Posts: 485
Threads: 45
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
57
07-19-2014, 05:03 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-19-2014, 05:05 AM by Movieguy.)
Company (Hession) does not take responsibility when something goes wrong. Examples:
1. At Wahoo the line is "We stopped due to safety. Safety is always our first concern." Sounds like they want a medal for this. Of course they will be safe, that is a given. They could have said something like, "We did not plan correctly for the circumstances we encountered."
2. Total announcement fiasco. "Total put out wrong info. We can't control their actions." As opposed to, "We did not have have proper PR in place to frame the deal."
I am sure others can come up with more examples.
Posts: 890
Threads: 95
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
117
Official complaint:
'Spartina' pid='47407' datel Wrote:I bought a lot of shares today.
Good man, Spartina.
But your post belongs in the "Buying Opportunities" thread.
Posts: 549
Threads: 16
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation:
119
So we all hate complaining. Complaining has negative connotations and implies irrationality to a degree. What about opinions or rational criticisms?
For example, MH did not reset $ per mcf expectations prior to the deal, so I lost money, now I can't buy my kid the GI Joe with the Kung Fu grip for Christmas.
That's a complaint.
Well run companies set expectations properly and when new mgmt teams take over, they need to reset expectations if necessary.
Rational criticism.
Even minor mistakes create a track record that can create doubt and skepticism and volatility.
I suppose this is a bit tongue in cheek, but not totally. I ask an honest question. I, for one, Admin appreciate all you do amidst the fray. I intend to continue posting what I believe are honest opinions and rational criticisms, as well as praise, when appropriate.
Posts: 12,025
Threads: 1,809
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
227
yes, perhaps complaint isn't the right use of language, but it was late when I wrote it and I had a long day arguing on several boards at once
Posts: 6,851
Threads: 697
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
441
Once the initial well report is given, weekly updates similar to what OSH has historically done.
Posts: 549
Threads: 16
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation:
119
'admin' pid='47417' datel Wrote:yes, perhaps complaint isn't the right use of language, but it was late when I wrote it and I had a long day arguing on several boards at once
No worries, I get it.
But with a wife, 4 kids and a dog, i have no one else to complain to!
Enjoy the weekend.
Posts: 8,568
Threads: 1,342
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
380
Posts: 549
Threads: 16
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation:
119
They only pick up when I have pepperoni in my hands.
Posts: 2,623
Threads: 61
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
225
'Movieguy' pid='47411' datel Wrote:Company (Hession) does not take responsibility when something goes wrong. Examples: 1. At Wahoo the line is "We stopped due to safety. Safety is always our first concern." Sounds like they want a medal for this. Of course they will be safe, that is a given. They could have said something like, "We did not plan correctly for the circumstances we encountered." 2. Total announcement fiasco. "Total put out wrong info. We can't control their actions." As opposed to, "We did not have have proper PR in place to frame the deal." I am sure others can come up with more examples.
Well, Movieguy, about all I would credit you for here is posting it in the right thread, and I guess the other part of the concept is getting some responses. I not only think it is an inappropriate, overly critical, sarcastic post, but would also put it in the pretty much "whining" category that is unnecessarily negative for your own investment and does nothing to inform anyone or help anything, if I might express that opinion without further personal attack. It's the kind of think I might post if I were short and didn't care what the facts were, which I don't think you have enough of.
I don't think that's much to support a sweeping indictment like, "Company (Hession) does not take responsibility when something goes wrong." I think for the Wahoo circumstances, "safety" was a legitimate reason for suspension and to be expressed, which he also expounded on quite a bit, which you omit; and I see no justification for the ridiculous sarcastic comment, "Sounds like they want a medal for this". I think what they encountered was unlike anything previous, and with the available rig never used before; why do you think it was all predictable and should have been? What facts do you have as a basis for concluding they "did not plan correctly", especially given the time pressure on them with the leases? Shet happens, especially in that complex business and place. How much money should they spend "planning" for every possible eventuality? You know nothing about those factors. They have overcome various issues and obstacles at the other two sites without such action. You seem to have concluded he is an incompetent liar without much basis. I would not want a company of my stock claiming such blame if unjustified.
There are a lot of questions I could raise about your conclusions on the Total deal announcement and that long-past history, but I really don't have the time, and would have some criticisms myself. However, I suspect they saved us from a bad deal with Exxon and had very limited time for the disclosure. I doubt they could have improved the "PR" enough to overcome the reaction, given the pricing and complexity with Total, relative to the expectations for a higher-priced deal with Exxon, and the all-out assault by shorts, starting before Nasdaq got trading halted in pre-market. I would be interested in how you think they could have improved the "PR", but I sure don't see any usefulness or benefit in rehashing all that now.
Posts: 8,568
Threads: 1,342
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
380
Facts are Sam we know from the Australian Financial Review interview with Hession posted on the Interoil Board that Interoil had signed Confidentiality Agreements as to negotiations with at least Shell, Exxon and Total maybe others.
There is no way Hession could have broken those agreements and updated the market .
You know that is a fact by just reading the article why keep repeating what anyone who has read the article knows to be a fact. Did you not read the article ?
There were 3 people privy to the negotiations Hession and 2 others from Woodside.
Wayne Andrews was not privy to the negotiations. He did not have a need to know.
They had a plan to reveal the Total deal but it was leaked by Duma to the press early.
May not have been the right plan but it was the plan . Duma messed up the release of the news and Total didn't help .
When you criticize please throw stones at the right people.
I understand the frustration just read the AFR article and know you are wrong.
Thanks
|
