SA cc Transcript now available

[Palm]

Well, he must have unless SA is up to their deceptive tricks again. I just kind of assumed that since this is from the CC transcript, he must have said it. But maybe it's just me.

Palm, MH did indeed say those things.  I thought the second of the excerpts was very telling.  MH actually interjected those comments following a response given by Dave Holland before they took another question.  I think as MH continues to do the "vision thing", he will be a very convincing spokesman for IOC´s potential without all of the sidebars offered by his predecessor.

katytrader

Agree, as long as he doesn't become one of these:

Wait, that's not Spartina is it? Hohoho

That's what is interesting about these experienced guys that come into IOC.  He and henry both have seen a lot of formations and they both have been amazed at what IOC has discovered (thanks Dave Holland!).  For him to make these statements is not to be ignored.  Another thing of interest.  In another thread Pet and I came to the conclusion that it's likely at this point that Exxon is the only dog in the hunt and that MAYBE they are talking to others.  In this transcript piece Dr Mike flat out states:

"Your question or comments around partnering, yes, we are actively in discussion with companies, and we are looking for a strategic partner. We're not just looking for a partner who brings dollars. We're looking for a partner who has an appropriate strategic fit and will help us work together to try and capture the upside, the potential upside that sits around Elk, Antelope and Triceratops."

So, they may not be "negotiating" because they are in "exclusive negotiations" with Exxon, but they ARE "in discussions".  Interesting.

[Tree]

And some drivel purveyor called this CC, "... the worst Quarterly Earnings CC in the history of Wall Street". Apparently he did not listen to or read the transcript....Sigh.

Hession on CC in his opening statement mentions new guy Isikelu Taureka:

..."Now I'll take you through -- not only have I joined the team, we've also recently recruited Isikeli Taureka. He's joined InterOil. He's an Executive Vice President of our corporate development, and he runs our operations in PNG."...

He's been vetted on this MB. Who is Isikeli Taureka besides the guy that replaced Conrad Vinson? He's a big-dog. I think he and Sir Rabbie have some local clout.

http://ppngtokauttokstret.blogspot.com/2...-star.html

[katytrader]

Well, he must have unless SA is up to their deceptive tricks again. I just kind of assumed that since this is from the CC transcript, he must have said it. But maybe it's just me.

Palm, MH did indeed say those things.  I thought the second of the excerpts was very telling.  MH actually interjected those comments following a response given by Dave Holland before they took another question.  I think as MH continues to do the "vision thing", he will be a very convincing spokesman for IOC´s potential without all of the sidebars offered by his predecessor.

katytrader

Agree, as long as he doesn't become one of these:

Wait, that's not Spartina is it? Hohoho

That's what is interesting about these experienced guys that come into IOC.  He and henry both have seen a lot of formations and they both have been amazed at what IOC has discovered (thanks Dave Holland!).  For him to make these statements is not to be ignored.  Another thing of interest.  In another thread Pet and I came to the conclusion that it's likely at this point that Exxon is the only dog in the hunt and that MAYBE they are talking to others.  In this transcript piece Dr Mike flat out states:

"Your question or comments around partnering, yes, we are actively in discussion with companies, and we are looking for a strategic partner. We're not just looking for a partner who brings dollars. We're looking for a partner who has an appropriate strategic fit and will help us work together to try and capture the upside, the potential upside that sits around Elk, Antelope and Triceratops."

So, they may not be "negotiating" because they are in "exclusive negotiations" with Exxon, but they ARE "in discussions".  Interesting.

Palm,

I think the wording is intentionally quite precise. Strictly speaking, one can only "negotiate" a proposal which a party has put forth.  In most circumstances, the proposal is preceded by "discussions" which may or may not lead to a specific proposal.  It makes perfect sense (at least to me) to be in discussions with multiple parties which may lead to proposals which serve as a basis for future negotiations.

katytrader

[Palm]

And some drivel purveyor called this CC, "... the worst Quarterly Earnings CC in the history of Wall Street". Apparently he did not listen to or read the transcript....Sigh. Hession on CC in his opening statement mentions new guy Isikelu Taureka: ..."Now I'll take you through -- not only have I joined the team, we've also recently recruited Isikeli Taureka. He's joined InterOil. He's an Executive Vice President of our corporate development, and he runs our operations in PNG."... He's been vetted on this MB. Who is Isikeli Taureka besides the guy that replaced Conrad Vinson? He's a big-dog. I think he and Sir Rabbie have some local clout. http://ppngtokauttokstret.blogspot.com/2...-star.html

What? Worst? I think it was one of the best.  They gave us "nothing but the facts, m'am" and the analysts on the call obviously have very high respect for Dr Mike.  He's brought instant credibility and will resonate very positively to Wall St. And I bet Exxon is very happy with the way he handled questions.

[ArtM72]

Great call. Stock dropped 10% on no news. Methinks those tea leaves you've been reading are getting a little old.

[jft310]

Great call. Stock dropped 10% on no news. Methinks those tea leaves you've been reading are getting a little old.

No one knows when ,how much and those pesky details.We wait. The shorts are betting its longer than some expect.

[Palm]

[quote='ArtM72' pid='27213' dateline='1376523423'] Great call. Stock dropped 10% on no news. Methinks those tea leaves you've been reading are getting a little old. [/quote

As opposed to the past when CC was full of details and promises and great possibilities; and the stock still dropped 10%. Face it CCs for many stocks (especially when they miss earnings) are accompanied by drops because overall they are cut and dry. Even Apple has given in to the fate of the CC. The tea leaves read by people who expect deal announcements and a doubling of the stock price are the leaves which are tainted. What we saw yesterday was fairly normal; the price over the last couple of weeks had gone up in anticipation of some big announcement; not realistic. So when reality hit, the price dropped back down and recovered a little today in an overall down market.

Read what the overall purpose is of a CC; basically to review the previous quarter, give some color on subsequent events and maybe give some forward guidance. Not deal announcements. Then it's up to shareholders and analysts to dig into the CC, financials, MD&A, etc. No tea leaves; a bit of reality.

[CAC]

[quote='ArtM72' pid='27213' dateline='1376523423'] Great call. Stock dropped 10% on no news. Methinks those tea leaves you've been reading are getting a little old. [/quote

As opposed to the past when CC was full of details and promises and great possibilities; and the stock still dropped 10%. Face it CCs for most stocks are accompanied by drops because overall they are cut and dry. Even Apple has given in to the fate of the CC. The tea leaves read by people who expect deal announcements and a doubling of the stock price are the leaves which are tainted. What we saw yesterday was fairly normal; the price over the last couple of weeks had gone up in anticipation of some big announcement; not realistic. So when reality hit, the price dropped back down and recovered a little today in an overall down market.

Read what the overall purpose is of a CC; basically to review the previous quarter, give some color on subsequent events and maybe give some forward guidance. Not deal announcements. Then it's up to shareholders and analysts to dig into the CC, financials, MD&A, etc. No tea leaves; a bit of reality.

************

In my opinion the pps of this stock is currently about one thing and one thing only...a deal.  Fundamentals don't matter, hiring a good leader doesn't matter, and what they say on a conference call doesn't matter (unless it includes the words "we made the deal".  We hyper-analyze the details of who said what on the cc but none of that caused the drop in pps. I'm not saying those things shouldn't matter, or that they won't eventually matter, but they don't right now.  With the stock currently susceptible to short manipulation, and growing expectations (at least partially fueled by "predictions" of those claiming to be in the know) that we are close to deal details, any event that could potentially result in a deal announcement, which doesn't, will have a predictable pps outcome. I think the cc was pretty good but Hession could have disclosed that last week he cured cancer; got rid of the designated hitter; and married Duma's daughter...and the pps would still have tanked.  We need a deal.

[Palm]

Completely agree; we need a deal. But this deal with Exxon is the first time we have a real shot at a real deal that will take us to that next level. Some had the expectation that a deal would be announced by the end of the O'Neill 60 day period, even after Wayne Andrews said to "disregard the 60 days as far as a deadline". But people still did. Then, if not the 60 days, certainly it would be announced yesterday. Not the reasonable thing to expect. Info has been put up saying a final deal announcement on something like this should be expected to take 4-6 months. So why not expect that? Could it happen before that? Sure, but why not temper expectations and if they surprise early, all the better.

The new guard appears to have what it takes to get a deal done. Looks like they will and I've got my money placed accordingly. I look at the 5 year chart and see that basically since they hit Ant 2 we have had a pattern of higher highs and higher lows. Nice trend. And all without a monetized resource. All without a final deal. I'll use language from the MD&A. WHEN this deal happens in due time we will have what we've been waiting for. Maybe not all at once, but we certainly will see a continued pattern of higher highs and higher lows as Hession's 5-year vision plays out. As long as the guy across the table from him yesterday, Dave Holland, proves up what they all believe is there. And that is to add to the biggest find in Asia in the last 20 years.

But maybe we will get it all at once. I'm in for either scenario.

[Tree]

In my opinion the pps of this stock is currently about one thing and one thing only...a deal.  Fundamentals don't matter, hiring a good leader doesn't matter, and what they say on a conference call doesn't matter (unless it includes the words "we made the deal".  We hyper-analyze the details of who said what on the cc but none of that caused the drop in pps. I'm not saying those things shouldn't matter, or that they won't eventually matter, but they don't right now.  With the stock currently susceptible to short manipulation, and growing expectations (at least partially fueled by "predictions" of those claiming to be in the know) that we are close to deal details, any event that could potentially result in a deal announcement, which doesn't, will have a predictable pps outcome. I think the cc was pretty good but Hession could have disclosed that last week he cured cancer; got rid of the designated hitter; and married Duma's daughter...and the pps would still have tanked.  We need a deal.

[/quote]

Agreed CAC - we have always needed the deals signed/announced. That never was going to happen in the CC.  That will happen with presser/photos likely from XOM's HQ's or PNG if Gov't approval is prerequisite of XOM's for announcement.  Combine apparent elevated deal expectation and the initially mis-understood interpretation that IOC had no LNG ambitions as opposed to what Hession clearly stated that 'IOC would seek non-operating LNG role' with typical post CC sell-off.  To blame the CC for a 10% sell-off is off-base and those promoting that claim have not provided any referene to any CC comments to support their case.

Where I disagree with you is I firmly believe that discriminating who said what in the CC is critical in maintaining as accurate snapshot of reality as we can have.  There will be events that precede the announcement and maybe we together will see them on our radar.  Is this a perfect indicator?  No way but it is the best we have and it will help calm the mkt. in the meantime as 'facts are friendly'.