So what's happens to the P/E now?

[Getitrt2]

You are right on, Sam. I started to make those points but decided to not bother, I'm so tired of some of this stuff and frustrated with the stock and the shorts management seem to think will go away completely.

[jft310]

The issue here is the thread itself. There was a time when we all abhorred the MF articles touting the sky high PE multiple. IOC never has nor will it trade on a PE basis. One time cash payments wouldn't factor into that anyways. Proper valuation would be a DCF based on the LNG plant and/or a discount to firms' NAV. That discount will shrink as MH improves the firm's credibility. That will probably be the clearest sign he is succeeding.

100 percent agree and yes it was my post.  Sam. Macquarie states IOC trades at 65 percent discount which will narrow as they check items off the list

[admin]

My reference was to PETS work . His work was on an individual well basis. Others want to inject a new subject the probality is another subject not contained in my post. But I freely admit its a good point if the subject is changed to the probability of the wells success in total.

I graduated later near the top of my presigious MBA class. Hint I understand statisitcs but did not use them in my post. Had further training for 3 year post MBA. If some read my post to mean the statistical probability that was not the intent nor was it the language used. Nor was it in PETs work so referenced in my post.

This board needs to be more about Interoil and less about personal attack. The stock price frustration shows for some. Feel free to PM anytime about where I got the info I post about.

Whatever you excell at, it's not your reading abilities. Had you actually read my comments you would have noticed I was making two, and only these two arguments:

• One cannot add probabilities, you have to multiply them to arrive at three event probabilities
• Not everyone agrees with Pet's probabilities.

You would also have noticed that I actually make the calculations using pet's probabilities, so instead of repeatedly and triumphantically arguing I wasn't, you could (should!) have simply read my posts (and additional private clarifications), and clear up whether you were referring to all three wells or wells individually. In private you were clearly talking about the former, hence my confusion and my insistence on multiplying the probabilities.

Instead you chose a host of condescending, disparraging and even insulting comments, both in public and in private, for reasons only known to you, so I'm a little underwhelmed about you complaining about personal attacks here. You are at least as much a violator as a victim of that here.

[petrengr1]

My reference was to PETS work . His work was on an individual well basis. Others want to inject a new subject the probality is another subject not contained in my post. But I freely admit its a good point if the subject is changed to the probability of the wells success in total.

I graduated later near the top of my presigious MBA class. Hint I understand statisitcs but did not use them in my post. Had further training for 3 year post MBA. If some read my post to mean the statistical probability that was not the intent nor was it the language used. Nor was it in PETs work so referenced in my post.

This board needs to be more about Interoil and less about personal attack. The stock price frustration shows for some. Feel free to PM anytime about where I got the info I post about.

Whatever you excell at, it's not your reading abilities. Had you actually read my comments you would have noticed I was making two, and only these two arguments:

• One cannot add probabilities, you have to multiply them to arrive at three event probabilities
• Not everyone agrees with Pet's probabilities.

You would also have noticed that I actually make the calculations using pet's probabilities, so instead of repeatedly and triumphantically arguing I wasn't, you could (should!) have simply read my posts (and additional private clarifications), and clear up whether you were referring to all three wells or wells individually. In private you were clearly talking about the former, hence my confusion and my insistence on multiplying the probabilities.

Instead you chose a host of condescending, disparraging and even insulting comments, both in public and in private, for reasons only known to you, so I'm a little underwhelmed about you complaining about personal attacks here. You are at least as much a violator as a victim of that here.

Here is a problem/question for you. What if we had three wells to drill and two of them were dead ringers to hit and I gave them a possibility of 100%. The third well was just a rank wildcat with no better than Hession's world wide success rate of 10% so I gave it 10% chance of success. What would be the odds of all three wells being successful? Well I can see that would be 10% but we might still have two discoveries. I think I will just stick with guessing at the odds on individual wells.

[SamAdams]

You are dead on Pet and this also a problem in Biotech investing. But to admins point, if only 2 of 3 hit then the actual result is 0% because only 2 of 3 hit.  On the other hand there tremendous value in only 1 of 3 hitting, your point.  A lot of investors probabilty weight biotech trials/stocks, perhaps similar in a crude way to driling, when the fact is a drug works or it doesn't.  If you probability weight you have an understanding of the risk but you're ensuring you will be wrong.  When things happen, like drug approvals or finding economical amount of hydrocarbons, they happen 100% or 0%.  The amount of gas you find may be more or less but its either economic or not.

[admin]

["I think I will just stick with guessing at the odds on individual wells."]

Great idea! It was JFT's use of language that tripped me up, as we was specifically speaking of adding the probabilities (as well as something he said in private which was even more clear cut).

However, my mistake if I read his post wrong and it isn't relevant, even though he could simply have said earlier that he was talking of individual wells instead of using a host of derogatory language, which is actually a bigger deal because it should have no place here, and unfortunately it befalls on me to watch over that.