The Attempted Grand Theft of IOC

[Tree]

We've had 2 resource deals and neither were anywhere close to the values brainwashed by Phil.

Irrelevant.

What Pet argues is that the present takeover by OilSearch confers big benefits to OilSearch and Total, at our expense. It's got nothing to do with whatever values, brainwashed or not, Phil has come up with in the past

It's simply argues that the present deal is much worse than the one we had:

Once again to see how this works, Total was to start paying according to the above table at 3.5 TCFe. Now they only start paying at 6.5 TCFe and they only pay US$0.77/MCFe instead of the higher rate shown above. They only have to pay 60% instead of 100% and they get a larger piece of Elk/Antelope to boot. Both Total and OSH end up with a larger percentage of Elk/Antelope and Papua LNG. Most of these gains and benefits to Total and OSH are a loss to IOC shareholders. Total also gets 62% of all licenses outside PRL-15, including the discoveries at Triceratops, Raptor and Bob Cat for nothing. Of course OSH also gets their cut of all other licenses outside of PRL-15 including Triceratops, Raptor and Bob Cat for nothing. This is really grand theft by both Total and OSH with the cooperation of our CEO and BOD.

The Attempted Grand Theft of IOC

Irrelevant.  His argument is irrelevant.   It lacks context of a very high probability of IOC current reality as I laid out.  His argument is based on assuming 10.2 T and that we are getting screwed and in fact, it may just be that it's the absolute best IOC can do in view of realities we will not admit or know about.  When cert #s come in much lower than 10.2 then Hession is vindicated.  The lower the #, the less life IOC has.  IOC would not be able meet exploration obligations to hold leases.  As time would pass our next and final offers would be much lower.

If your take is correct, why would OSH hide the facts by canceling the OSH-IPI certification?  It would only cost them $$$.

WTF AU?  Cancelling??  Hide the facts?  Good Gawd.  That's the problem.  Emotion trumps fact.  This thread and sycophants knobbing the author can't read.  

Let's clear some stuff up.

Page 28 of the latest OSH presentation:

"How does this affect the Pac LNG resource certification? »

Given the unanimous vote by the PRL15 joint venture partners to support the drilling of the Antelope 7 well, OSH and the Pac LNG sellers are considering whether to suspend the ongoing certification process (with NSAI and GCA) in relation to the Pac LNG sale and recommence after completion of the well » T(Meaning Ant 7) this is subject to the approval of OSH and the sellers of the five Pac LNG companies"

[Stavros]

From all the recent posts, it seems to me that there are too SHU posters who appear to be sycophants knobbing Pincus.

[Tree]

From all the recent posts, it seems to me that there are too SHU posters who appear to be sycophants knobbing Pincus.

Maybe what we need is a genius negotiating with OSH for 10:1 I guess.  Then we can have a Dutch Auction!!

I'll stick with fact, context, reality and the likes of Cap Re.  Conspiracy theories aren't the gigs of most.

[Tree]

Simplistic to assert TOT/OSH bought into PRL15 initially based upon GCA and GLJ #s. They based their decision to plunk hundreds of millions down on their own internal evaluations.

The Attempted Grand Theft of IOC

Pet doesn't argue this. What he does argue is that whatever number TOT and OSH had in mind when they entered PRL15, they're now frightened because they realize the numbers are going to be substantially bigger and they're both liable for big payouts to IOC and Civelli, respectively. 

The whole OSH takeover of IOC and the MoU with TOT to divide the spoils is a way to cut that down.

At our expense.

Good Gawd.  That is flat out wrong.

Pet's quote from the 2nd paragraph"

"I think they only thought they would have to pay for about 7 TCFe.  We had a Gaffney and Cline estimate for about 7 TCFe in about 2012. So I think they both went with that estimate even though GLJ was much higher at that time at about 9.9 TCFe."

What the hell else can Pet mean than what he said here STP? What he said is idiotic.  That's right idiotic.  

let me reiterate:

"Simplistic to assert TOT/OSH bought into PRL15 initially based upon GCA and GLJ #s. They based their decision to plunk hundreds of millions down on their own internal evaluations."

And I was being kind.

[Stavros]

If there is one person on this entire SHU Board who IS NOT an idiot, it's Petrengr1.

I can name to IDIOTS (other than myself of course) who also fall under the category of IMBECILES.

Those too posters should be ELIMINATED WITH PREJUDICE together with their IDLE, Michael Hession.

[admin]

I have a different interpretation. Here is the relevant part of Pet's quote:

I think they only thought they would have to pay for about 7 TCFe

I take that face value: TOT and OSH thought they only had to pay for 7T at the time when they entered into PRL15, but now they've woken up to the real possibility that it could be significantly more (and this whole deal is in part informed by them searching for a way to limit that liability).

I still don't see what's wrong with:

1. My interpretation of what Pet was arguing
2. The intrinsic logic of it

Even if that's not what Pet meant (only he can solve this issue), you shouldn't really call people idiots on the basis of this, least of all Pet.

Perhaps after you've wiped the foam of your mouth you can have another look, who knows. I simply read that TOT and OSH realize they have both have a large contingency payment liability, potentially much larger than what they thought when they entered the deal.

Even if that's not what Pet argued I would still argue it myself. But perhaps I'm the idiot..

[AU74]

Tree, okay, I should said why are they considering suspension. Do you think they slipped that in there on pure speculation and aren't working towards that end? Do you think IOC shareholders should see the possibility that we will not ser the results as anything other than an attempt to hide information? You claimed you had addressed this issue in you 1st post, but you did not. Why?

[Tree]

I have a different interpretation. Here is the relevant part of Pet's quote:

I think they only thought they would have to pay for about 7 TCFe

I take that face value: TOT and OSH thought they only had to pay for 7T at the time when they entered into PRL15, but now they've woken up to the real possibility that it could be significantly more (and this whole deal is in part informed by them searching for a way to limit that liability).

I still don't see what's wrong with:

1. My interpretation of what Pet was arguing
2. The intrinsic logic of it

Even if that's not what Pet meant (only he can solve this issue), you shouldn't really call people idiots on the basis of this, least of all Pet.

Perhaps after you've wiped the foam of your mouth you can have another look, who knows. I simply read that TOT and OSH realize they have both have a large contingency payment liability, potentially much larger than what they thought when they entered the deal.

Even if that's not what Pet argued I would still argue it myself. But perhaps I'm the idiot..

....."Perhap's after you've wiped the foam of your mouth you can have another look, who knows" .....

Wrong, the relevent part of PET's quote is the friggin quote to which I objected.    That quote formed the basis of his argument and that is simplistic.  Maybe you can have another look at what you are defending STP.  Here again is what PET posted. Let's break it down and maybe after wiping the foam from your mouth you can absorb it in it's entirety.  Ever heard of logic and critical thinking?  PET has, and he laid it out clearly and there is no other conclusion to reach than the conclusion he stated.

1) "I think they only thought they would have to pay for about 7 TCFe.  (PET's major premise)

2) We had a Gaffney and Cline estimate for about 7 TCFe in about 2012.   (PET's minor premise)

3) So I think they both went with that estimate"       (PET's conclusion)

[jft310]

To think after all the testing and additional seismic and the drilling of 3 more wells the GCA estimate of 7 T's has not moved means your head must be in the sand .
Let's not forget Botten also said these first 2 Certifiers were tainted that's GCA and NSAI and the the certification would be done with the 2 of the 3 remaining SPA named appraisers .
Reality is GCA and NSAI both have appraised E/A in the past and that knowledge base is important . Phil states if they chose only from 2 of 3 remaining appraisers there is no way we get an accurate number . He bases that on the conservative nature of these companies and there is no one left at Interoil with Pet Engineering background to provide valuable input . Dave Holland is gone and Phil's opinion not solicited or those that found the reservoir will have no input into the study for a new appraisal . All the more reason to complete the appraisal started by GCA and NSAI . With that number and them being almost complete , they started Mar 15th , we can get a much better handle on asset size before drilling Ant 7 . That number if 10 T area would be sufficient for an equity raise into the 7 well results and the Total payment . Brings assurity to the idea Interoil will receive $2 Billiion from Total in 12 months or so . That's what they are hiding and we should insist on having that number before any terms for a deal can be determined . There is simply no way the number is still 7 T. So vote no until we get proper information about what we are selling .

[jft310]

If you knew E/A was 10 T plus would you buy more shares in an equity raise ??! Our answer is yes .
I can assure you all the major holders would buy more with appraised results in that area . And yes the stock price would have a major lift with that 10 T number . Yes above $42 a share with those results. So finish the GCA and NSAI appraisal !! If it's low a very remote chance then time to re evaluate . Remember that GCA and NSAI report was due in June . It's June !! Time to finish the reports and make them public . Hint the market believes Phil and crew were buyers last week to increase their number of no votes to the deal .
Further rumors are they have agreed to kill to the GCA and NSAI estimates in favor of new appraisers . Or more reasons to vote no !!