AP, the language and interpretation of the statement being called a lie. If I had meant "body" language, a ridiculous comment for a forum, I would have said it. Why do you want to distort things like that, unless just a misunderstanding, or is it just aimed at me personally?
|
IOC/OSH Court Nov-Decision Q1 15
|
07-29-2014, 06:02 AM
'jdeo1969' pid='47794' datel Wrote: The disagreement is NOT just because of what "the company is telling you". If it were such a "great thing for IOC shareholders", why was Exxon not chosen in December? 
07-29-2014, 06:19 AM
'Getitrt2' pid='47803' datel Wrote:
Because I believe the previous mgmnt team backed itself into a corner with regard to going exclusive with Exxon. I believe that Exxon played it very well in that regard and the BOD realized that they were staring down the barrell of a bad outcome. They hired Hession, who got a deal done with total in order to meet certain deadlines (see the article posted on their website re: licenses, expiring etc.) Hession inks the deal with total, who then releases a bad PR which crushes the stock price and further losses ensue after the market is disappointed in the timeline being pushed back. Oneill has stated in not so many words that he would like to see EA gas gor to PNG/LNG. Economies of scale dictate that Exxon would be smart to strike a deal with IOC/Total to get gas to go to their plant, which given the deal IOC and Total have, gives them leverage against being lowballed by XOM, which they likely would have been in December. So now they have leverage, and I believe in a positive outcome either way, but I like earlier monetization personally. 
07-29-2014, 06:54 AM
I think JDEO just nailed it for all shareholders that held shares previous to Hession deal announcement.
07-29-2014, 07:03 AM
A bag PR did not tank the PPS. The shorts did not tank the share price. Neither did dark pools, HFT or any other scheme mentioned. On WS money talks and their was little money and lots of waiting in the deal.
(07-29-2014, 06:19 AM)jdeo1969 Wrote: You are essentially calling the CEO a liar by saying he got a hurry-up deal done with Total that was not superior "in order to meet certain deadlines", rather than for the multiple substantial reasons given by the CEO as to why the Total deal was superior for IOC; and I think that is dead wrong. Exxon had plenty of opportunity to outbid Total and chose not to. They wanted to buy PART of PRL 15 for a bargain price for a train three, probably without ownership in it for IOC, but since they couldn't, chose to pursue their own resources for Train 3. I don't believe anyone has been able to show that "economies of scale dictate" that Exxon would be better to pay IOC for E/A resources and provide LNG ownership equivalent to, or better than (as required now), the Total deal, rather than use its own resources elsewhere, including you. There is also nothing but speculation, that IOC would now get "earlier monetization" overall from a new deal with Exxon and cancellation or modification of the Total deal (probably not even possible), than the cash flow from resource payments in 2014-2016 and subsequent LNG from the Total deal, which IOC has already started receiving and investing and used for further credit. IMHO, the idea of trying to undo all this and start over with all the problems it would entail and the advantages of the deal with Total, which would almost certainly be an absolute mess and not even possible, I think is what I referred to before as "crazy talk", but did not mean literally in terms of someone being "crazy". I challenge you to provide or point to any statement by O'Neill that he would prefer to see E/A gas go to PNG LNG rather than to a new LNG project with Total. No one has been able to do that yet. A general statement by him in the past long before closing of this deal with Total that he would like to see the gas monetized as soon as practical does NOT constitute such a statement of preference. Furthermore, control of that does not lie in the government's hands. IOC has the right to strike the best deal with an acceptable partner, which Total certainly is, and the closed contracts are legally binding. The only chance of changing the deal as you call for is the arbitration case, and that appears to be an extremely small chance, with management very confident about it.
07-29-2014, 08:59 AM
'Putncalls' pid='47808' datel Wrote:A bag PR did not tank the PPS. The shorts did not tank the share price. Neither did dark pools, HFT or any other scheme mentioned. On WS money talks and their was little money and lots of waiting in the deal. I think you are basically correct, with high expectations and a lot of uncertainty, but I think the shorts helped a lot in creating the fear and getting it down that much. However, what I really want to know now is when in hell is everyone going to be able to put that behind us, and focus on and move forward toward what appears to be a very bright future. I think that might actually even help the stock.
Because as I have said time and time again, they want the gas for PNG/LNG and there is still a very good chance that that outcome. To take it off the table becuase of what "the company is telling you" is absolutely naive. Furthermore, it would be a great thing for IOC shareholders imo.
The disagreement is NOT just because of what "the company is telling you". If it were such a "great thing for IOC shareholders", why was Exxon not chosen in December?
Because I believe the previous mgmnt team backed itself into a corner with regard to going exclusive with Exxon. I believe that Exxon played it very well in that regard and the BOD realized that they were staring down the barrell of a bad outcome. They hired Hession, who got a deal done with total in order to meet certain deadlines (see the article posted on their website re: licenses, expiring etc.) Hession inks the deal with total, who then releases a bad PR which crushes the stock price and further losses ensue after the market is disappointed in the timeline being pushed back. Oneill has stated in not so many words that he would like to see EA gas gor to PNG/LNG. Economies of scale dictate that Exxon would be smart to strike a deal with IOC/Total to get gas to go to their plant, which given the deal IOC and Total have, gives them leverage against being lowballed by XOM, which they likely would have been in December. So now they have leverage, and I believe in a positive outcome either way, but I like earlier monetization personally.
You are essentially calling the CEO a liar by saying he got a hurry-up deal done with Total that was not superior "in order to meet certain deadlines", rather than for the multiple substantial reasons given by the CEO as to why the Total deal was superior for IOC; and I think that is dead wrong. Exxon had plenty of opportunity to outbid Total and chose not to. They wanted to buy PART of PRL 15 for a bargain price for a train three, probably without ownership in it for IOC, but since they couldn't, chose to pursue their own resources for Train 3. I don't believe anyone has been able to show that "economies of scale dictate" that Exxon would be better to pay IOC for E/A resources and provide LNG ownership equivalent to, or better than (as required now), the Total deal, rather than use its own resources elsewhere, including you. There is also nothing but speculation, that IOC would now get "earlier monetization" overall from a new deal with Exxon and cancellation or modification of the Total deal (probably not even possible), than the cash flow from resource payments in 2014-2016 and subsequent LNG from the Total deal, which IOC has already started receiving and investing and used for further credit. IMHO, the idea of trying to undo all this and start over with all the problems it would entail and the advantages of the deal with Total, which would almost certainly be an absolute mess and not even possible, I think is what I referred to before as "crazy talk", but did not mean literally in terms of someone being "crazy". I challenge you to provide or point to any statement by O'Neill that he would prefer to see E/A gas go to PNG LNG rather than to a new LNG project with Total. No one has been able to do that yet. A general statement by him in the past long before closing of this deal with Total that he would like to see the gas monetized as soon as practical does NOT constitute such a statement of preference. Furthermore, control of that does not lie in the government's hands. IOC has the right to strike the best deal with an acceptable partner, which Total certainly is, and the closed contracts are legally binding. The only chance of changing the deal as you call for is the arbitration case, and that appears to be an extremely small chance, with management very confident about it.
I would appear the Citi OSH report supports my viewpoint regarding expansion costs with EA Gas:
"PNG gas cost curve supports expansion from Hides/P'nyang/Antelope only — Based on our benchmarking analysis, we have defined a cost curve for known gas resources in PNG under various development scenarios (backfill/expansion), which we compare to the price an LNG project could pay for gas. While Hides & a 2 train Antelope could provide an attractive development, particularly when combined with T3 cost synergies, we think most other gas resources are less attractive and would be marginal if developed to underpin expansion trains. While economics underpinned by 2P, expansion needs 1P — ExxonMobil has historically marketed offtake on a 1P reserves basis to maximizes the value of the molecules. LNG expansion is likely to hence need 3-4tcf of incremental 1P reserves per train, thus we expect Train 3 sanction will require both Hides GWC upside and P’nyang. Beyond these resources (ex Antelope), we think other resources are marginal to develop as expansion (T4), though could be developed as backfill gas."
Good luck longs Jdeo
07-29-2014, 01:18 PM
Hmmmm. I don't get it! It's to late for A NG goes to PNG LNG unless OSH believes there is enough for everybody?
07-29-2014, 02:11 PM
I'm speculating put. But I posit this: have you ever been surprised during your time owning this stock? My entire point is that it cannot be ruled out. Too many variables exist for us to say without a doubt that the gas won't go to pnglng. Just my opinion is all. Either way its going to be a great thing for ioc.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)