'steve3752' pid='27165' datel Wrote:
'Tree' pid='27163' datel Wrote:[quote='steve3752' pid='27154' dateline='1376479782']
Yesterday there was discussion of what can and cannot be said on conference calls.
On the recent Exxon conference call they said that the major terms of an agreement with Interoil were agreed to.
Yesterday, InterOil said no comment when asked anything relating to their discussions with Exxon.
Just pointing out that those who have said InterOil legally could not say a word on the subject may be wrong.
Exxon did.
Whether InterOil was told not to comment or thought they should not would appear to be a different matter.
They could have said exactly what Exxon had said and did not. Disappointing to me. Lots of market value lost and that may have been avoidable.
Steve - bring fact or you get the whack.
Hession directly referenced negotiations with XOM and, in fact, mentioned 2 deals, 1 with XOM and 1 for an LNG Operator, presumably for Gulf LNG.
"InterOil, as we said, are in negotiations with Exxon at the moment in relation to an Elk/Antelope monetization program. We will also be finalizing the development plan for PRL 15 and make sure that we complete the proper documentation with the PNG state to move that LNG project forward. And finally, the resumption of the exploration program. We've already discovered Elk/Antelope, Triceratops, and we look forward to reports from Dave as we go forward this new -- forward through this new exploration program.
I believe we're in a unique position, as I said earlier on, in a unique country, unique set of opportunities, and I can tell you that the InterOil management and Board of Directors are formally committed to all our stakeholders to delivering. In the near term, we'll be working very hard on securing the transaction with a qualified LNG operator that is in the best interest of our shareholders and Papua New Guinea. Thank you very much."
Tree: Exxon gave us a specific piece of information and a characterization on where the negotiations stood. Saying we are in negotiations is not telling us anything like Exxon did. The part on the call in reference to the negotiations is what I am talking about. No comment vs comment by Exxon. All I am saying is they could have made some comment on where the negotiations stood and did not. Exxon did the opposite. I am not talking about his drilling comments, Only his negotiation comments which were zero.
Steve - read the transcript. Even Stevie Wonder could read what Hession answered to and clarified. You expect Hession to reveal confidential points to answer Pavel's unanswerable question? He cannot! Stupid question by Pavel and a waste of CC time. IOC shareholders are the neediest in the market and for the most part do not do DD or even pay accurate attention to established fact. I'm surprised someone hasn't worried that O'Neill has not reaffirmed his support for an IOC/XOM lash-up!
**********
Pavel Molchanov - Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Research Division
Michael, welcome to the world of earnings calls. So first, on the Exxon negotiations, can you just talk in general terms about what has already been agreed upon and what remains outstanding in the discussions? (GOOD GOD PAVEL!)
Michael Hession - Chief Executive Officer
No, I'm sorry, I can't. And we're a confidential negotiation at the moment, and we don't want to comment on an ongoing negotiation. (GOOD GOING HESSION!)
Pavel Molchanov - Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Research Division
Okay, fair enough. Can you confirm that the talks continue to be exclusive? I think the word exclusivity you guys mentioned that originally on May 24. But it does not look like it was included in today's press release, and I'm just trying to understand whether that's deliberate.
Michael Hession - Chief Executive Officer
We are still in exclusive negotiations.