TU Jdb, but to be fair I am more in the camp that says SSN mgmt didn't take some of those obvious steps. I still think too many get caught up $100+ oil (or even $80+ oil and that probably includes T.Boone Pickens) and "demand optimism" (which is different to actual reported demand).
This is cyclical, fueled by oversupply and weak demand. Its not just shale. Even "safe" GoM producers that had (note past tense) solid balance sheets, production and reserves growth are standing at the cliff's edge.
Looking locally, we could say the POO cost David Knox his job as CEO of Santos. After all he led the LNG charge. Did he do the right thing? I think so. Looking only at PNG LNG and GLNG those projects were completed on time and on budget, have secured take or pay sales agreements and the offtake buyers are also partners in the project. Can't control POO or FX. What they could have done differently was strengthen the balance sheet when the SP was higher - but then the cries of anguish of dilutive cap raising. IMO its never a bad idea to raise equity capital for a development project that has free cash flow generation (with (Brent) oil at $40 and AUD/USD at $0.80) for 20+ years.
Post spill will be "interesting". For me personally, BCC ended in Ch 11 (I will never forgive them or me), GGP ended in exiting O&G and becoming an African diamond explorer (lifestyle company), EGO battles on and might eventually become something.... but most will not see a return on the capital invested.
So what to make of SSN and the future board and its future direction. One thing I'm sure - change in direction would be inevitable - else same result. That or sudden POO recovery and new board claims genius move on their part not to change anything.
SSN Price at posting:
0.6¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
