Certification question for someone smarter than myself, dont all speak at once please

[jdeo1969]

So the osh certification is for the ipi deal. This is not used in our current deal with Total correct? So isn't this meaningless for the time being? Other than perception, of course.

[Stavros]

So the osh certification is for the ipi deal. This is not used in our current deal with Total correct? So isn't this meaningless for the time being? Other than perception, of course.

The reality is that EVERYTHING Phil Mulacek and the "Concerned InterOil Shareholders" have told us so far is correct.

Phil said that not all of the data was given to the OSH/IPI Certifiers and that the outcome would be manipulated to be below 7 Tcfe.

Phil said that THE SAME THING WILL HAPPEN when the post A-7 Certification is done under the OSH takeover because it will be under the auspices of OSH and the IOC Crooks.

He predicts that post A-7 the Certification will be the IPI/OSH number plus 0.2 Tcfe

If XOM acquires IOC, they will be the owners of all the data.

To my opinion, XOM would then ensure that ALL THE DATA is given to the Certifiers under the T & C's of the SPA.

[petrengr1]

Botten's final statement about the value of the CVR to IOC shareholders is very misleading. He is pressing ahead with the story that IOC shareholders will be paid all resources above 6.2 TCFe.

He says his new number of 6.43 TCF is raw gas including inert gases. He says the IOC/Total SPA excludes the inert gases. This IOC presentation http://www.interoil.com/iocfiles/documen...%20ASM.pdf says Antelope has 5-6% CO2.

Using his number of 6.43 TCF of raw gas and reducing it to remove the CO2 (6.43 x 0.95 = 6.1) gives us 6.1 TCFe, so there will not be any gas above 6.2 TCF. That makes the CVR worthless at this resource level. Why is he still pushing the "line" that IOC shareholders will benefit for all of the gas above 6.2 TCF?

[ArtM72]

Botten's final statement about the value of the CVR to IOC shareholders is very misleading. He is pressing ahead with the story that IOC shareholders will be paid all resources above 6.2 TCFe.

He says his new number of 6.43 TCF is raw gas including inert gases. He says the IOC/Total SPA excludes the inert gases. This IOC presentation http://www.interoil.com/iocfiles/documen...%20ASM.pdf says Antelope has 5-6% CO2.

Using his number of 6.43 TCF of raw gas and reducing it to remove the CO2 (6.43 x 0.95 = 6.1) gives us 6.1 TCFe, so there will not be any gas above 6.2 TCF. That makes the CVR worthless at this resource level. Why is he still pushing the "line" that IOC shareholders will benefit for all of the gas above 6.2 TCF?

Pet and others - In your experience would certifying appraisers normally be expected to issue a full public report, making available all the data and assumptions used in their analysis?  I know that was done back in 2009 by GLJ.  Was the 2009 report something of an anomoly in terms of its public distribution? All we have from NSAI and GCA (and will ever receive?) is they agreed to the form and content of this OSH announcement.

[petrengr1]

Botten's final statement about the value of the CVR to IOC shareholders is very misleading. He is pressing ahead with the story that IOC shareholders will be paid all resources above 6.2 TCFe.

He says his new number of 6.43 TCF is raw gas including inert gases. He says the IOC/Total SPA excludes the inert gases. This IOC presentation http://www.interoil.com/iocfiles/documen...%20ASM.pdf says Antelope has 5-6% CO2.

Using his number of 6.43 TCF of raw gas and reducing it to remove the CO2 (6.43 x 0.95 = 6.1) gives us 6.1 TCFe, so there will not be any gas above 6.2 TCF. That makes the CVR worthless at this resource level. Why is he still pushing the "line" that IOC shareholders will benefit for all of the gas above 6.2 TCF?

Pet and others - In your experience would certifying appraisers normally be expected to issue a full public report, making available all the data and assumptions used in their analysis?  I know that was done back in 2009 by GLJ.  Was the 2009 report something of an anomoly in terms of its public distribution? All we have from NSAI and GCA (and will ever receive?) is they agreed to the form and content of this OSH announcement.

I have no experience in such matters. My guess is that the GLJ release is an anomaly and it was done by a special request from Phil to GLJ. GLJ agreed and released the report.