Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Phil's chances?
#1

I totally agree with Phil and virtually everyone on this board that we should be getting a better deal.  My question is, "What do you think the chances are that Phil's proposals will be successful?"  I don't think Exxon will give a damn unless Total steps up with a better offer or it becomes obvious that there are enough institutional holders are going to balk at this deal.  Why should they?  Hession has already served up a good deal for them with unanimous BOD approval?

Reply

#2
Like with OSH and their offer it was labeled an inferior deal to Exxon and thrown out . Phil is telling Total how to bid to have a Superior deal to Exxon . Throw out the tainted First two appraisers as it should be clear they were told water drive by their check writer . Further it's why IPI is not protesting they have a second wildcard appraisal which is why Interoil shareholders should have same .
Total has Billions of reasons to bid of Interoil .
Reply

#3

'jft310' pid='74874' datel Wrote:Like with OSH and their offer it was labeled an inferior deal to Exxon and thrown out . Phil is telling Total how to bid to have a Superior deal to Exxon . Throw out the tainted First two appraisers as it should be clear they were told water drive by their check writer . Further it's why IPI is not protesting they have a second wildcard appraisal which is why Interoil shareholders should have same . Total has Billions of reasons to bid of Interoil .

Excellent comment JFT.

Reply

#4
Here's my take:

1. Phil Mulacek and the "Concerned InterOil Shareholders" (CIS) own a large number of shares. They intend to vote NO to ANY deal that does not properly value IOC

2. Based on SHU posts, it seems that many Retail IOC shareholders agree with CIS; we will vote NO to this ROTTEN XOM DEAL

3. Individuals who own large blocks of IOC shares (Stevie Cohen for one) are probably sympathetic to the CIS messages and will vote NO to a poor deal if they believe a better deal can be negotiated subsequently

4. Little-by-little, Managers of the Institutional Funds who hold IOC are coming to the realization that if a bad deal is approved, they will be called onto their respective BOD Conference Room carpets to explain why their investments had negative returns. Therefore, some will be convinced to vote NO - again if they are convinced that a better deal can be consumated

5. It seems that IOC itself knows full well that the XOM deal does not value IOC properly. BUTT instead of admitting it, they are saying "If you vote down the CRAP XOM deal, the company will file for Bankruptcy Protection. So we urge you to vote YES" . . . This is an INCREDIBLE story concocted by desperate management trying to keep their ill-gotten "rewards" and stay out of jail. The CIS will certainly debunk that notion, showing that after a NO vote, the company will be able to stay in business

6. PNG LNG Stakeholders need more gas to underpin expansion of PNG LNG Trains 1&2 and construction of a new Train 3. XOM will pay as low a price as possible for IOCs gas and ( A ) sell it to the PNG LNG project at a markup; ( B ) Eventually get a large percentage of their money back from TOTAL; ( C ) Maintain ownership of the Island rather than let TOTAL set up shop = = => I believe that XOM will raise their offer if they're convinced that their deal will be scuttled by IOC Shareholders
Drivel Maven with Personality
Reply

#5
(07-27-2016, 12:20 AM)jft310 Wrote: Like with OSH and their offer it was labeled an inferior deal to Exxon and thrown out . Phil is telling Total how to bid to have a Superior deal to Exxon . Throw out the tainted First two appraisers as it should be clear they were told water drive by their check writer . Further it's why IPI is not protesting they have a second wildcard appraisal which is why Interoil shareholders should have same .
Total has Billions of reasons to bid of Interoil .

I thought the OSH-IPI cert was one and done. Hope it's true (that it isnt final). Can you cite a source?
Reply

#6
The only place I have seen the water drive mentioned is on this board. There gotta be something lurking which explains GLJ and GCA.
Reply

#7
So you think OSH is gonna raise their hand and say what happened . Phil mentioned the water drive on his call today . Maybe you missed the call????
Reply

#8
I did miss the call. If Phil M. mentioned it, I would definitely put it on my radar.
Reply

#9
I think it's on the Phil slides also ??
Reply

#10

I don't think it would too hard to convince Exxon to do what Phil is asking. He is not asking for much. He said the $45/share is fair and I don't see where he asked them to increase CRP interim payment of $7.07/SH/TCF. All he is asking for is a fair resource appraisal using the most knowledgeable certifers GLJ, GCA OR Knowlege Reservoir.

He is trying to convince Exxon that they stand to gain more from Total than IOC shareholders will gain from Exxon if the resource volume comes in high. He wants the wildcard certification and the Material Balance certification restored to the deal that Exxon is offering but those certifications will probably not take place for 6 - 10 years. If the project is to last for 20 years 25% of that is 5 years after production starts. Can they build the plant in less than 4 years? Maybe. Anyway the NPV of those payments would be insignificant to Exxon. Doesn't matter much to me since I will most likely be dead by then.

I am more interested in the Interim resource payment and the upfront payment. Some of Phils charts indicate the $45 might ought to be $49/share. I agree with Phil that the Cap should be removed and the later certifications should be restored to the Exxon proposal.  If they don't raise the $45/share or the $7.07/sh/TCFe Phil's requested changes would cost Exxon almost nothing and they would stand to gain a very large payment from Total if the resource volume comes in very high.

We have to wonder if Total is willing to take that risk.

Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)