Member Info for dunderhead

Doubt it Scored but if indeed is the case then heads have to roll now - Fiona absolutely promised "no more dilution" an eternity ago and since then all sorts of shares for wages etc and other LTIPS which IMHO certainly are diluting us shareholders - considering their respective professionalism.
I personally think it is just profit takers - but again this is probably due to "management credibility" - i.e. nail some profits whilst you can as they're likely to f up elsewhere and muck this up again.

By the way everyone keeps on talking about the LOG "issue" - well if the "management" hadn't f'ed up in the first place with balance sheet - we wouldn't have to even discuss this now.

Best of luck all and as ever all IMHO!!

Just as long as the twats aren't placing some funds for the Southwark f up - results tomorrow?
Best of luck all.

Good ol Edgar - also know as Under water Eddy over on AEX.
I genuinely thought he was being ironic when asking about "what was hedging" the other day and here we are with his PR "views" - is he taking the p***?

W69 - I don't disagree regarding past and done now however CALE came in after the Balance sheet mess was "fixed" and that certainly was not the best solution IMHO.
The obscene LTIPs offered since just add further insult to injury - again IMHO.
It seems that all this mis-management has been forgotten.

Hi Alligator - it was your reference for doing well for getting CALE involved that I do not agree with.
We would have been far better getting share swap with RRE and or SQZ - have you seen their respective share price performances since then - and they have better operational team or access to them which would have meant these assets monetised far earlier - IMHO.
Since they "maintained management" of company (and got CALE onboard) what have they actually got right.
In fact CALE got more right by side stepping some of the over valued IOG work programme - so they didn't contribute half their costs!!
All IMHO of course and I do agree with you regarding all of the other management comments - just CALE was a little "meh" in my opinion, certainly not Earth shattering.
Either way best of luck all!

Absolutely don't agree Alligator.
Had they truly put asset up for sale especially share swap with the likes of rre and sqz etc we would be in infinitely better place today.
Maybe as good as the current BOD with their "pigs in trough" self created non stretching ltips.
It must be said their operational pfmce has been abysmal since getting CALE on board and I sincerely hope this is reflected in final awards.
As ever all IMHO and dyor folks.

Sailor, thanks for your valuable feedback, I've got to admit all I remembered pre-spud - was physical shallow stuff on sea bed - which had potentially drifted or moved there, since last survey/ definite current analysis as at depth - these can be incredible plus seasonal as well and then shallow gas bore hole. All "bread and butter" and always with "plan B" and always perused by relevant insurers?
Anyways we will see soon! IMHO.

Sailor - as I've made very clear earlier on the "scouring" it sounds like a total total cluster f, IMHO.
I am not sure who would insist on the seabed survey - either / both the rig owner insurers or the operators insurers but as far as I am aware (and this was drawn from crappy memory from "eons ago") - there would be rated areas of risk of this type of erosion - based upon previous recorded currents and flow patterns. This would then throw up a 1 in 100 occurrence, 1 in 200 occurrence etc. This "risk" would then have to be accepted by the relevant insurers where the liability rests - ie I am assuming Operator - which would impact the premium paid of course. Then they are covered for insurance for "reasonable" expenses incurred.
This leads me to next obvious f up (IMHO) - the insurers would also like to see Plan B in the eventuality of such a cluster f occurring. Hence there must be a plan B in place - which should have been verified by rig owners, operator and whomever the "well services" company are?
So what I am shaking my head in disbelief on - is why this hasn't been instigated quickly - as someone is on the hook for these costs!!!
If everything has been done correctly - surely this is the insurer responsibility - BUT WHY HAVEN'T WE BEEN TOLD THIS?
The reason why I am so p*ssed off with this is - I can half understand the geology f ups - which have been pretty atrocious - the f ups with the capital structure - the budgeting f ups - as they potentially require above medium quartile staff which we are obviously lacking (even though they have been potentially awarded top quartile ltips - self perpetuated by lower quartile performances) but this drill f up really does seem to be "weird" and it further concerns me the lack of communication or even silence regarding "who pays the ferry man"!!!
All of the above IMHO and I will be very happy to apologise for the above in post later, if liability has been subsequently reduced - either by insurer / well services company taking some of this etc but it must be said - WHY HAS THIS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE COMPANY TO DATE?
Best of luck all.

Let's be clear the project management to date looks to be nothing short of abysmal - but yes fantastic news at last!

Wahay!!
At long bloody last!

I'm assuming that "well done" was ironic you cheeky imp!?

I'm significantly in 6 figures profit - but it doesn't make things better?
I took a large loss after LOG debacle offset elsewhere - luckily - and bought low double digit amounts.
But, I've still take significant risk around this (especially with this "management") and there are many many others who have not been as lucky as me and have a very stressful arduous journey.
Also all of us could have made more had this entity been better managed - simple.
I can remember trying to chase GGG with his "massive holdings!" but gave up as LOG "arose"!
Also why did it take TW (of all people!) to publicise LOG and force the BOD to come clean?
All IMHO, DYOR, (please filter me if you don't agree!!) and best of luck all.

Well I'd do what I was legally obliged to do which simply is RNS material news, as and when it becomes known to me, rather than fart about with PR timings? But that's just me., lol.

PS going out now so don't take non reply as rudeness or implicit acceptance of any responses!
Best of luck all.

Absolutely alligator - I have 30 years plus experience in multi fiscal multi political multi regions and whilst I appreciate I am an "armchair observer" and this is a small project with small project team they seem woefully inadequate, and when we finally get first gas I do not want everyone to step back and say all forgiven - because the gas prices are so high!
There are obvious "drilling management" issues and as an investor whilst I appreciate it is potentially difficult to fully determine how much is insured, how much is third party liability, we should at least understand how such a basic thing has "gone wrong". I thought that was what insurance was for as well?
I realise they are in a tight spot but feel possibly some of the reasons we find ourselves where we are (full project wise) could be due to the following reasons.
1. They have to resort to third party assistance to "manage" project.
2. That third party team may now allocate their "better" resources to bigger and longer term customers or did in teh first place?
3. They don't have the expertise to manage said contractors and fully understand where the issues arising (have) impact(ed) the critical paths and knock on effects
4. They consequently have not allocated enough budget to offset this risk but as time progressed should have realised the requirement. ie good project team lead / planner / project finance controller etc.?
5. It could be that the "budget over-runs" and late over-run analysis, were simply due to poor budgeting in the first place, poor control of correct budgets or they could even still be inaccurate and "over-budgeted" and the over-run isn't as bad as first thought? (pretty unlikely so late in project, so I'd infer the vowd was just too low versus "matched" invoices received and it was all a big surprise!)
6. I have no confidence on any of point 5. however regardless of possible reasons again, it simply points to inadequate management?
7. I understand exact liabilities may still be being determined, which impact "project costs" etc but, I'd still like to know who "carries the pail" for responsibility, for the drilling debacle and, what the capped liabilities are - as again for reasons in point 5 I don't want to find these over-runs did not include a "kitchen sink" estimate and they have forgotten or assumed some costs "responsibility" was elsewhere which has not crystallised as such but boy it "doesn't matter" because "the gas price is so high"!
I am a holder and have been buying more recently - because of "reasonable asset backing" and in spite of "perceived management "short-comings"".
I hope to see a positive RNS Monday - because as far as I am concerned they are still within the limits of previous one but if not we should be told as soon as possible with realistic timelines - even if they are not what we "want" to here!
Best of luck all and as ever, absolutely all IMHO and DYOR and feel free to "filter me" rather than resort to personal attacks!!

Lol dellfrog we cross posted and I reached exactly the same conclusion that you advised lol.

So anyone can just filter me then??!! May I suggest people do that to save similar responses?
In fact I'll filter you to save me reading your posts and us continuing this meaningless conversation.
I know I will not be missing much, lol.

Why don't you just filter me David?
You are aware of this function?

As long as they get their ltips, what's the problem?
From my perspective there is something completely wrong if they get anymore than 10% of their respective awards.
Although they are still on track regarding their last rns it remains to be seen, if they will achieve first gas as per guidance, however regardless, this whole project is bordering on the farcical now if there are any further delays, IMHO.

Alpine wtf are you talking about re "doomsayers"?
For crying out loud "management" had no choice to do this - all sales teams are in contact with one another and it would have been "open knowledge" what the "biggies" were doing, so if anything they were either actually a little late or certainly a little late to officially report this.
Also I am wondering what legal basis these companies have to cancel their respective contracts - seriously was there any government legislation forcing their hand? I know morally of course but international contract law may not "agree" with this so I am wondering if there will be any potential "legal recourses" available here - but that is another "discussion"?
However back to your comment, are you saying you are seriously happy with "management" performance to date here?
Do you work in O&G E&P out of interest, as I'd like to know (purely out of being nosey!) what projects you have worked on with such large budget over-runs reported so "late" in project and are the people commenting on this the "doomsayers" you are referencing?
Said not aggressively and genuinely interested in your response.
Best of luck and as ever all IMHO.