'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.