What I think. FWIW

[Getitrt2]

Indoreservoir, although I have read all of it, I've had little if anything to say about your thesis and extremely voluminous comments and arguments about worldwide POS statistics and your very negative view of IOC's exploration prospects, based supposedly on your superior knowledge and experienced expertise about all testing and drilling everywhere; so I guess I'll add my two cents worth. I hope you meant what you said about having made your last comment about it in this forum, because you have beaten this horse to death to the point that I am sick of it, and sick of your stubborn rejection and seeming refusal to even consider other information and analysis of all the factors and specific prospects. In my humble opinion, based on many years of closely following and studying this company and PNG, all your voluminous comments and arguments are essentially meaningless and worthless compared to the carefully studied information specific to PNG and IOC and its leases and results, seismics and otherwise, and the professional holistic analysis of all that offered by Petrengr1, which lead him to the conclusions that the probabilities of success (or your "POS", which I've heard some people define as "Piece of Sh--") for Wahoo, Bobcat, and Raptor are probably 80 to 90 %.

To the assessment of Petrengr1, I would add the comments of Dr Hession on the subject, which I did post previously on a related thread; and I feel sure he is more qualified on the subject than you, Indoreservoir.

FWIW, your extensive negative comments and assessments about all this have been used by short bashers trying to scare people and influence them against IOC and its stock. You've been working very hard against your own interest as a supposed shareholder, and if you are and believe everything you've said, I don't understand why you would continue to hold the stock as the drilling proceeds. I am not against all sometimes deserved criticism of IOC, although I believe it applies almost entirely to previous management so far. However, I say you are dead wrong on this, and frankly you've pushed it so hard I can't help but question your position and motives at this point.

[Getitrt2]

Actually, I think it would be appropriate to repeat here my previous post of Dr Hession's comments on this subject:

I think Dr Hession's comments on the subject have some value:

"I will then come to the capturing the upside, the very, very important fact InterOil has been a very successful explorer, the most successful explorer in PNG."

"Now moving on, the upside. This is a part of the business that really also excites me, because I do believe we will find more gas. I do believe that also, we'll be very, very happy with the appraisal program around Elk/Antelope. Why? Why do I believe that? Again, I'm going to talk to you about delivery team. I brought in a team from -- probably got century’s worth of experience actually when I add it up -- people who are experienced explorers and experienced development teams. They've worked with companies like Shell, like BP, like Arco, actually Exxon people. People from my personal network and from the network of people that now work at Interoil.

What did I do? I asked those guys, I gave them a clean [indiscernible] -- I said, "Go away, and tell me what you think about this resource. And go away and tell me what you think about this exploration program." How I know? I've got [indiscernible]reports and geo [indiscernible] reports telling about the resource, but I wanted my own independent verification of what we were looking at.

The resource itself, Elk/Antelope. I worked with people who have defined these mega-projects and these mega-resources before, and I asked them to tell me what they thought they saw. Well, they came back with nothing but a glowing report on this discovered resource.

I also got an exploration team together, this exploration team includes people -- sat on the global committees, as I said, the BPs, and Shells and Exxon, and they've come back and told me this is a world-class exploration province, and in fact, a world-class gas province. That started to give me more confidence that I can come out today and tell you how happy I am to be the Chief Executive Officer of this very exciting company.

What have we done about that? Now we're confident -- now I'm confident that we've got a world-class gas province. As part of this company's portfolio, we've initiated a multi-well program. Now, the track record is as I said before, InterOil has found the biggest gas field in Southeast Asia for 20 years. I mean, that is not a particularly shabby record, that's a pretty good record we've already got. We are recognized as the biggest and best explorers in PNG, and we're going to do more of it. And we're going to make sure that we understand this province that we're working in. So what we've done is we've contracted 3 rigs at this moment in time, and they're all assigned to various prospects, and I'll talk through that in a moment."

"So I'll take you through the exploration. There is a series of slides there, we're talking through Slides 19 to 23. I won't go through the slides in detail, but I'll give you the headlines.

Operations are underway, site preparation's underway, and rigs are being mobilized to site. So Wahoo, it fits the PPL 236. One of the more significant things about Wahoo is its close proximity to Moresby, 167 kilometers from Moresby. It's near infrastructure. It's a very exciting, significant multi-TCF gas prospect, and it's something we're looking forward to drilling in the very, very close future.

Raptor, that's a PPL 237. That's Slide 20. That is 10 kilometers west of Antelope. Now there's something that I learned in my days working with the Shells and the BPs is one tends to find hydrocarbons in close proximity to discovered resources. So 10 kilometers west of Antelope, we've also got another multi-TCF resource prospect.

I have that looked at. I've at Wahoo looked at by renowned globally significant explorationists, and they tell me these prospects would rank in any company's portfolio in any mega major's portfolio.

Bobcat 238. That's on Slide 21. That sits between Antelope and Triceratops. It sits between 2 existing discoveries. So what we're looking at is a world-class exploration province. What gives me more confidence about this, I talk about independent verification a lot, I talk about delivery a lot. What we see is independent verification from the GCAs -- sorry, from the Gaffney Clines of the world to the GLJs, independent verification of a team that I've brought in -- and independent verification, I think, comes from the fact that these assets have been sought by a number of the highest-quality oil and gas companies on the planet, the mega majors. They covet these assets, and we are very, very pleased to be owners of 3.8 million acres that surrounds these assets and include these assets."

"Equally, we need to understand that the Wahoo, Raptor and Bobcat are going to be discoveries." (not appraisal wells) "I mean, their exploration, exploration will succeed and we feel positive about it, but also let's be clear: exploration wells do fail, yes."

"I think I mentioned earlier, one tends to find gas and hydrocarbon accumulations around existing accumulations, and we've identified a series of prospects in PRL 15. And the way things are at the moment, we obviously think that some of those prospects are worth testing, and we'll be undertaking exploration at PRL 15, no doubt about it."

Somehow, I feel sure that Dr Hession sees their POS as much greater than 10-20% in this situation and would strongly disagree with the applicability of Indoreservoir's 10-20%, or anything close to that, to them now. That's not 100%, or any guarantee, but I think those statistics are irrelevant to IOC in this situation at this time, especially after E/A and Triceratops.

[admin]

Indoreservoir, although I have read all of it, I've had little if anything to say about your thesis and extremely voluminous comments and arguments about worldwide POS statistics and your very negative view of IOC's exploration prospects, based supposedly on your superior knowledge and experienced expertise about all testing and drilling everywhere; so I guess I'll add my two cents worth. I hope you meant what you said about having made your last comment about it in this forum, because you have beaten this horse to death to the point that I am sick of it, and sick of your stubborn rejection and seeming refusal to even consider other information and analysis of all the factors and specific prospects. In my humble opinion, based on many years of closely following and studying this company and PNG, all your voluminous comments and arguments are essentially meaningless and worthless compared to the carefully studied information specific to PNG and IOC and its leases and results, seismics and otherwise, and the professional holistic analysis of all that offered by Petrengr1, which lead him to the conclusions that the probabilities of success (or your "POS", which I've heard some people define as "Piece of Sh--" for Wahoo, Bobcat, and Raptor are probably 80 to 90 %. To the assessment of Petrengr1, I would add the comments of Dr Hession on the subject, which I did post previously on a related thread; and I feel sure he is more qualified on the subject than you, Indoreservoir. FWIW, your extensive negative comments and assessments about all this have been used by short bashers trying to scare people and influence them against IOC and its stock. You've been working very hard against your own interest as a supposed shareholder, and if you are and believe everything you've said, I don't understand why you would continue to hold the stock as the drilling proceeds. I am not against all sometimes deserved criticism of IOC, although I believe it applies almost entirely to previous management so far. However, I say you are dead wrong on this, and frankly you've pushed it so hard I can't help but question your position and motives at this point.

Steady on, Getirt. What Indoreservoir has done is cite what seem to be reliable sources on worldwide POS exploration statistics. I really don't see anything problematic in that. One can argue whether these apply to the situation in IOC's license area (needless to say I have no clue), but in and by itself citing these statistics isn't anything to get sick about, and there are other opinions expressed here from people with relevant knowledge in the field, although some of them emphasize that these are guesstimates and speculation. This is a message board, some people have different takes/opinions. We can then discuss their assumptions and data, but without getting disrespectful, unless it's clearly demonstrated someone isn't arguing in good faith.

Like I said earlier today, we'll see soon enough with these wells...

[trans]

Listen to Peteng, imo

[Getitrt2]

Indoreservoir, although I have read all of it, I've had little if anything to say about your thesis and extremely voluminous comments and arguments about worldwide POS statistics and your very negative view of IOC's exploration prospects, based supposedly on your superior knowledge and experienced expertise about all testing and drilling everywhere; so I guess I'll add my two cents worth. I hope you meant what you said about having made your last comment about it in this forum, because you have beaten this horse to death to the point that I am sick of it, and sick of your stubborn rejection and seeming refusal to even consider other information and analysis of all the factors and specific prospects. In my humble opinion, based on many years of closely following and studying this company and PNG, all your voluminous comments and arguments are essentially meaningless and worthless compared to the carefully studied information specific to PNG and IOC and its leases and results, seismics and otherwise, and the professional holistic analysis of all that offered by Petrengr1, which lead him to the conclusions that the probabilities of success (or your "POS", which I've heard some people define as "Piece of Sh--" for Wahoo, Bobcat, and Raptor are probably 80 to 90 %. To the assessment of Petrengr1, I would add the comments of Dr Hession on the subject, which I did post previously on a related thread; and I feel sure he is more qualified on the subject than you, Indoreservoir. FWIW, your extensive negative comments and assessments about all this have been used by short bashers trying to scare people and influence them against IOC and its stock. You've been working very hard against your own interest as a supposed shareholder, and if you are and believe everything you've said, I don't understand why you would continue to hold the stock as the drilling proceeds. I am not against all sometimes deserved criticism of IOC, although I believe it applies almost entirely to previous management so far. However, I say you are dead wrong on this, and frankly you've pushed it so hard I can't help but question your position and motives at this point.

Steady on, Getirt. What Indoreservoir has done is cite what seem to be reliable sources on worldwide POS exploration statistics. I really don't see anything problematic in that. One can argue whether these apply to the situation in IOC's license area (needless to say I have no clue), but in and by itself citing these statistics isn't anything to get sick about, and there are other opinions expressed here from people with relevant knowledge in the field, although some of them emphasize that these are guesstimates and speculation. This is a message board, some people have different takes/opinions. We can then discuss their assumptions and data, but without getting disrespectful, unless it's clearly demonstrated someone isn't arguing in good faith.

Like I said earlier today, we'll see soon enough with these wells...

Steady, yourself, admin.  He did NOT just cite some statistics.  He did not even just argue their applicability to this IOC specific situation.  He argued it "ad nauseum" in multiple threads day after day.  I resisted saying much until it got to the point I described above, and I stand by what I said.  You are right in that we shall see, with three exploration wells.  Hopefully, we can drop it until then.

[admin]

Indoreservoir, although I have read all of it, I've had little if anything to say about your thesis and extremely voluminous comments and arguments about worldwide POS statistics and your very negative view of IOC's exploration prospects, based supposedly on your superior knowledge and experienced expertise about all testing and drilling everywhere; so I guess I'll add my two cents worth. I hope you meant what you said about having made your last comment about it in this forum, because you have beaten this horse to death to the point that I am sick of it, and sick of your stubborn rejection and seeming refusal to even consider other information and analysis of all the factors and specific prospects. In my humble opinion, based on many years of closely following and studying this company and PNG, all your voluminous comments and arguments are essentially meaningless and worthless compared to the carefully studied information specific to PNG and IOC and its leases and results, seismics and otherwise, and the professional holistic analysis of all that offered by Petrengr1, which lead him to the conclusions that the probabilities of success (or your "POS", which I've heard some people define as "Piece of Sh--" for Wahoo, Bobcat, and Raptor are probably 80 to 90 %. To the assessment of Petrengr1, I would add the comments of Dr Hession on the subject, which I did post previously on a related thread; and I feel sure he is more qualified on the subject than you, Indoreservoir. FWIW, your extensive negative comments and assessments about all this have been used by short bashers trying to scare people and influence them against IOC and its stock. You've been working very hard against your own interest as a supposed shareholder, and if you are and believe everything you've said, I don't understand why you would continue to hold the stock as the drilling proceeds. I am not against all sometimes deserved criticism of IOC, although I believe it applies almost entirely to previous management so far. However, I say you are dead wrong on this, and frankly you've pushed it so hard I can't help but question your position and motives at this point.

Steady on, Getirt. What Indoreservoir has done is cite what seem to be reliable sources on worldwide POS exploration statistics. I really don't see anything problematic in that. One can argue whether these apply to the situation in IOC's license area (needless to say I have no clue), but in and by itself citing these statistics isn't anything to get sick about, and there are other opinions expressed here from people with relevant knowledge in the field, although some of them emphasize that these are guesstimates and speculation. This is a message board, some people have different takes/opinions. We can then discuss their assumptions and data, but without getting disrespectful, unless it's clearly demonstrated someone isn't arguing in good faith.

Like I said earlier today, we'll see soon enough with these wells...

Steady, yourself, admin.  He did NOT just cite some statistics.  He did not even just argue their applicability to this IOC specific situation.  He argued it "ad nauseum" in multiple threads day after day.  I resisted saying much until it got to the point I described above, and I stand by what I said.  You are right in that we shall see, with three exploration wells.  Hopefully, we can drop it until then.

I'm well aware of what happened, Getitrt. Keep in mind that:

• Indoreservoir is the guy who defused (to put it mildly) bonk and boston on the need for a long-term production test
• He has relevant industry knowledge which I'm not sure you possess
• Like you, he obviously feels passionate about this and he has every right to express that.

No need to be disrespectful. Statistics are just that, statistics. What kind of variation does these worldwide averages contain, for instance?

Anyway, we're not going to settle this issue one way or another, even if we hit three out of three in the next exporation wells, that's too small a sample to mess up these statistics, but how sweet would that be.

[CAC]

Actually, I think it would be appropriate to repeat here my previous post of Dr Hession's comments on this subject: I think Dr Hession's comments on the subject have some value: "I will then come to the capturing the upside, the very, very important fact InterOil has been a very successful explorer, the most successful explorer in PNG." "Now moving on, the upside. This is a part of the business that really also excites me, because I do believe we will find more gas. I do believe that also, we'll be very, very happy with the appraisal program around Elk/Antelope. Why? Why do I believe that? Again, I'm going to talk to you about delivery team. I brought in a team from -- probably got century’s worth of experience actually when I add it up -- people who are experienced explorers and experienced development teams. They've worked with companies like Shell, like BP, like Arco, actually Exxon people. People from my personal network and from the network of people that now work at Interoil. What did I do? I asked those guys, I gave them a clean [indiscernible] -- I said, "Go away, and tell me what you think about this resource. And go away and tell me what you think about this exploration program." How I know? I've got [indiscernible]reports and geo [indiscernible] reports telling about the resource, but I wanted my own independent verification of what we were looking at. The resource itself, Elk/Antelope. I worked with people who have defined these mega-projects and these mega-resources before, and I asked them to tell me what they thought they saw. Well, they came back with nothing but a glowing report on this discovered resource. I also got an exploration team together, this exploration team includes people -- sat on the global committees, as I said, the BPs, and Shells and Exxon, and they've come back and told me this is a world-class exploration province, and in fact, a world-class gas province. That started to give me more confidence that I can come out today and tell you how happy I am to be the Chief Executive Officer of this very exciting company. What have we done about that? Now we're confident -- now I'm confident that we've got a world-class gas province. As part of this company's portfolio, we've initiated a multi-well program. Now, the track record is as I said before, InterOil has found the biggest gas field in Southeast Asia for 20 years. I mean, that is not a particularly shabby record, that's a pretty good record we've already got. We are recognized as the biggest and best explorers in PNG, and we're going to do more of it. And we're going to make sure that we understand this province that we're working in. So what we've done is we've contracted 3 rigs at this moment in time, and they're all assigned to various prospects, and I'll talk through that in a moment." "So I'll take you through the exploration. There is a series of slides there, we're talking through Slides 19 to 23. I won't go through the slides in detail, but I'll give you the headlines. Operations are underway, site preparation's underway, and rigs are being mobilized to site. So Wahoo, it fits the PPL 236. One of the more significant things about Wahoo is its close proximity to Moresby, 167 kilometers from Moresby. It's near infrastructure. It's a very exciting, significant multi-TCF gas prospect, and it's something we're looking forward to drilling in the very, very close future. Raptor, that's a PPL 237. That's Slide 20. That is 10 kilometers west of Antelope. Now there's something that I learned in my days working with the Shells and the BPs is one tends to find hydrocarbons in close proximity to discovered resources. So 10 kilometers west of Antelope, we've also got another multi-TCF resource prospect. I have that looked at. I've at Wahoo looked at by renowned globally significant explorationists, and they tell me these prospects would rank in any company's portfolio in any mega major's portfolio. Bobcat 238. That's on Slide 21. That sits between Antelope and Triceratops. It sits between 2 existing discoveries. So what we're looking at is a world-class exploration province. What gives me more confidence about this, I talk about independent verification a lot, I talk about delivery a lot. What we see is independent verification from the GCAs -- sorry, from the Gaffney Clines of the world to the GLJs, independent verification of a team that I've brought in -- and independent verification, I think, comes from the fact that these assets have been sought by a number of the highest-quality oil and gas companies on the planet, the mega majors. They covet these assets, and we are very, very pleased to be owners of 3.8 million acres that surrounds these assets and include these assets." "Equally, we need to understand that the Wahoo, Raptor and Bobcat are going to be discoveries." (not appraisal wells) "I mean, their exploration, exploration will succeed and we feel positive about it, but also let's be clear: exploration wells do fail, yes." "I think I mentioned earlier, one tends to find gas and hydrocarbon accumulations around existing accumulations, and we've identified a series of prospects in PRL 15. And the way things are at the moment, we obviously think that some of those prospects are worth testing, and we'll be undertaking exploration at PRL 15, no doubt about it." Somehow, I feel sure that Dr Hession sees their POS as much greater than 10-20% in this situation and would strongly disagree with the applicability of Indoreservoir's 10-20%, or anything close to that, to them now. That's not 100%, or any guarantee, but I think those statistics are irrelevant to IOC in this situation at this time, especially after E/A and Triceratops.

*********

And there it is.  The inevitable "GetIt" statement that the poster who voices questions, concerns, criticisms of IOC...should have their motives questioned.  It's like clockwork. 

When did the need to "keep the public narrative positive at all costs" trump the concept of honest and objective evaluation (even when it results in something other than glowing optimism)? Not everybody wakes up in the morning with the singular goal of..."making sure I say nothing that could possibly be used by the shorts".  Sometimes people just say what they honestly think.  If it's good...so be it.  But if it's not...that's okay too in my book. 

[Libtardius Maximus]

Indoreservoir posted some good stuff. I took note of it for what it was, even Hession stated somewhere along the line it's possible to drill a duster. All one has to do is hope for a one in three chance of a hit and we're off to the races. Anyone planning on all new drilling resulting in finds like EA will be severely disappointed.

For now, I will leave the food fight for others.

[geologydude]

Indo, it's not a matter of the mechanics and processes of oil and gas formation being different. It's a matter of different kinds of targets. We aren't shooting at subtle highs in well explored basins where 3d gives such a great advantage. We are shooting at big reefs. Our situation is more like Texas in the 30s when we were shooting elephants. Or more like the situation in Kurdistan a few years ago. E2 was a delineation well. Pet could shed more light on the other wells you mention, if he has the inclination to get into what I think is a pretty meaningless discussion, :-), but I don't think any of those other wells were drilled into a big reefal structure like those we are targeting in the planned drilling program. We got lucky with Elk-1. And our understanding of the geology on our licenses has advanced tremendously since then. More significant than the kind of statistics you use is the common sense fact that all (100%) of the reefs we have drilled so far...Elk, Antelope, and Triceratops, have been good. And that the people that understand the situation best, Dave Holland and the experts MH has brought in, have selected our current targets.

Yours is the voice of reason here Thy.  I agree whole heartedly.  I would be surprised and disappointed if all of these wells don't prove up more gas.  Overly optimistic...I don't think so.  Holland and company have learned a great deal in the past decade.  When you know what you are looking for on seismic, it is not so difficult to interpret HC containing structures accurately.  We can't discount the experience and lesson learned here.

'geodude' -From one geo to another......I agree with your post ....(it is also mho!) GLTY.

Sageo...just to qualify my statements a bit...the structures are readily identifiable, although the question remains are they charged with gas.  To Pet's fine comments, these structures must be sealed to trap the gas.  I am betting they are as well.

[admin]

And there it is.  The inevitable "GetIt" statement that the poster who voices questions, concerns, criticisms of IOC...should have their motives questioned.  It's like clockwork. 

When did the need to "keep the public narrative positive at all costs" trump the concept of honest and objective evaluation (even when it results in something other than glowing optimism)? Not everybody wakes up in the morning with the singular goal of..."making sure I say nothing that could possibly be used by the shorts".  Sometimes people just say what they honestly think.  If it's good...so be it.  But if it's not...that's okay too in my book. 

What we also need to do is focus on issues, rather than on people and motives. Much more productive..