Only PNG reporting is "alive" (Blair Price)

[TomCrooz]

One fairly amazing thing about his reporting. He states in this article that IOC "eluded" in its CC on Tuesday that talks were still exclusive. Eluded? Hession flat out CONFIRMED in response to a question about it that IN FACT they were still exclusive. That's was Tuesday and he should have reported that as being a fact. Why a couple of days later did he even suddenly have a question that they WEREN'T still in exclusive talks? He states that it is not normal for something like exclusive talks to not have some sort of deadline and then says Oneill stated there was a 60 day deadline. Wrong again. He only said that (in speaking to Parliament) that "we" ( in context- Parliament) should here more in 30-60 days. How is that a 60-day deadline. If he doesn't was his publication viewed as a blog, then it shouldn't act like one. It would take him little time to read a CC transcript when companies like IOC, OSH etc report. Asking for clarification shortly before you run a story is not always all you do in seeking facts. It appears running with a story trumps running an accurate story. That's how you "earn" blog status.

So after today's presser from IOC stating that exclusivity is in fact no longer in effect, was it in effect on Tuesday when Hession said it was and then lapse on Wednesday or Thursday?  Was Price's source correct and he reported accurately that exclusivity ended?  Should Hession have been telling Pavel that talks were exclusive without telling him it would end on a day or so?  Just some things that are bothering me.

[Gator]

Don't shot the messenger. Blair has been trying to report on the exclusive period since day one.  IOC has been playing games the whole time.  He reported the exclusive period ended, today IOC confirmed it.

[Palm]

One fairly amazing thing about his reporting. He states in this article that IOC "eluded" in its CC on Tuesday that talks were still exclusive. Eluded? Hession flat out CONFIRMED in response to a question about it that IN FACT they were still exclusive. That's was Tuesday and he should have reported that as being a fact. Why a couple of days later did he even suddenly have a question that they WEREN'T still in exclusive talks? He states that it is not normal for something like exclusive talks to not have some sort of deadline and then says Oneill stated there was a 60 day deadline. Wrong again. He only said that (in speaking to Parliament) that "we" ( in context- Parliament) should here more in 30-60 days. How is that a 60-day deadline. If he doesn't was his publication viewed as a blog, then it shouldn't act like one. It would take him little time to read a CC transcript when companies like IOC, OSH etc report. Asking for clarification shortly before you run a story is not always all you do in seeking facts. It appears running with a story trumps running an accurate story. That's how you "earn" blog status.

So after today's presser from IOC stating that exclusivity is in fact no longer in effect, was it in effect on Tuesday when Hession said it was and then lapse on Wednesday or Thursday?  Was Price's source correct and he reported accurately that exclusivity ended?  Should Hession have been telling Pavel that talks were exclusive without telling him it would end on a day or so?  Just some things that are bothering me.

Croozer, we can either choose to trust management will do the right things legally, or trust media.  I believe that when asked about exclusivity on Tuesday Hession answered honestly.  They were still in exclusive negotiations at that point.  Since when they entered into exclusive negotiations they made a disclosure I believe that when they ended they would do the same; within the 3-day required time period. We didn't like the quality of the May 24th release, but were told that IOC's attorneys stated that they must disclose it due to the materiality.  Did they just enter into these negotiations on the 24th, or on the 21st, 22nd or 23rd?  We don't know and in the end it doesn't matter exactly when.  Same goes here.  There may have been an August 15th "deadline" that was imposed at some point.  It's interesting that once Hession made that statement in the CC, everyone relaxed a bit, even the analyst that asked it.  No follow-up question from the analyst as to when that exclusivity migt end, and I don't believe anyone here raised the point.  Would Hession have answered at all of with a specific date of expiration?  I don't think he would have necessarily because at that point they were likely still negotiating and they have been in a "no comment" on negotiation status since this period of exclusivity began.

Harvard Law Review has a piece on Exclusive Negotiations and states that when there is active bidding going on it is usually a disatvantage for the seller to enter into exclusive talks and the onus is on the buyer to make things happen quickly.  I agree with Resourcearb that the exclusivity ending is not a bad things at all, especially in light of the fact that other bidders are being talked to.  Talks haven't broken off completely with Exxon, which is a very good thing.  More likely now that a deal is consumated.  Other bidders have not gone away.

[CAC]

Don't shot the messenger. Blair has been trying to report on the exclusive period since day one.  IOC has been playing games the whole time.  He reported the exclusive period ended, today IOC confirmed it.

++++++++++++++++++++

Agreed.  To claim that he was paid off is irresponsible, if not worse.  There's been a lot of "talk" about getting something done for YEARS now...and lot's of arrows thrown at whoever has dared to question them for not getting it done.   At some point IOC has to actually execute something.

[cybersssss]

CAC. Agreed but Blair Price's article and especially the headline was purposefully misleading to garnish the eyeballs. Also to say that investors do not read PNGIndustryNews is quite an ignorant statement or purposefully misleading.

[sageo]

Cac- "loved" your last statement....At some point IOC  has to actually get something signed ...!  Maybe IOC has now moved from ' tortoise' area to 'snail' area ! Some day a contract will be signed,I believe, but alas, I may be gone by then . (I sure hope not !!) Good luck to you sir,and "God speed".

[Gator]

"At some point IOC has to actually execute something." How about selling some gas from E/A. I know, I know that is soooo 2009.

[sageo]

"At some point IOC has to actually execute something." How about selling some gas from E/A. I know, I know that is soooo 2009.

Gatror -- What a novel idea ! Too bad some of our people in control didn't do that before now .(Lots of gas in excnange for lots of money !!!) We would be "rollin' in dough" by now.....that would sure be fun instead of .......

[jft310]

Don't shot the messenger. Blair has been trying to report on the exclusive period since day one.  IOC has been playing games the whole time.  He reported the exclusive period ended, today IOC confirmed it.

++++++++++++++++++++

Agreed.  To claim that he was paid off is irresponsible, if not worse.  There's been a lot of "talk" about getting something done for YEARS now...and lot's of arrows thrown at whoever has dared to question them for not getting it done.   At some point IOC has to actually execute something.

responsible  journalism requires two sources and then a check by the editor. That 's what papers like the Washington Post and WSJ do . On PNG there are major problems with the DPE  and yes several members of the DPE have been caught taking bribes. See Dumas house in Port Douglas ,to think that others on the island don't participate is just naive. Blair had the obligation to check his work and not use sensational statements. It's how he said what he said that's irresponsible but those are my standards and those of reputable reporters. Many will never trust what Blair Price writes again!He did is to himself.