Why no 'Cheap Shot" Bidder Quotes?

[Tree]

"PO'd and walking bidders may break our bank accounts......but 'cheap shot' shareholder opinions will never hurt me"

Well, if there was no bidder precondition that Phil was booted and Phil identifies 'cheap shots by shareholders' could it be that Collin's comment on Phil's retirement as part of "the process" to sell an E/A operating stake has in fact all along included Phil's planned retirement prior to the transaction?

Pavel got it wrong IMO.  'Cheap Shot' shareholders are easy to find for a quote.  Haven't yet seen a 'Cheap Shot' bidder quote.  Have you?  Maybe Pavel can dig up some of those.

That's what we should be concerned about.

Phil Quotes:

“It was absolutely false to state or imply it was implied by any valid bidder that I retire. In fact the ability to go forward proves the point to the bidders that we are serious, as I announced my retirement, knowing they will all take it 100% seriously. It was absolutely false that any valid bidder would want me out. The respect is there, and I am on the LNG steering board committee and will remain so.”

“As the fourth largest shareholder it would not be in my personal interest to have a harder environment for a CEO replacement, nor do I need to falsely create a situation that is hard to follow and would mean cheap shots by some shareholders."

"I reccommended a new CEO (for) several months, and we have interviewed to ensure a smooth transaction to run the LNG project once it is closed"

[jft310]

The ball is the deal. If this is what it took to move the ball closer to the goal posts well so be it. The exact details just don't matter. Moving the ball does matter. If Phil's retirement in anyway improved the bid prices well then it was all good. For sure 100% Phil wasn't gonna be calling the shots post deal. I am sure he knew that and went out on his terms at his time. If this helped the company and his 4 million shares increase in value well yes that what I need to do. This should be obvious to all. Was Phil a bargaining chip we he should not have been because the reality is he was gone post deal. If this helps attract a new CEO well so be it. There are so many things we will never know and in the BIG picture they mean nothing. What matters is the deal and closing the best deal they can at this time.

[Tree]

Hey, I found a cheap shot bidder quote!

"Phil had to go.  He has been a deal obsructionist.  His hubris and greed prevented us from buying in cheap.  Now the LNG supply hole is larger, AU projects we need are cancelled.  In the meantime, Phil found T-2 and proved a trend that attracted 6 multinational bidders.  Now we find ourselves is a damn bidding war for Gulf LNG and upstream stakes!!  We have doubled our $/Mcf bids and will need too go higher as we cannot lose this project.  He has done nothing but get into our pocket"

Now if I can only find a "Cheap Shot Gov't Quote" since November..............

[admin]

There are a few pending questions from CAC from yesterday for anyone who seriously thinks Phil went voluntarily:

["I actually think Phil's comments raise more questions than they answer.  Human nature provides an inherent incentive to be somewhat self-serving.  I am dubious about his statements that this was planned a long time ago, and has nothing to do with pressure from an outside source or with disagreement with the Board on future direction.  He makes it sound like he's stepping down from the company he loves, right before the deal he's been working on for years is consumated, out of an altruistic concern for how the yet-to-be-identified successor's legacy will be viewed.  Hmmm.

If true, why the coincidental timing of the announcement immediately following an important Board meeting?  Why the extremely short notice?  And most telling, why wouldn't IOC have also given a roses and lolipops explanation for Phil's departure and specifically state it had nothing to do with deal negotiations?  What they chose to say was..Mulacek’s retirement was a part of the process to bring in a strategic partner to operate the Elk-Antelope field."]

I'm not sure references to icebergs cut it, in terms of answers, but perhaps that's just me.

And again, write a letter of protest to Pavel, Westlake, etc.

Phil created a $4b company out of thin air in one of the last frontier countries on earth. For that he deserves much praise, but that shouldn't make us blind to the possibility that he's not perfect and could have become an obstacle for progress lately.

[Tree]

There are a few pending questions from CAC from yesterday for anyone who seriously thinks Phil went voluntarily:

["I actually think Phil's comments raise more questions than they answer.  Human nature provides an inherent incentive to be somewhat self-serving.  I am dubious about his statements that this was planned a long time ago, and has nothing to do with pressure from an outside source or with disagreement with the Board on future direction.  He makes it sound like he's stepping down from the company he loves, right before the deal he's been working on for years is consumated, out of an altruistic concern for how the yet-to-be-identified successor's legacy will be viewed.  Hmmm.

If true, why the coincidental timing of the announcement immediately following an important Board meeting?  Why the extremely short notice?  And most telling, why wouldn't IOC have also given a roses and lolipops explanation for Phil's departure and specifically state it had nothing to do with deal negotiations?  What they chose to say was..Mulacek’s retirement was a part of the process to bring in a strategic partner to operate the Elk-Antelope field."]

I'm not sure references to icebergs cut it, in terms of answers, but perhaps that's just me.

And again, write a letter of protest to Pavel, Westlake, etc.

Phil created a $4b company out of thin air in one of the last frontier countries on earth. For that he deserves much praise, but that shouldn't make us blind to the possibility that he's not perfect and could have become an obstacle for progress lately.

you can't find any cheap shot bidder or government quotes either I have to conclude. I guess I will just have to take Phil and Collin and Oneill  at face value and the hearsay for what it is.  But, that's just me.

[CAC]

There are a few pending questions from CAC from yesterday for anyone who seriously thinks Phil went voluntarily:

["I actually think Phil's comments raise more questions than they answer.  Human nature provides an inherent incentive to be somewhat self-serving.  I am dubious about his statements that this was planned a long time ago, and has nothing to do with pressure from an outside source or with disagreement with the Board on future direction.  He makes it sound like he's stepping down from the company he loves, right before the deal he's been working on for years is consumated, out of an altruistic concern for how the yet-to-be-identified successor's legacy will be viewed.  Hmmm.

If true, why the coincidental timing of the announcement immediately following an important Board meeting?  Why the extremely short notice?  And most telling, why wouldn't IOC have also given a roses and lolipops explanation for Phil's departure and specifically state it had nothing to do with deal negotiations?  What they chose to say was..Mulacek’s retirement was a part of the process to bring in a strategic partner to operate the Elk-Antelope field."]

I'm not sure references to icebergs cut it, in terms of answers, but perhaps that's just me.

And again, write a letter of protest to Pavel, Westlake, etc.

Phil created a $4b company out of thin air in one of the last frontier countries on earth. For that he deserves much praise, but that shouldn't make us blind to the possibility that he's not perfect and could have become an obstacle for progress lately.

you can't find any cheap shot bidder or government quotes either I have to conclude. I guess I will just have to take Phil and Collin and Oneill  at face value and the hearsay for what it is.  But, that's just me.

*********************

Your own words from three days ago seem to agree with Admin's interpretation. Do you remember saying these things...

BoD met in SG last weekend with final selection deliberations.  Decision made.  Split between BoD and Phil/Civelli on winner.  Phil/Civelli lobby O'Neill to side with them to maintain upstream control and choose secondary bidder. Phil's removal was a bid contingency - possible, I've posted that option before. [Phil] also understands it was a business decision the BoD made.

By the way, neither Colin nor O'Neil has said anything that supports your latest "guess". 

[kerekesc]

It seems to me that everyone on this board is "guessing."

[CAC]

It seems to me that everyone on this board is "guessing."

************************************

Agreed.  And most of us admit it.

[jft310]

Kerekesc- Seems to me the SHU board provides a very valuable place to read all things IOC. The overall tone is certainly quite bullish but thats what happens with 10T's of NG, with this type costs and this adjacency. The cash flow for the future of a seperate Interoil are BILLIONS a year . So their maybe guesses but they are the best guesses to be found outside those Confidentiality Agreements. I can assure you Interoil execs read the board. Petromin execs used to read the board and therefore one must conclude if Long IOC shares this is the one stop place to be.

[geologydude]

It seems to me that everyone on this board is "guessing."

************************************

Agreed.  And most of us admit it.

Amen to that.  All these folks here with all their contacts and yet no one predicted Phil's departure...hmmm.