Building GLNG at the peak of the cycle left STO crippled with debt, it survived through cost cuts but also cash calls on shareholders.
by the second big capital raising it was down to $3/share and the universal opinion among the hc punters was that it was a dog with no future even as things were looking up.
This was a catastrophic destruction of shareholder funds.
Gallagher strikes me as a thug but the previous management were grossly negligent in commissioning GLNG at the peak of the cycle. They were empire building IMO.
I agree about the parocialism, yes STO is a company which sells gas and that's not popular.
To me the major threats are the Power of Siberia and a shift to nuclear - Fukushima was a GE MK 1 reactor running with multiple faults. It is shocking that it was so poorly designed and degraded that it failed.
The public are right to be angry about what happened and advocates should demonstrate that nuclear safety is taken seriously.
Over time I can see that happening but not soon and all the green replacements for methane are a but of a joke. Government grandstanding isn't achieving much.
If you've got so much invested in this but are negative on the outlook may I ask why? Not that I have a horse in the race.
(20min delay)