IT'S BEEN 2 MONTHS!!!!!!!!!!

[Getitrt2]

Art:  "IOC has gone opaque for nine months." ...  "for the past nine months, and that is to speculate.  That's all this corporation has allowed us."  Since January 17?  Really?  Where have you been?  Those statements are ignorantly erroneous or just lies.  Which is it?

"stop hiding everything behind the term "material event" "  Another false statement imo.  I don't think there is any such conspiratorial intent, and I think their experienced executive, financial, and investor relations team members understand the proper definition of material event in the securities markets than you do.  Also, those events become "material" when they are final, not when they are still prospective, things that may or may not occur.

Gulf politics are an issue to be considered by the national government in determining what is best for the country.  However, that determination will be made at the national level, not in the province, and ECONOMICS will be the primary determinant;  and PNG is a PARTNER in all these projects and has a HUGE stake in the success of their monetization and their profitability, which is largely in sync with the interests of all the private companies involved, including IOC.  I'm sorry you don't seem to fully understand that.  I agree that is part of what IOC is working on.  They have actually stated as much, but we are not going to get a blow-by-blow account of it all, and would not from any company.  Live with it!

I'm sure the Japanese and other Asian companies would like to cut the link between oil and gas pricing now, although the long-term effect of that might be more uncertain than they think.  However, any proposal they make will have to be competitive with others, so that I feel sure that is not a major concern in this situation as you seem to be trying to say.  I also think I can just about guarantee you that Exxon is not going to entertain any such major pricing "reforms" for additional trains of PNG LNG.  Furthermore, they do not need to finalize off-take contracts for additional trains before completing a deal with IOC, as IOC probably would have to operating on its own.

Your accusation that I might see this board as meant to assemble, or resemble, a "herd" is false, and I don't have a problem with "speculation" or conjecture that is reasonable and accurate and not full of false or distorted statements and ridiculous negative commentary.  You are doing a lot more than "attempting to find dots to connect', imo.  I do not see the board, however, as a place for useless, inaccurate, and baseless whining and accusations, which I think you are engaging in a lot of, while venting your frustrations.  I am also getting to the point of concluding I am mostly wasting my time responding to you considering the junk so much of it is, or trying to help you understand that, and therefore will try to refrain from responding in the future as much as I can.  Sorry if you think I am being too critical or direct;  maybe I am venting some of my frustrations with some things, too.

Quick responses after which I will shelve my concerns until a significant announcement by the company:

1.  When bidding was announced IOC commentary went dark for very good and understandable reasons.  Not much, if anything, of a substantial nature has been announced in the last nine months other than O'Neil's announcement of Exxon as the successful bidder and subsequent announcements that all major terms had been agreed upon.  I could be a liar, far more likely ignorant, but if ignorant just what have I missed other than unconfirmed speculation of other new bidders?

2.  SEC rules for 8-K filings, as I have found them published, is a list of events considered to be material.  That list includes "other events" and that list is not stated as being all inclusive.  I know enough about attorneys to know you can easily find one to argue black is white so long as the potential fees are large enough.  Finding one to argue "material" includes the most critical negotiations in company history, especially when so protracted and affecting the share price to such an extent?  Maybe not so challenging.

3.  All you have to do is consider the problems Esso had in the Highlands following its failure to properly enlist public support is all I need to suggest Gulf Province is a player in this negotiation.

4.  Exxon not entertaining Japanese or Korean proposals delinking oil and gas prices, as you suggest, just might be the problem, as I suggested.

Furthermore I sayeth not.

It's amazingly difficult for you to admit being wrong about anything in particular, huh?

You need to go back and read all the news releases, presentation slides, conference call transcripts, and regulatory filings since January (the last nine months-far from "opaque").  Apparently, your frustration and anger is making it hard to remember all of it, assuming you read it to begin with. I guess you could call the last two months "opaque". Be aware, however, that I believe anything they would say about negotiations would have to have the preceding full detailed approval of Exxon, and I would say that would relate to materiality also.

2.:  Not worth a response.

The huge number of landowners and the social mapping in the Highlands, and Esso's problems with that and the issues there, are mostly irrelevant to the 800 or so landowners in PRL 15 and the social mapping job IOC has done there, and to the issues in the Gulf, which are totally different.  Everything I said about Gulf Province issues still stands, imo, and I did Not say Gulf Province is not a "player" at all.

Your # 4 makes no sense to me;  I'll pass, and hopefully "sayeth" no more as well.