Legal Nature of the Papua New Guinea Petroleum Arrangement

[jft310]

The difference is quite significant in style in addressing unknown issues. Some chose to fret over the words they see and others use a different approach a frontal approach and pick up the phone or key board and ask for comments from IOC mgt. IOC always will answer your questions thats why WA has a job. Personally I asked IOC mgt about this and was told it was not an issue and the govt would be quite cooperative in helping IOC. And lo and behold they were so cooperative. This way I don't spend time spinning my tires in the sand but can try to get answers to other questions and move ahead. Others because we don't have a deal have a different approach they prefer to worry and fret about issues . Not my style or many others I hang with off board. We get answers direct from the horses mouth. Which is the more productive approach????

[CAC]

There are some of us who were not entirely reassured by expiring licenses. Yes, it's clear that cooperation is now good, but once you are on territory where there might very well be a natural practice, but no real legal duty to extent licenses, I don't think it's pure nonsense to have at least a residue of concern here, like I did. Or let me put it another way. If I was a betting man I would have put money on the extensions, but was I 100% convinced? Not quite. For instance, I feel quite a bit better after the news today out of the DPE, with which IOC seems to have had a somewhat difficult relation. Who doesn't, raise their hand. If you do, that means you weren't 100% convinced either. I was perhaps 90% convinced, but not 100%.

*********

I wish I would have stated it this eloquently.  Being dismissive of anything potentially negative and/or being too scared of the shorts to even discuss an important issue (even one that has only a 10% likelyhood of developing) gives the shorts way too much power, in my opinion.  Wise investors should want to discuss important issues like this one.  Trying to quash it by pretending the answer is obvious...or calling people who rationally discuss it "ignorant"...is counterproductive.  

I'm not sure whether I buy JFT's theory that IOC may have disclosed the extensions yesterday in response to this SHU discussion but if true, this discussion (that some wanted to mute) actually resulted in a benefit.  There are thousands of retail investors who may have been wondering about this issue and who likely wanted more than some poster's "because-I-say-so" opinion.  They may not realistically have been likely to pick up the phone and call Wayne either.  So now, after yesterday's comment, they feel better...as do I.  There's a lot of money at stake so of course I want to know whether there is a 10% chance of a licensing issue arising.  It seems to me that any prudent investor would.      

[Tree]

The O&G Act is a rule book subject to specific agreements between developer and State. IOC has been performing their license obligations which in turn allows the State to grant extensions. The fact that IOC has ongoing seismic work and planned work throughout leases implies IOC had Gov't assurances of extensions and that has been IOC's position. The time to worry is if there is NO activity in leases, NOT when IOC is dumping big money into leases. Lack of activity in a lease is when the State will not be cooperative.
Some are surprised by the granting of extensions, some are not. All are pleased with the extensions.

[jft310]

This discussion never needed to have happened if those with questions had called IOC mgt. !!!And after doing so posted their results. That didn't happen and should have happened. If fine to be concerned, worried that's not the issue its how you deal with that concern and that worry that are the problem. Let's agree to use Meg and WA . Not create new problems where their are none.

[TomCrooz]

The difference is quite significant in style in addressing unknown issues. Some chose to fret over the words they see and others use a different approach a frontal approach and pick up the phone or key board and ask for comments from IOC mgt. IOC always will answer your questions thats why WA has a job. Personally I asked IOC mgt about this and was told it was not an issue and the govt would be quite cooperative in helping IOC. And lo and behold they were so cooperative. This way I don't spend time spinning my tires in the sand but can try to get answers to other questions and move ahead. Others because we don't have a deal have a different approach they prefer to worry and fret about issues . Not my style or many others I hang with off board. We get answers direct from the horses mouth. Which is the more productive approach????

How long have you been in the biz? 1994?  And you have never had management tell you all is well when in fact it was not?  Do you think they will or would tell you if the &^%$ is hitting the fan?  I will answer that for you...the answer is no.  You will find out after the fact.  Am I saying I do not trust management? NO.  But never rely 100% on what you hear from them as there is a reason many of the statements they make are not cut and dry and open to interpretation.  Sometimes, if it looks like crap, feels like crap, and smells like crap, it probably is crap even if management says it is a rose.

[jft310]

IOC has the assets and will sell them. If I considered IOC crap I would sell the stock. IOC may have made some mistakes but they have something that quite valuable and eventually one way or another will be sold. I have always thought if they couldn't get it done then the company would be sold. The liquidation value of IOC is per Morgan and Westlake over $200 a share. Discount that by 50% and we still make a nice profit. It one doesn't trust mgt then sell the stock. I chose to add on weakness based on the assets. Others need to do what's right for them.

[Petro2458]

I believe this has been a great discussion...doesn't need to be a confrontational one.

GB did a great job today. The story is building more and more credibility. Fantastic. Agree $200 target (this year). $150 post sell down, and then we are off to the races.

JVOA's are not gas agreements: but very glad to hear "gas agreements" being drafted by the government.

[jft310]

Petro you are 100 percent correct about gas agreements NOT being the JVOA , That's another question I asked them to address for clarification . And they did that's good