'TxPm' pid='26771' datel Wrote:For those of you starting to feel a little anxious I thought this article may help: http://m.seekingalpha.com/article/115462

Thanks, Tx.  Nothing like a tale of woe to brighten one's morning " border="0" class="smilie" src="http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif" />

"There is a lot of potential answers as to why it is taking so long and the correct answers may not have even been discussed yet. IOC could be working on two, three or more deals, all interlocking, that may require tweaking in order to finally mesh with all parties. We just don't know. "

Wouldn't it be easier on us all if they just took a lead from Major League Baseball and wrap up the deal with the statement "and a player to be named later"?

'Ass0ciatedPress' pid='26785' datel Wrote:

'kommonsents' pid='26780' datel Wrote:

While speculation about what is going on with only hints and tidbits of information and a lot of reading between the lines is fun, it clears nothing up for me. There is a lot of potential answers as to why it is taking so long and the correct answers may not have even been discussed yet. IOC could be working on two, three or more deals, all interlocking, that may require tweaking in order to finally mesh with all parties. We just don't know. What we do know is that IOC has some solid assets and they will be monetized soon, if for no other reason, than that they are cheap to buy and the demand is over-subscribed. One or more deals will be announced in the near future, IMHO, and so I wait. It looks like we will make new highs soon and that will further validate IOC.

Kommon,

You're right they "could" be working on multiple deals like you said that are all interlocking but we have no idea. The only thing we know is that Interoil entered exclusive negotations with XOM months ago and that "the major terms" have been agreed to. We have not been drilling all year, and its my understanding further delineation wells will be necessary to firm up E/A numbers. Driling takes time, especially in the jungles of PNG. We are not drilling Triceratops and with each passing day we grow closer to 2014. It would be quite an unfortunate set of events if 2013 is just a wash because the lawyers are sending papers back and forth rereading the same documents over and over again while our rigs sit idle, and our resources in 2013 are the same as 2012 because of lack of drilling.  Seems like a dramtically lost opportunity to me with some many prospects in the fold and "jewels" yet to be discovered in our portfolio.

Regarding your comments that our resources are "cheap to buy" and "demand is oversubscribed" I certainly hope that those aren't knowns. It was my understanding that we have been seeking a premium on our natural gas because of the condensates, low cost and proficient flowing wells. Now if that is no longer the case that I'm even more confused as to what has taken so long.

 I know I'm in the minority here, I recognize and understand that.

What I meant by "cheap to buy" was that, similar to mining operations that mine other metals while mining the primary metal, the other metals can result in a "negative cost" to mine the primary metal.

IOC is in a similar situation with their wet gas.  The value of the condensates will reduce the costs to produce the NG, the primary commodity.  I don't know what the actual numbers are off-hand, but it is probable that the net cost to produce the NG will be negative after realizing the revenue from the condensates, possibly even oil if found in adeguate quantities.  I think this has all been discussed here before.

The comment that the "demand is oversubscribed" is in reference to the demand and price of LNG around the world.  Prices are high due to the growing demand versus supply and trending higher over the years.  That trend will probably continue into the foreseeable future until the next fuel, perhaps hydrogen, becomes more technically advantageous.

I believe NG and LNG is our transitional fuel for energy including transportation for the near and medium term future.

IOC has a very advantageous cost structure as well as very promising future discoveries in their unexplored/underexplored areas.

I agree with you that IOC should be drilling, at least based on what we think we know.  Perhaps there will be some clarification on that in the next CC.  At least, I hope so.

Kommon, couldn't agree more with all you've said in this thread.  Seems to me the deal is evolving, hence the belated consumation.

'Ass0ciatedPress' pid='26767' datel Wrote:

How long does it take to finalize a deal? Do we need more efficient lawyers? I just don't feel a sense of urgency with this company. Idle rigs since January, seeking extensions to licenses set to expire. The time is now to monetize its assets not later. The US and Canada continue to push forward with their own LNG projects and continue to get approval. A third US LNG export project was approved yesterday.  All of this has been extremely and unbelievably frustrating.

Does anyone see any sense of urgency?

You don't seem to understand lawyers? They bill 300$/hour while they ask you about your children.

'jft310' pid='26764' datel Wrote:

'Resourcearb' pid='26759' dateline='<a href="tel:1375963 Wrote:

Additional evidence may have just emerged relating to the Shell/InterOil conspiracy theory.  Subsequent to the publication two days ago of my Seeking Alpha article titled “InterOil: The Stars Are Aligned For A Takeover Battle To Ensue In The Coming Weeks”, Upstreamonline seems to have removed its August 2 article titled “ExxonMobil and InterOil locked in PNG talks”, which was referenced in my article and stated that “Sources said Shell is sore at missing the opportunity, and is waiting in the wings if the ExxonMobil-InterOil talks falter”.

If you click on the link copied on the following post (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/showthread.php?tid=4309), you’ll notice the following message, “We can't find the page you are looking for”.  Maybe the deletion is meaningless or happened by mistake, but in several years of reading Upstreamonline, I don’t recall a single article having been removed from the site.  Did Shell contact Upstreamonline or Russell Searancke Wellington and request that the article be removed?  If so, is this indicative of the veracity of the theory that Shell is in fact preparing to bid for InterOil?

In my opinion the article was deleted because it was bogus. There is no lock with Exxon over anything. the lawyers. Are finalizing the deal. It's 100 percent we get an Exxon deal. As  to Shell could.they do a deal at Gulf well sure. Shell is cheap drops out when prices rise.Refer to Cove they dropped when the price rose. I would be surprised to see Shell get a deal in Gulf and do   Not expect them to buy IOC . I do expect Exxon to buy all do iOC someday.Not soon.

I'll put my two cents into this discussion...since I have previously espoused time as an important variable.

I fear using an analogy of another exploration company (in a different sector) since analogies are imperfect and can be picked apart... but here goes anyway.

I know of another mining exploration company that was headed up by the "Mining Man of the Year"... found great prospects... ponied up and went out drilling.... Found exceptional results... the concession was touted as one of the best finds ever... the company kept drilling and kept getting great results... slowly they acrrued 43-101 recordable reserves, probable and inferred resources... had known "verbal" offers for the company... the sector was running high... all of the "majors" were gobbling up the junior explorers... this company was expected to get plucked & it all was good...but the company waited... they could get more... and we waited and waited and waited... company stops drilling because they have booked more reserves then needed to be acquired... exceptional grades, and quantity, and obviously they was more & all was good... the company was in informal talks.... but we waited...and waited...and waited... supposedly go into exclusive negotiations and all was good... but we waited and waited.... mean while, the market started changing, dropping, economy changing, majors catching heat from big buyouts of the minor explorations... and so we waited... To end this drama, the company is sitting on resources, recordable - balance sheet resources...still one of the best finds for its sector... and they are being taken over for mere pennies.

The above actual example has more differences to it than similarities... the greatest being it's a larger corporation with competent management

My main point here is that you can wait too long & I really do not like that IOC has stopped drilling.

Things that can happen to IOC (possible but maybe not probable):

1. We have another earthquake of such a magnitude that it destroys Exxon's PNG LNG facility and most of Port Moresby
2. O'Neill has an unfortunate car wreck, claiming his live... and Duma garners emough support to be elected temporary PM
3. ...you see my point

With a supposed deal in play, the more time passes, the higher the probability of a negative outcome creeps in.

Time to... Get'r Done Boys!!!

[quote='Hoosier1' pid='26809' dateline='1375999155']

I'll put my two cents into this discussion...since I have previously espoused time as an important variable.

I fear using an analogy of another exploration company (in a different sector) since analogies are imperfect and can be picked apart... but here goes anyway.

I know of another mining exploration company that was headed up by the "Mining Man of the Year"... found great prospects... ponied up and went out drilling.... Found exceptional results... the concession was touted as one of the best finds ever... the company kept drilling and kept getting great results... slowly they acrrued 43-101 recordable reserves, probable and inferred resources... had known "verbal" offers for the company... the sector was running high... all of the "majors" were gobbling up the junior explorers... this company was expected to get plucked & it all was good...but the company waited... they could get more... and we waited and waited and waited... company stops drilling because they have booked more reserves then needed to be acquired... exceptional grades, and quantity, and obviously they was more & all was good... the company was in informal talks.... but we waited...and waited...and waited... supposedly go into exclusive negotiations and all was good... but we waited and waited.... mean while, the market started changing, dropping, economy changing, majors catching heat from big buyouts of the minor explorations... and so we waited... To end this drama, the company is sitting on resources, recordable - balance sheet resources...still one of the best finds for its sector... and they are being taken over for mere pennies.

The above actual example has more differences to it than similarities... the greatest being it's a larger corporation with competent management

My main point here is that you can wait too long & I really do not like that IOC has stopped drilling.

Things that can happen to IOC (possible but maybe not probable):

1. We have another earthquake of such a magnitude that it destroys Exxon's PNG LNG facility and most of Port Moresby
2. O'Neill has an unfortunate car wreck, claiming his live... and Duma garners emough support to be elected temporary PM
3. ...you see my point

With a supposed deal in play, the more time passes, the higher the probability of a negative outcome creeps in.

Time to... Get'r Done Boys!!!

++++++++++++++

Wise indeed, Hoosier. 

'Hoosier1' pid='26809' dateline='<a href="tel:1375999 Wrote:

I'll put my two cents into this discussion...since I have previously espoused time as an important variable.

I fear using an analogy of another exploration company (in a different sector) since analogies are imperfect and can be picked apart... but here goes anyway.

I know of another mining exploration company that was headed up by the "Mining Man of the Year"... found great prospects... ponied up and went out drilling.... Found exceptional results... the concession was touted as one of the best finds ever... the company kept drilling and kept getting great results... slowly they acrrued 43-101 recordable reserves, probable and inferred resources... had known "verbal" offers for the company... the sector was running high... all of the "majors" were gobbling up the junior explorers... this company was expected to get plucked & it all was good...but the company waited... they could get more... and we waited and waited and waited... company stops drilling because they have booked more reserves then needed to be acquired... exceptional grades, and quantity, and obviously they was more & all was good... the company was in informal talks.... but we waited...and waited...and waited... supposedly go into exclusive negotiations and all was good... but we waited and waited.... mean while, the market started changing, dropping, economy changing, majors catching heat from big buyouts of the minor explorations... and so we waited... To end this drama, the company is sitting on resources, recordable - balance sheet resources...still one of the best finds for its sector... and they are being taken over for mere pennies.

The above actual example has more differences to it than similarities... the greatest being it's a larger corporation with competent management

My main point here is that you can wait too long & I really do not like that IOC has stopped drilling.

Things that can happen to IOC (possible but maybe not probable):

1. We have another earthquake of such a magnitude that it destroys Exxon's PNG LNG facility and most of Port Moresby
2. O'Neill has an unfortunate car wreck, claiming his live... and Duma garners emough support to be elected temporary PM
3. ...you see my point

With a supposed deal in play, the more time passes, the higher the probability of a negative outcome creeps in.

Time to... Get'r Done Boys!!!

well put, bears will be bears and bulls will be bulls.....but pigs get slaughtered.   GET IT DONE!!!!!

Dangit!  The article is back.  Dated today.

'Tree' pid='26813' datel Wrote:

Dangit!  The article is back.  Dated today.

What does this mean?

I don't have access to the article dated tomorrow, Aug. 9th. Is it exactly the same as the one dated Aug 2nd? or has it been changed by inserting something or leaving something out?

It all seems a bit strange.