Ann: Weatherford Analysis confirms Pathfinder Oil Potential, page-40

Gassed, your posts are choc full of words and phrases in bold letters and ALL CAPS, and punctuated with multiple exclamation marks!!! And if the delivery-with-attitude isn't bad enough, you rubbish the shareholders for not supporting the company with statements like the following:

"shareholders can't have it both ways, they don't fully support CRs and lose equity, or don't have a company."


It might be a fact that if shareholders don't pump more money into the business it will go out of business, but its not shareholders who have brought this company to the brink of its existence. That responsibility can and should be aimed squarely at management.

You have a crack at shareholders because the uptake at the last CR was low. But give absolutely no credit for the fact that shareholders have propped this company up to the tune of $70M of cash over many years. And now management is back asking for more promising that "we're almost there folks, you can smell the oil about to come out of the ground".

I argue, as Auto has said, that shareholders have in fact done more than their fair share supporting this company. The company is only in existence today because shareholders have supported it, regularly. It is not in existence because management have been able to forge a profitable self-sustaining company.

So when you make a statement like the following:

"AKK shareholders wouldn't have a company if management hadn't received support from those S.I.s!!!"

I say that that is not factually correct - shareholders have supported the company along the way, its just that they're finally getting sick of it and not putting in any more - and I think its downright insulting for you to be saying shareholders haven't supported it - especially because you come across as shareholder advocate but all you're prepared to commit to is a punt on some oppies - a trader dressed in shareholders clothing imo.

At least those of us here being critical of the company are doing just that - being critical of the company, not its long-suffering shareholders.

Cheers, Sharks.