We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hurricane Energy Plc | LSE:HUR | London | Ordinary Share | GB00B580MF54 | ORD 0.1P |
| Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 7.79 | 0.00 | 00:00:00 |
| Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - |
| Last Trade Time | Trade Type | Trade Size | Trade Price | Currency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | O | 0 | 7.79 | GBX |
Hurricane Energy (HUR) Share Charts1 Year Hurricane Energy Chart |
|
1 Month Hurricane Energy Chart |
Intraday Hurricane Energy Chart |
| Date | Time | Title | Posts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13/3/2025 | 19:36 | HURRICANE ENERGY - Fractured Basement WOS | 38,189 |
| 18/2/2025 | 09:16 | Hurricane Energy PLC | 57,159 |
| 26/7/2023 | 08:36 | THE REASONS I VOTED NO TO PRAX SCHEME - MK II | 2 |
| 28/4/2023 | 20:04 | My serious musings over voting NO | - |
| 20/3/2023 | 19:11 | Update | - |
| Trade Time | Trade Price | Trade Size | Trade Value | Trade Type |
|---|
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 13/3/2025 19:36 by laserdisc Notice someone bought DCU'S and paid 2.0706/03/2025 900,000 2.07 If the Prax deal goes ahead end of this month then we should be confident that the returns from DCU'S in 2025 & 2026 will nearly fulfill what was promised at the takeover, other factors out of our control are oil price & Lancaster p6 continued production |
Posted at 28/2/2025 19:21 by gipps I didn't have them in an isa and on my lloyds share account the payments showed up as dividends so my accountant said I had to pay the tax on them. |
Posted at 15/1/2025 12:37 by porrohmahnn I have read the Scheme Document and the Deed Poll and cannot find any reference to what payment, if any, that DCU holders would receive three months after the end of the last Half-Year period in relation to any unsold oil that is on board the AM or in relation to any unsold oil from any other asset(s) that Prax might buy using the tax credits. I'm disappointed that the agreements don't appear to include provisions that entitle the DCU holders to a share of the stocks of oil that are held at the end of the last Half-Year, valued at whatever price these are eventually sold for, less applicable deductions.Am I missing anything? Have I misinterpreted? If not, there would be little incentive for Prax to sell shipments of oil towards the end of the last Half-Year. We have already seen situations where uplifts of oil have been very close to the end of Half-Year periods and its not inconceivable that a similar situation might arise at the end of the last Half-Year. There is a provision in the Deed Poll that requires; "The Company shall discharge its obligations under this Deed in good faith and shall use all reasonable endeavours to maximise the Deferred Payment." There is also a dispute resolution process but I'm not convinced that these would provide the necessary confidence that the scenario I envisage above could not occur. |
Posted at 18/12/2024 15:48 by laserdisc It’s not a contract to move aoka mizu anytime soon it’s a design and costing plan by Norwegian co aregon nothing on aregon website at this time till that’s done who knows costs then if price is feasable party involved has to put up funding ,bluewater still making money on present lancaster performance prax making money on lower oil price because bluewater have reduced day rate for AMThe takeover of hurricane resulted in dcu,sbeing issued payable dividends on income generated till 31/12 /26/ final dividend 31/3/27prax are a reputable co with high integrity I do not think they will just end contract with bluewater as early as some posters on here think you have give time it will be late 2027 before it will be ready to operate the higher fluid capacity needed for rkh Obviusly they need to get the ball rolling for the next phase of fpso am but 2 years completion at this stage is going to be very tight topside metalwork all toe done possibly china will be in dry dock need to look at timescales for other fpso,s on conversion Prax upstream are due to complete a deal with total in March 25 so that gives Hur Dcu,a boost of 17.5% of revenue prax use tax losses so Hur holders can still be fairly treated going forward. Dcu price to buy 1.73p today non sold so could be large spread presently |
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 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 27/4/2023 15:47 by senseman courtesy of dflynch LSE 15.22"HURRR’s dastardly scheme Fails! Will Crystal Amber revert to Plan A? Well, we have less than a week to go now until we know the result of the Court meeting. It will be an interesting result as clearly shareholders are divided with regard to the scheme as it stands. Clearly, if the HURR BoD manage to achieve the result they desire, then the fight is not over. I am sure that we will have a re-run of the Convertible Bond issue and the involvement of the Courts. Of course, the HURR BoD may fail so what could we expect? I would think that the Dutch investors would immediately pull-out. They are only here for the speculative future income and their exit, probably at a loss as the share price will invariably drop, temporarily with the disposal of the Dutch shares. But what about the major shareholders Kerogen and Crystal Amber. Kerogen are a bit of a dark horse in this saga – they have inscrutable influencers but as an investment, HURR is probably worth peanuts and no more than an irritant that they wish clear of their investment desktop. Crystal Amber’s situation is uncertain, but a bit of speculative analysis on my part wonders if they would revert to their earlier plan A – Plan Albion, calling an EGM and removing the incompetent HURR board and substituting Albion as a new and experienced BoD. I believe that unwarranted pressure has been applied to CA to agree to the deal. I wonder if HURR’s share price would have risen back to 40p if Saba (CA’s major shareholder) had not insisted on liquidation of the fund (irony pervades CA’s major shareholder bullying minor shareholders into accepting liquidation of the fund when it was not necessarily in the majority of individual shareholders, best interests). The liquidation of the fund is not going well (De-La-Rue is proving to be a problem) and maybe, because of pressure from their major shareholder, and in desperation, their better investment judgement was set aside and the PRAX offer accepted. If CA were to revert to their original, and preferred plan of EGM and Albion installation. And Albion were willing to run Hurricane, then we could have the opportunity to re-discover “those missing billions of barrels of oil” that suddenly disappeared during the "Maris era". Furthermore, we would have a competent team running the company with the ability to plan and co-ordinate the proper exploitation of HURR’s acreage. HURR’s future is NOT limited to P6!" |
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
