I would have to agree that technically, and putting the two sentences together, they are true, and not misleading if one read them carefully. However, at best, they are poorly written and would mislead some people giving the article a cursory reading.
Furthermore, another statement in the article is definitely false, and in more ways than one, i.e.:
"News that the talks with the ExxonMobil unit were no longer exclusive sent InterOil shares tumbling 11.7 percent, to $63.30 — their lowest close since early February."
The initial "news" about the talks being "no longer exclusive" was on Friday, when the stock dove to a low of 65.03 and then recovered to close at $71.70, not on Monday, Aug. 19, when the stock tumbled to close at $63.30 before the Post article was published that night. Also, the end of exclusivity was not the primary problem Friday, but the spreading of the lies Tree talks about that the talks had "failed", period. "Fly on the Wall" actually stated, "Moreover, a source indicated that Exxon is no longer interested in buying a stake in the Elk-Antelope field, which is located in Paupa(sic) New Guinea, according to the report." (10:24 AM) Then at 11:25 AM, the highly-regarded worldwide news service Reuters published on wires the following TOTALLY FALSE article without any use of the word "exclusive":
"Talks fail between Exxon, InterOil for stake in Papua New Guinea fields - report
Aug 16 (Reuters) - Shares of InterOil Corp fell 6 percent after a news website said the company's negotiations with Exxon Mobil Corp to develop liquefied natural gas fields in Papua New Guinea ended without a deal.
Exxon, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, failed to close a deal to buy into InterOil's license in Elk and Antelope fields, PNG Industry News reported on Friday, citing sources."
At 1:34 pm Reuters issued a corrected "UPDATE", and the stock subsequently recovered the majority of its losses.
Monday was another whole story, with the IOC pr, various crosscurrents and probable shorting in a down market after monthly options expiration and manipulation on Friday, and finally in the afternoon a TOTALLY FALSE and nonsensical claim out of nowhere I know of that RJ had reduced its target price on IOC from $100 to $65, which quickly spread to the either incompetent or criminal "Fly on the Wall" and from there to Yazoo and all over the internet, including a posting of the false nonsensical claim on SHU without first verifying whether it was true, spreading it even further, as the stock dove several more points into the close as opposed to any recovery at all.
Bottom line, I would agree with Tree in that The NY Post article was of poor quality with misleading and false statements, and most certainly nothing to be proud of.
Furthermore, another statement in the article is definitely false, and in more ways than one, i.e.:
"News that the talks with the ExxonMobil unit were no longer exclusive sent InterOil shares tumbling 11.7 percent, to $63.30 — their lowest close since early February."
The initial "news" about the talks being "no longer exclusive" was on Friday, when the stock dove to a low of 65.03 and then recovered to close at $71.70, not on Monday, Aug. 19, when the stock tumbled to close at $63.30 before the Post article was published that night. Also, the end of exclusivity was not the primary problem Friday, but the spreading of the lies Tree talks about that the talks had "failed", period. "Fly on the Wall" actually stated, "Moreover, a source indicated that Exxon is no longer interested in buying a stake in the Elk-Antelope field, which is located in Paupa(sic) New Guinea, according to the report." (10:24 AM) Then at 11:25 AM, the highly-regarded worldwide news service Reuters published on wires the following TOTALLY FALSE article without any use of the word "exclusive":
"Talks fail between Exxon, InterOil for stake in Papua New Guinea fields - report
Aug 16 (Reuters) - Shares of InterOil Corp fell 6 percent after a news website said the company's negotiations with Exxon Mobil Corp to develop liquefied natural gas fields in Papua New Guinea ended without a deal.
Exxon, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, failed to close a deal to buy into InterOil's license in Elk and Antelope fields, PNG Industry News reported on Friday, citing sources."
At 1:34 pm Reuters issued a corrected "UPDATE", and the stock subsequently recovered the majority of its losses.
Monday was another whole story, with the IOC pr, various crosscurrents and probable shorting in a down market after monthly options expiration and manipulation on Friday, and finally in the afternoon a TOTALLY FALSE and nonsensical claim out of nowhere I know of that RJ had reduced its target price on IOC from $100 to $65, which quickly spread to the either incompetent or criminal "Fly on the Wall" and from there to Yazoo and all over the internet, including a posting of the false nonsensical claim on SHU without first verifying whether it was true, spreading it even further, as the stock dove several more points into the close as opposed to any recovery at all.
Bottom line, I would agree with Tree in that The NY Post article was of poor quality with misleading and false statements, and most certainly nothing to be proud of.