Welcomed stupid !!!

And your ours Mr 85 + IDs

How are those puts treating you?

So Eric can you google a good Bankrupcy lawyer in CA or will the University help you??. Short calls unlimited risk per the CBOE and the company finds OIl. You need lessons in risk management.. Help doing DD. Here's what a 30 year veteran Petroleum Engineer says about the oil at Antelope 1.
It is time for

us to revisit my riddle of March 17th. Let’s again use http://www.interoil.com/presentation/200... page 19. Make yourself a copy and draw some horizontal lines across this chart. The first line we will draw is at the depth of the top of the interval tested by DST #8 which recovered the oil. The interval tested was 2380 meters to 2416 meters. We must convert these numbers to subsea depths by subtracting the derrick floor height above sea level, which I believe is 199 meters. So, 2380-199 = -2181 meters below sea level. That is the top of the tested interval. Draw a line across your chart at –2181 meters. We know we have oil at least that high and maybe a little higher. For conservative estimating purposes let’s just call that the top of the oil column. Now we know from the conference call that they tested water below 8596 feet (2621 meters). So we know the oil/water contact is somewhere above 2621 meters. Let’s convert that number to subsea by subtracting 199 meters and we get a subsea depth of –2422 meters subsea. Let’s draw another horizontal line across our chart at –2422 subsea. Now on the right ¼ of your chart you will see that the top line crosses the top of the red line. Could that be the gas/oil contact? Now back on March 19th we drew a horizontal line at the bottom red line, which we picked as –2360 meters subsea. Could that be the oil water contact? That would be 62 meters (203 feet) above where we know we have tested water. Now you can see for some strange reason on chart # 36 that they planned to drill the sidetrack to 2550 meters, which just happens to be –2351 meters subsea. What have we learned from this exercise? Well if all of the suppositions are true we would have (2360-2181=179 meters) 179 meters or 587 feet of oil column. I hope that brightens your day.

So you basically saying it is a scam...

In that case, I basically repeat an earlier accusation. You're corrupt.

He has an agenda, He and his abvised fund are short calls and losing one heck of a lot of money. Must be option expiration time ....HA HA.. He down big time on those calls thats for sure. IOC is up 120% year to date so hes close to closing the fund. Congrads on those DD techniques Eric. What else are you short calls on cause I am gonna buy em based on your DD record with IOC.

Whatever, stp.

At any rate, I'm not calling IOC a scam. Never have. However, I think they mislead investors, issuing incomplete, vaguely worded, and/or inciteful press releases and I think it's wrong. So much so, that I renewed my position. So, whatever names you might call me, I am just like you. I have conviction. A corrupt conviction, I suppose...

Erich:

We have chatted before and I tried to get you on the right path but I see you persist in your short position. I might just say that I knew a guy just like you on the Qualcomm board before that stock took off like a rocket some years ago. Generally, I am not a great fan of those who short stocks but I felt sorry for that guy who lost everything. I suggest you get right with IOC before the same thing happens to you.

I sincerely appreciate your efforts to turn me on the right path, and I might perhaps return the favor by suggesting you keep a nicely diversified portfolio...with not too much IOC stock, just because I see it as so very, very speculative. Good luck to you...

Trust me not everything I own is in IOC. Short term, you may be right but I never buy anything for the short term so I expect a very handsome return on IOC. Perhaps your difficulty is that you really do not understand the oil and gas business. I grew up in it so I have a pretty good idea of what the risks and rewards are here.

You just argued:

- the recent focus on oil is highly suspect because.... IOC's focus is on natural gas.

Very simple answer: they drilled and found oil. It remains to be seen whether it is a commercial find, but that's what they found.

You then suggested:

["I am not sure what has more water. IOC's stories and focus keep changing, and neither seems to hold water. I think it more likely the wells do, though..."]

You have absolutely ZERO basis for such a statement. It is pure slander, and tantamount to saying IOC is a scam.

You're previous example of "misleading PR's" where completely wrong.

One of the very few examples you cited what that they were "wordsmithing" when they argued that cleaning up the skin would increase flow rates. They cleaned up the skin, flow rates increased. As any pet engineer could have told you. The one wordsmithing turned out to be you.

Another example (your prime one) you called a PR misleading that had a third party vetting of the data and interpretation IN THAT VERY PR...

I asked you what geological knowledge or data you possessed to differ, you never replied...

You either force us to chose between whether you really are that stupid, or whether something else is going on here. There is a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence of the latter...