Yes, there is something of a news black-out and that frightens some people, especially in combination of a declining stock price and scary articles. But in essence, the story isn't terribly complicated, here's why:
- E/A is a 9Tcf+ conventional resource with highly productive wells, five of which can already produce. Resources of this kind always get monetized. Why? Well, at $10/mcf that's nearly $100B of gas and liquids.
- Keep in mind that E/A has three independent resource evaluations and a host of independently produced well data from the likes of Schlumberger and Weatherford. No credible party has put forward any credible data or argument which would induce anyone to have doubts 1 isn't true.
- By virtue of having complementary assets (bolting on an extra train to an existing LNG facility and infrastructure is in the order of 1/4 of the cost of building from scratch) and by virtue of E/A quality and quantity, there is an very wide scope for a profitable outcome from a tie-up between Exxon and InterOil for both companies. Does that guarantee that such an outcome will be reached? No, but the wide scope, and the fact that even Exxon has stated that major terms have already been agreed upon point to a high likelihood of this.
- Keep in mind that this is a complex deal, deals of this kinds usually take 4-6 months or so from initiation to final version. There could be some complications because InterOil has a new CEO who might have a different take (although it's likely as he signed up to an existing framework, so I don't think this is a complication) and Exxon which might have to take the interest of its existing LNG partners into account.
- Critics like to point the IOC history of "failed" deals, and we have seen SA articles with lists of these. Invariably, no reasons of these "failures" are discussed, but the lists are used in a highly suggestive manner with an implicit argument that E/A might not be what it's claimed. This is nonsense on two accounts. First, see point 1 and 2 above. Also, any detailed inspection of these "failed" deals will reveal that many did not aim to build an LNG plant, many came in clusters so they shouldn't really be listed as individual "failures" and others were basically future plans at a stage when InterOil (nor some of the counterparties) where anywhere near ready. The "failures" are fairly simple. IOC had a plan to build a traditional plant in Napa Napa, then Aldorf came on board and changed these plans to a monetization scheme in the Gulf with Flex of Norway (FLNG) and a modular LNG plant with EWC. Now, the latter plan indeed seems to have failed. But who's fault was that? There are two candidates, depending who you talk to, either the related offtake deals weren't bankable (which might have complicated the financing of the plan), or the PNG govt. changed it's position (in a period of high political volatility) and ordered IOC to abandon these plans, take your pick. Even if it's InterOil's "fault" I think that Gulf plan had so many advantages that it was worth pursuing. In any way, after this avenue was closed (at least for now), the company hired three investment banks to arrive at a detailed list of bidders. When that was done, Exxon was appointed the winner and negotiating and drawing up detailed contracts simply takes time and it's generally not a good idea to reveal too much info in public.
Now, having said so, I realize that the resulting situation, especially the virtual news blackout, leads to some anxiety of some investors. While that is understandable, one should realize that fundamentally, IOC is in a very good situation, simply by virtue of sitting on a highly desirable resource, and what looks to be very bountiful licenses. The drama surrounding the stock is more apparant than real, simply because the resource is real.
Now, that doesn't guarantee that the Exxon talks will be concluded successfully (although I think it's highly probable), but even if that doesn't happen, a 9T resources with five wells with the characteristics they have will get monetized sooner or later. So one can either sit it out or, if one cannot stand this uncertainty during the black-out period, sell one's shares and move elswhere. While the shares, like any shares, can go lower, I think in the greater scheme of things, selling would almost certainly turn up to be a big mistake. But it's for each individual to make that decision, needless to say.
