2011 i can't wait, page-19

guys - please don't re-hash the Salaries issue yet again.

have a read of the posts wrt the last AGM.
At the AGM the CEO of Icon's 2nd largest s/h (ANZ) got up and complained about the level of salaries, admin costs etc.
He also gave a comprehensive comparison with other similar sized O&G coys.

So the Board is well aware of s/h ire about salaries!!!!

it's done no good - the only way to have an effect is to get rid of those who make that decision to set the remuneration levels at those high levels. And that ain't gunna happen - because have a look at the voting patterns at last AGM!

IMHO there is no further point in pursuing this point.
Your best bet is to email/write /phone the coy and complain directly. Tell them what you think.

I would make the point, that in almost 40 years of investing, retail shareholders ALWAYS complain about directors and mgt salaries.
WHY ?
because that issue is the one that a small s/h can readily relate to!
if a s/h is on a pension of say $20,000 a year, and he sees a director/CEO being paid $2,000,000 per year, he can make that easy comparison.

WRT to ICN, I think i can confidently predict that the high level of directors/mgt salaries WILL NOT be the cause of WHY we lose or gain on our investment!

In the s/t, it will be how ICN handles the Chinese GSA and Chinese or other (read Beach) investment/JV/deals wrt the supply of gas.

That is the pivotal issue in the s/t sp of ICN.

Whilst the Stanwell deal is in itself a big deal, and the numbers will be big if reserves get certified, the market is focussed on the CHina deal.

So don't lose any sleep over salaries and admin - keep that blood pressure in check, and hope for some CREDIBLE (market credible) outcomes for the China deal.

remember the knockers who bagged the MOU announcement, and remember the AFR article? Whilst it is very early days, it seems to me that with the introduction of a Chinese State-owned coy as a J/V partner, that this MOU -> GSA deal is heading towards a credible outcome.

One HC poster (who held no shares, yet who seemed to be held out as an "expert"), relentlessly knocked the MOU, and ICN's direction of attempting to go thru the back door, instead of the front door. IF (a big "if") Icon can gain that credibility by securing credible counterparties/investors/JV participants, those "expert" knockers will look pretty silly.

Its a risk - reward thing. if you had a choice between investing in a the outcome of say MEO's Artemis well, or BUY's offshore well, OR the outcome of these Chinese negotiations, which one do you think has the better chance of success????

Whilst my confidence slipped recently, I recall that I always maintained that the signing of the MOU was a positive thing - even though it was thin in practical issues (like GAS!). And because it was a "positive", the SP should not have been dumped so mercilessly- which was as a result of poor mgt and credibilty issues. Which is why any positive news will still be viewed with some scepticism.

Its got a long way to go yet - but looking positive imho.

Whilst we say "but no gas reserves" - i think that might be the easy part? On the assumption that the pricing and other terms in the GSA are commercial, then other CSG coys which have the gas, may be very interested in filling our gas requirements, or doing a deal. Example,the WCL and Mitsui J/V already has the 2P reserves and are looking for customers. What about BOW or MEL?

With a Sinopec, or a CNOOC or someone similar, then anything is possible imho, because money talks.

cheers