SELL?!? That's NUTS!

[ArtM72]

..why wouldn't IOC/TOT just build three trains themselves?  

i suppose that same question could be asked a different way, 'why would they ever want to farm out their licenses after first gas?     The  answer might be the same either way, fair price and govt pressure.

In any event I'm thinking beyond the third train.

[Getitrt2]

How many "plans" have thrown on the table and scrapped over the years in PNG and other places? What IOC's plans are and have been over the years have changed easily 20 times; probably more. Exxons "plans" have changed many times and with recent drilling results are still greatly in flux. If you talk to IR they will tell you what the "plan" is for today. But that can change in an instant when drilling results exceed or come under what's "planned". As we know the government can change a "plan" in a heartbeat. Being dogmatic based on what you get from IR or elsewhere makes little sense. If you ask the right questions and read/hear what management says and publishes, it's pretty clear. Things are always subject to change for quite some time yet. We as iOC shareholders should have learned that by now.

YOU are saying I am being so "dogmatic" that I am making "little sense", not asking the right questions, not reading/hearing what management says and publishes, and not recognizing things are always subject to change as I should have learned by now???!!!  That is so egotistical, condescending, and absurd, it's laughable and not worthy of much substantive response, until upon reflection it becomes less funny.  Who's being "dogmatic"?  Sounds like the kettle calling the pot black if either is true.

I will say that getting information from "IR", part of management in sync with other senior management, and "elsewhere"  would seem to be equivalent to "read/hear what management says and publishes", and contradictory of yourself as you state it in terms of doing one but not the other.  THAT "makes little sense".  I might mention the CEO himself has previously indicated publicly they are evaluating whether PRL 15 has enough for three trains in the project, and acknowledged the possibility of a source such as Wahoo providing gas for PNG LNG. At the same time, OSH/Exxon have a formal agreement with the government to develop P'nyang and other properties, over two years I think, with the intent of meeting the needs of a PNG LNG train 3.  What do YOU think are the "right questions", since mine make so "little sense"?  Do you think senior management is lying in response to my questions?

Of course things change, but if you read and listen to the evidence, and follow the logic carefully, the evidence at this point is extremely weighted on one side on this subject, one basic outcome, IMO, confirmed by senior management, which does "make sense" whether you agree with it or not, which of course is our right to do, without abusive responses.

[jft310]

The highest levels of senior mgt in the past have confirmed things to me and others only to have it all change . One needs to be flexible and understand it's not done till its done . Hession clearly stated they were talking to Exxon and one has to ask what was the nature of those talks??what type synergies??
How can Total help ???
I do think Interoil wants this 28-30 percent LNG interest in its projects and wants to build a portfolio of these type projects . Will they get the chance????Can they stay independent ??

[Palm]

How many "plans" have thrown on the table and scrapped over the years in PNG and other places? What IOC's plans are and have been over the years have changed easily 20 times; probably more. Exxons "plans" have changed many times and with recent drilling results are still greatly in flux. If you talk to IR they will tell you what the "plan" is for today. But that can change in an instant when drilling results exceed or come under what's "planned". As we know the government can change a "plan" in a heartbeat. Being dogmatic based on what you get from IR or elsewhere makes little sense. If you ask the right questions and read/hear what management says and publishes, it's pretty clear. Things are always subject to change for quite some time yet. We as iOC shareholders should have learned that by now.

YOU are saying I am being so "dogmatic" that I am making "little sense", not asking the right questions, not reading/hearing what management says and publishes, and not recognizing things are always subject to change as I should have learned by now???!!!  That is so egotistical, condescending, and absurd, it's laughable and not worthy of much substantive response, until upon reflection it becomes less funny.  Who's being "dogmatic"?  Sounds like the kettle calling the pot black if either is true.

I will say that getting information from "IR", part of management in sync with other senior management, and "elsewhere"  would seem to be equivalent to "read/hear what management says and publishes", and contradictory of yourself as you state it in terms of doing one but not the other.  THAT "makes little sense".  I might mention the CEO himself has previously indicated publicly they are evaluating whether PRL 15 has enough for three trains in the project, and acknowledged the possibility of a source such as Wahoo providing gas for PNG LNG. At the same time, OSH/Exxon have a formal agreement with the government to develop P'nyang and other properties, over two years I think, with the intent of meeting the needs of a PNG LNG train 3.  What do YOU think are the "right questions", since mine make so "little sense"?  Do you think senior management is lying in response to my questions?

Of course things change, but if you read and listen to the evidence, and follow the logic carefully, the evidence at this point is extremely weighted on one side on this subject, one basic outcome, IMO, confirmed by senior management, which does "make sense" whether you agree with it or not, which of course is our right to do, without abusive responses.

So says the king of abusive responses and one who thinks every post is aimed at him. Done with you for good Getit. See you.

[jft310]

Actually a third train at PNGLNG could be a clone of the first two trains and the pipe for one train is already in place . Very little work would be required to reach FID for PNGLNG 3 rd train with Antelope gas .
The problem is the ownership redo for Antelope gas at PNGLNG that's the biggie but yes Total and Exxon work together in many places .
Seems like a reach today with what we know but what are Exxon and Interoil/Total talking about ????some type synergy . ?
Ruling out any of the possibilities seems silly unless one can describe the 3 concepts they have narrowed the build to . What are those possibilities??

[CAC]

[quote='Palm' pid='56258' dateline='1426858138'] How many "plans" have thrown on the table and scrapped over the years in PNG and other places? What IOC's plans are and have been over the years have changed easily 20 times; probably more. Exxons "plans" have changed many times and with recent drilling results are still greatly in flux. If you talk to IR they will tell you what the "plan" is for today. But that can change in an instant when drilling results exceed or come under what's "planned". As we know the government can change a "plan" in a heartbeat. Being dogmatic based on what you get from IR or elsewhere makes little sense. If you ask the right questions and read/hear what management says and publishes, it's pretty clear. Things are always subject to change for quite some time yet. We as iOC shareholders should have learned that by now.

YOU are saying I am being so "dogmatic" that I am making "little sense", not asking the right questions, not reading/hearing what management says and publishes, and not recognizing things are always subject to change as I should have learned by now???!!!  That is so egotistical, condescending, and absurd, it's laughable and not worthy of much substantive response, until upon reflection it becomes less funny.  Who's being "dogmatic"?  Sounds like the kettle calling the pot black if either is true.

I will say that getting information from "IR", part of management in sync with other senior management, and "elsewhere"  would seem to be equivalent to "read/hear what management says and publishes", and contradictory of yourself as you state it in terms of doing one but not the other.  THAT "makes little sense".  I might mention the CEO himself has previously indicated publicly they are evaluating whether PRL 15 has enough for three trains in the project, and acknowledged the possibility of a source such as Wahoo providing gas for PNG LNG. At the same time, OSH/Exxon have a formal agreement with the government to develop P'nyang and other properties, over two years I think, with the intent of meeting the needs of a PNG LNG train 3.  What do YOU think are the "right questions", since mine make so "little sense"?  Do you think senior management is lying in response to my questions?

Of course things change, but if you read and listen to the evidence, and follow the logic carefully, the evidence at this point is extremely weighted on one side on this subject, one basic outcome, IMO, confirmed by senior management, which does "make sense" whether you agree with it or not, which of course is our right to do, without abusive responses.

******

Now that's good comedy on a Friday!

[admin]

["Now that's good comedy on a Friday!"]

I have to disagree here.

Focus on issues, not people. Feuds are terribly uninteresting and will force the moderator to intervene pretty soon..

[Thylacine-2]

It's unfortunate when feuds become entrenched. That sort of thing often happens in families, when people with conflicting personalities, people who wouldn't associate except for the family connection, are thrown together over long periods of time. In some ways we are like a family in which conflicts have built up over the years in which we have been thrown together.

It would help the situation a lot, IMO, if we all resolved to not be reactive when we feel offended. Just let it pass, stick to the subject at hand, and congratulate ourselves for being tolerant of each others personality quirks.

[Getitrt2]

How many "plans" have thrown on the table and scrapped over the years in PNG and other places? What IOC's plans are and have been over the years have changed easily 20 times; probably more. Exxons "plans" have changed many times and with recent drilling results are still greatly in flux. If you talk to IR they will tell you what the "plan" is for today. But that can change in an instant when drilling results exceed or come under what's "planned". As we know the government can change a "plan" in a heartbeat. Being dogmatic based on what you get from IR or elsewhere makes little sense. If you ask the right questions and read/hear what management says and publishes, it's pretty clear. Things are always subject to change for quite some time yet. We as iOC shareholders should have learned that by now.

YOU are saying I am being so "dogmatic" that I am making "little sense", not asking the right questions, not reading/hearing what management says and publishes, and not recognizing things are always subject to change as I should have learned by now???!!!  That is so egotistical, condescending, and absurd, it's laughable and not worthy of much substantive response, until upon reflection it becomes less funny.  Who's being "dogmatic"?  Sounds like the kettle calling the pot black if either is true.

I will say that getting information from "IR", part of management in sync with other senior management, and "elsewhere"  would seem to be equivalent to "read/hear what management says and publishes", and contradictory of yourself as you state it in terms of doing one but not the other.  THAT "makes little sense".  I might mention the CEO himself has previously indicated publicly they are evaluating whether PRL 15 has enough for three trains in the project, and acknowledged the possibility of a source such as Wahoo providing gas for PNG LNG. At the same time, OSH/Exxon have a formal agreement with the government to develop P'nyang and other properties, over two years I think, with the intent of meeting the needs of a PNG LNG train 3.  What do YOU think are the "right questions", since mine make so "little sense"?  Do you think senior management is lying in response to my questions?

Of course things change, but if you read and listen to the evidence, and follow the logic carefully, the evidence at this point is extremely weighted on one side on this subject, one basic outcome, IMO, confirmed by senior management, which does "make sense" whether you agree with it or not, which of course is our right to do, without abusive responses.

So says the king of abusive responses and one who thinks every post is aimed at him. Done with you for good Getit. See you.

Certainly your choice and fine with me, Palm, although SHU may be poorer for it without debate such as that.  Given my report on feedback directly from IOC, I think there is little doubt your post was aimed at me, at least for one; and you have not denied that.  I expected a higher standard from you.  Example of an "abusive response" not a response in kind?  I have ignored a lot, and tried to make sure I did not initiate any such.

[jft310]

The IR person in NYC is new take that into consideration . This new person stated it was okay for mgt to buy stock in IOC and her boss M Lynn corrected her . Anyone who states all of PRL 15 gas will be for a Total build needs to ask what are the 3 concepts under advisement and listen to the Hession comments during the call . Total has been quoted as saying they are looking at synergies also with Exxon. Ruling anything out seems foolish . Being rigid when looking at Interoil and OSH history of monetization and thinking it's done is again foolish when looking back . Be open to the possibilities and go higher up the food chain for more accurate comments history shows.