What I think. FWIW

[Getitrt2]

Indoreservoir, although I have read all of it, I've had little if anything to say about your thesis and extremely voluminous comments and arguments about worldwide POS statistics and your very negative view of IOC's exploration prospects, based supposedly on your superior knowledge and experienced expertise about all testing and drilling everywhere; so I guess I'll add my two cents worth. I hope you meant what you said about having made your last comment about it in this forum, because you have beaten this horse to death to the point that I am sick of it, and sick of your stubborn rejection and seeming refusal to even consider other information and analysis of all the factors and specific prospects. In my humble opinion, based on many years of closely following and studying this company and PNG, all your voluminous comments and arguments are essentially meaningless and worthless compared to the carefully studied information specific to PNG and IOC and its leases and results, seismics and otherwise, and the professional holistic analysis of all that offered by Petrengr1, which lead him to the conclusions that the probabilities of success (or your "POS", which I've heard some people define as "Piece of Sh--" for Wahoo, Bobcat, and Raptor are probably 80 to 90 %. To the assessment of Petrengr1, I would add the comments of Dr Hession on the subject, which I did post previously on a related thread; and I feel sure he is more qualified on the subject than you, Indoreservoir. FWIW, your extensive negative comments and assessments about all this have been used by short bashers trying to scare people and influence them against IOC and its stock. You've been working very hard against your own interest as a supposed shareholder, and if you are and believe everything you've said, I don't understand why you would continue to hold the stock as the drilling proceeds. I am not against all sometimes deserved criticism of IOC, although I believe it applies almost entirely to previous management so far. However, I say you are dead wrong on this, and frankly you've pushed it so hard I can't help but question your position and motives at this point.

Steady on, Getirt. What Indoreservoir has done is cite what seem to be reliable sources on worldwide POS exploration statistics. I really don't see anything problematic in that. One can argue whether these apply to the situation in IOC's license area (needless to say I have no clue), but in and by itself citing these statistics isn't anything to get sick about, and there are other opinions expressed here from people with relevant knowledge in the field, although some of them emphasize that these are guesstimates and speculation. This is a message board, some people have different takes/opinions. We can then discuss their assumptions and data, but without getting disrespectful, unless it's clearly demonstrated someone isn't arguing in good faith.

Like I said earlier today, we'll see soon enough with these wells...

Steady, yourself, admin.  He did NOT just cite some statistics.  He did not even just argue their applicability to this IOC specific situation.  He argued it "ad nauseum" in multiple threads day after day.  I resisted saying much until it got to the point I described above, and I stand by what I said.  You are right in that we shall see, with three exploration wells.  Hopefully, we can drop it until then.

I'm well aware of what happened, Getitrt. Keep in mind that:

• Indoreservoir is the guy who defused (to put it mildly) bonk and boston on the need for a long-term production test
• He has relevant industry knowledge which I'm not sure you possess
• Like you, he obviously feels passionate about this and he has every right to express that.

No need to be disrespectful. Statistics are just that, statistics. What kind of variation does these worldwide averages contain, for instance?

Anyway, we're not going to settle this issue one way or another, even if we hit three out of three in the next exporation wells, that's too small a sample to mess up these statistics, but how sweet would that be.

Agree STP

I may not want to believe Indo's stat's but they are what they are.  One thing I will say is that using drilling data from the 80s etc doesn't take into account the advances that have been made with 2D seismics and computers.  If one reads about how seismics were done that long ago, it's much different from today.  Articles from companies in the industry talk about the advances made .  To blast someone for presenting info and standing up for what he knows as someone in the industry is uncalled for.

Let's let the drill rigs speak.

Palm, that is not what I "blasted" him for, and you just "blasted" his statistics and "info" more than I did, although I agree with you.  Try rereading it all.