ShareholdersUnite Forums
Gefvert Article - Tree Edited for Clarity - Printable Version

+- 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: Gefvert Article - Tree Edited for Clarity (/showthread.php?tid=3290)

Gefvert Article - Tree Edited for Clarity - Tree - 04-09-2013


No Evidence Questions Whether InterOil Actually Received A Bid From A Supermajor For Its Asset Selldown


Apr 9 2013, 06:28  |  about: IOC

Disclosure: I am a greedy crooked idiotic short IOC. (More...)

It has been over a month since InterOil (IOC) reported receiving final bids for its asset selldown, and some gullible, ignorant and high maintenance shareholders have been paranoid as to why it's taking sooooo loooooong. A month is a suspiciously long time to choose a winning bid in a multi-national bid process even though it involves $100s of billions in renenues,  $10 billion CAPEX the BoD's of 6 entities, continued negotiations with bidders and 100+ banks from several continents.  It is even more fishy that M&A experts on MBs have sworn under oath that especially since the company reported that it had already negotiated with the parties for awhile, there must be an impasse.

On March 1st, InterOil released a PR that said:

InterOil Corporation is pleased to announce that its advisors have informed the Company that several bids to partner with InterOil in its Gulf LNG project have been received. Our advisors are now evaluating the submissions.

Anyone but my ghostwriter note that the company gives no indication of what size or type of company submitted the bids to partner with InterOil??  This is wepwehensible!!   For all we know, Bozo the Clown was one of the parties who submitted one. What the company should have said, and I have it on high authority from friends on the message boards with legal and M&A backgrounds and have closed $50 billion deals before lunch is: "several bids from supermajors to partner with InterOil have been received".

Gullible, spooky retail shareholder type people, as opposed to the large institutional shareholders and retail holders that can read English and recall the facts,  who are familiar with InterOil don't have a clue that it's only us lying GCI shorts that have claimed that proper, entitled  PNG authorities with due power that are referring to verbage in 2009 PA and subsequent conditional approvals to PA in Papa New Guinea (PNG), where InterOil's gas wells are located, demanded that IOC partner with a supermajor to make sure the gas gets extracted and sold properly. Therefore, how can sane mature and savvy people, as opposed to shareholders,  assume that the bids were from supermajors?  And the proof I'm right is InterOil's management has never specifically said that the company has received a bid from a supermajor(s), named those SM's, the Asian uiilities and NOC's either!. Damn the CA's, insecure Interoil shareholders deserve answers and specifics!  Ta-Da!!

Supermajors Are "Involved" With Bids

The question about language was brought up in the comments bySeeking Alpha readers regarding a recent article about InterOil from PNGindustrynews.net. This article said: "At least two supermajors are involved with bids for an operating stake of the Elk-Antelope field which underpins InterOil's Gulf LNG project."

Companies and publications use specific wording for a reason. Reading between the lines as only my attorney and ghostwriter and bi-polar shareholders can, one can come to the conclusion that no supermajors made bids for InterOil, but they simply are "involved" with the bids, despite overwhelming evidence found in SHU posts over the last year. Otherwise, and I am trying not to laugh while this is written, the article would say: "At least two supermajors made bids for an operating stake". The article was written from an interview with InterOil's hubristic CEO, Phil Mulacek who has a clear inability to be honest, forthcoming and caring, so he could have, should have and is obviously lying again, made it clear to the publication that InterOil has received at least one bid from a supermajor. But he didn't, as he was under oath and knew Howie would find out, so I believe that there were no official bids from supermajors, otherwise he would've made it clear, uh, as far as Phil can make anything clear that is.

What exactly does "involved" mean? Does it mean SM's/IOC bidders are  Facebook Official?  Does it mean the supermajors are giving advice to the bidders, oops I forgot the SM's are supposed to be the bidders? Does it mean they are partnering up with the bidders, but aren't actually the bidders, TOT and CVX often do this, bid behind a straw man operating entity like 'Food Mart LNG'? Or does it mean that they merely discussed the bids with their now canned friends at Petromin? InterOil executives should shine more light on this and not just on philstar.com.

InterOil's head analyst cheerleader, Raymond James (which gets investment banking dollars from InterOil) seems to not know any more than we do and apparently does his DD on SHU by falling for the spin of the head uber pumpers. In its recent report on Friday it said:

For those of you with Adult ADD, To review: the company has previously disclosed receiving at least four preliminary bids: two from major oil companies, one from a national oil company, and one from a utility (known to be Kogas.)

This analysis by Raymond James leads to more questions than answers just because I say so.  Exactly how much were the intricate details in a 400+ page bid package called the "preliminary" bids, and what were they for? How is a preliminary bid different from an actual bid and does it all depend on the meaning of what the word 'is' is?? I've never seen a company giving more vagaries than InterOil does, and I'm just gobsmacked by that.

It's easy enough to find out if a supermajor has made a bid to InterOil. Simply ask InterOil's management, hope is they won't honor CA's and we will have a nifty piece of ammo for the shareholder lawsuit: "Did any supermajor actually submit a dollar amount proposal to purchase one or more of your assets?" Then at least we can pin the company down for some information. If InterOil won't or can't give out this info, then I think the answer is clearly "no" and it doesn't matter hw many times they've told us all are under CA's, the beauty is IOC cannot talk about this!  Here is the golden nugget conclusion proof that IOC is lying,  If the company says "yes" but won't give more information then it means there might not necessarily be a deal in the works, but at least it will have to eventually verify what the bid was and from which supermajor.

Got that?  Me neither.



RE: Gefvert Article - Tree Edited for Clarity - cybersssss - 04-09-2013

Ag article brings down Seeking Alpha to a tabloidesque publication. Utter nonsense.

Sad when he needs to make the 100 dollars an article to pay his rent. Not worth giving him the time of day as it only encourages him. I take solace knowing that at the end of the day he will lose a lot of money. HoweverI have an eerie feeling he is short 100 shares and that all.

RE: Gefvert Article - Tree Edited for Clarity - jft310 - 04-09-2013

The shorts spokes person can't speak well, can't do basic DD. And this is their best effort. Makes a long feel quite good.

RE: Gefvert Article - Tree Edited for Clarity - Dr. Wu - 04-09-2013

Gefvert's articles have now entered into the irrelevent.  Not even worthy of a read, much less a response.



RE: Gefvert Article - Tree Edited for Clarity - Investor1979 - 04-09-2013

[quote='Dr. Wu' pid='20364' dateline='1365509993']

Gefvert's articles have now entered into the irrelevent.  Not even worthy of a read, much less a response.

He soiund's like he is getting desperate. His whole demeaner is not just " inquisitive" ( trying to play the objective bystander ,as he pretended to be), but hostile. Maybe its his ghostwriter short hedge fund.



RE: Gefvert Article - Tree Edited for Clarity - johnwgrant - 04-09-2013

I can only hope that AG will write one more 'well-researched' article - released just before (and on the very day) that InterOil announces their selldown !!!

Now that would be wonderfully funny...

Go InterOil !!!

RE: Gefvert Article - Tree Edited for Clarity - Getitrt2 - 04-10-2013

Here is a serious response I posted to Gefvert before reading Tree's version, which is probably better. LOL!

Gefvert , I think this is one of the most ridiculously dishonest deliberately distorted articles I have ever read. You mention “Bozo the Clown”; the biggest clown involved in this situation is you. This article would likely have little if any effect on the stock except for the shorting of the stock by your cohorts in conjunction with it. It really doesn’t even deserve any response, but I despise people of your character violating securities laws by attempting to mislead investors for personal gain, assuming it is not just a case of gross incompetence.

For starters, you perhaps should clarify what the “new evidence” you cite is.

I would disagree to begin with with your initial assertion, and say that most shareholders are not wondering why it is taking more than a month since final bids to announce a deal, since the Company is not just “choosing a winning bid”, as you ignorantly claim, but, in conjunction with three world-class investment banks around the world, selecting multiple partners in the most important decisions in the Company’s history and negotiating binding international agreements involving many complex issues, requiring Board-of-Director-level approval by all parties, and coordinating some of it with the PNG and other governments. Of course, I am sure you have little understanding of all that. They will not be announcing a “winning bid” without that; it is not one without it. The Raymond James CFA with energy expertise, unlike you, thinks the decision on the “winning bid” has probably already been made and they are completing the rest of the process. I agree and think we are getting very close to an announcement.

You ignorantly or dishonestly question the receipt of bids, arrogantly asserting that “for all we know Bozo the Clown was one”. You falsely state that the PNG authorities “demanded that it partner with” specifically a “supermajor”. What the government actually called for was an “internationally recognized LNG operator”, and the Company has said that all the final bids meet that criteria, as reported by Raymond James. You falsely state that “InterOil’s management has never specifically said that the company has received a bid from a supermajor.” However, I have heard/read such statements, and just on April 5, 2013, Raymond James, a highly respected outside party, reported in writing, “the company has previously disclosed receiving at least four preliminary bids: two from major oil companies, one from a national oil company, and one from a utility (known to be Kogas). You question the term “preliminary bids”; that simply means those received prior to the “final” bids received Feb. 28. Furthermore, in the Feb. 28 conference call the CEO stated that the PNG NEC conditional project approval “created enhanced interest by several new parties”, and that “IOCs” (supermajors), NOCs, and utilities have all moved forward” into the final bidding stage and “we look forward to this partner selection”. You put all that together, not to mention more available, and it is very clear without “suspicion” to most people, except perhaps for uninformed or misinformed clowns like you.

The interview with the CEO in the PNG Industry News article you reference, and try to make into something it is not, was about Elk 3 and quoted him about that. The statement in the article about two supermajors being “involved with bids” was a background statement by the reporter not even attributed to Mulacek much less quoted, and there is no reason to believe it was subject to subsequent rewrite by the CEO. Your ridiculous semantics game with the word “involved” meaning in your twisted mind “evidence” of a secret conspiracy with “no official bids from supermajors” is illogical, unjustified, and clownish, indeed.

Your interpretation of standard canned disclosures by Raymond James about all companies they write about and your accusations of bias and incompetence against them are totally unjustified and inappropriate, and even more ridiculous (and clownish) coming from you.

Your final suggested question has been answered by the Company and deserving of no further explanation prior to disclosure of results. Your final conclusions are also not deserving of any further response, being clearly those of a dishonest or incompetent clown. The problem with your playing Bozo the Clown is that, with the trash you publish, you are pathetic and not funny.

If this is the best the shorts have to offer now, they are in big trouble indeed!

RE: Gefvert Article - Tree Edited for Clarity - TomCrooz - 04-10-2013

Could someone please give GeFART a little help with his DD regarding the sinister insinuation that IOC is planning a money raise simply because RJ had the disclosure about seeking investment banking fees in the next 30 days. RJ has that disclaimer on EVERY stock in writes on including the likes of Apple ( think they need to raise cash in the next 30 days?). It is called CYA.
He also conveniently forgot to include the other disclosure :The views expressed in this report accurately reflect the personal views of the analyst(s) covering the subject securities. No part of said person's compensation was, is, or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendations or views contained in this research report. In addition, said analyst has not received compensation from any subject company in the last 12 months.....how convenient.