The countdown begins

[AU74]

Unless it's already been deep-sixed, there are only 13 days left.

[katytrader]

The only reason near the end of an appraisal to mark the two appaisers as tainted would be they are not reaching the desired number . They are being fired and replaced . Their number is to high . To hide that result by not finishing it defines criminal behavior . To think the hiring parties are not aware of the preliminary results means one is naive .

Hmmm. It is not clear from that language  that they are being replaced for the OSH - PAC LNG appraisal.   Perhaps the discussions are about A-7 in or not as well as who would be the appraisers for their deal.  Civelli is hardly a fool, but unless he has insight to the NSAI work his choice is as much of a crapshoot as is for the rest of us.

[jft310]

If Civelli sees a chance to be paid after Ant 7 vs Ant 6 who thinks he would not take it , who had a copy of that agreement ?! Hint not Interoil shareholders ,

[katytrader]

If Civelli sees a chance to be paid after Ant 7 vs Ant 6 who thinks he would not take it , who had a copy of that agreement ?! Hint not Interoil shareholders ,

He might not take it because he wants to be paid now and not depend on a who-knows timeline and/or he doesn't like the proposed appraisers.

[jft310]

It's said Civelli likes the OSH deal of course that was before the Exxon deal . Now we need to know the terms of the Exxon deal and to see the reaction of Total to an Exxon deal . OSH may be tapped out without some further Total help .

[Li'loilady]

The only reason near the end of an appraisal to mark the two appaisers as tainted would be they are not reaching the desired number . They are being fired and replaced . Their number is to high . To hide that result by not finishing it defines criminal behavior . To think the hiring parties are not aware of the preliminary results means one is naive .

Hmmm. It is not clear from that language  that they are being replaced for the OSH - PAC LNG appraisal.   Perhaps the discussions are about A-7 in or not as well as who would be the appraisers for their deal.  Civelli is hardly a fool, but unless he has insight to the NSAI work his choice is as much of a crapshoot as is for the rest of us.

The "tainted" remark was made by Hession in the 5/23 conference call with Raymond James re the OSH takeover.  It relates ONLY to the resource evaluators that we will use for the TOT- IOC SPA certification commitment.  GCA and NSAI are out because of their work with OSH - PAC LNG.

There's no indication that they are tainted as far as OSH or Civelli are concerned.  Suspending of certification is stated to be about whether ANT-7 will be included in OSH payment to PAC LNG.  I would think that they could both benefit from that delay.  Civelli gets mo' dough and OSH gets to build up their balance sheet with PNG LNG income for 1 year.

[jft310]

The problem with not using GCA and NSAI is they have a history before this last certification of evaluating E/A . According to a Pet Engin you learn as you do evaluations and one gets a more accurate evaluation with multiple certification attempts on an asset. Makes sense from at least a common sense view . The other 3 evaluators have zero knowledge of E/A so their first attempt it's said will historically be more conservative than a multi attempt effort .
Both OSH and Civelli are paying for this started now stopped appraisal which was almost complete . We as selling shareholders need to see an appraisal like this one through Ant 6 so we have a proper base line to see what Ant 7 really reveals and to help evaluate the OSH deal . When we hear about the new deal terms and name the asset size through Ant 6 helps shareholders evaluate that deal also . Without that number surely we are headed to litigation . The biggest question is why was the evaluation stopped and what are they hiding by stopping the evaluation and why did you waste the money for an evaluation if it supports your lower asset position ?.. The stop supports an arguement for fraud . Or expect litigation .
Thank you lil old lady for your add on info to your post .

[will2bgreat]

Thank you Lil Old Lady, I agree with your comments, but why not proceed with the IPI certification.

My guess is things become very complex if NSI and GCA publish their estimates and then we go with 2 additional estimates that will probably come in lower than the IPI certification.  This will raise serious questions and lawsuits about the certification process.  So, how does one avoid this situation?  Cancel the IPI certification, drill A7, and do a new certification without previous certifiers to compare against. Yes, we do have GLJ, but everyone agreed to not to allow then in the certification due to agressive estimates.

Also, I agree with Stavros, why don't they cancel the post A7 certification after IOC is acquired?  I can hear the sales line now; we have cancelled A7 because we know we have sufficient gas for an additional 2 trains for PNG LNG.  So to proceed to market as rapidly as possible, the group has agreed that additional certification wells are not required.

Also, everyone keeps talking about A7 adding additional gas, but that is not my understanding.  A7 can reduce the amount of certification gas.  I'm no expert here but I think the location of the fault would have some type of monte carlo method applied to determined the amount of gas in this area.  So if the fault is determine to be further east, the amount of gas in this area will go down.  But let's have some of your geo experts pipe in here.

[sageo]

Thank you Lil Old Lady, I agree with your comments, but why not proceed with the IPI certification.

My guess is things become very complex if NSI and GCA publish their estimates and then we go with 2 additional estimates that will probably come in lower than the IPI certification.  This will raise serious questions and lawsuits about the certification process.  So, how does one avoid this situation?  Cancel the IPI certification, drill A7, and do a new certification without previous certifiers to compare against. Yes, we do have GLJ, but everyone agreed to not to allow then in the certification due to agressive estimates.

Also, I agree with Stavros, why don't they cancel the post A7 certification after IOC is acquired?  I can hear the sales line now; we have cancelled A7 because we know we have sufficient gas for an additional 2 trains for PNG LNG.  So to proceed to market as rapidly as possible, the group has agreed that additional certification wells are not required.

Also, everyone keeps talking about A7 adding additional gas, but that is not my understanding.  A7 can reduce the amount of certification gas.  I'm no expert here but I think the location of the fault would have some type of monte carlo method applied to determined the amount of gas in this area.  So if the fault is determine to be further east, the amount of gas in this area will go down.  But let's have some of your geo experts pipe in here.

Will -I am one of the geos on our board,but certainly not an expert . I have to leave now for a family get-together but will try to give you my thoughts on your question "manana" (for what they may be worth) ! Happy forth to you .

[jft310]

Pet Engin has many posts about currently about our total assets . Latest guess was 24 T and per Hession who has seen the GLJ report with the Ant 7 estimated Ant 7 fault , the Ant 7 well would increase assets as the fault moved further West . That's common knowledge other talk is nonsense . It's further reflects in OSH slides as they show an estimate of 8 T's on the upside with the drilling of Ant 7 . I know we gave no need but let's keep the conversation real !!