When one's employement contract is restated after employment, it is very much atypical to reduce an employee's compensation without agreement of the employee. Would Hession want a milestone for reaching the Interim Resource Payment plateau? Of course. Did he get it? No. That was my only point.
RE: Milestones. My point was that the milestones on which Hession receives payment are standard project milestones, not that the payment on such milestones is standard. One needs to not read into statements what one perceives to be the reality, but one should actually read the statements as written.
As my point was that Hession was not alloted additional compensation for IOC reaching interim resource certification and payment under any restatement of his contract compensation terms, I stand by that statement as being factual. Again, one should not read one's own pre-conceptions into factual statements, nor take such statement for more than they are and use them to argue for issues not mentioned in the actual statement.
The use of RSUs is a very common trend currently for companies that needs to provide an equity incentive to officers/directors in an environment where the current company valuation is not likely to be achieved/justified for a few years, such as the position that IOC finds itself in. Hession has held on to the shares that have accrued from the RSUs that have vested, which is the exact equivalent to making the decision to buy more IOC stock at the current price upon vesting. So while it is true that RSUs are not 'shares' until elected at vesting, Hession has made such an election with prior RSUs.
If one makes the election to take cash compensation in RSUs instead, and then, at vesting elects to convert the RSUs to shares, this is the exact equivalent to taking one's own cash and purchasing shares in the company. If by doing so, one makes a profit because of the price differentials between when one elects to take the RSUs and when one elects to take shares at vesting, this is good business sense, not some conspiracy to defraud investors.
Finally, if my posts seem 'corporate' perhaps it is because I attempt to analyze the corporate paperwork that is publically available to all IOC investors. I have been a shareholder of IOC since 2007 and have way too much invested in this company with all its flaws. My posts reflect my own due diligence to attempt to ascertain the facts surrounding IOC's positions and actions. While enormous amounts of speculation, conjecture, and hyperbole flow on this board, the public statements made by the BOD and officers are what, I believe, provide the best insight into the inner life of the company, whether it be drilling reports, MD&A reports, Conference calls, SPAs, JVOAs, annual/quarterly financials or the absence of such. My analysis of this paperwork, of course, may include my own biases, for which I apologize. But I try to base my posts on the facts and public statements that are accessible to all, if only one would take the time to access them.
I don't believe any further discussion of these particular issues will provide any additional insight. Thanks.