Thank you, Palm!

'Palm' pid='23740' datel Wrote:Agree on the resource reports, but we know that shorts will use ANYTHING to justify naked shorting, etc and try and convince wobblers that the sky is falling. You know, the old imploding well-type thing .

That's DRY HOLE BLOWBACK to you pal. " border="0" class="smilie" src="http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/images/smilies/biggrin.gif" />