'Getitrt2' pid='39332' datel Wrote:

'Brew Swillis' pid='39321' datel Wrote:

'Getitrt2' pid='39313' datel Wrote:I can't believe this debate over Exxon vs Total with respect to PRL 15 keeps popping up, even in a thread for an RJ report predicting a close with Total. As far as I am concerned, we have an extremely intelligent, experienced, and competent CEO who has thoroughly evaluated the best proposals of Exxon and Total and decisively selected Total's, in conjunction with on-going consultations with the government, and that is good enough for me. Furthermore, however, what I have learned and evaluated in conjunction with that from all sources pro and con seem to back that up. Without some significant change from Total and/or Exxon, I don't see any reason why there is any debate left on PRL 15 at this time. On one point, as I have discussed elsewhere people keep referring to "sooner cash flow from a PNG LNG third train", even though MS puts that at four years. They should be saying "operating cash flow", because much sooner cash flow comes from the fixed and resource payments from Total, which are apparently greater than Exxon was willing to offer. I might add that, as I have also discussed elsewhere, according to the Feb 27 MS report on OSH, Exxon and OSH are currently focused on developing and evaluating Hides, P'nyang, etc. as sources for PNG LNG train 3. If there is any worthwhile debate left, barring circumstance changes as indicated above, I think it arises from other gas from Triceratops, new discoveries (likely, imo), or perhaps certification of much larger amounts than expected in PRL 15; and I think that debate would be on expansion of either or both when of the two LNG facilities, a debate I would love to enjoy. The first two of those sources have also been cited by our CEO as possible sources for PNG LNG.

I would suggest taking off your IOC-colored glasses and putting on a PNG-colored pair.

Brew, I would suggest taking off your colored glasses and putting on a clear pair, and checking out all facts, professional and other analyses and opinion, and all "sides", or colors;  and if you don't end up liking IOC's colors, I would suggest going elsewhere.

I've checked out all the facts, statements, etc.  As I've previously stated, the process is fluid.  You see it differently.  Why can't you accept that your take on this is not shared by all?

I appreciate the knowledge and perspective you bring to this forum but your aggressive nature I do not.

'geologydude' pid='39324' datel Wrote:

'Brew Swillis' pid='39321' datel Wrote:

'Getitrt2' pid='39313' datel Wrote:I can't believe this debate over Exxon vs Total with respect to PRL 15 keeps popping up, even in a thread for an RJ report predicting a close with Total. As far as I am concerned, we have an extremely intelligent, experienced, and competent CEO who has thoroughly evaluated the best proposals of Exxon and Total and decisively selected Total's, in conjunction with on-going consultations with the government, and that is good enough for me. Furthermore, however, what I have learned and evaluated in conjunction with that from all sources pro and con seem to back that up. Without some significant change from Total and/or Exxon, I don't see any reason why there is any debate left on PRL 15 at this time. On one point, as I have discussed elsewhere people keep referring to "sooner cash flow from a PNG LNG third train", even though MS puts that at four years. They should be saying "operating cash flow", because much sooner cash flow comes from the fixed and resource payments from Total, which are apparently greater than Exxon was willing to offer. I might add that, as I have also discussed elsewhere, according to the Feb 27 MS report on OSH, Exxon and OSH are currently focused on developing and evaluating Hides, P'nyang, etc. as sources for PNG LNG train 3. If there is any worthwhile debate left, barring circumstance changes as indicated above, I think it arises from other gas from Triceratops, new discoveries (likely, imo), or perhaps certification of much larger amounts than expected in PRL 15; and I think that debate would be on expansion of either or both when of the two LNG facilities, a debate I would love to enjoy. The first two of those sources have also been cited by our CEO as possible sources for PNG LNG.

I would suggest taking off your IOC-colored glasses and putting on a PNG-colored pair.

Amen, Brews...Dec 6, 2013 a date that will live in infamy for IOC supporters, best to learn from it!

Yeah, Dude, an infamous date for sure.  I think less clear what the lesson to be learned was, perhaps expect surprises.  Of course, I have never claimed or thought I couldn't be wrong, and almost everyone was then,about the partner and its being good.  However, leaning toward the perceived PNG preference was not the lesson;  they supported Exxon, and then supported Total!  The decisions are not entirely PNG's, and there is not necessarily one acceptable outcome for PNG.

'Getitrt2' pid='39329' datel Wrote:

'CAC' pid='39319' datel Wrote:

'Libtardius Maximus' pid='39316' datel Wrote:

'Getitrt2' pid='39313' datel Wrote:I can't believe this debate over Exxon vs Total with respect to PRL 15 keeps popping up, even in a thread for an RJ report predicting a close with Total. As far as I am concerned, we have an extremely intelligent, experienced, and competent CEO who has thoroughly evaluated the best proposals of Exxon and Total and decisively selected Total's, in conjunction with on-going consultations with the government, and that is good enough for me. Furthermore, however, what I have learned and evaluated in conjunction with that from all sources pro and con seem to back that up. Without some significant change from Total and/or Exxon, I don't see any reason why there is any debate left on PRL 15 at this time. On one point, as I have discussed elsewhere people keep referring to "sooner cash flow from a PNG LNG third train", even though MS puts that at four years. They should be saying "operating cash flow", because much sooner cash flow comes from the fixed and resource payments from Total, which are apparently greater than Exxon was willing to offer. I might add that, as I have also discussed elsewhere, according to the Feb 27 MS report on OSH, Exxon and OSH are currently focused on developing and evaluating Hides, P'nyang, etc. as sources for PNG LNG train 3. If there is any worthwhile debate left, barring circumstance changes as indicated above, I think it arises from other gas from Triceratops, new discoveries (likely, imo), or perhaps certification of much larger amounts than expected in PRL 15; and I think that debate would be on expansion of either or both when of the two LNG facilities, a debate I would love to enjoy. The first two of those sources have also been cited by our CEO as possible sources for PNG LNG.

Getirt,

While you have made your point over and over why is it so hard for you to come to the reality that there really is no deal with TOT at this time. The promise is there but a signed deal is not. One of the stipulations of the IOC/TOT SPA was for IOC to buy out IPI. Did that happen? Nope. So as I see it and others here as well, we have no agreement at this time. Some here are trying to float XOM entering the picture ( Include me in this group) and a scant few are pulling for the wild card to emerge ( I favor this one). There has never been a better time to own IOC than right now. No IPI, Duma, PNG government in support, drilling, low cost gas, terms of winning bid known. We have been told for years that there is huge interest in IOC finds and licenses. I for one favor letting the competition play out in full view of shareholders. Remember, Hession stated on his 40% off cc in December that it was competitive to the very end. This may strike you as strange, but this is not over. Not until a deal is signed and money changes hands. If someone else wants EA more than TOT than I support that. Next up for IOC shareholders is a cc which is overdue. I hope there is some good news involving more than what we already know.

*********
I agree, Lib.  We have no deal right now. 

And the truth is we don't really know why IOC "chose" Total.  Of course it could be just because TOT offered more up front money than XOM (as GetIt speculates).  But it could also be for a variety of other reason which may or may not have changed.  Maybe there was a desire from OSH not to relinquich ownership of the existing plant to IOC...which could have changed with their IPI purchase.  Maybe there was political pressure from PNG (Duma) to build a new plant which has now lessened.  Maybe XOM "called IOC's bluff" while negotiating but is now willing to step-up their offer when faced with a more daunting/real prospect of losing out on E/A.  I could see it going either way...and just to stir the pot a little more...where the heck is Shell while all of this is going on?  

Come on, CAC, give me a break!  Try to read and report on what I say just a little more accurately, please.  I have never said or "speculated" that IOC chose Total "JUST because TOT offered more up front money than XOM".  I challenge you to cite anywhere where I did.  Or is that just a deliberate false statement on your part?  It's hard to believe not.  That obviously would be just one probably lesser part of any deal.  Why don't you read the reasons the primary decision maker Hession gave in presentations and at least one conference call?  That might be at least a good starting point for you.  You might even want to check out some professional analyst reports!  By the way, I wouldn't hold my breath for Shell if I were you.

************

I thought part of your basis for concluding that there would be a new plant was your opinion that:

"...resource payments from Total, which are apparently greater than Exon was willing to offer". 

Those were your words...but do you really have any way of knowing that to be accurate...or is it just your speculation?  My point is that we are all speculating at this time (including the analysts you mentioned)...but you seem irritated by anyone who dares to posts speculation that is different from yours.  We'll all find out soon enough and neither outcome (nor even a new one I haven't yet considered) will surprise me.

Cac- After reading the recent discussions, I am almost ready to vote for your "new one" idea in lieu of all that is going on.Hopefully we will know (the dreaded word) .....drum roll please....'SOON'.GLTA.

'Libtardius Maximus' pid='39331' datel Wrote:

'Getitrt2' pid='39323' datel Wrote:

'Libtardius Maximus' pid='39316' datel Wrote:

[quote='Getitrt2' pid='39313' dateline='1395074893'] I can't believe this debate over Exxon vs Total with respect to PRL 15 keeps popping up, even in a thread for an RJ report predicting a close with Total. As far as I am concerned, we have an extremely intelligent, experienced, and competent CEO who has thoroughly evaluated the best proposals of Exxon and Total and decisively selected Total's, in conjunction with on-going consultations with the government, and that is good enough for me. Furthermore, however, what I have learned and evaluated in conjunction with that from all sources pro and con seem to back that up. Without some significant change from Total and/or Exxon, I don't see any reason why there is any debate left on PRL 15 at this time. On one point, as I have discussed elsewhere people keep referring to "sooner cash flow from a PNG LNG third train", even though MS puts that at four years. They should be saying "operating cash flow", because much sooner cash flow comes from the fixed and resource payments from Total, which are apparently greater than Exxon was willing to offer. I might add that, as I have also discussed elsewhere, according to the Feb 27 MS report on OSH, Exxon and OSH are currently focused on developing and evaluating Hides, P'nyang, etc. as sources for PNG LNG train 3. If there is any worthwhile debate left, barring circumstance changes as indicated above, I think it arises from other gas from Triceratops, new discoveries (likely, imo), or perhaps certification of much larger amounts than expected in PRL 15; and I think that debate would be on expansion of either or both when of the two LNG facilities, a debate I would love to enjoy. The first two of those sources have also been cited by our CEO as possible sources for PNG LNG.

Getirt,

While you have made your point over and over why is it so hard for you to come to the reality that there really is no deal with TOT at this time. The promise is there but a signed deal is not. One of the stipulations of the IOC/TOT SPA was for IOC to buy out IPI. Did that happen? Nope. So as I see it and others here as well, we have no agreement at this time. Some here are trying to float XOM entering the picture ( Include me in this group) and a scant few are pulling for the wild card to emerge ( I favor this one). There has never been a better time to own IOC than right now. No IPI, Duma, PNG government in support, drilling, low cost gas, terms of winning bid known. We have been told for years that there is huge interest in IOC finds and licenses. I for one favor letting the competition play out in full view of shareholders. Remember, Hession stated on his 40% off cc in December that it was competitive to the very end. This may strike you as strange, but this is not over. Not until a deal is signed and money changes hands. If someone else wants EA more than TOT than I support that. Next up for IOC shareholders is a cc which is overdue. I hope there is some good news involving more than what we already know.

LM, I welcome your opinions and any facts that come with them.  However, I do not appreciate your mischaracterizing and even mis-stating what I say, and questioning my grip on "reality".  Are you having trouble reading my writing?  I did NOT say there is a closed deal now with Total, or even that there is a signed deal, although there actually is a "signed" deal contrary to one of your statements.  I have a copy of it, complete with signatures.  I have NOT denied the "reality" that you apparently INTENDED to state, and in fact have stated it myself.  I HAVE stated the opinion that the best and most likely outcome is that IOC and Total will modify the signed agreement and close the modified agreement.  Apparently, you think Raymond James is denying your  "reality" also, since they are now expressing that same opinion.  I think you need to excoriate them in these more authoritative pages as well, and maybe email them suggesting they read them and join you in "reality".  What I have done "over and over" is respond to opposing opinions stated "over and over", and not even every time.  What is your problem with that?  You cannot possibly be more tired of the repetition than I am.

I also have not only agreed with but cited the possibilities that XOM or someone might come back with something better, or maybe even attempt a buyout of IOC, and if so that's fine with me;  but I just do not consider those the most likely outcome, and think it will have to be something clearly better.  No, it does not strike me as "strange" that this might not be "over";  I just expressed an opinion about the outcome.  Do you have one, or are you just seeking to be seen as clairvoyant for citing lots of possibilities?

I agree "There has never been a better time to own IOC than right now" in some respects at least, for example risk-wise;  but I'm not so sure about it compared to the times I was buying it at about $9 per share and somewhat above in late 2008, before being double that at the market price bottom in March 2009.  Regardless of that, I agree it is a great time now to own (or buy) it, and am doing both.

The year-end cc is later than last year, but you are wrong about it being "overdue" imo.  They are not past an announced date, and the regulatory filing is not "due" until 90 days after year end.  Perhaps there is good reason for not having it yet?  I suspect so, but apparently you think you know better.  Why is that?

It appears we may not actually disagree about that much.  You just need to stop erroneously reporting and characterizing what I say, and stop speaking at me in such a condescending manner.

Getirt,

With all due respect I suggest you turn off your computer for a few days.

I did, Lib, for two days, and was greeted on return by your junk.  I don't see how that response could be taken as "respect", but maybe the lack of further response could be.  I've already suggested what you should do, so hopefully that's it for now.

'Brew Swillis' pid='39335' datel Wrote:

'Getitrt2' pid='39332' datel Wrote:

'Brew Swillis' pid='39321' datel Wrote:

'Getitrt2' pid='39313' datel Wrote:I can't believe this debate over Exxon vs Total with respect to PRL 15 keeps popping up, even in a thread for an RJ report predicting a close with Total. As far as I am concerned, we have an extremely intelligent, experienced, and competent CEO who has thoroughly evaluated the best proposals of Exxon and Total and decisively selected Total's, in conjunction with on-going consultations with the government, and that is good enough for me. Furthermore, however, what I have learned and evaluated in conjunction with that from all sources pro and con seem to back that up. Without some significant change from Total and/or Exxon, I don't see any reason why there is any debate left on PRL 15 at this time. On one point, as I have discussed elsewhere people keep referring to "sooner cash flow from a PNG LNG third train", even though MS puts that at four years. They should be saying "operating cash flow", because much sooner cash flow comes from the fixed and resource payments from Total, which are apparently greater than Exxon was willing to offer. I might add that, as I have also discussed elsewhere, according to the Feb 27 MS report on OSH, Exxon and OSH are currently focused on developing and evaluating Hides, P'nyang, etc. as sources for PNG LNG train 3. If there is any worthwhile debate left, barring circumstance changes as indicated above, I think it arises from other gas from Triceratops, new discoveries (likely, imo), or perhaps certification of much larger amounts than expected in PRL 15; and I think that debate would be on expansion of either or both when of the two LNG facilities, a debate I would love to enjoy. The first two of those sources have also been cited by our CEO as possible sources for PNG LNG.

I would suggest taking off your IOC-colored glasses and putting on a PNG-colored pair.

Brew, I would suggest taking off your colored glasses and putting on a clear pair, and checking out all facts, professional and other analyses and opinion, and all "sides", or colors;  and if you don't end up liking IOC's colors, I would suggest going elsewhere.

I've checked out all the facts, statements, etc.  As I've previously stated, the process is fluid.  You see it differently.  Why can't you accept that your take on this is not shared by all?

 I appreciate the knowledge and perspective you bring to this forum but your aggressive nature I do not.

Brew, I do see the process as fluid;  why would you think I see it differently just because I have and express an opinion about the outcome?

I do "accept that (my) take on this is not shared by all", and have no problem with that.  Why would you think otherwise?  A specific example illustrating not?  Just because I express and/or explain a disagreement with a posting, part of what this forum is for, does not mean I "can't accept a different take".  I also have no problem with someone differing with me, but do with someone attacking my comments or opinions with false or inaccurate statements about what I said.  I respond to something like that, and I am the aggressor?  I try to correct something I think is inaccurate, and I'm too aggressive for you?  Are you sure you're being accurate and objective?

'CAC' pid='39338' datel Wrote:

'Getitrt2' pid='39329' datel Wrote:

'CAC' pid='39319' datel Wrote:

'Libtardius Maximus' pid='39316' datel Wrote:

'Getitrt2' pid='39313' datel Wrote:I can't believe this debate over Exxon vs Total with respect to PRL 15 keeps popping up, even in a thread for an RJ report predicting a close with Total. As far as I am concerned, we have an extremely intelligent, experienced, and competent CEO who has thoroughly evaluated the best proposals of Exxon and Total and decisively selected Total's, in conjunction with on-going consultations with the government, and that is good enough for me. Furthermore, however, what I have learned and evaluated in conjunction with that from all sources pro and con seem to back that up. Without some significant change from Total and/or Exxon, I don't see any reason why there is any debate left on PRL 15 at this time. On one point, as I have discussed elsewhere people keep referring to "sooner cash flow from a PNG LNG third train", even though MS puts that at four years. They should be saying "operating cash flow", because much sooner cash flow comes from the fixed and resource payments from Total, which are apparently greater than Exxon was willing to offer. I might add that, as I have also discussed elsewhere, according to the Feb 27 MS report on OSH, Exxon and OSH are currently focused on developing and evaluating Hides, P'nyang, etc. as sources for PNG LNG train 3. If there is any worthwhile debate left, barring circumstance changes as indicated above, I think it arises from other gas from Triceratops, new discoveries (likely, imo), or perhaps certification of much larger amounts than expected in PRL 15; and I think that debate would be on expansion of either or both when of the two LNG facilities, a debate I would love to enjoy. The first two of those sources have also been cited by our CEO as possible sources for PNG LNG.

Getirt,

While you have made your point over and over why is it so hard for you to come to the reality that there really is no deal with TOT at this time. The promise is there but a signed deal is not. One of the stipulations of the IOC/TOT SPA was for IOC to buy out IPI. Did that happen? Nope. So as I see it and others here as well, we have no agreement at this time. Some here are trying to float XOM entering the picture ( Include me in this group) and a scant few are pulling for the wild card to emerge ( I favor this one). There has never been a better time to own IOC than right now. No IPI, Duma, PNG government in support, drilling, low cost gas, terms of winning bid known. We have been told for years that there is huge interest in IOC finds and licenses. I for one favor letting the competition play out in full view of shareholders. Remember, Hession stated on his 40% off cc in December that it was competitive to the very end. This may strike you as strange, but this is not over. Not until a deal is signed and money changes hands. If someone else wants EA more than TOT than I support that. Next up for IOC shareholders is a cc which is overdue. I hope there is some good news involving more than what we already know.

*********
I agree, Lib.  We have no deal right now. 

And the truth is we don't really know why IOC "chose" Total.  Of course it could be just because TOT offered more up front money than XOM (as GetIt speculates).  But it could also be for a variety of other reason which may or may not have changed.  Maybe there was a desire from OSH not to relinquich ownership of the existing plant to IOC...which could have changed with their IPI purchase.  Maybe there was political pressure from PNG (Duma) to build a new plant which has now lessened.  Maybe XOM "called IOC's bluff" while negotiating but is now willing to step-up their offer when faced with a more daunting/real prospect of losing out on E/A.  I could see it going either way...and just to stir the pot a little more...where the heck is Shell while all of this is going on?  

Come on, CAC, give me a break!  Try to read and report on what I say just a little more accurately, please.  I have never said or "speculated" that IOC chose Total "JUST because TOT offered more up front money than XOM".  I challenge you to cite anywhere where I did.  Or is that just a deliberate false statement on your part?  It's hard to believe not.  That obviously would be just one probably lesser part of any deal.  Why don't you read the reasons the primary decision maker Hession gave in presentations and at least one conference call?  That might be at least a good starting point for you.  You might even want to check out some professional analyst reports!  By the way, I wouldn't hold my breath for Shell if I were you.

************

I thought part of your basis for concluding that there would be a new plant was your opinion that:

"...resource payments from Total, which are apparently greater than Exon was willing to offer". 

Those were your words...but do you really have any way of knowing that to be accurate...or is it just your speculation?  My point is that we are all speculating at this time (including the analysts you mentioned)...but you seem irritated by anyone who dares to posts speculation that is different from yours.  We'll all find out soon enough and neither outcome (nor even a new one I haven't yet considered) will surprise me.

CAC, I would say SOME of all this is just interpretation of wording, specifically for example your question above, which of course I don't mind.  The $613 million in the Total SP is what I call "up front money".  The later fixed payments and variable portions of the "resource payments" after recertifications and possibly even production start are expected to be much greater and not considered by me to be "up front money".  I consider all those "resource payments" as the major part of the deal package.  On the other hand, from a "cash flow" standpoint, they are expected fully or mostly to be sooner than any operating cash flow from LNG production, as is any drilling/development carry in the deal.  All of that would have been or would be now a major point of comparison with XOM.  Do I know it was more/better pricing, etc?  No, that's why I used the word "apparently" in responding to people emphasizing "cash flow" in opinions favoring XOM.  Of course, as you imply above, ownership interest comparisons are also extremely important, as with other factors, such as the certainty of full development emphasized by Hession, as good a source for these opinions as you can have I think.  No, I do not mind reasonable supported speculation that is different, but facts are facts.  I am "irritated" as you say by people who use false or distorted statements about what I have said or otherwise to dispute my opinions or conclusions or support theirs or to criticize my sincerity or attitude.