RE: What has changed?... Management Changes would be good. I do not recall ever seeing a proxy. Now that they are a corporation, if there is an election cast a symbolic no vote for the entire directors slate. This sends a message if enough people do it. There is little else that a small shareholder can do.
I would hope that the new management is slowly learning how to run this operation properly as well as improve the plant. Deferring the next expansion phase is prudent when you do not know how to run what you have. Given the high cost/barrel of COS (and to some extent all Oil Sands producers), COS is highly leveraged to the price of oil. Therefore, the level of the dividend is going to depend on how oil prices hold up. An oil price drop to the 60s would be a disaster for this stock. So, I would not assume the dividend is secure. It is a useful long term oil exposure for my portfolio, but not large enough that I can not afford it taking a major hit.
Good management also takes a proactive approach in attacking future problems. With the expansion of oil sands production being well publicised and known well in advance (since expansion projects take a while to build), Good management, running a major player in the field would have foreseen the delivery capacity limitations and begun negotiations with pipeline builders/operators well in advance to lock in/expand capacity. Being caught in the current bind is excuseable for a small player, but a further sign of poor management for a major player. IMO, XON is basically milking this for fees without making much effort in hiring top notch staff and doing the degree of planning a good operator would do. If a major oil company starts a project drilling in Khazakistan, they plan for pipelines or some other delivery system at the same time as they plan the production drilling. They do not start production and then wonder how to get the product to market.
As a result of my low opinion of managment, my holdings have been reduced over a few years ago. I recognize that poor management is a sufficient reason to discount the value of a stock. If it were not for Canadian national political interests, this company would be a great candidate for acquisition by a private equity operator who would throw out management, bring in competent people and make a large profit on the turnaround. Since that is unlikely, the stock is priced for expected results and the inevitable mistakes of existing management rather than what could theoretically be acheived by competent management.