Misperceptions Debunked

[Investor1979]

 Sorry, I was reading it quickly and piecemeal , starting with the bottom. The AGM should be interesting. Hopefully, I can make it next year, if IOC still exists ( and if it doesn't ,it might be all the more reason to have a " reunion " ). All you ladies and gentlemen , who can attend, thoroughly enjoy yourselves . If I do attend next year , at least one " round ' will be on me.

[Petrovale]

Can't wait for a TOT bid. All conceivable shit will hit the fan. Frogs are extremely knowledgeable about developing countries, and tend to speak up their mind without reserve. Facts and figures may embarrass even the most corrupt politicos. PNG needs a General de Gaulle, in the positive sense of the word...

[Resourcearb]

Can't wait for a TOT bid. All conceivable shit will hit the fan. Frogs are extremely knowledgeable about developing countries, and tend to speak up their mind without reserve. Facts and figures may embarrass even the most corrupt politicos. PNG needs a General de Gaulle, in the positive sense of the word...

One or both of two things is true... With OSH acknowledging that it linked up with TOT to buy into IOC's resource, either OSH is now disparaging IOC to facilitate a takeover or it's disprarging IOC because it still thinks there's a chance it can prevail with TOT in beating XOM.  Either way, IOC shareholders win.  The stock is at almost a 40 point discount to its high on the day of the XOM announcement, and it will exceed those levels very soon.  For OSH to have bid with TOT on IOC's resource, it must now recognize the extraordinary value of IOC's Elk/Antelope and the surrounding prospects in PRL 15 (cntrary to what it must have conveyed to the Citi analyst and others!).  This is a 180 from its prior stance on IOC and the Gulf acreage and an important confirmation of IOC's value.

[Movieguy]

As stated, I love the idea of a takeover bid from TOT/OSH or anyone else. What concerns me about such an event actually occurring is that it seems that Exxon will pay top dollar for all of IOC, if necessary, as they have the best economics. I believe all other parties realize this. Therefore to launch an IOC takeover bid you either have to be ready to pay top dollar (probably not in the initial bid), or realize you will lose to Exxon, but you will force them to expend a lot of capital. Are either of these two outcomes, paying a lot for IOC (no discount even if you've been suppressing the pps) or forcing Exxon to pay a high price, really worth the effort? Am I seeing this wrong? I welcome other, hopefully more optimistic, opinions.

[sydbod]

Can't wait for a TOT bid. All conceivable shit will hit the fan. Frogs are extremely knowledgeable about developing countries, and tend to speak up their mind without reserve. Facts and figures may embarrass even the most corrupt politicos. PNG needs a General de Gaulle, in the positive sense of the word...

One or both of two things is true... With OSH acknowledging that it linked up with TOT to buy into IOC's resource, either OSH is now disparaging IOC to facilitate a takeover or it's disprarging IOC because it still thinks there's a chance it can prevail with TOT in beating XOM.  Either way, IOC shareholders win.  The stock is at almost a 40 point discount to its high on the day of the XOM announcement, and it will exceed those levels very soon.  For OSH to have bid with TOT on IOC's resource, it must now recognize the extraordinary value of IOC's Elk/Antelope and the surrounding prospects in PRL 15 (cntrary to what it must have conveyed to the Citi analyst and others!).  This is a 180 from its prior stance on IOC and the Gulf acreage and an important confirmation of IOC's value.

Where do you get this sort of  information from?

Maybe it is time to look at the information about this from the hourses mouth.

http://www.oilsearch.com/Media/docs/1210...49c1-0.pdf

From this, people can see that OSH entered into a farm-in agreement in PPL338 and PPL339 that was totally owned by Kina Petroleum.

After that a sale and purchase offer was put out to the market totalling 5 areas and eventually Total S.A. was sucessfull.

This current business with IOC has absolutely no tie in with the gaining of the original leases and eventually the tie in with Total.

What is with all this "OSH hate" business and wrong information going on by some of the members?

TOTALLY FRUSTRATED .... sydbod

[jft310]

I have no clues as to resourcearbs sources of information. I do have my own network of IOC chatters. We know 100% that OSH is saying bad things about IOC. The why is speculation. The Citi report was called an OSH Propaganda Piece by an IOC IPI investor. IOC mgt debunked many of the statements in the Citi report yesterday in a chat with me. Getitrt also had a seperate conversation with IOC mgt and Geez the same Citi nonsense was verified again. My sources agree with resourcearbs comments in a large way.
Solution wait until Monday and we will know more about all of this. IOC will not bad mouth OSH but can debunk the misinformation in the market.

[Palm]

2 years ago I asked IOC mgmt where most of their frustrations come from as far as internal PNG stonewalling and whether OSH caused lots of problems for IOC. The answer came very quickly. "Yes, OSH plays many games in trying to thwart IOC from reaching its goals". Look at the composition of OSH's BOD and some of it is obvious. The industry itself is prone to this type of thing; old guard doesn't like smaller newbies coming in. Zebras start showing up and such. You think Total lashed up with OSH because of anything else than they are the established local?

[sydbod]

@ jft310 & Palm,

What the 2 of you are saying can not be verified from any official documentation that I can access via the inter-net.
I did not even know about IOC existence until around 6 months ago, and there was nothing in any of the OSH or STO official releases about IOC pree 6 months ago.
I can well believe there has always been a bit of palm greasing going on in PNG with the way their political system works, and I can also believe that all the companies (not just IOC) have been impacted at one time or another by some palm greasing activity of another company. That is just normal business practice in PNG.
There is so much being said about what OSH is doing that is obviously wrong when one goes to official documents that are available to anybody on the net.
Things like my query of " With OSH acknowledging that it linked up with TOT to buy into IOC's resource" have been shown to be totally wrong.
If there is hanky panky by OSH that can be documented then it should be documented.
If there is hanky panky by OSH that can be reasonably deduced from what is going on then it should be stated that it is a deduction or suspicion.

NEVER EVER should a totally WRONG statement like " With OSH acknowledging that it linked up with TOT to buy into IOC's resource" be left unchallenged as it tries to be a statement of fact when it is not.

We have to remember that this forum may have members on it that are relying on what is posted on this forum to make purchase and selling decisions. They will not always check each statement to see if it is valid. We do them a great disservice if we present information that is totally wrong.

My apologies of coming on my high horse, but for many of us money is at stake and ACCURATE information is all that we can rely on.

regards sydbod

[j4j]

I have no clues as to resourcearbs sources of information. I do have my own network of IOC chatters. We know 100% that OSH is saying bad things about IOC. The why is speculation. The Citi report was called an OSH Propaganda Piece by an IOC IPI investor. IOC mgt debunked many of the statements in the Citi report yesterday in a chat with me. Getitrt also had a seperate conversation with IOC mgt and Geez the same Citi nonsense was verified again. My sources agree with resourcearbs comments in a large way. Solution wait until Monday and we will know more about all of this. IOC will not bad mouth OSH but can debunk the misinformation in the market.

specifically, what did ioc say about the osh veto power issue?

[admin]

Well, if you limit yourself to official documents you might very well have a case. However, undoubtedly, there is stuff happening that isn't reflected in any official, or even unofficial documentation. As long as people keep in mind that these things are difficult to prove, and make up their own mind as to their credibility, it shouldn't necessarily be off-limits here. Otherwise the forum could just be a directive of search terms to official documentation, and that's it.

I'll give you an example. Yesterday somebody posted a story that the president of the US "will not rest until he has removed every man, woman and child from rural and suburban areas in the United States" That struck me as a rather ambitious goal for a half-lame duck president with three years left in his second term. But did I remove the post? No. I'll leave it up to the reader to judge whether it has any sense.

Use or flush.

On the other hand, when parties are accused of criminal activities, I tend to be a little more careful, and so should everybody here.

Hope that clarifies.