+- ShareholdersUnite Forums (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb)
+-- Forum: Companies (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: InterOil Forum (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: Very interesting discussion (/showthread.php?tid=3083)
Very interesting discussion - admin - 03-19-2013
You will have to scroll down quite a bit (presently there are already over 200 comments), but the comment section of our own SA article has suddenly become very interesting. Admittedly, the start was very inauspicious with feeltheheat (aka bostonkenmore) and, more surprisingly, Alan von Altendorf firing blanks and my perhaps all to sarcastic answers (my patience is wearing thin with boston and I expected much more from a guy like Altendorf), which might be the reason many would have given up on the discussion thread there, but in that case you missed quite something.
As in the latter stages of the comment section an interesting an civil discussion ensues between sceptic bonkthegrups and indoreservoir about the merits of a long-term production test (or extended well test: EWT).
It's one of the better discussions I've seen but it's too long to reproduce/repost here, a bit impractical that, so here it is:
InterOil's Increasing Value Proposition - Seeking Alpha
RE: Very interesting discussion - Tree - 03-19-2013
Bonk is an authority on making a case any case, that's true.
That said, is there merit in a biased layman (likely paid) arguing against what 3rd party resource engineers and geologists and apparently those on staff of 5-6 pre-approved bidding entities agree is underground? (at least a couple are Super Majors - skeptical by nature)
Besides, what is offered is 4 TCF gas, enough for a 3.8 Mtpa plant. Has anyone argued, while sober, that 4 T's do not exist today??
Pontificating on the unknown is absurd.
2 things are truly valueless. One is any layman calling the resource into doubt with no industry expertise and knowledge of data room fact and the other is layman ragging on management for their handling of negotiations of E/A sale, how it should be timed and announced when they have no industry experience and access to the internal and international dynamics in play that need attention and management.
The salvation is, 5-6 SMs, NOC's and Utilities have enough faith in the resource to bid. Management/BOD/IBs will determine when and how in the very near term to announce our new partner.
Regardless of what all us layman say. Our role is to 'keep it real', track the happenings assign risks and personally decide when to trade in or trade out of the stock to maximize our IR.
RE: Very interesting discussion - admin - 03-19-2013
I don't think Bonk is paid and I do think he asks questions worth asking and I would have liked the ensuing discussion to be here, but not everybody was equally enthusiastic about that, unfortunately.
RE: Very interesting discussion - Tree - 03-19-2013
He's available on Yazoo 24/7
RE: Very interesting discussion - jft310 - 03-19-2013
STP-Great discussion and as Tree states in his way but reworded by me shows the Hollow man that Bonk is. Just because you write well doesn't mean you what you know what you are talking about. Bonk and the shorts are over their heads! Is this the same idiots who bet against Warren Buffett and my friends as to an Asbestos settlement, Their short covering caused USG to rise from $22 to $120 in 6 months. IOC should follow that pattern also.Maybe not that % in 6 months I agree. Bonk shows who he really is to anyone taking the time to read the comments. Worth a read!
RE: Very interesting discussion - admin - 03-19-2013
I don't really see why we have to react so spasmodic to someone raising some issues which might be some of the same that people who have placed a $1B bet against IOC have raised. I for one, rather discuss these openly and probe the merits of these (especially if done by people with relevant knowledge like Indoreservoir), and I think that discussion at the end of the SA article proves it is possible to have such a discussion. Hollow would not be the first thing that comes to mind (at least mine) when describing Bonk, even if I largely don't agree with him on IOC.
You might also have noticed that he twice blows Altendorf out of the water.
RE: Very interesting discussion - Palm - 03-19-2013
Very god reading; Alfred E Neuman PE. Wonder who that guy is? Seems to know his stuff and does great job of explaining using examples based on his experience. Blows others out of the water with his comments.
RE: Very interesting discussion - Spartina - 03-19-2013
question - Has exxon/oil search done long flow tests on their wells?
RE: Very interesting discussion - jft310 - 03-20-2013
Spartina-Now thats a loaded question. Oil Search didn't do long term flow tests. The PNG govt told IOC they could not perform long term tests. Their reason wastes to much NG And the sheer size of IOC NG columns makes such tests not necessary. Arun never did Long Term tests! And they produced over 10 T's of NG.Thus Bonks true colors shine through.
RE: Very interesting discussion - Spartina - 03-20-2013
Bingo.