'Getitrt2' pid='47803' datel Wrote:
'jdeo1969' pid='47794' datel Wrote:
'jft310' pid='47773' datel Wrote:Oil Search is messing with IOC "AGAIN". One needs to ask to what end???Any theories out there?
Because as I have said time and time again, they want the gas for PNG/LNG and there is still a very good chance that that outcome. To take it off the table becuase of what "the company is telling you" is absolutely naive. Furthermore, it would be a great thing for IOC shareholders imo.
The disagreement is NOT just because of what "the company is telling you". If it were such a "great thing for IOC shareholders", why was Exxon not chosen in December?
Because I believe the previous mgmnt team backed itself into a corner with regard to going exclusive with Exxon. I believe that Exxon played it very well in that regard and the BOD realized that they were staring down the barrell of a bad outcome. They hired Hession, who got a deal done with total in order to meet certain deadlines (see the article posted on their website re: licenses, expiring etc.) Hession inks the deal with total, who then releases a bad PR which crushes the stock price and further losses ensue after the market is disappointed in the timeline being pushed back. Oneill has stated in not so many words that he would like to see EA gas gor to PNG/LNG. Economies of scale dictate that Exxon would be smart to strike a deal with IOC/Total to get gas to go to their plant, which given the deal IOC and Total have, gives them leverage against being lowballed by XOM, which they likely would have been in December. So now they have leverage, and I believe in a positive outcome either way, but I like earlier monetization personally.