Pavel - Botten Conversation on IOC

[Stavros]

Has anyone heard about Raymond James raising its Price Target on IOC to $70?
Some folks claim RJ did this on Saturday.

[Putncalls]

I'll find out MON AM if they did.

[ArtM72]

If this is a public call we should have some questions ready for Boton, like when is his certification for IPI i'm going to be made available and if delayed, why?

[Libtardius Maximus]

If this is a public call we should have some questions ready for Boton, like when is his certification for IPI i'm going to be made available and if delayed, why?

Just a few days after the IPI-OSH 120 dasy cert timeline. Coincidence? Or is the about delaying until A7 is drilled.

[Tusker]

"Airportsdonotlie"

Hey folks... what is the municipality where Peter Botten is giving his talk with Pavel.

Tail watcher of sorts

Ha ha

[Stavros]

Peter Botten Tail ?
His pal Phatprik Pouyanne in tow.

[ArtM72]

Here are a few questions that could be posed to Mr. Botten I believe the answers to which would be helpful in understanding the OSH buyout proposal better:

In no particular order,

1. When will appraisal results be announced relative to your purchase of IPI’s share of E/A and PRL15? If not according to the previously announced schedule, why not?

2. Why was the decision by the JV to drill A7 delayed and was the timing coincidental to the execution of the acquisition agreement?

3. Does OSH have outstanding obligations to its PNG LNG JV partners that have yet to be fulfilled with respect to the quantities of P2 or P3 gas to be supplied by OSH to the JV?

4. Why was it necessary in the Agreement to prohibit any employee or director from engaging in conversation that may have been interpreted to undermine successful confirmation of the buyout by IOC shareholders?

5. On 9/30/15 during the Q3 2015 CC Dr. Hession stated Wood Mackenzie and analysts estimated IOC’s stake in Papua LNG alone was potentially worth $9bn US by first gas. Do you agree with that assessment?

6. According to a presentation made by Laurie Brown December 3, 2014 Triceratops, Elk, Antelope and Raptor discoveries were all identified as gravity anomalies and that 20 more such anomalies have been identified in IOC license areas. Why do you in your bid or subsequent pronouncements fail to assign any value whatsoever to discoveries in PRL39 containing Triceratops, PPL476 containing Bobcat, and PPL 475 containing Raptor, or for that matter the still promising PPL474 and PPL 477.

7. What are the specific benefits of coordinating capital facilities with PNG LNG that would accrue in the absence of IOC that would not be available with IOC as a partner in the JV and why not?

8. Antelope South in PRL15 was to have been drilled as a discovery well by Total in their PSA with IOC. Why has that well been dropped in the proposed merger agreement bolt on with Total? Are we to infer any gas from that formation will not be necessary in the forseeable future as feedstock for Papua LNG, or for that matter PNG LNG?

[Putncalls]

RJ has bearish LNG view:
Energy Stat: European Gas Demand Languishes Near 20-Year Lows - And That's Before Brexit. It is no secret that U.S. natural gas
demand has chronically disappointed expectations in recent years, especially in the industrial sector (steel industry travails) and LNG
exports (slower-than-expected scale-up). Well, look on the bright side: at least it's better than in Europe. In our Stat of the Week
from July 2015, we highlighted some shockingly negative statistics about the European gas market: in particular, 2014 being the lowest
point for EU gas consumption since 1995. With a year having passed, today we revisit this theme. The verdict? To quote Franz Kafka:
"There is an infinite amount of hope in the universe ... but not for us." Although 2015 showed a bit of recovery in demand, the overall
picture is still glaringly bearish. To be clear, this is not because of the Brexit referendum's outcome, but rather underlying long-term
trends that go well beyond day-to-day politics. The epic weakness in European gas demand carries read-through not just for energy
companies in the region, but also the entire global LNG value chain. For more details, please refer to today’s Stat of the Week.

[ArtM72]

RJ has bearish LNG view: Energy Stat: European Gas Demand Languishes Near 20-Year Lows - And That's Before Brexit. It is no secret that U.S. natural gas demand has chronically disappointed expectations in recent years, especially in the industrial sector (steel industry travails) and LNG exports (slower-than-expected scale-up). Well, look on the bright side: at least it's better than in Europe. In our Stat of the Week from July 2015, we highlighted some shockingly negative statistics about the European gas market: in particular, 2014 being the lowest point for EU gas consumption since 1995. With a year having passed, today we revisit this theme. The verdict? To quote Franz Kafka: "There is an infinite amount of hope in the universe ... but not for us." Although 2015 showed a bit of recovery in demand, the overall picture is still glaringly bearish. To be clear, this is not because of the Brexit referendum's outcome, but rather underlying long-term trends that go well beyond day-to-day politics. The epic weakness in European gas demand carries read-through not just for energy companies in the region, but also the entire global LNG value chain. For more details, please refer to today’s Stat of the Week.

Not according to the IEA at https://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=3&pid=26&aid=2&cid=regions&syid=1995&eyid=2014&unit=BCF.  Yes, the past couple of years has seen a dramatic reduction in use by Italy and Spain, but the long term trend is still positive. Glaringly bearish?  Tell that to the coal industry.  They could use some good news.

On the other hand dry natural gas consumption in Asia and Oceania climbed from 7,991 to 23,627 BCF from 1995 to 2013 while world consumption grew from 79,029 to 121,357 in that same time frame.

[Getitrt2]

As of today RJ still has a "Market Perform" rating on IOC, and does not publish targets with that rating. I think that is inappropriate for Pavel considering they are supposed to be one-year targets, and given his NAV calculations and the fact that certification is due within that time frame.