Anonymous, if you were to read my post again you would see that...

Anonymous, if you were to read my post again you would see that I have not labelled anyone a cowboy. I said I would much prefer that the company takes a prudent, rather than cowboy approach towards it’s development and, this is exactly what they are doing hence the delays towards the programme. I don’t appreciate having my words twisted, or is it your “assistants” fault again for posting your thoughts incompetently on hotcopper?

I will take full responsibility for noting some people here are uneducated (referring SPECIFICALLY to their knowledge of the oil/gas sector - which is something I should have clarified) and they are also impatient. This is clearly evident from reading some of the posts on this site which seem to derive more from greed, fear and emotion than that of any commercial sensibility.

Your comment suggesting "Most successful companies have been founded and run by uneducated cowboys" is quite possibly the most ludicrous thing I have heard in the past few weeks. When it comes to the corporate arena, a reckless (aka “cowboy”) approach has a much higher failure than success rate and, “most” successful public companies do not even associate themselves with high risk organisations if it poses a risk to their own integrity.

The primary responsibility of a board is to protect the interests of the organisation and represent its shareholders. Underneath this umbrella is a requirement that that the board act within both ethical and professional boundaries when undertaking it’s duties incorporating risk management, meeting legal and statutory requirements, strategic direction and implementation of procedures/practices to meet objectives, accountability, financial integrity, market notification and transparency et al. Being reckless and not following corporate procedure is not a desirable trait when the interests of 3000 shareholders are involved.