Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hurricane Energy Plc | HUR | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 7.79 | 00:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.79 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 13/11/2024 18:55 by super95 Looks like LSE have deleted HUR. |
Posted at 05/9/2024 07:41 by bionictroller "because well p6 production has exceeded prax/hur's false production projections so massively that the false prax/hur well p6 standalone end of economic life 8.0p - 8.5p value was not only exceeded by dec 2023, but basic maths shows that, as things stand, by dec 2026, well p6 on a stand-alone basis, will have increased hur's cash pile to 12.5p. with shareholders still owning hur and all it's possibilities. what then would the share price currently have been - 15p-20p? (nb: i generally understate). and share price if hur had bought or were buying a producing asset (as prax are in process of doing now)? - my guesstimate is 20p-25p and rising. the green and sunny uplands would have again been in sight!"Delusional. Seek psychiatric help |
Posted at 09/7/2024 15:36 by senseman From: senseman LSE:RE: BELATED GOOD NEWS + PERSPECTIVE (non-nutter variety)8 Jul 2024 11:58 My heart gladdens to see how much I remain in your two bozos' tiny minds. Such angst & serial baiting recently..). And I post for the first time in ages - & within hours you misfits are compelled to respond. No patience, no style, no class...). You may call night as day trying to rewrite history for ever - ex HUR SH's won't buy it. You don't even lie skilfully. Below is copy & paste of my view expressed 25 Feb 13.34, ie: 4 MONTHS before Prax announcement - verifiable by anyone clicking on 'senseman' to view my posting history (read para 2). 4 MONTHS - not 'a couple of months', dear Chief Nutter. "senseman Posted in: HUR.L Posts: 3,164 Price: 0.00 No Opinion RE: DCU 25 Feb 2024 13:34 Crucial to whether we hit 12.5p.p.sh max via DCUs is whether Prax/HUR purchase current oil or gas producing assets under the HUR banner. Because profit from such is added to well P6 profits, from which our 17% DCU quantum flows. The promise was that purchase of such assets would be pursued in order that HUR's tax credits could be monetized. A month ago I I expended several hours difficult grunt work ascertaining from 2 impeccable sources - whose position and interest would be advantaged to report that producing assets were being procured - that to date no such purchases had been attempted, and that no dialogue with any possible producing asset was currently occurring. Since I want and need DCU's to bring us 12.5p.p.sh total at least if not more so than most, it depressed me having to report what I had found. Intelligent readers know that if I report something as fact, it can be relied upon." Have a nice day........I can already hear & smell the pair of you stewing in angst once more. x |
Posted at 07/7/2024 16:41 by senseman From: senseman LSE:BELATED GOOD NEWS + PERSPECTIVE (non-nutter variety)Today 17:32 WELCOME NEWS Prax 27 June announcement to buy a producing asset is welcome, long overdue good news presenting a fighting chance of us seeing 12.5p.p.sh, rather than the projected 9.5p - 10p. 12.5p will remain uncertain for several reasons:- (i) The transaction requires regulatory agreement, and also will not be completed till Q1 2025 - there being many a slip betwixt cup and lips. (ii) From HUR sale June 23 to end Q1 2025 will be circa 21 months. End Q1 2025 - end 2026 will be circa 21 months. We will have only 21 months to receive the benefit of 17.5% from the newly purchased asset. (iii) HANK13's basic calcs showing we will need to achieve circa 3.8p. p.sh from the 21 month 'dual producing asset' period to achieve the 12.5p total illustrates that it will be tight, and that we may still not get there. Also, remember that part of the new producing asset is gas ie: oil equivalent - of which, unlike oil, we currently have no idea of selling price/17.5% profit looks like. It could be more, or less, lucrative than oil sales. PERSPECTIVE Whilst Chief Nutter & his bagman scream the usual verbiage they deliberately omit to point out that:- (a) My good faith comment//opinion was posted 25 Feb. Prax's announcement was 27 June, ie: 4 months later. I don't post in bad faith, and trust my sources. It is wholly possible that Prax & Total commenced talking post 25 Feb to be able to announce a proposed deal 4 months later on 27 June. Planned deal completion not until Q1 2025 suggests a deal in principle speedily agreed, leaving much basic due diligence remaining to be done. (b) In reiterating my opinion on 30 March I wrote ... '....I doubt a purchase will occur in time to do us any good. I REMAIN HOPEFUL I AM WRONG' (my capitals). (c) Or is it their obtuse logic that despite my urging Prax to buy a producing asset because I need the money 12.5p will bring, that stating an honest opinion that I doubt such will occur makes me a liar? OVERVIEW Prax's proposed purchase of a producing asset which hopefully will see us achieving 12.5p via 17.5% of cargo sales revenue again highlights the betrayal of HUR SHs by management in selling HUR for a song. A deal of course, applauded & supported by the Chief Nutter & his bagman. The forever question for all reasonable ex HUR SHs being..'What would the SH be now if HUR had not been sold. & management had bought a similar producing asset? when:- 1. P6's exceptional production performance & +$80Brent price have already shown HUR/PRAX's P6 standalone profit figures to be a self-serving fairy tale. 2. HUR management could have (as all urged) bought a 2nd producing asset akin to that which Prax are now doing 3. The 2nd producing asset, via it's ability to jointly use the AOKA Mizu, will lower P6's production costs and thus further extend it's commercial life. 4. We would not be limited to receiving only 17.5% of offload sales. Time will reveal all. Good luck to all. Ignore the nutters |
Posted at 28/6/2024 06:59 by laserdisc Good morning bocase over on lse thread there are a few postsTax treatment of DCU payments Started: Corryvreckan1, 22 Mar i am no expert but do read all the threads on taxation aspect, is it the extra special dividend at takeover you refer and not from the dcu's The 4.15p in cash will be comprised of a transaction dividend of 3.32p per share and a cash consideration of 0.83p per share. The supplementary dividend is dependent on whether Hurricane Energy plc has sufficient cash resources, in particular it will need to have received the proceeds from the oil lifting from the Lancaster Field. The DCUs may deliver up to 6.48 pence per share in cash. Clients who hold class I DCUs will be entitled to elect to receive a loan note instead of cash in respect of the amount of the DCU cash amount. |
Posted at 25/2/2024 13:37 by senseman senseman today LSE 13:34 re DCUsCrucial to whether we hit 12.5p.p.sh max via DCUs is whether Prax/HUR purchase current oil or gas producing assets under the HUR banner. Because profit from such is added to well P6 profits, from which our 17% DCU quantum flows. The promise was that purchase of such assets would be pursued in order that HUR's tax credits could be monetized. A month ago I I expended several hours difficult grunt work ascertaining from 2 impeccable sources - whose position and interest would be advantaged to report that producing assets were being procured - that to date no such purchases had been attempted, and that no dialogue with any possible producing asset was currently occurring. Since I want and need DCU's to bring us 12.5p.p.sh total at least if not more so than most, it depressed me having to report what I had found. Intelligent readers know that if I report something as fact, it can be relied upon. My reward for these endeavours was to be called a liar by our resident nutter - water off a ducks back since all identify him as such. Disconcerting however were insinuations from perennial resident lazies (my terminology) esk & broom that the nutter and I are made of the same stuff and, to quote esk...'...both poison to this B while the company was listed and are still at it now.' The 'lazies' never do any grunt work - never have. They mysteriously pop up whenever I post - with factually absurd, snide comment. Do they not realise how daft they sound to intelligent readers when similarly bracketing me and the nutter? Do they take you, the intelligent reader, for a fool? The failure to purchase producing, profit-generating assets is already grievously damaging our chances of seeing us hit 12.5p.p.sh by the end 2026 cut-off date. We are currently looking at more like 9.5-10.0p total. Perhaps those who swore ('the lazies' included) that 'the deal' was great because we were nigh on certain to get 12.5p total might upon reflection exercise humility!. Against this massive 'no-buying' disappointment, it has become clear within the grown-up ADVFN discussion Laser refers to - the essence of which I will copy & paste here in a subsequent post - that 2 green shoots of optimism are appearing, ie: i) Nov 23 production 6870 bpd, against Prax/HUR projection 6700 bpd Dec 23 production 6720 bpd, against Prax/HUR projection 6300 bpd Jan 24 product not yet known, against Prax/HUR projection 5900 bpd The import being more frequent offloads, hence more DCU cash. To illustrate - a 400 bpd increase over projections, equates to Brent price of $85 when compared with $80 projected ii) Brent current $82, with most analyst projecting $85-$90 2024 Q2 Q3 Q4 The import - Brent at say $85 + $5 pb production increase = $90 pb $90 x 540,000 = $48,600,000 x 17% = $8,262,000 divided by 2 bill shares = 0.413p p.DCU p.offload $80 x 540,000 = $43,200,000 x 17% = $7,344,000 divided by 2 bill shares = 0.367p p.DCU p.offload slava ukraina senseman |
Posted at 24/1/2024 01:02 by senseman SimonMagic is referring to the 2021 95% dilution restructuring attempt which failed (I call it HUR 1). At the start of the 3 day High Court hearing the shares were 0.6p. Had the attempt succeeded, 95% dilution would have rendered the shares worthless, ie: toilet tissue, and bondholders would have owned the company. For 4 months I worked full time to, along with CA, stop the attempt, whilst knowing I was endangering myself financially as Covid had killed dead my self employed income stream as an athletics coach, and I knew I should have been developing a new income stream. I did what I did because the old adage 'If not me, then whom?' quickly became apparent. HUR 1 was THE crucial episode/timespan You are referring to the successful sale of the company to Prax (I call it HUR 2). Most of us knew fighting it was, bar a miracle, likely to fail. But with so much at stake, and after so much effort in 2021, a small group of us could not sleep at night unless we at least tried. And I would make 2 points:- 1. The DCU payments represent 17% of HUR's Well P6's profits. Prax retain 83%. Given our initial 6.02p payment + 6.48p payments are capped at 12.5p max (which we will not achieve before the end 2026 cut-off end date because there is no sign of Prax/HUR acquiring other production assets to increase profits from which our 17% is derived, or of drilling well P8 to do similar), consider what the share price would now be if HUR 2 had failed and a still shareholder owned HUR was banking 100% of well P6's profits?. I repeat - just 17% of profits caps us at 12.5p. How far above a 12.5p share price would we be now be if a still shareholder owned HUR was banking 100% of P6 profits? 2. No one, bar the 3 of us who as shareholders attended the Sanctioning Hearing when the judge OK'd the sale, and stood and spoke in the 'barrister's section' against HUR's KC & Prax's QC, will ever understand how close we came to succeeding. The only thing which failed us was the lack of a shedload of expensive independent expert reports to back up our arguments, in the face of HUR & Prax's +£1 million quid's worth of legal preparation and 'expert opinion'. The judge (and all attending, including both KC & QC) knew it was a stitch up. But the judge effectively declared that despite misgivings, he had no option but to be guided by the +£1million quid's worth of 'expert opinion' He did have another option, but was not brave enough to exercise it in our favour. I am fighting for financial survival on account of my HUR efforts - which is why until now has not allowed me the time to become au fait with the DCU minutia - but which now makes it imperative that I do. That is why I have reached for a quick handle re how much we can expect going forward, and when. Magic - thanks for kind words |
Posted at 19/6/2023 08:52 by senseman Courtesy senseman LSE7 JUNE HEARING - FULLER REPORT (PART 1) - APOLOGY FOR DELAY Today 09:40 After Johns’ forum suggestion to contest the Scheme, a group of 9 resulted, namely:- Cat5: Johns: oldman45: picsmaister: RodneyT: ronwoking: senseman & 2 others who wish anonymity. All contributed, so forum thanks should go to the collective all. It just fell that 3 of us were able, and best equipped, to attend on 7 June. We tried our utmost. The Judge in giving Judgement directly praised our Document quality, the collective effort, & the +30 private investor emails/documents he received. Our skill-lacking area was court-presentation a barrister or solicitor would have provided. HUR had Kings Counsel, Dentons solicitors, Stifel, Maris, Chaffe and others. Prax had Counsel & solicitors HUR & Prax lodged large document bundles/witness statements (similar to 2021). It’s KC stated HUR knew from 2021 & current monitoring of LSE forum that SHs were activist, disagreed the Scheme, and may act. They were clearly genuinely worried. The Judge had sight of these but we did not - having emailed our Doc to the Court only on 6 June, we had not 'served' it on HUR, and thus left no time to be served HUR’s document bundles. The downside for us being the bundles included all the $3.4mill promotional guff including HUR’s fairytale P6 standalone 2026 8p end-figure (ie. magically marginally less than Prax’s minimum end 2026 figure) and high risk 1 well 1 pump exagerations. Astonishingly, even HUR KC's skeleton argument (we were provided copy at kick-off) was 25 PAGES LONG, and lodged at Court 2 days prior with an estimated 2 hrs judge’s reading time. The 90 minute listed hearing lasted 11.30am-4.30pm, with1 hour lunch. Judgement reading took 45mins. The judge read HUR's gumph in previous days. Our late Document & appearance threw a considerable spanner in both HUR's easy-expectations, and the Judge's thinking, as our arguments were too meritorious to be easily dismissed. Constrained by time & resource, our Document was merely 6 (SIX) pages, but of absolute research-imbued quality. It dealt almost exclusively with the head count (50%) issue. It contained only a paragraph regarding the 'fairness' issue the judge declared his overriding concern. He was guided by HUR's rogue P6 standalone cash projection figures being less than P6 under Prax, by HUR's rogue 'risk assessment', and the 87%-88% achieved by value vote (the 75% vote - thus 'most people’ being happy' – despite HUR & Ker’s 46% holding of all shares making the 75% vote a formality). Arguing verbally on these ‘fairness̵ |
Posted at 22/4/2023 23:05 by senseman senseman LSE Sat 23.53.PRESENTATION - MEETING REPORT(S) - FURTHER INFO Sat 23:53 PART 2 11. What confidence can SHs have in HUR's risk assessment & P6 standalone cash production figures when, one year after the 2021 failed High Court 95% restructuring attempt, at bond due date, it's risk assessment proved overstated, and cash projections understated by circa $150 million in a single year? A: Ignored in P. Asked in M. Answer - only POO (which no one could have predicted) made us $150mill out in 12 months. You can trust us and our figures. We have used POO forward curve figures @ circa $76. NB: POO forward curve figures historically cautious by $5-$10pb. Take no note of political climate eg: China re-opening & possible supply crucnch. NB: Answer was drivel lies. In 2021 Judge ruled even on HUR’s own POO figures bond money would only be $10-$25mill short, borrowable from multiple normal sources if needed. NB: Judge’s estimate after Hearing showed HUR’s accounting for court purposes had written off/not included circa $50mill, ie: HUR tried to bury $50mill (separate from POO issue). 12. Prax - Why do you have confidence in and plan to retain, HUR's CEO & CFO, in light of Q11 above? Also, when HUR's relationship with the NSTA has failed? A: Ignored (both parts) in P. Asked in M. Prax declined to answer. HUR CEO Maris seized question. Answer – HUR excellent NSTA relationship. Also, (astonishing not RNS’d(my comment)) NSTA some wks/months ago gave permission for crucial P6 production metric to be changed from 300 to 360psi (or other way around - techies please explain). This has enabled & explains why P6 reserves? have been upgraded to extend P6 commercial life & barrelage to 2026 (again techies, please explain the 300/360psi metric & import) 13. In the last 2 ERCE reports, the 2P level of oil in P6 effectively increased by around 3m barrels (ie: it did not materially drop despite oil being extracted for the last year). Please explain the reasons, and by how long this extends P6's projected economically viable lifespan. A: See 12a above Answer. Ignored in P. Asked in M. 14. Prax - (i) why cannot HUR remain AIM listed until 2026? (ii) how soon will the first added production be brought into HUR? A: Ignored in P. Asked in M. Prax – ignored (i). Stated ‘we plan to’, no specifics, trust us. 15. Why is Court vote being held 15 mins before Scheme of Arrangement vote? A: Ignored in P. Asked in M. Stifel answer – both votes held at 4 May General Meeting. HUR need pass 2 hurdles (i) for Court - 50% of SHs who vote– a broker representing say 500 SHs counts as 1 vote. (ii) for Scheme – 75% of votes cast – 1 vote per share held. 16. When P6 pump was previously changed over, natural flow almost matched pumped flow. What is natural flow rate expected to be should pump changeover be necessary again? A: Ignored in P. Unasked in M. 17. If YES vote is 75%, is the deal binding on ALL SHs? A: Ignored in P. Unasked in M. 18. Why is HUR confident the NSTA will agree the Scheme? A: CEO - Because we have excellent NSTA relationship |
Posted at 29/3/2023 21:24 by marmar80 I have sent the below email/Option B/ to Hur BoD, RB of CA and Kerogen. Tried to ask for any opinion today as no reply has been received however my new email has been classified as a spam, unfortunately, what a surprise. Dear Sirs,I have an idea which I would like to share with you all.The idea is to proceed with the "Prax deal" and to keep the Hurricane Energy listed. There are benefits for both sides in this outcome. Let me explain this please.I believe that Prax is interested in the Hurricane's producing P6 well, license and in access to the tax losses. You can correct me if this is incorrect or something is missing here.Large shareholders such as like Crystal Amber or Kerogen are happy to proceed with the "Prax deal".Many of the Hurricane private small shareholders are rather interested in receiving more funds upfront or keeping the company listed and operational.What if you could split Hurricane Energy into two companies, say Hur A and Hur B and this way satisfy both sides?Hur A - retaining all the unrestricted cash as they are on the sale day, keeping the stock listed on the exchange and retaining entitlement to 17.50% of all future net revenues earned by the Hur B (part of DCU).Hur B - receiving P6 well, licenses, restricted funds and tax losses in 100% (if not possible to keep a small 10% in Hur A for their future use).Prax buys Hur B for cash, but not for 0.83p per share as currently, but for 4pps (approx £80m). Same time Prax will keep ALL the cash stream from the operational P6 (no bi-annual dividends), license, £300m of tax losses and £45m of restricted funds. Hur A to pay dividend of 4pps to own shareholders from the sale proceeds.Hur A to return part of unrestricted funds of 3pps to own shareholders on the sale day.Hur A to pay special dividend to own shareholders from 17.50% of all the future Net Revenues earned by Hur B (capped at 6.48pps).Hur B (Prax) to proceed with the acquisitions as they wish.Hur A remains listed - to represent existing shareholders in future dealings with Prax up to end of year 2026. No shareholder is concerned about understanding of tax implications related to DCU proceeds or ISA, no shareholder needs to cash any cheques, trade DCUs on the matched bargain portal or talk to own financial advisor about understanding of DCUs (this part is is impacting many small shareholders).Hur A retains 10% of tax losses (if possible) and with own cash is able to proceed with a takeover of a low cap producer with debt to clear. Hur A to clear that debt immediately. This deal is allowing Hur A to pay annual dividend of 0.50-1.0pps as the taken over company is a producer and has no debts.This deal is allowing Hur A to spend £1 and receive £91p back while investing in a new project.Advantages to Hur A shareholders:A) 7p per share paid in 2023 (capital return + sale proceeds)B) right to a special dividend from 17.50% capped at 6.48ppsC) no need to deal with tax matters related to DCU proceeds received off the exchange and no need to deal with ISA holdings before and after the saleD) keeping the company listed will allow shareholders to sell their shares at any timeE) any share price higher than 0 (zero) is creating additional value to shareholders immediately after the splitF) possibility of receiving 0.50-1.0p per share from 2024 (from taken over company)Shareholders to deliver a list of companies meeting the criteria. Dividend of 0.50p per share should be available if the taken over company delivers 10m return a yearG) return from investment can be higher than 12.50per share by end of year 2026.Disadvantages to Hur A shareholders:A) no bi-annual dividend from Prax (Hur B)B) possibility of receiving 0.50-1.0p divi per share from 2024 (from taken over company) depends from a success of finding a suitable company to buyC) selling shares too early will disqualify from access to 6.48pps special divi (17.50% of all Net Revenue).Advantages to Prax:A) Prax to receive a producing P6 well and licencesB) Prax to retain all £300m or 90% of tax lossesC) Prax is able to proceed with any acquisitions immediately after the dealD) Prax to keep access to the restricted cash of £45m.E) no need to distribute DCU dividends bi-annually to thousands of ex-Hurricane shareholdersF) no need to distribute 17.50% of all Net Revenues to thousands of ex-Hurricane shareholdersDisadvan |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
