Why would you want this management team to "take minor interests...

Why would you want this management team to "take minor interests in O&G projects" after you've just pointed out they're on a remuneration gravy train funded by shareholders (which is certainly the case)? They haven't demonstrated any operational capability to generate shareholder returns without smoke & mirror accounting, have demonstrated an incredible capacity for ongoing capital destruction on a massive scale over the life of their management tenure & are adept at hollow promises of project development & running an ongoing profitable business for the benefit of shareholders rather than themselves. The existence of massive losses here is one you raise to be an asset in an ongoing business generating net profit and for a competent management team that would be the case except that isn't what you have here.....these people were responsible for that massive accumulated loss in large part & there's been nothing to suggest anything different going forward.

Funny how the mention of any corporate activity has gone silent. I have no reason to believe there were ever any proposals that could seriously be considered for CE1's assets in the absence of any tangible evidence or details released publicly as none ever have been. No mention of the identity of suitors(s), no details of the quantum of any offer; nothing except a crude wide ranging earnings multiple. I'm calling BS on it. I suspect any "approach" was rudimentary at best & they used aforesaid approach as a cover in a sense to dump the Montney holding &n use the funds to plug a cashflow shortfall (which was certainly evident in the Quarterly releases) & hand back what was left over to shareholders. Sharetrader78, you make repeated assertions as to potential future returns here that are based on & predicated in managements forecasting. In a normal company that would be considered reasonable. What you have here I believe is far from a normal management executive working for shareholders. I & others here have stated that they're in this for themselves first & foremost. You've correctly stated that management compensation/executive size is ridiculously outlandish for a company of this size. Once you've been here long enough and you finally realise that you cannot believe anything this team says, that their projections are baseless, the penny may finally drop as to what you're co-invested in.....you're the sucker as we all collectively are in funding a lifestyle for a small elite. I wish it was different but historically this is what we have & where we are. Any research published for CE1 has always been company sponsored, effectively it's Whiddon's mouthpiece spewing the same spin. Basing returns here on management spin has a high degree of risk when that very executive have a history of stretching the truth at best or lie at worst.

If you're going to comment on the Montney assets, at least differentiate what you say about them from management. You're sounding earily like Whiddon. Those assets were a play on a future gas environment in western Canada that is unrecognizeable from the industry that operates now. You've repeatedly stated that gas prices could not sustain a return on those assets & yes that's the case in a domestic market with pricing referenced to both US and Canadian gas now. The Montney gas was always earmarked for export supply via at least two LNG developments & its pricing had nothing to do with domestically referenced gas....something not dissimilar to the Australian situation of some years ago where export prices were contracted at anywhere from 5-8 times domestically sold gas. Let's keep conversations fact based for the benefit of all. We can't rely on management for that, at least I'd hope we could do it amongst ourselves.