We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Customisable watchlists with full streaming quotes from leading exchanges, such as LSE, NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, Bovespa, BIT and more.
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/12/2024 | 15:17 | HURRICANE ENERGY - Fractured Basement WOS | 38,137 |
| 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 | - |
| 23/4/2023 | 10:04 | Hurricane Energy PLC | 57,153 |
| 20/3/2023 | 19:11 | Update | - |
| Trade Time | Trade Price | Trade Size | Trade Value | Trade Type |
|---|
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 13/11/2024 18:55 by super95 Looks like LSE have deleted HUR. |
Posted at 15/10/2024 07:41 by super95 On announcement Prax reported that current production (for FY 2023) for TotalEnergies’ interests (in the Greater Laggan Area) is at about 7,500 barrels of oil equivalent per day, made up of around 90% of gas, and upon completion of the transaction, which is expected in Q1 2025, Hurricane Energy Deferred Consideration Unit holders will commence to receive a 17.5% gross revenue royalty from the acquired assets, according to the terms of the DCU deed.If we assume that the deal completes no later than the end of Q1 2025 I have calculated it could be worth 2.326p per DCU. There are various factors which will determine the eventual return, namely the decline rate, the oil price, the gas price and the sterling dollar exchange rate. |
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 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 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!" |
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 |
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
