The Attempted Grand Theft of IOC

[AU74]

Far and away the single most important piece of information we need to make an informed decision on the sale of our company, and our putative new owners want to hide it from us. They aren't getting my shares without a fight.

[Putncalls]

Thanks.
OSH would rather risk paying more to Pac LNG rather than having the CGA numbers high lighted?

[jft310]

If we win to stop the deal with a no vote plurality, Hession and his BOD are still there . A rejection of this deal is a slap on the face and a vote of no confidence but seperately we will need an election to remove Hession .

[AU74]

Thanks. OSH would rather risk paying more to Pac LNG rather than having the CGA numbers high lighted?

Exactly!

[Putncalls]

Thanks. OSH would rather risk paying more to Pac LNG rather than having the CGA numbers high lighted?

Exactly!

Shouldn't the concerned share holders make this a major issue?

[AU74]

Still waiting for Tree to admit that he did not address this point in his earlier post as he had claimed. Why would OSH risk paying Civelli more unless it was critical to their scheme to hide the facts from IOC shareholders?

[AU74]

Thanks. OSH would rather risk paying more to Pac LNG rather than having the CGA numbers high lighted?

Exactly!

Shouldn't the concerned share holders make this a major issue?

I have no idea why they haven't. The whole mess stinks to high heaven.

[ArtM72]

I know. One of my main gripes with the deal is that we don't know what we're voting on. If the resource cert is high, I would be against the deal. If it is low, I just might change my mind.

We all know the math shows clearly this is a bad deal if the certification comes in high.  But let's not forget that even if the certification comes in low it's a really bad deal.  Three new discoveries and over 3 million acres (1.2 million hectares) are being given away somehow as if 6.5 TCF isn't enough for $2.2B.

I don't recall reading the whole story about Hession declaring Bobcat and Raptor new discoveries, then he disavowed the find and returned his bonus?  Was there something about a challenge to the certification estimates when the wells weren't test flowed because of formation damage during drilling? Can someone recount what may or may not have happened there?  Any explanation why Hession chose not to use GLJ?

[ArtM72]

"If your take is correct, why would OSH hide the facts by canceling the OSH-IPI certification? It would only cost them $$$" How could OSH cancel the certification?

Here's a scenario that seems to make sense:

1. Botten estimated 5 TCF to minimize OSH's apparent exposure to a large certification payment when viewed by his financial partners.

2. Even while underestimating at the start he knew he would have time to build cash through PNG LNG proceeds to pay for the high cert number.

3. The unexpectedly large drop in LNG prices cut Botten's expected cash flow to a level below which he needed to pay Civelli for the unexpectedly large certification.  Remember, both OSH and TOT initially resisted drilling A7.  That was Hession's baby.

4. Buying out IOC, financed by selling a 60% share to Total, eliminated Botten's cash flow problem. To further extend the profitability of the deal Botten and Hession conspired to corrupt the independent appraisal process.

[Getitrt2]

It seems to me that one concern about not approving the merger is that OSH and Total might not agree to Antelope 7, as agreed to in the merger. I wonder whether IOC could still get that drilled? On the other hand it is my understanding that GLJ certified 10.2 Tcfe with only information available as of Dec. 31, 2015, meaning, I believe, without even Antelope 6 testing, much less Antelope 7.