Yesterday there was discussion of what can and cannot be said on conference calls.

On the recent Exxon conference call they said that the major terms of an agreement with Interoil were agreed to.

Yesterday, InterOil said no comment  when asked anything relating to their discussions with Exxon.

Just pointing out that those who have said InterOil legally could not say a word on the subject may be wrong.

Exxon did.

Whether InterOil was told not to comment or thought they should not would appear to be a different matter.

They could have said exactly what  Exxon had said and did not.  Disappointing to me. Lots of market value lost and that may have been avoidable.

'steve3752' pid='27154' dateline='<a href="tel:1376479 Wrote:

Yesterday there was discussion of what can and cannot be said on conference calls.

On the recent Exxon conference call they said that the major terms of an agreement with Interoil were agreed to.

TYesterday, InterOil said no comment  when asked anything relating to their discussions with Exxon.

Just pointing out that those who have said InterOil legally could not say a word on the subject may be wrong.

Exxon did.

Whether InterOil was told not to comment or thought they should not would appear to be a different matter.

They could have said exactly what  Exxon had said and did not.  Disappointing to me. Lots of market value lost and that may have been avoidable.

I think iOC was frustrated because they couldn't talk about the deal details. I think IOC expected to be able to talk and couldn't. Why  Exxxon made comments and IOC didn't???Has to be Exxon telling IOC what they can and can't say.There are things we do not know. I bet IOC mgt is as frustrated as some shareholders. They want to talk but were advised to not talk

'steve3752' pid='27154' datel Wrote:

Yesterday there was discussion of what can and cannot be said on conference calls.

On the recent Exxon conference call they said that the major terms of an agreement with Interoil were agreed to.

Yesterday, InterOil said no comment  when asked anything relating to their discussions with Exxon.

Just pointing out that those who have said InterOil legally could not say a word on the subject may be wrong.

Exxon did.

Whether InterOil was told not to comment or thought they should not would appear to be a different matter.

They could have said exactly what  Exxon had said and did not.  Disappointing to me. Lots of market value lost and that may have been avoidable.

Steve - bring fact or you get the whack.

Hession directly referenced negotiations with XOM and, in fact, mentioned 2 deals, 1 with XOM and 1 for an LNG Operator, presumably for Gulf LNG.

"InterOil, as we said, are in negotiations with Exxon at the moment in relation to an Elk/Antelope monetization program. We will also be finalizing the development plan for PRL 15 and make sure that we complete the proper documentation with the PNG state to move that LNG project forward. And finally, the resumption of the exploration program. We've already discovered Elk/Antelope, Triceratops, and we look forward to reports from Dave as we go forward this new -- forward through this new exploration program.

I believe we're in a unique position, as I said earlier on, in a unique country, unique set of opportunities, and I can tell you that the InterOil management and Board of Directors are formally committed to all our stakeholders to delivering. In the near term, we'll be working very hard on securing the transaction with a qualified LNG operator that is in the best interest of our shareholders and Papua New Guinea. Thank you very much."

'Tree' pid='27163' datel Wrote:

[quote='steve3752' pid='27154' dateline='1376479782']

Yesterday there was discussion of what can and cannot be said on conference calls.

On the recent Exxon conference call they said that the major terms of an agreement with Interoil were agreed to.

Yesterday, InterOil said no comment  when asked anything relating to their discussions with Exxon.

Just pointing out that those who have said InterOil legally could not say a word on the subject may be wrong.

Exxon did.

Whether InterOil was told not to comment or thought they should not would appear to be a different matter.

They could have said exactly what  Exxon had said and did not.  Disappointing to me. Lots of market value lost and that may have been avoidable.

Steve - bring fact or you get the whack.

Hession directly referenced negotiations with XOM and, in fact, mentioned 2 deals, 1 with XOM and 1 for an LNG Operator, presumably for Gulf LNG.

"InterOil, as we said, are in negotiations with Exxon at the moment in relation to an Elk/Antelope monetization program. We will also be finalizing the development plan for PRL 15 and make sure that we complete the proper documentation with the PNG state to move that LNG project forward. And finally, the resumption of the exploration program. We've already discovered Elk/Antelope, Triceratops, and we look forward to reports from Dave as we go forward this new -- forward through this new exploration program.

I believe we're in a unique position, as I said earlier on, in a unique country, unique set of opportunities, and I can tell you that the InterOil management and Board of Directors are formally committed to all our stakeholders to delivering. In the near term, we'll be working very hard on securing the transaction with a qualified LNG operator that is in the best interest of our shareholders and Papua New Guinea. Thank you very much."

Tree:  Exxon gave us a specific piece of information and a characterization  on where the negotiations stood.  Saying we are in negotiations is not telling us anything like Exxon did.  The part on the call in reference to the negotiations is what I am talking about.  No comment vs comment by Exxon.  All I am saying is they could have made some comment on where the negotiations stood and did not. Exxon did the opposite.  I am not talking about his drilling comments, Only his negotiation comments which were zero.

'steve3752' pid='27165' datel Wrote:

'Tree' pid='27163' datel Wrote:

[quote='steve3752' pid='27154' dateline='1376479782']

Yesterday there was discussion of what can and cannot be said on conference calls.

On the recent Exxon conference call they said that the major terms of an agreement with Interoil were agreed to.

Yesterday, InterOil said no comment  when asked anything relating to their discussions with Exxon.

Just pointing out that those who have said InterOil legally could not say a word on the subject may be wrong.

Exxon did.

Whether InterOil was told not to comment or thought they should not would appear to be a different matter.

They could have said exactly what  Exxon had said and did not.  Disappointing to me. Lots of market value lost and that may have been avoidable.

Steve - bring fact or you get the whack.

Hession directly referenced negotiations with XOM and, in fact, mentioned 2 deals, 1 with XOM and 1 for an LNG Operator, presumably for Gulf LNG.

"InterOil, as we said, are in negotiations with Exxon at the moment in relation to an Elk/Antelope monetization program. We will also be finalizing the development plan for PRL 15 and make sure that we complete the proper documentation with the PNG state to move that LNG project forward. And finally, the resumption of the exploration program. We've already discovered Elk/Antelope, Triceratops, and we look forward to reports from Dave as we go forward this new -- forward through this new exploration program.

I believe we're in a unique position, as I said earlier on, in a unique country, unique set of opportunities, and I can tell you that the InterOil management and Board of Directors are formally committed to all our stakeholders to delivering. In the near term, we'll be working very hard on securing the transaction with a qualified LNG operator that is in the best interest of our shareholders and Papua New Guinea. Thank you very much."

Tree:  Exxon gave us a specific piece of information and a characterization  on where the negotiations stood.  Saying we are in negotiations is not telling us anything like Exxon did.  The part on the call in reference to the negotiations is what I am talking about.  No comment vs comment by Exxon.  All I am saying is they could have made some comment on where the negotiations stood and did not. Exxon did the opposite.  I am not talking about his drilling comments, Only his negotiation comments which were zero.

Steve - read the transcript.  Even Stevie Wonder could read what Hession answered to and clarified.  You expect Hession to reveal confidential points to answer Pavel's unanswerable question?  He cannot!  Stupid question by Pavel and a waste of CC time.  IOC shareholders are the neediest in the market and for the most part do not do DD or even pay accurate attention to established fact.  I'm surprised someone hasn't worried that O'Neill has not reaffirmed his support for an IOC/XOM lash-up!

**********

Pavel Molchanov - Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Research Division

Michael, welcome to the world of earnings calls. So first, on the Exxon negotiations, can you just talk in general terms about what has already been agreed upon and what remains outstanding in the discussions?       (GOOD GOD PAVEL!)

Michael Hession - Chief Executive Officer

No, I'm sorry, I can't. And we're a confidential negotiation at the moment, and we don't want to comment on an ongoing negotiation.     (GOOD GOING HESSION!)

Pavel Molchanov - Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Research Division

Okay, fair enough. Can you confirm that the talks continue to be exclusive? I think the word exclusivity you guys mentioned that originally on May 24. But it does not look like it was included in today's press release, and I'm just trying to understand whether that's deliberate.

Michael Hession - Chief Executive Officer

We are still in exclusive negotiations.

From the MD&A; remember that both Exxon and IOC have stated that the major points of the negotiations have already been agreed upon:

"On May 24, 2013, we and PacLNG entered into exclusive negotiations with ExxonMobil for the
development of our PRL15 resource. The transaction has been discussed with the Government of
Papua New Guinea in general terms and any future agreement will be subject to Papua New
Government approval. Items under consideration in those negotiations include:
– InterOil and PacLNG selling to ExxonMobil an interest in PRL 15 that is sufficient to supply
gas to develop an additional LNG train at ExxonMobil’s Konebada site. There will be staged
payments before and after production commences.
– InterOil and PacLNG will be funded to drill additional delineation wells in the Elk and Antelope
fields, which will be followed by certification of the resource. The resource recertification will
be used to determine the economic interest of ExxonMobil in the license.
– We will have the optionality to either independently develop a second LNG project in the Gulf
Province that may also use gas from PRL 15, and potentially other discoveries, such as
Triceratops, or pursue further development with ExxonMobil."

"In addition, the terms of the grant of PRL 15 require us to spend $73.0 million on the development of the Elk and

Antelope fields by the end of 2014. All work program commitments with the exception of two wells, are

complete. We have spent $441.6 million on PRL 15 which includes seismic, Herd Base/Hou Creek wharf and

camps, roads, FEED for wells, gas gathering, condensate stripping, and pipelines. $52.8 million of the

expenditures to date relates to the $73.0 million commitment. Expenditure on the drilling of further delineation

wells, post the completion of ExxonMobil agreement for the development of our PRL15 resource, will meet our

well commitment requirements under the license."

"Management will consider the recognition of the deferred tax assets once the sale and purchase agreement for monetization

of resources from the PRL 15 license with ExxonMobil is executed. The initial tax benefit to be recognized would

be 30% of the temporary differences and losses carried forward through the income statement."

Of course they also state their standard clause of, "We can give no assurance that we will be successful in completing a transaction with ExxonMobil on terms

acceptable to us.", but for them to state publicly more than once that they are in exclusive negotiations with Exxon, that they have agreed on all major points and that talks are progressing well should give anyone a good bit of confidence that they expect a deal with Exxon to be completed.

'Palm' pid='27169' datel Wrote:

From the MD&A; remember that both Exxon and IOC have stated that the major points of the negotiations have already been agreed upon:

"On May 24, 2013, we and PacLNG entered into exclusive negotiations with ExxonMobil for the
development of our PRL15 resource. The transaction has been discussed with the Government of
Papua New Guinea in general terms and any future agreement will be subject to Papua New
Government approval. Items under consideration in those negotiations include:
– InterOil and PacLNG selling to ExxonMobil an interest in PRL 15 that is sufficient to supply
gas to develop an additional LNG train at ExxonMobil’s Konebada site. There will be staged
payments before and after production commences.
– InterOil and PacLNG will be funded to drill additional delineation wells in the Elk and Antelope
fields, which will be followed by certification of the resource. The resource recertification will
be used to determine the economic interest of ExxonMobil in the license.
– We will have the optionality to either independently develop a second LNG project in the Gulf
Province that may also use gas from PRL 15, and potentially other discoveries, such as
Triceratops, or pursue further development with ExxonMobil."

"In addition, the terms of the grant of PRL 15 require us to spend $73.0 million on the development of the Elk and

Antelope fields by the end of 2014. All work program commitments with the exception of two wells, are

complete. We have spent $441.6 million on PRL 15 which includes seismic, Herd Base/Hou Creek wharf and

camps, roads, FEED for wells, gas gathering, condensate stripping, and pipelines. $52.8 million of the

expenditures to date relates to the $73.0 million commitment. Expenditure on the drilling of further delineation

wells, post the completion of ExxonMobil agreement for the development of our PRL15 resource, will meet our

well commitment requirements under the license."

"Management will consider the recognition of the deferred tax assets once the sale and purchase agreement for monetization

of resources from the PRL 15 license with ExxonMobil is executed. The initial tax benefit to be recognized would

be 30% of the temporary differences and losses carried forward through the income statement."

Of course they also state their standard clause of, "We can give no assurance that we will be successful in completing a transaction with ExxonMobil on terms

acceptable to us.", but for them to state publicly more than once that they are in exclusive negotiations with Exxon, that they have agreed on all major points and that talks are progressing well should give anyone a good bit of confidence that they expect a deal with Exxon to be completed.

So to bottom line this when not if IOC receives the Exxon cash part of the purchase price for tax purposes can be offset with carry forward losses.