LM, that ultimately might have been the fate of an XOM bid but that's not what happened.  Spinning the story to now say IOC was covering for the govt is just fantasy.  The fact is the BOD signed a "horrible" deal with XOM and one that MH could and would not live with.  Period.  End of story.  That might be a bitter pill for all us to swallow but XOM wasn't in tjhe ballpark at the end of the day.  Again, the TOT deal is a good one, but not what longs were "expecting". It might be easier to believe MH had to turn down a blockbuster deal with XOM to accomodate PNG, but that's not what happened.  I have no other genda other than to tell it like it is.  I have not sold a share buthave to reset expectations as to how this all plays out and when. I have tried to pass on some firsthand information here in different threads but realize it takes time to sink in.  Not sure how many more times I can pass it along.

Understood LM and apologies on the "spin" insinuation.  The XOM bid was not a good one which begs the question of how that was selected in the first place back in May. Perhaps non-standard contracts and deal structure put other bidders off and XOM lobbed in a low ball offer thinking IOC had to take it.  Doesn't seem like they improved it much and perhaps that was due to the fact, as you pointed it out, they didn't have a good chance agains a legitimate bid from someone else.  Still, expectations were too high around deal price and we were led to believe there was a bit of a bidding war going on, just not at the levels we assumed.  That's my criticism of how current mgmt handled this latest fiasco.  takes the shine off of a good deal,  Have a good New Year.

'Libtardius Maximus' pid='35217' datel Wrote:There were many considerations in selecting TOT bid, one that is most overlooked is the PNG political. Duma and others were entrenched in not having XOM in PRL 15, they wanted diversity in PNG. Perhaps IOC read the political landscape and decided to accommodate the host country and support this goal. I might be one of the few here that thinks no matter what XOM bid they were not going win PRL 15. Duma's stated preference over the years has been Shell, so in the end, TOT outbids Shell, Duma gets his diversity but not exactly what he had wanted. What can he do? He supports the relationship with TOT by awarding 236, 237, 238. What else could he do? The easier path is to claim XOM bid was too low, bad deal for IOC etc. So lets go ahead and stick with that.

Lib - I'm in your camp.  XOM wasn't going to be allowed to win, so there were ultimately only two bidders.  Why no NOCs?  Don't know the answer to that one unless PNG would only consider cooperating with SMs and only two would play (or were allowed into) the game.

Here's another angle that may have worked to depress the contract value: PNG wanting to buy up to 50% of the gas at market value.  It's not the gas isn't worth a lot more.  It is that the government figured out how to set a cheap price for it by restraining competition.  IOC's salvation will have to be through the drill bit.  

I still have yet to see where IOC gets 30% share of an LNG plant or where Kavo has announced his support for the Gulf LNG plant to be sited near Port Moresby.  Important issues still to be resolved, not to mention the PAC LNG buyout.   If IOC's new partner is truly excited about this opportunity (which they should be) they had better be stepping up and helpling to make it happen or they'll lose the deal to Shell.  In that scenario we know what IOC would end up controlling.

'SamAdams' pid='35199' dateline='<a href="tel:1388168 Wrote:

[quote='sfiaes' pid='35196' dateline='1388167044'] " If XOM were so desperate for the gas, why would their offer have been so low? " Maybe I missed this, but how do you know XOM's bid was "so low"? [/H

MH's description of the May XOM deal was that it was "horrible", not just on $ per mcf but way too conditional. It did not improve much, if at all, after exclusivity expired.  that's why I've also stated that IOC did not leave anything on the table.  The TOT dieal is a good one, just not what people were anticipating.

my sources stated the original deal did not include an LNG interest but had an ok price. "We are not going to give away our

future for a deal"Byker cut that deal . He thought it included LNG and it didn't thus Hessions comments.

Ltinvest has a better handle on this than my emotional friend Sam. Yes they are considering a stock dividend and yes that would

be a good partial solution and yes when owns IOC 100 percent of E/A they company is vulnerable to a takeover. Just common

sense.

'ArtM72' pid='35243' dateline='<a href="tel:1388206 Wrote:

'Libtardius Maximus' pid='35217' dateline='<a href="tel:1388176 Wrote:There were many considerations in selecting TOT bid, one that is most overlooked is the PNG political. Duma and others were entrenched in not having XOM in PRL 15, they wanted diversity in PNG. Perhaps IOC read the political landscape and decided to accommodate the host country and support this goal. I might be one of the few here that thinks no matter what XOM bid they were not going win PRL 15. Duma's stated preference over the years has been Shell, so in the end, TOT outbids Shell, Duma gets his diversity but not exactly what he had wanted. What can he do? He supports the relationship with TOT by awarding 236, 237, 238. What else could he do? The easier path is to claim XOM bid was too low, bad deal for IOC etc. So lets go ahead and stick with that.

Lib - I'm in your camp.  XOM wasn't going to be allowed to win, so there were ultimately only two bidders.  Why no NOCs?  Don't know the answer to that one unless PNG would only consider cooperating with SMs and only two would play (or were allowed into) the game.

Here's another angle that may have worked to depress the contract value: PNG wanting to buy up to 50% of the gas at market value.  It's not the gas isn't worth a lot more.  It is that the government figured out how to set a cheap price for it by restraining competition.  IOC's salvation will have to be through the drill bit.  

I still have yet to see where IOC gets 30% share of an LNG plant or where Kavo has announced his support for the Gulf LNG plant to be sited near Port Moresby.  Important issues still to be resolved, not to mention the PAC LNG buyout.   If IOC's new partner is truly excited about this opportunity (which they should be) they had better be stepping up and helpling to make it happen or they'll lose the deal to Shell.  In that scenario we know what IOC would end up controlling.

Art listen to the CC for the LNG comments. The national govt owns the resources and they want the plant in Port Moresby.

Kavo gets the infrastructure and satellite businesses for his province.

'jft310' pid='35248' dateline='<a href="tel:1388234 Wrote:

[quote='SamAdams' pid='35199' dateline='1388168013']

[quote='sfiaes' pid='35196' dateline='1388167044'] " If XOM were so desperate for the gas, why would their offer have been so low? " Maybe I missed this, but how do you know XOM's bid was "so low"? [/H

MH's description of the May XOM deal was that it was "horrible", not just on $ per mcf but way too conditional. It did not improve much, if at all, after exclusivity expired.  that's why I've also stated that IOC did not leave anything on the table.  The TOT dieal is a good one, just not what people were anticipating.

my sources stated the original deal did not include an LNG interest but had an ok price. "We are not going to give away our

future for a deal"Byker cut that deal . He thought it included LNG and it didn't thus Hessions comments.

Ltinvest has a better handle on this than my emotional friend Sam. Yes they are considering a stock dividend and yes that would

be a good partial solution and yes when owns IOC 100 percent of E/A they company is vulnerable to a takeover. Just common

sense.

[/quotte]

Amazing how one can simply brush away facts by saying things like my"emotional" friend....the emotions on your side JFT is you do not like people pointing out inconvenient facts.  MH said the deal was not good. Do you think a sub $0.60 per mcf price was OK?  My emotion at the time I spoke directly with MH ( and not thru second sources) was how could he have not reset guidance?  The key is to take emotion out of it.  I am now rationally evaluating what to do as should others and setting "realistic" expectations ( that don't include stock dividends, hostile take-outs etc.).

'ltinvest' pid='35271' datel Wrote:Sam, we're all frustrated.....although I would contend we should be a lot more frustrated with the current pps than the deal Hession cut with TOT. As you can see from all the bullet points I listed in early June, the information I received about the XOM deal seemed pretty sound. While I can't know for sure if $1-$1.20 per mcf was 100% accuate, I never, ever heard anything about .60 mcf. However, if that was anywhere close to true, you're making my point. My contention is the all-in amount over the next 2 years was less than $1 billion difference based on the GLJ certification. If we use your numbers, the TOT deal is clearly superior in the short term and we own 30% of and LNG plant! And I might add that is what I heard was the crucial issue.......ownership in the LNG plant. Point #6 from my post in June clearly identifies this and Hession stated in earnings call that was a clear goal of his. Prior to Hession, they were trying to cut a deal that would monetize part of E/A, give them cash to drill additional prospects and unlock future value by building the gathering system, pipeline and csp infrastructure. Hession was after the 30% stake in the LNG plant as well. I agree with several posters who have encouraged everyone to focus on the future. What I know about the future is we're about to have 4-6 new wells drilled in 2014. If the GLJ certification from 3 separate years proves accurate, we will be receiving +/- $3 BILLION in the next 18 months. We finally have the cash to drill and still own 30% of PRL 15, Pipeline, CSP, and 2 train LNG. The government is fully on board and licenses are/have being renewed. Interoil has never been in better shape or better positioned.

Thanks Itinvest.  I agree with you completely.  But to move forward in a realistic fashion, holders need to look back and realize what happened.  I believe knowing what the XOM deal probably was is something all of us should be aware of, and the fact that current management knew they were not going to get close to $1 per mcf in the deal is important.  They tacitly approved prior guidance by not resetting expectations.  A lot here want to gloss over all that and say hey, another compelling buying opportunity.  Yes, MH got a very good long term deal done but he helped push the stock higher on a bullish cc and then wasn't there to explain the deal and open the stock on time.  OK, that's in the past.  But now we can look forward but it will take time, due to credibility issues.  You can't have a great deal and your stock tank 35%. Blame it on the shorts, I don't disagree, but this was a fiasco of an announcement and still confusing to many - look at the IPI situation that the shorts can play with now.  Dreams of Singaopore listings, stock dividends, hostile takeovers don't do us or the stock any good at this point.  Happy to let this move higher on real news and results but I am still frankly amazzed at what I perceive as complacency around what happened in December.  Being displeased with how this was mangaged - from the Nov cc to the announcement - doesn't mean you are irrational, emotional or loaded up with options (these are the barbs that are thrown at anyone criticizing management).  And MH is leading this effort going forward.  He got a great deal done but misjudged/mismanged pieces of this process.  Some are just rookie mistakes, IMO.  Buyt credibility has always been an issue here and there is little wiggle room if we are to get full value for the assets.  Unrealistic expectations at this juncture don't help.