Mon, Mar 2, 2015, 10:53 AM EST - U.S. Markets close in 5 hrs 7 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

InterOil Corporation Message Board

valuesleuth 21 posts  |  Last Activity: Feb 28, 2015 11:37 AM Member since: Mar 14, 1999
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    $60 Buyout Rumor at Fidelity and Schwab Today

    by tarulestheday Feb 27, 2015 1:54 PM
    valuesleuth valuesleuth Feb 28, 2015 11:37 AM Flag

    will,

    I explained it badly. Let's use dates, as you have done.

    What I was trying to say is that the volume on each of the 25th, 26th, and 27th (down days) was greater than the volume on each of the 20th, 23rd, and 24th, the first two of which were up days and the last of which was a down day.

    The net result is that we have a "sagging pork" formation in the making -- CERTAINLY NOT indicative of support for the rumors. In addition, the option action totally fails to support the validity of the rumors.

    Any kind of takeover rumor with legs should be supported by UPWARD PRICE MOVEMENT and VOLUME.

    .....unless it is really a TAKE-UNDER. LOL

    VS

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    $60 Buyout Rumor at Fidelity and Schwab Today

    by tarulestheday Feb 27, 2015 1:54 PM
    valuesleuth valuesleuth Feb 27, 2015 7:08 PM Flag

    I place ZERO credence to the rumor.

    Why?

    The last 3 days of trading action have produced a declining stock price on each day's volume higher than the volume of any of the prior 3 days.

    In addition, there is no ("zero") option action. In general, the option activity is really, really quiet -- leading to the conclusion there are not a lot of trading strategies being carried out on IOC.

    Thus, it appears there's no trading response to the rumor.

    VS

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    Your in charge!

    by martinistocks Feb 21, 2015 11:13 AM
    valuesleuth valuesleuth Feb 22, 2015 6:58 PM Flag

    mike and ms,

    I'm in virtually total agreement with your composite lists -- especially the "Sell the company to the highest bidder" one.

    Waiting around to achieve $250/share by 2022 gets you a compound gain of about 20% per annum.

    That's no big deal for all the grief and execution risk.

    TIME is MONEY.

    VS

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    Nice news on Ant 5 but whatever happened to Ant 4?

    by mikesioc Feb 17, 2015 11:32 AM
    valuesleuth valuesleuth Feb 20, 2015 5:59 PM Flag

    mikesioc,

    Please contact me at valuesleuth@comcast.net

    VS

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    Off Topic: A speculation for weekend consideration

    by mspieks Feb 14, 2015 2:47 PM
    valuesleuth valuesleuth Feb 15, 2015 9:44 AM Flag

    ms,

    Thanks for the suggestion and the continuing research inputs.

    This stock is quite a trading vehicle, with which option plays can be a great supplement to just owning the stock. Option premiums (IV -- implied volatility) are quite high, although they've recently come down from over 200 prior to the most recent trial developments.

    Buy stock, sell covered calls, sell puts -- take your pick!

    VS

  • Reply to

    Here comes the buyout!

    by mikesioc Feb 10, 2015 10:10 AM
    valuesleuth valuesleuth Feb 10, 2015 11:30 AM Flag

    Bonk,

    I doubt if TOT would be buying IOC for what is at PRL 15. They already own the appropriate level of that part of IOC. (After all, their deal with IOC originally envisioned selling off quite a bit of the 60% they'd be buying from IOC, including IOC's buyout of PAC LNG interests.)

    TOT would be targeting IOC's 60% +/- of EVERYTHING ELSE. That would require some information on resources discovered by the drilling program being carried out by IOC outside of PRL 15.

    If they decided to buy the company, they'd eventually sell off half of what they picked up -- to set their level at about 30% to 35% of all the resource -- bringing in development dollar$ and laying off risk, typical of big LNG projects.

    VS

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    Arbitration Announcement Short Attack

    by tarulestheday Feb 6, 2015 12:33 PM
    valuesleuth valuesleuth Feb 7, 2015 12:13 PM Flag

    ta, ms

    First of all, I believe TOT will win the arbitration, which may well be bad news -- the worst of which could be a delay in the LNG plant given TOT's capital spending constraints recently imposed.

    Secondly, I don't subscribe to the short pounding thesis, absent oil getting pounded into the $30s, although the perfect Fibonacci picture for IOC would be a final decline to about $30.

    Any potential decline and/or arbitration decision would be trumped by drilling results and/or the reporting of YE 2014 resources, which might well confirm a monster pending cash payday. Given what we now think we know, I characterize the payday for E/A alone as likely to be $25/share +/- $12 per share. Anything above the mid-point will make IOC a RAGING, JUMPING SCREAMING BUY. Think classic Ben Graham analysis with cash being a very large percentage of stock value.

    Summing it up, I'd like to propose a gentleman's bet. IOC is currently trading at $44. Will IOC hit $34 before it hits $54?

    I'll take the $54.

    Connect the dots.

    VS

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    Took a bit of a long position

    by bonkthegrups Jan 12, 2015 12:25 PM
    valuesleuth valuesleuth Jan 12, 2015 4:40 PM Flag

    bonk,

    I, too, bit when the price went into the mid-$39 area and sold some Jan '17 $35 puts for $8.50. Not that I'm hoping to have my long holdings take tube, but I'd love to gain some IOC with a basis in the $26.50 area in the next 2 years.

    On further weakness, some of the put premiums might well be invested in OTM L/T calls, expiring in the time frame of FID decision-making.

    VS

  • Reply to

    My favorite tout argument

    by bonkthegrups Jan 7, 2015 1:50 PM
    valuesleuth valuesleuth Jan 9, 2015 6:16 PM Flag

    CC,

    They probably would sell some of the currently proven up gas to Exxon -- in addition to considering what I suggested.

    No reason not to, under the scenario presented.

    VS

  • Reply to

    My favorite tout argument

    by bonkthegrups Jan 7, 2015 1:50 PM
    valuesleuth valuesleuth Jan 9, 2015 12:05 PM Flag

    bonk,

    To me, the biggest IF is whether the resource payment is made this year.

    If the resource payment is made, and the project goes to the back burner "for years" for any number of potential reasons, IOC could divert the resource payment to something more financially productive than drilling wells to discover or prove up what would become more effectively-stranded gas.

    It wouldn't surprise me that some investments would be made outside of PNG. IOC could purchase some participation in the "quality energy names [that] have been smoked and have tons of upside when energy recovers."

    Whether such "outside investments" would pay off is another question.

    VS

  • Reply to

    Kool Aid Klan gets a lesson from a junior member

    by mikesioc Dec 13, 2014 9:00 AM
    valuesleuth valuesleuth Dec 16, 2014 7:31 PM Flag

    bonk,

    If Total loses, on purpose or otherwise, we could then have one of those PNG government financing packages for OSH to come up with the moola needed for the upcoming certification payment.

    .......and Viola! the PNG government ends up owning an even bigger portion of OSH.

    Publicly traded PNG National Oil Company, anyone?

    VS

  • Reply to

    Contrary view ?

    by mspieks Dec 12, 2014 12:02 PM
    valuesleuth valuesleuth Dec 12, 2014 12:28 PM Flag

    ms,

    Supplementing your point, I might suggest writing some Jan '17 puts, which will protect into the mid-$30s. Take your pick on the strike price at $45 +/- $2.50.

    If you get the stock, you're subsidized down 25%, and collect that return in 2 years if the puts never are exercised, on basically no current investment. Even better, if the company is taken over (LOL!), the return will be accelerated.

    If you think the stock is severely undervalued at present prices, some of the money received from writing the puts could be used to buy some OTM calls.

    Connect the dots.

    VS

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    Some ludicrous numbers:

    by mspieks Dec 11, 2014 1:58 PM
    valuesleuth valuesleuth Dec 11, 2014 8:13 PM Flag

    ms,

    If the stock price remains basically as is for the next year and you are correct about the resource payment amount, IOC will have about 50% of its stock market value IN CASH and ZERO DEBT.

    What is the definition of a "value stock."

    Connect the dots.

    VALUE Sleuth

    PS Hoping for continued weakness. The January 2017 puts are VERY JUICY -- and getting ever juicier.

  • Reply to

    MS

    by raiseyou33 Dec 3, 2014 11:17 AM
    valuesleuth valuesleuth Dec 3, 2014 2:07 PM Flag

    raise,

    Points taken.

    Hession's hubris may well have gotten the better of him -- shades of PM actually thinking he was "in control" of IOC's destiny.

    Whether we accept your "$20 billion for only 10% of the license", the SHU group-think rumors, or mspieks' rumored or real deal terms, it may be becoming ever more apparent that Hession should not be "kicking himself", but should be kicked to the curb by IOC shareholders -- or Finlayson and his coming new board.

    From my point of view, what is being debated is whether IOC is on the right/best course and/or whether the leadership can get us to the promised land.

    That debate can take on many forms and/or approaches. Mspieks presents one of them.

    VS

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    MS

    by raiseyou33 Dec 3, 2014 11:17 AM
    valuesleuth valuesleuth Dec 3, 2014 1:16 PM Flag

    raise,

    A couple of questions:

    1) Leading up to the Total announcement, weren't there all sorts of discussions -- especially over on the SHU board -- of the alleged terms of the deal with XOM?

    2) With the EXTREMELY NEGATIVE stock price reaction on the Total deal announcement, isn't it a reasonable assumption that Mr. Market was expecting something better out of the XOM deal?

    Virtually nobody expected any kind of monetization deal with 1) the low gas price; and 2) the extreme delays in getting the gas monetized.

    Rather than having a problem with mspieks for wanting to debate what Hession did or did not do and/or indicting the discussion because mspieks can't prove the specifics of what Hession "walked away from", it seems highly appropriate to also debate how misguided was the discussion of the anticipated XOM deal -- especially by the gallery of "non-whiners" over at SHU.

    Apparently virtually nobody had any idea of how off-base their anticipations were -- and, of course, over at SHU one is supposedly prohibited from speaking negatively against the group-speak rumors.

    Maybe what you have is the Total deal ("apples") versus the anticipated XOM exclusively negotiated deal ("rumors").

    That's all we have. Why not debate it?

    VS

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    MS

    by raiseyou33 Dec 3, 2014 11:17 AM
    valuesleuth valuesleuth Dec 3, 2014 12:35 PM Flag

    raise,

    Isn't it an incontrovertible fact that either IOC or Exxon (or both mutually) walked away from a deal to "exclusively negotiate" an arrangement? That "exclusive negotiate" was fully disclosed by IOC in presentations and filings. Right?

    It seems to me that mspieks wants to engage in a debate about the performance of our present leader.

    A major portion of that that debate would involve Hession walking away from what prior management had negotiated and or had in the pipeline in favor of his own plans to the potential DETRIMENT to shareholder interests as far as the timing of monetization of at least a portion (4tcf) of IOC's E/A resources.

    Granted, XOM seemed to just want to buy 4tcf of feedstock for train 3 of the PNG LNG plant and potentially make payment up front which would have provided drilling funds even quicker than the current arrangement with Total.

    It is a reasonable debate topic to question what walking away from a feedstock sale has done vis-a-vis cutting the Total deal which seems to have pushed the monetization process many years back.

    Time is money -- and hubris is hubris.

    Connect the dots.

    VS

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    D- grade For Hession

    by mspieks Dec 1, 2014 3:44 PM
    valuesleuth valuesleuth Dec 2, 2014 12:05 PM Flag

    The VERY FIRST CC ever hosted by Hession was about as hubristic (if that's a word) as anything PM ever presented. Talk about over-promising. "I've done this; I've done that." It seemed like he was compelled to rehabilitate his tarnished reputation after the Woodside debacle.

    That was only the beginning. Afterward, among other things, he had the balls to state that each of the three required wells to retain the PPLs would be COMPLETED within 90 days. Even PM knew -- and repeatedly stated -- that "everything" takes longer than expected in PNG. IOC had NEVER completed a well in less than 6 months -- and most took longer than that.

    He exhibits every characteristic of the "do-do don't stink" boys.

    .....and yet he let Civelli/OSH totally screw up his deal with Total -- and we haven't heard the last fallout from that failure. Asleep at the switch, indeed!

    It took PM 4 years from the Antelope discovery of massive quantities of resource to accomplish no progress on development. One should wonder what Hession will accomplish by his 4 year anniversary in 2017.

    The new IOC leadership seems to have the same problem as the PM group -- they don't realize they are not in control of their destiny. They may have discovered the resource, but everyone else involved (principally the PNG government; secondarily the super-major resource developer and LNG plant operator) has more control over IOC's (shareholder) destiny than management.

    How long before Finlayson decides to take more active control -- in a more visible effort to re-establish his position in the energy world?

    Connect the dots.

    VS

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Zacks

    by edsilverstreak Nov 28, 2014 10:03 AM
    valuesleuth valuesleuth Nov 30, 2014 12:17 PM Flag

    Zacks is 100% worthless.

    Those folks haven't even caught up with the fact that IOC is no longer in the refinery or products distribution business.

    Thus, their "ratings" are based on entirely incorrect classification of IOC's business.

    Connect the dots.

    VS

    Sentiment: Hold

  • valuesleuth by valuesleuth Sep 30, 2014 9:09 AM Flag

    From the drilling updates to day, it should now be obvious that InerOil had no capability (or intention) to simultaneously drill Wahoo, Raptor, and Bobcat.

    It is one thing to bring in rigs to all three and "commence" drilling to comply with PNG requirements for the granting of license extensions in the form of new PDLs, but it is another thing for IOC to have managed three simultaneous full-bore drilling programs with all that entails -- i.e. triple crews, triple logistics, triple inspections, triple logging, etc.

    Based on what has been said, it seems quite obvious that Dave Holland's "super-target" at Wahoo was addressed first and taken to the point where it had to be suspended for "safety" purposes.

    Then Raptor was addressed and is now nearly at the stage of entering the reservoir.

    When Raptor has been taken as far as it can go, Bobcat will be addressed.

    Why reach this conclusion? It would be mind-blowing to think that it would take 180 days to have Wahoo only get as far as announced and have Bobcat in the shale area. After all, even the nearby Antelope wells that were dealing with the same type of formations, shales, and rocks did not take this long to make similar progress.

    IOC management played the game that was required by PNG -- and probably with a wink-wink from government officials.

    Given all this, the expectation would be that Raptor will not be completed for months and Bobcat will take until at least mid-2015.

    Connect the dots.

    It is time to chill.

    VS

    Sentiment: Buy

  • valuesleuth valuesleuth Sep 10, 2014 4:17 PM Flag

    ms,

    The sale you suggest is my latest ploy to acquire more shares -- after having cashed in the Sep $50 strike price puts sold when the stock was last in the $53 area, having collected over 85% of the potential with them.

    VS

    Sentiment: Buy

IOC
45.89+0.09(+0.20%)10:51 AMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.