Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bottens comment
#7

'UncleT' pid='71205' datel Wrote:

'Stavros' pid='71196' dateline='<a href="tel:1464750 Wrote:Same old same old Great deal for OSH Shareholders Stinko deal for IOC Shareholders 8.05 shares of OSH per share of IOC is a NO GO for me US$6.05 per Tcfe for Resources is a NO GO for me If they offer a fair deal, I will be glad to become a long-term OSH Shareholder A fair deal is 10 shares of OSH per share of IOC PLUS CVR: US$7.75 per Tcfe for Resources above 6.2 Tcfe CVR: with a FLOOR of US$30

Been many days of this type of talk from you Starvos, but no real data to back up why your numbers make sense.

My perspective is we were led to believe half truths with regards to several numbers. Where we ended up is InterOil and OilSearch both will struggle through the current (pre-take over) deal as things currently stand. Neither have the cash position that is needed. Hence the sell down to Total with Total getting several assets to benefit them (they have the cash).

Since you have been so vocal about the deal. My question to you is how do the numbers work? A7 is being drilled. Cert payment isn't for another year (generously 1.5 years behind schedule). How do we finance the next year, our portion of a plant, and exploration costs on raptor, bobcat, wahoo, triceratops, antelope south, or anything else?

I agree this deal doesn't smell right. However, I could use a little more hard facts on how exactly IOC can monetize it's assets and last through 2023 when they finally become a company with cash flows.

The numbers could have worked if the certification outcome is at the high end and Hession and his cronies are shown the door and a more frugal regime takes over. In

A low certification would have made things much more difficult, but IOC still has 36.5% of Elk/Antelope and the planned Papua LNG plant and the energy markets will not be in a funk forever. Smaller parts can be sold.

Reply



Messages In This Thread
Bottens comment - by ioc.aussie - 06-01-2016, 12:47 PM
RE: Bottens comment - by ArtM72 - 06-01-2016, 12:56 PM
RE: Bottens comment - by Stavros - 06-01-2016, 01:07 PM
RE: Bottens comment - by oliver.gump - 06-01-2016, 01:18 PM
RE: Bottens comment - by UncleT - 06-01-2016, 01:53 PM
RE: Bottens comment - by admin - 06-01-2016, 02:03 PM
RE: Bottens comment - by ArtM72 - 06-02-2016, 02:26 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by Thylacine-2 - 06-02-2016, 03:25 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by ArtM72 - 06-02-2016, 04:03 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by admin - 06-01-2016, 01:41 PM
RE: Bottens comment - by ArtM72 - 06-02-2016, 02:09 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by Stavros - 06-01-2016, 02:07 PM
RE: Bottens comment - by Palm - 06-02-2016, 02:16 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by admin - 06-02-2016, 02:20 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by Thylacine-2 - 06-02-2016, 09:11 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by Palm - 06-02-2016, 02:33 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by AU74 - 06-02-2016, 02:48 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by Spartina - 06-02-2016, 02:47 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by Palm - 06-02-2016, 03:20 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by kerekesc - 06-02-2016, 07:57 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by Putncalls - 06-02-2016, 08:42 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by ArtM72 - 06-02-2016, 08:52 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by ArtM72 - 06-02-2016, 08:45 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by ArtM72 - 06-02-2016, 05:36 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by Palm - 06-02-2016, 08:37 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by kerekesc - 06-02-2016, 08:49 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by Palm - 06-02-2016, 08:56 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by Palm - 06-02-2016, 08:53 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by admin - 06-02-2016, 11:34 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by Putncalls - 06-02-2016, 09:27 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by ArtM72 - 06-02-2016, 09:55 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by katytrader - 06-02-2016, 10:17 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by Palm - 06-02-2016, 11:15 AM
RE: Bottens comment - by jft310 - 06-02-2016, 08:09 PM
RE: Bottens comment - by Palm - 06-02-2016, 09:05 PM
RE: Bottens comment - by jft310 - 06-02-2016, 09:23 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)