My view...NEC Approval and value

[bertl05]

The end of the year is the real drop dead date in my opinion. If that passes with no progress, look out below. I dont expect any news Thursday or this month.

[ebster123]

Bert, I am long and have been for a couple of years. Who know, i may be surprised tomorrow or next week. I know Binck and JFT have been long for much longer hence they are not bothered by the dips. I get this is a longer term hold but if the management can not get a dea with these assets by year end they have not done a good job "managing" the assets or watching out for the shareholders. If we have so much potential with T2 and E/A let alone the other prospects then who cares if a deal is on the cheaper side...IT IS A DEAL!!! This makes the company more real in the eyes of the markets and gives us real value to out stock.

[Palm]

A few points:
1. IOC was not pursuing a project scheme unpopular to the PNG government up until April of this year. Up until Shell arrived on the scene proposals made by IOC were approved publicly by Somare, Duma, O'Neill and Kavo. Complete with public statements and Kodak moments.

2. If the recent PNGIndustryNews article where Collin and the mysterious "industry source" is being relied on, then we must not conclude that just "super majors" are in the SD process. Colin's quote was “There are major oil companies, national oil companies, and global utilities involved in the strategic asset selldown in the proposed Gulf LNG project.” Big difference as NOC's and global utilities look at things differently than a "super major". And as we saw with Cove, a NOC outbid a super major handily. We've seen more than one instance of that with China, Japan, Thailand. These NOCs have sovereign funding behind them and they have different goals than "super majors". What was that famous line by the Aussie govt official? Oh yeah, "China is buying assets for future centuries" to secure what it sees for the country. You acknowledge that a NOC might pay more than a "super major" but seem most convinced a "super major" is driving this thing. Not necessarily the case.

3. There is not and never has been a requirement that a "super major" be the operator. That's been blown out of the water several times.

4. "Super majors" may want to doubt the resource as well as hedge funds, but the article states the "SOURCE does not view this is the case and further says the government is sticking to a Gaffney Cline and Associates estimate of 5.2 trillion cubic feet of gas (P50 estimate)." So we really don't know what who thinks or the reasoning for "“approval” that development can start with a minimum of 3.8 million tonnes per annum of capacity". Your assumption makes some sense, but its been clear all along that IOC and others "believe there is enough for 8Mtpa of LNG capacity". A reminder that the GCA analysis was commissioned by LNGL and not Shell/Petromin, bidders or the Gov. Mitsui has been involved with this project very closely and we have never heard doubt from them.

5. Again, the 100-days of officially being in office has come and gone. No speech was given, no speech is required.

6. There may well be good reason that the "minimum" start up gets approved by NEC besides doubts of resource and/or recoverability. Remember that the GLJ analysis included the statement that their feeling is that E/A appears to have similar characteristics to Arun. They weren't saying it was the resource size.

[admin]

Stylized facts, even numbered ones. I like it!

[Palm]

I knew you'd like that! Time presents opportunity

[bertl05]

Bert, I am long and have been for a couple of years. Who know, i may be surprised tomorrow or next week. I know Binck and JFT have been long for much longer hence they are not bothered by the dips. I get this is a longer term hold but if the management can not get a dea with these assets by year end they have not done a good job "managing" the assets or watching out for the shareholders. If we have so much potential with T2 and E/A let alone the other prospects then who cares if a deal is on the cheaper side...IT IS A DEAL!!! This makes the company more real in the eyes of the markets and gives us real value to out stock.

Ebster, over the years we have sung this song many times. I happen to believe (as do all large holders i speak with), that the story is getting too long in the tooth.At this point one must think that the much awaited deal must be a blockbuster to have taken do much time to put together. I have my doubts though. There are and have never been secrets in IOC land. It needs to happen before year end. Investors have been more than patient. Its time to close this chapter and move to T2.

[Hoosier1]

bert.... I agree... I also agree with Petro2's comments... its time for management to produce, and in a manner that is impressive to the markets.

I am in awe of most here on the bb with their intimate detail of ioc and the project specifics/technicals, but the market does not see it as we do here.  The gas is proven in our eyes, but it isn't in the market's.  Many here want ewc for quicker cash flow which should result in longer-term share price (I'm not qualified to make judgement)..but I'm affraid the market won't see it that way either.

I am always intrigued with the "psychology" of the market relative to certain stocks.  Here (IOC), the short's narrative has more traction and credibility in the market as opposed to the long's.  Time matters.  If IOC cannot make a seriously accretive "pop" regardless of the technical positives, it may never recover its potential - especially, & in particular to an overall ROR (time sensitive).  In this case, a larger short-term sp pop could be much more beneficial, even for the long-term sp...markets like that... Waiting, puts us at the whim of unknown future events...thus my previous comments about "our we losing the wind in our sails"

fwiw

h1

[bertl05]

"the short's narrative has more traction and credibility in the market as opposed to the long's. Time matters. " Thats true Hoosier. Really though we can't blame the shorts here. Thats a rediculous argument that Ive heard for ages. Meeting timelines, fullfiling your stated objectives are wats important. Grated its a tough place to do business in PNG, but its been a relatively poor performace on IOC's art over the last 3 years. Basically just calling a spade a spade here.

[Tusker]

Bert, I am long and have been for a couple of years. Who know, i may be surprised tomorrow or next week. I know Binck and JFT have been long for much longer hence they are not bothered by the dips. I get this is a longer term hold but if the management can not get a dea with these assets by year end they have not done a good job "managing" the assets or watching out for the shareholders. If we have so much potential with T2 and E/A let alone the other prospects then who cares if a deal is on the cheaper side...IT IS A DEAL!!! This makes the company more real in the eyes of the markets and gives us real value to out stock.

Ebster, over the years we have sung this song many times. I happen to believe (as do all large holders i speak with), that the story is getting too long in the tooth.At this point one must think that the much awaited deal must be a blockbuster to have taken do much time to put together. I have my doubts though. There are and have never been secrets in IOC land. It needs to happen before year end. Investors have been more than patient. Its time to close this chapter and move to T2.

... never any secrets in IOC land.  

Hmmmm, when did you learn about the PRE Farm in agreement?

??

[ArtM72]

If we were talking about a semiconductor company, or a toy manufacturer, or a clothier, lost time IS lost money. Technology and the consumer market marches forward. I don't doubt there are analysts whose thinking and models are structured to that reality. Many analysts are, after all, English majors. On the other hand natural gas in the ground and the future demand for energy is an entirely different market reality.

40% of Americans don't believe in evolution and 20% don't understand the difference between evolution and intelligent design. Should it surprise us a large part of the market can't relate to the present value of future cash flow value based upon geologics?

I have patience so long as IOC has cash and control over its expenditure.