We made the Post

[Movieguy]

TA, what evidence do you have about pushing for a buyout?

[tarulestheday]

TA, what evidence do you have about pushing for a buyout?

Movie - I really can't say as I'm already in enough trouble with my contacts that I fear losing what little info I can get.  If people think that both the company and the big holders don't read SHU and other boards, they would be very wrong.

[ArtM72]

Evidence shmevidence. NOBODY knows what is going on. For all we know the price was driven down by large shareholders as a condition of Duma's approval of the PSA so his buddies can get out of their short positions unscathed.

[Tree]

Gator, Stavros, CAC and Tarules - This is what IOC said:

"Port Moresby and Houston, TX — InterOil Corporation (NYSE: IOC) (POMSoX: IOC) (“InterOil” or the “Company&rdquo today announced that negotiations with ExxonMobil Papua New Guinea Ltd. (EMPNG), a subsidiary of ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM), relating to the development of Petroleum Retention License 15, were ongoing notwithstanding the lapse of an exclusivity arrangement."

This is what New York Compost said Interoil said:

"The controversial InterOil Corp. said its months-long exclusive talks with a unit of ExxonMobil Corp. to develop gas fields in Papua New Guinea had ended without a deal."

The Compost had it correct until the last 3 words. That is why I called it a flat out LIE. If you believe differently, provide the copy. Good luck. It's amazing that me pointing this out was met with resistance at all and morphed into silly allegations. As we get closer to finality it is more important to cut through the BS and purposeful mis-direction in the press and the MB's.

[CAC]

Gator, Stavros, CAC and Tarules - This is what IOC said:

"Port Moresby and Houston, TX — InterOil Corporation (NYSE: IOC) (POMSoX: IOC) (“InterOil” or the “Company&rdquo today announced that negotiations with ExxonMobil Papua New Guinea Ltd. (EMPNG), a subsidiary of ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM), relating to the development of Petroleum Retention License 15, were ongoing notwithstanding the lapse of an exclusivity arrangement."

This is what New York Compost said Interoil said:

"The controversial InterOil Corp. said its months-long exclusive talks with a unit of ExxonMobil Corp. to develop gas fields in Papua New Guinea had ended without a deal."

The Compost had it correct until the last 3 words. That is why I called it a flat out LIE. If you believe differently, provide the copy. Good luck. It's amazing that me pointing this out was met with resistance at all and morphed into silly allegations. As we get closer to finality it is more important to cut through the BS and purposeful mis-direction in the press and the MB's.

**********

I agree that they could have phrased the end of the sentense better...and I didn't love how they started it either (by calling IOC "controversial"..but it wasn't a lie. 

[tarulestheday]

Tree:

I think we are making this more complicated than it really is.

>>exclusive talks ended without a deal.
>>Non-exclusive talks continue.

Both IOC and the NY Compost said the same thing.

[Getitrt2]

I would have to agree that technically, and putting the two sentences together, they are true, and not misleading if one read them carefully. However, at best, they are poorly written and would mislead some people giving the article a cursory reading.

Furthermore, another statement in the article is definitely false, and in more ways than one, i.e.:

"News that the talks with the ExxonMobil unit were no longer exclusive sent InterOil shares tumbling 11.7 percent, to $63.30 — their lowest close since early February."

The initial "news" about the talks being "no longer exclusive" was on Friday, when the stock dove to a low of 65.03 and then recovered to close at $71.70, not on Monday, Aug. 19, when the stock tumbled to close at $63.30 before the Post article was published that night. Also, the end of exclusivity was not the primary problem Friday, but the spreading of the lies Tree talks about that the talks had "failed", period. "Fly on the Wall" actually stated, "Moreover, a source indicated that Exxon is no longer interested in buying a stake in the Elk-Antelope field, which is located in Paupa(sic) New Guinea, according to the report." (10:24 AM) Then at 11:25 AM, the highly-regarded worldwide news service Reuters published on wires the following TOTALLY FALSE article without any use of the word "exclusive":

"Talks fail between Exxon, InterOil for stake in Papua New Guinea fields - report

Aug 16 (Reuters) - Shares of InterOil Corp fell 6 percent after a news website said the company's negotiations with Exxon Mobil Corp to develop liquefied natural gas fields in Papua New Guinea ended without a deal.
Exxon, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, failed to close a deal to buy into InterOil's license in Elk and Antelope fields, PNG Industry News reported on Friday, citing sources."

At 1:34 pm Reuters issued a corrected "UPDATE", and the stock subsequently recovered the majority of its losses.

Monday was another whole story, with the IOC pr, various crosscurrents and probable shorting in a down market after monthly options expiration and manipulation on Friday, and finally in the afternoon a TOTALLY FALSE and nonsensical claim out of nowhere I know of that RJ had reduced its target price on IOC from $100 to $65, which quickly spread to the either incompetent or criminal "Fly on the Wall" and from there to Yazoo and all over the internet, including a posting of the false nonsensical claim on SHU without first verifying whether it was true, spreading it even further, as the stock dove several more points into the close as opposed to any recovery at all.

Bottom line, I would agree with Tree in that The NY Post article was of poor quality with misleading and false statements, and most certainly nothing to be proud of.

[Gator]

The point of the article was to rib Paulson. The NY Post did it on 5/25 after IOC hit $106 and closed at $86, and they did it today.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/no_interoil_delivery_could_burn_ffAkKLoqkzfYREFjZNqIyK

[Getitrt2]

Tree: I think we are making this more complicated than it really is. >>exclusive talks ended without a deal. >>Non-exclusive talks continue. Both IOC and the NY Compost said the same thing.

No, The Post is the one who made it "complicated".  They may have said the "same thing" IF you put both sentences in separate paragraphs together and interpret them properly, which would be less likely for people who don't know and understand all this like we do.  It was NOT said in the same way as IOC, and was very poorly written.  If you write one sentence in a separate paragraph that taken by itself is false, and then write a separate clarifying sentence in a different paragraph, you are inviting misinterpretation by readers and misquoting of a sentence taken out of context, resulting in some people being misled, intentional or not.  I think that is essentially what Tree's criticism is about, although taken as a whole it may not be a "lie", IF there was no intention to mislead, which in this case there PROBABLY was not, although I am continually amazed at the lies and distortions shorts apparently can get into the "media".

[Getitrt2]

The point of the article was to rib Paulson. The NY Post did it on 5/25 after IOC hit $106 and closed at $86, and they did it today.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/no_interoil_delivery_could_burn_ffAkKLoqkzfYREFjZNqIyK

That is no excuse for a poorly written article with false and/or misleading statements, and I predict in the final analysis they will not have much to rib him about.  If, probably when, he comes out a big winner, I wonder if they will publish a congratulatory positive article about him.  So far, I have little respect for The NY Post.