'Stavros' pid='65249' datel Wrote:Thy said: "Good luck, Gator. While wishing you the best, I think the board will be better without you." How sad to see that this seems to be the conclusion of so many on SHU ... facts put onto the table by Gator and others are considered to be postings by people who have an "Agenda." Those who appreciate Gator (sfiaes, ebster, Martini, ME, Petrovale, et al) are apparently in the minority. At least people like Thy grudgingly wish Gator "Good Luck" ... WHY? Because if Gator is "Lucky" it means IOC's share price improved. I must say, Thy, that I agree with your view: seeing a positive outcome from continuing to hold IOC going forward will require a whole lotta Luck. TRANSLATION: Gambling! People should invest in IOC because they conclude - - - based on facts, circumstances, and the plans laid out by Management for shareholders to see and monitor - - - that an investment made in IOC will have a higher return than putting the money into another holding (or even putting it under the mattress). Unfortunately, I've spent the past two years watching IOC bumble and stumble along, repeatedly missing timelines. None of my expectations were met. I also agree with Getitrt that the ultimate E/A Resource Payment from Total to IOC will not be impacted by the "oil collapse." BUT for the love of Mike (and for Pete's sake), how can this guy always Get It All So WRONG, and continually praise a CEO who claimed (loudly and with conviction I may add) that he would under-promise on every aspect of the company performance and then subsequently proceeded to under-deliver based on the under-promises. Dr Hession seemingly removes the pebbles from his shoes every afternoon before he goes home. There must be SOMETHING that "Getitwrong" thinks IOC Top Management failed to do properly in the past 2+ years?
I assure you that disagreements and problems I had with Gator, and likely others, had nothing to do with "facts" he "put onto the table", although perhaps with his repetitive and unending misinterpretation and misuse of them while ignoring any contrary facts or interpretations.
I dare say no one, including you, is more disappointed and frustrated with "missed timelines" than I; but that definitely did not start with Hession, and he has met or beaten some timelines as well. I also doubt anyone could have done better in PNG under the existing circumstances. Furthermore, I strongly believe that if Mulacek had been able to hang on and the BOD not replaced him with Hession, it would have been disastrous for IOC and its shareholders. Not all, but some, of my "expectations" have been met, or exceeded, including for example the credit facility obtained and exploration program launched in the Fall of 2013, which drove up the stock before the subsequent drop, in hindsight the Total deal reached ahead of schedule (in spite of the communication of it apparently being mishandled, although I'm not sure anything could have overcome the inflated expectations from Mulacek and the short attack), the expanded and enhanced seismic and survey program, the $526 million raised from the refinery and downstream assets and refocus of strategy, the win of the arbitration, the apparent better-than-expected appraisal resource results for E/A achieved so far with Ant 4 and Ant 5, likely to have enormous positive ramifications for the Company, the big improvements in rig equipment and capabilities, the much improved credibility among major investment firms with at least eight BUY recommendations, etc. I think if you were really honest with yourself, you would not be saying, "NONE of my expectations were met.", unless they were totally unreasonable.
Agreeing I am right about something, and in the next sentence claiming I "always Get It All So Wrong" is rather contradictory, don't you think? I am sure I have gottern many other things right, too, some major, such as not doing an E/A deal with Exxon. I would expect more accuracy and precision from an engineer. Of course, I don't claim to get everything right, but I try. Also, I do not initiate any postings for the purpose of "praising" the CEO. I am normally simply responding to posts I think are wrong or unfair, and there HAVE been times when I have been critical of the Company, although I am usually inclined to concede the benefit of the doubt when I don't know enough, which I would say occurs frequently.