'Libtardius Maximus' pid='39331' datel Wrote:
'Getitrt2' pid='39323' datel Wrote:
'Libtardius Maximus' pid='39316' datel Wrote:[quote='Getitrt2' pid='39313' dateline='1395074893'] I can't believe this debate over Exxon vs Total with respect to PRL 15 keeps popping up, even in a thread for an RJ report predicting a close with Total. As far as I am concerned, we have an extremely intelligent, experienced, and competent CEO who has thoroughly evaluated the best proposals of Exxon and Total and decisively selected Total's, in conjunction with on-going consultations with the government, and that is good enough for me. Furthermore, however, what I have learned and evaluated in conjunction with that from all sources pro and con seem to back that up. Without some significant change from Total and/or Exxon, I don't see any reason why there is any debate left on PRL 15 at this time. On one point, as I have discussed elsewhere people keep referring to "sooner cash flow from a PNG LNG third train", even though MS puts that at four years. They should be saying "operating cash flow", because much sooner cash flow comes from the fixed and resource payments from Total, which are apparently greater than Exxon was willing to offer. I might add that, as I have also discussed elsewhere, according to the Feb 27 MS report on OSH, Exxon and OSH are currently focused on developing and evaluating Hides, P'nyang, etc. as sources for PNG LNG train 3. If there is any worthwhile debate left, barring circumstance changes as indicated above, I think it arises from other gas from Triceratops, new discoveries (likely, imo), or perhaps certification of much larger amounts than expected in PRL 15; and I think that debate would be on expansion of either or both when of the two LNG facilities, a debate I would love to enjoy. The first two of those sources have also been cited by our CEO as possible sources for PNG LNG.
Getirt,
While you have made your point over and over why is it so hard for you to come to the reality that there really is no deal with TOT at this time. The promise is there but a signed deal is not. One of the stipulations of the IOC/TOT SPA was for IOC to buy out IPI. Did that happen? Nope. So as I see it and others here as well, we have no agreement at this time. Some here are trying to float XOM entering the picture ( Include me in this group) and a scant few are pulling for the wild card to emerge ( I favor this one). There has never been a better time to own IOC than right now. No IPI, Duma, PNG government in support, drilling, low cost gas, terms of winning bid known. We have been told for years that there is huge interest in IOC finds and licenses. I for one favor letting the competition play out in full view of shareholders. Remember, Hession stated on his 40% off cc in December that it was competitive to the very end. This may strike you as strange, but this is not over. Not until a deal is signed and money changes hands. If someone else wants EA more than TOT than I support that. Next up for IOC shareholders is a cc which is overdue. I hope there is some good news involving more than what we already know.
LM, I welcome your opinions and any facts that come with them. However, I do not appreciate your mischaracterizing and even mis-stating what I say, and questioning my grip on "reality". Are you having trouble reading my writing? I did NOT say there is a closed deal now with Total, or even that there is a signed deal, although there actually is a "signed" deal contrary to one of your statements. I have a copy of it, complete with signatures. I have NOT denied the "reality" that you apparently INTENDED to state, and in fact have stated it myself. I HAVE stated the opinion that the best and most likely outcome is that IOC and Total will modify the signed agreement and close the modified agreement. Apparently, you think Raymond James is denying your "reality" also, since they are now expressing that same opinion. I think you need to excoriate them in these more authoritative pages as well, and maybe email them suggesting they read them and join you in "reality". What I have done "over and over" is respond to opposing opinions stated "over and over", and not even every time. What is your problem with that? You cannot possibly be more tired of the repetition than I am.
I also have not only agreed with but cited the possibilities that XOM or someone might come back with something better, or maybe even attempt a buyout of IOC, and if so that's fine with me; but I just do not consider those the most likely outcome, and think it will have to be something clearly better. No, it does not strike me as "strange" that this might not be "over"; I just expressed an opinion about the outcome. Do you have one, or are you just seeking to be seen as clairvoyant for citing lots of possibilities?
I agree "There has never been a better time to own IOC than right now" in some respects at least, for example risk-wise; but I'm not so sure about it compared to the times I was buying it at about $9 per share and somewhat above in late 2008, before being double that at the market price bottom in March 2009. Regardless of that, I agree it is a great time now to own (or buy) it, and am doing both.
The year-end cc is later than last year, but you are wrong about it being "overdue" imo. They are not past an announced date, and the regulatory filing is not "due" until 90 days after year end. Perhaps there is good reason for not having it yet? I suspect so, but apparently you think you know better. Why is that?
It appears we may not actually disagree about that much. You just need to stop erroneously reporting and characterizing what I say, and stop speaking at me in such a condescending manner.
Getirt,
With all due respect I suggest you turn off your computer for a few days.
I did, Lib, for two days, and was greeted on return by your junk. I don't see how that response could be taken as "respect", but maybe the lack of further response could be. I've already suggested what you should do, so hopefully that's it for now.