July 28 meeting location

[2126]

In a SEDAR filing made by IOC on June 10, 2016, the meeting location for the July 28 Special Shareholders Meeting regarding the OSH deal vote is designated at New York City, NY.

Not sure why this was not mentioned in the IOC PR notice about this meeting.

[ArtM72]

In a SEDAR filing made by IOC on June 10, 2016, the meeting location for the July 28 Special Shareholders Meeting regarding the OSH deal vote is designated at New York City, NY.

Not sure why this was not mentioned in the IOC PR notice about this meeting.

Just like with everything else Hession has done, the less shareholders are told the less likely they will be able to effectively fight back.

Hoping for a surprise ending to the meeting today.

[Palm]

So in an official public filing they announce the vote meeting place as NY, but because it isn't listed in a PR well over a month before the meeting takes place and before the Circular comes out, they are trying to deceive shareholders?

Or maybe they assume informed shareholders put more weight in filed docs and actually read them.

[ArtM72]

So in an official public filing they announce the vote meeting place as NY, but because it isn't listed in a PR well over a month before the meeting takes place and before the Circular comes out, they are trying to deceive shareholders? Or maybe they assume informed shareholders put more weight in filed docs and actually read them.

PalmTree -

Deceive shareholders?  You might make the arguement that not to inform in not the same as to misinform or deceive. So I would characterize this as their effort to defraud shareholders.

So here's the question I've struggled to not understand.  When IOC's own official independent reserves estimate shows C2 at 10.2 TCF why has Hession not vigorously defended that figure in the evaluation of this deal?  This speaks directly to the NEED for this deal.  Hession has more than enough education and background to fully understand the resource, yet he remains silent when story after story in the industry press cite a MUCH smaller number, a number that argueably puts IOC in a much tighter financial bind.

Of course, Hession has two defenses.  First, he's never denied the GLJ appraisals so he can't be held culpable of knowingly understating the asset. Second, he's agreed to not engage in any activity that might undermine the OSH deal.

PalmTree, you're a Hession apologist for whatever reason.  I believe what IS clear is the only rational explanation for this deal involves the active failure by Hession and his Board to reveal the most critical, the most material information to our investment decisions.

[Palm]

Artful Dodger, you are a bit paranoid in all of this. I'm hardly a Hession apologist; look how early on I sounded alarms and had you and others tell me I was overreacting and reading into things. I called Hession out very early on for screwing up and letting OSH snag the Pac LNG interests. I did cash flow projections stating that they would be using the LOC far sooner than predicted. I said the buyback of the shares all at once was a waste of $$ and a bad decision. And during all of this I said that IOC's most likely course was to merge with OSH.

My record speaks for itself because I read and re-read and understand a few things about business. Not saying I didn't believe what was said about the resource and also hoped for much better things. But when OSH got in and Wahoo dudded things became pretty clear. And I spoke up. And I was told that I was wrong and to quit criticizing because all was good.

Now too late in the party you seem to see the light that was switched on long ago.

Give me a break Art.

[katytrader]

So in an official public filing they announce the vote meeting place as NY, but because it isn't listed in a PR well over a month before the meeting takes place and before the Circular comes out, they are trying to deceive shareholders? Or maybe they assume informed shareholders put more weight in filed docs and actually read them.

PalmTree -

Deceive shareholders?  You might make the arguement that not to inform in not the same as to misinform or deceive. So I would characterize this as their effort to defraud shareholders.

So here's the question I've struggled to not understand.  When IOC's own official independent reserves estimate shows C2 at 10.2 TCF why has Hession not vigorously defended that figure in the evaluation of this deal?  This speaks directly to the NEED for this deal.  Hession has more than enough education and background to fully understand the resource, yet he remains silent when story after story in the industry press cite a MUCH smaller number, a number that argueably puts IOC in a much tighter financial bind.

Of course, Hession has two defenses.  First, he's never denied the GLJ appraisals so he can't be held culpable of knowingly understating the asset. Second, he's agreed to not engage in any activity that might undermine the OSH deal.

PalmTree, you're a Hession apologist for whatever reason.  I believe what IS clear is the only rational explanation for this deal involves the active failure by Hession and his Board to reveal the most critical, the most material information to our investment decisions.

  If Hession defended the 10.2 with respect to this deal, he would end up being wrong because the deal will use an AVERAGE of two figures.  He can be right only if BOTH figures come in at 10.2 or higher, something which seems unlikely to me.   I suspect that this is why Botten lowballs the number......he prefers any "surprise"  to be on the upside, rather than be accused of deception and all the other labels.

[ArtM72]

  If Hession defended the 10.2 with respect to this deal, he would end up being wrong because the deal will use an AVERAGE of two figures.  He can be right only if BOTH figures come in at 10.2 or higher, something which seems unlikely to me.   I suspect that this is why Botten lowballs the number......he prefers any "surprise"  to be on the upside, rather than be accused of deception and all the other labels.

[/quote]

I won't comment on how you need both numbers over 10.2 to average 10.2.

Hession has a doctorate in geophysics.  He should be very familiar with how GLJ has come by its etimates since 2009.  In fact he stated his own due diligence and that of his associates included a review of the resource estimates prior to his agreeing to take the job.  If he knew of a material problem with the GLJ estimate (and again, he had  the knowlege, experience, resouces, access and RESPONSIBILITY to know) that information should have been made public months if not years ago.

Nobody is going to quibble over an average that doesn't equal 10.2. Providing an explanation for delaying certification with A7 to the point the company had to be sold because of financing issues (when earlier this year he said we were fine given the new LOC) well, that certainly is a different matter.

Hession is a crook. He has gambled that he can manage grand corporate theft and get away with it. We will see.

[katytrader]

  If Hession defended the 10.2 with respect to this deal, he would end up being wrong because the deal will use an AVERAGE of two figures.  He can be right only if BOTH figures come in at 10.2 or higher, something which seems unlikely to me.   I suspect that this is why Botten lowballs the number......he prefers any "surprise"  to be on the upside, rather than be accused of deception and all the other labels.

I won't comment on how you need both numbers over 10.2 to average 10.2.

Hession has a doctorate in geophysics.  He should be very familiar with how GLJ has come by its etimates since 2009.  In fact he stated his own due diligence and that of his associates included a review of the resource estimates prior to his agreeing to take the job.  If he knew of a material problem with the GLJ estimate (and again, he had  the knowlege, experience, resouces, access and RESPONSIBILITY to know) that information should have been made public months if not years ago.

Nobody is going to quibble over an average that doesn't equal 10.2. Providing an explanation for delaying certification with A7 to the point the company had to be sold because of financing issues (when earlier this year he said we were fine given the new LOC) well, that certainly is a different matter.

Hession is a crook. He has gambled that he can manage grand corporate theft and get away with it. We will see.

[/quote]  I was trying to respond to your point of Hession's not "vigorously defending" the 10.2 figure in the face of the press citing lower numbers.  Hession may well believe that GLJ's methods and estimate is as good as it gets for a reserve estimate, but in the context of different firms averaging their results the GLJ figure could well be an outlier.  With their datum not even to be in the average, it seems to me to be more probable that the averaged figures will be less than the GLJ number.    I didn't mean that it would take both figures to be more than 10.2 to average that (I am not that innumerate), but that Hession would not want to be "vigorously defending" 10.2 unless he believed that the other two firms' estimates would be greater.  As for quibbling, hah, maybe you don't read all of the stuff that gets posted on SHU.

I don't think we will ever learn what has gone on with the A7 decision-making.  Having been around tri-partite unitization negotiations, I think it is possible that none of the participants can give a completely accurate story covering the ups and downs and u-turns that likely occurred.....and may still be ongoing.

[Stavros]

From the very beginning of the Transformational Deal, TOTAL has done everything possible to delay the Certification timing.

When the drilling results showed that the "fault" is further to the West than thought, and that large portions of the E/A Resource were better quality than expected, TOTAL refused to agree to drill A-7.

Botten admitted a few days ago that he started his pursuit of IOC immediately after acquiring the IPI share of E/A. He wants the current ongoing Certification payment to be low and he wants the IOC Certification to be low.

Hession tried to push for A-7 to be drilled and failed miserably.

He got TOTAL and OSH to agree to drill A-7 as a consideration in the takeover deal .... BUTT it is not scheduled to spud until AFTER the Deal Vote.

IF THE DEAL IS ACCEPTED BY IOC SHAREHOLDERS, A-7 WILL NOT BE DRILLED ... unless we push OSH to include a Guarantee (with a penalty for non compliance) in the CVR Agreement that A-7 WILL BE DRILLED.

[Palm]

Agree except IMO A7 will be drilled as stated as it will further define the reservoir, but likely not add much to the Certification amount. In the original IOC CVR presentation on May 20 it stated that A7 drilling was still subject to JV partner approval. In the May 30 Roadshow that was changed/updated to read "Drilling of Antelope-7 has now been agreed by PRL 15 joint venture participants".

Likely they heard from enough people that it must be drilled and included in the CVR valuation. My guess is once a deal is approved, A7 will be drilled. If deal rejected, A7 will be delayed until IOC is no longer an independent company.