TGS (ASX) Ann: Board changes

Originally posted by bubby ↑

And for the likes of which one exactly? The major 'holder' is Taurus. Tell me how they would benefit from having thrown in @$160mil at this point. They stand to lose more than anyone, not gain more. VA would be a disaster.
Now not for a second do I or any other holder on here have rose coloured glasses on about board members or management makeup. Do you really think as holders we are happy about the current state of play? The difference is, it is easy to sit back as a non-holder (almost like the opposition party) and simply criticise and say 'I told you so'. That is easy. Instead, as holders, we are in it and need to make judgements and come up with an understanding about why changes occur. I mean many of us have truck loads of money in this so we as holders are more judgemental about the makeup of the board and management than anyone else.
At the moment we are in a suspension........ and having loads of money in this means that some of us have genuine concerns if lenders will cough up a bit more loot. We have families to feed, a job to keep down all with the threat of TGS's debt hanging over our heads. I can assure you as holders with skin in the game we know all the counter stories.

Expand

I have just read again the financial statement 2015 report from tgs (Page 6!!)..
And there we have some interesting fragments.

-----------------------

----------------------

Here what I want to highlight out of the above report (financial statement 2015 - page 6):

full incread capacity was expected through 2017!

low technical risk debottlenecking project!

and captial costs of $25mio ("engineering and costing study")!

expansion was made with the principal contractor!

So my thoughts and questions are:

for the increased capacity we have still time compared to the above tgs' statement!

it's definitively not a low technical risk project (as we have seen now!)

and also because of the seen risks we have much more than the expected costs!

there should be definitively an insurance/warranty if the project was made and constructed by a contractor! So IMO the construction faults and the failed design (construction) is definitively the failure of this principal contractor!!

What do you think about my thoughts vs tgs' report 2015? And have they done the expansion by their own that we don't see an ann. about insurance or warranty??!