Interoil responds to Mulacek Board Nominations

[Indoreservoir]

anyone voting with Phil has not read the above ,

have to say it - anyone voting against Phil hasn't looked at the share price and MH/Board compensation - almost a perfect negative correlation!

inconvenient reality which started long before the oil price fall.

And the incompetent pink shirt board can't even get the oil price right in the 2016 MIC (look at the ye 2014 and 2015 prices on page 57). One has to ask how many other errors or outright lies are in the MIC and indeed anything this Board says. The oil price was the only thing I fact checked. How can anyone trust people who are only out for themselves and report incorrect info (or lie) in support of that agenda? I truly wish I was making this up.

Yeah, Indo, perhaps a trip to Grand Rapids and a class or so at Calvin College might help you read data.  Data presented on Page 57 do not purport to be actual prices.  Had you absorbed the heading of the chart, you would have understood how the data had been adjusted to get the comparison.  But it's easy to call people incompetent and liars when most readers won't check the evidence you cite.

Suggest you look again - the graph is certainly a ratio (though not labeled as such), but the Table below it clearly has Brent Oil marked as in C$.    And if it was a ratio in the Table to the 2011 price, for YE 2015 the number would be 46 for Brent crude.

And I didn't say incompetent AND a liar, i said 'or' - oh well

I fly thru Detroit in a couple of weeks - is that near enough to Grand Rapids?

But as suggested by others, I'll pick up something at the airport bookstore to help me - maybe something to calm me down!

Cheers

Good grief !!  The data in the table are simply the points in the plot.   Are you really an engineer?   btw, I don't think this "performance graph" and associated data justify much, but they do deserve to be represented properly.

Katy, look at what Pg 57 says: Brent Crude Oil and each figure has C$ next to it, implying a value which they call cumulative total shareholder return but crude oil is certainly not a share.  It is misleading in the least and I think it does not match actual data as follows:

The price of Brent crude on 1/1/2011 (actually 1/3/11 coz 1/1/11 was a Saturday) and 12/31/2015 was C$ 95 and C$ 52, respectively, and if I cipher 52/95 that equals .547. Put another way, a volume equal to C$ 100 worth of Brent crude (~105% of a barrel), purchased on Jan 3, 2011, is worth C$54.7 on Dec 31, 2015, not C$ 39 as the table and graph indicate.

Frankly, the whole Table and Graph are squirrely as C$100 of Brent purchased on 1/3/11 is valued at C$116, C$119, C$117, C$70, and C$54.7 at YE 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, respectively, much different than their values of C$113, 117, 117, 61, and 39.

I must be missing something.

Whether it was incompetence, lying, a mistake, rounding error, data sources or other, as presented in MIC page 57's graph/table Brent Crude Oil returns appear to underperform IOC total cumulative shareholder returns. This SEEMS to be contradicted by actual data.

Let the reader decide.

At least we agree on one point - the information does deserve to be represented properly and perhaps explained better.

[Tusker]

This reader has decided, the use of Canadian Dollars is to mislead and conflict shareholders whom are not familiar with converting international currencies. All the more obvious, given oil is traded in US Dollars.

[katytrader]

This reader has decided, the use of Canadian Dollars is to mislead and conflict shareholders whom are not familiar with converting international currencies. All the more obvious, given oil is traded in US Dollars.

You are right about introducing confusion, but this group is only following past practice.  The circular for the 2013 AGM did the same thing, using 2007 as the base year and using a monthly exchange rate. In that graph IOC wildly outperformed the indices.

I do note that the data table showed for 2007  each measure adjusted to C$100 as the graph shows.  Somewhere along the line they began to show in the table only the S&P adjusted to C$100.  I haven't bothered to check if the other base year data are simply the raw figures unadjusted or what?  Maybe it's just lousy proofreading, but they should have caught the error when they decided to include Brent as a "comparator."   Personally, I have never found these sorts of presentations very meaningful.

[Indoreservoir]

have to say it - anyone voting against Phil hasn't looked at the share price and MH/Board compensation - almost a perfect negative correlation!

inconvenient reality which started long before the oil price fall.

And the incompetent pink shirt board can't even get the oil price right in the 2016 MIC (look at the ye 2014 and 2015 prices on page 57). One has to ask how many other errors or outright lies are in the MIC and indeed anything this Board says. The oil price was the only thing I fact checked. How can anyone trust people who are only out for themselves and report incorrect info (or lie) in support of that agenda? I truly wish I was making this up.

Yeah, Indo, perhaps a trip to Grand Rapids and a class or so at Calvin College might help you read data.  Data presented on Page 57 do not purport to be actual prices.  Had you absorbed the heading of the chart, you would have understood how the data had been adjusted to get the comparison.  But it's easy to call people incompetent and liars when most readers won't check the evidence you cite.

Suggest you look again - the graph is certainly a ratio (though not labeled as such), but the Table below it clearly has Brent Oil marked as in C$.    And if it was a ratio in the Table to the 2011 price, for YE 2015 the number would be 46 for Brent crude.

And I didn't say incompetent AND a liar, i said 'or' - oh well

I fly thru Detroit in a couple of weeks - is that near enough to Grand Rapids?

But as suggested by others, I'll pick up something at the airport bookstore to help me - maybe something to calm me down!

Cheers

Good grief !!  The data in the table are simply the points in the plot.   Are you really an engineer?   btw, I don't think this "performance graph" and associated data justify much, but they do deserve to be represented properly.

Katy, look at what Pg 57 says: Brent Crude Oil and each figure has C$ next to it, implying a value which they call cumulative total shareholder return but crude oil is certainly not a share.  It is misleading in the least and I think it does not match actual data as follows:

The price of Brent crude on 1/1/2011 (actually 1/3/11 coz 1/1/11 was a Saturday) and 12/31/2015 was C$ 95 and C$ 52, respectively, and if I cipher 52/95 that equals .547. Put another way, a volume equal to C$ 100 worth of Brent crude (~105% of a barrel), purchased on Jan 3, 2011, is worth C$54.7 on Dec 31, 2015, not C$ 39 as the table and graph indicate.

Frankly, the whole Table and Graph are squirrely as C$100 of Brent purchased on 1/3/11 is valued at C$116, C$119, C$117, C$70, and C$54.7 at YE 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, respectively, much different than their values of C$113, 117, 117, 61, and 39. I must be missing something.

Whether it was incompetence, lying, a mistake, rounding error, data sources or other, as presented in MIC page 57's graph/table Brent Crude Oil returns appear to underperform IOC total cumulative shareholder returns. This SEEMS to be contradicted by actual data.

Let the reader decide.

At least we agree on one point - the information does deserve to be represented properly and perhaps explained better.

This reader has decided, the use of Canadian Dollars is to mislead and conflict shareholders whom are not familiar with converting international currencies. All the more obvious, given oil is traded in US Dollars.

You are right about introducing confusion, but this group is only following past practice.  The circular for the 2013 AGM did the same thing, using 2007 as the base year and using a monthly exchange rate. In that graph IOC wildly outperformed the indices.

I do note that the data table showed for 2007  each measure adjusted to C$100 as the graph shows.  Somewhere along the line they began to show in the table only the S&P adjusted to C$100.  I haven't bothered to check if the other base year data are simply the raw figures unadjusted or what?  Maybe it's just lousy proofreading, but they should have caught the error when they decided to include Brent as a "comparator."   Personally, I have never found these sorts of presentations very meaningful.

FWIW: Katy, Tusker, and all who are still interested at this point - I've sent an email to Michael Lynn /IOC asking for clarification about the graph/table on page 57 - will post what/if they respond.

Maybe they'll explain what I'm missing, if I am - I dunno at this point.

Cheers

[Palm]

Indo/Katy; maybe they will come back with saying they subscribe to the GIGO rule in wanting to be consistent with prior mgmt.