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?

Resource, you do a great job of analysis on Interoil and I very much appreciate your articles.  That said, Shell is not going to make a (public) bid to buy Interoil in the near future.  Give it a rest.

'Movieguy' pid='26760' datel Wrote:

Give it a rest.

Movieguy, in my opinion, RA's assumption that RDS is about to resurface is likely correct! They may not submit a public bid for the company, but may well be partners to the Gulf Project. Relax!

'Petrovale' pid='26762' datel Wrote:

'Movieguy' pid='26760' datel Wrote:

Give it a rest.

Movieguy, in my opinion, RA's assumption that RDS is about to resurface is likely correct! They may not submit a public bid for the company, but may well be partners to the Gulf Project. Relax!

Petro, I totally agree that Shell is in the mix for various deals, and I welcome that development.  What RA has been strongly suggesting for a year or so is that Shell is about to make a play to buy all of Interoil, and he has continued to be wrong.  I think on this topic his analysis is in error, so I am suggesting he stop continuing to put forth this idea, as it is "optimistically inflammatory."  I, and many others on this board, would be thrilled at a takeover attempt by Shell as it would quickly leap the pps higher, and probably eventually lead to a dramatically higher pps as I expect a bidding war would occur.  So I feel his articles improperly get our hopes up, and also damages his reputation, and therefore I am suggesting he stop.

I am relaxed on this Shell matter, though still very anxious (yet very fatigued) for an Exxon deal.

'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.

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?

'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.

THis deal changes Interoil forever. Do it right is the mantra. Post deal IOC has monetized NG and condensates and LNG participation and a pile of cash after all the infrastructure builds and the PNGLNG buy in. Sounds sweet to me...Not an option play for all.

'Ass0ciatedPress' pid='26767' dateline='<a href="tel:1375969 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?

'jft310' pid='26764' dateline='<a href="tel:1375968 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 agree with JFT, but am as tired of waiting as AP. Shell may have complained to the publication about their "source" being wrong about Shell, and may be getting very tired of all the negative press, deserved though it may be at least in some respects.

THis deal changes Interoil forever. Do it right is the mantra. Post deal IOC has monetized NG and condensates and LNG participation and a pile of cash after all the infrastructure builds and the PNGLNG buy in. Sounds sweet to me...Not an option play for all.

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

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?

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

JFT, I think one can reasonably believe both that they should "do it right because this deal will change IOC forever"...and at the same time also believe that this has taken quite a long time.  At some point, will the unending, optimistic, supportive explanations ring hollow even to you?  

If the major points were agreed upon months ago, we should have a deal by now.  I do not buy the theory that routine drafting by the lawyers (even on a very complex deal) can't be accomplished in a period of two months.  I think there is likely another explanation that is more complex than "they are just trying to get it right".  One possible explanation might be that they are simultaneously engaged in buyout negotiations and are therefore intentionally waiting to finalize the XOM deal.  This is obviously just one pssible explanation, but as each additional day passes, I'm more convinced it isn't just an issue of drafting the language.