Hurricane Energy Share Discussion Threads

[asagi] 13/5/2021 15:33

You are addressing general principles which are unequivocally correct in the case of the P8 option. But you don't address the specifics of the NFA Option which are a result of amended insolvency legislation and this is the first time I've seen it in use. ghhghh, I will admit that I haven't looked into it sufficiently to appreciate the distinction. I just suspect that the board is being prudent, rather than relying on 'at the moment' and 'as long as things hold up' or 'we should be alright'. Indeed, it looks like there a risk that Hurricane will be unable to get results out in the eventuality that the court does not sanction the scheme. Or do people think that is a bluff? Asagi (short HUR)

[kaos3] 13/5/2021 15:05

cost cutting - BOD costs, non oil related consulting, non oil related contracts etc - giving a signal they care as trusted

[kaos3] 13/5/2021 15:03

courts deal on what is presented to them - so no, there are different courts for different matters (corporate matters, criminal matters, social matters .... courts (my lack of language and UK system knowledge is obvious but the point can resonate I hope)) but! if one court accepts a fishy case - the other one takes notice (must? - I do not know UK) and takes all into the consideration when deciding done it - and gained a "position" in a case which I had not before on stand alone

[jacks13] 13/5/2021 14:51

But you are suggesting kaos3 or assuming that the courts might undertake some sort of forensic examination of the company's actions. I doubt they'll do that. Hurricane has paid for copper bottomed legal and financial advisers, tie that in with an independently certified CPR and they should be bomb-proof in the face of any cursory cross-examination, even if the judge is of a mind to give CA their opportunity. If CA are allowed time, an adjournment, to come up with an alternative plan I still don't see the judgement being based on much more than a superficial assessment of the evidence before it, with the immediate prospects for the company's survival central to its thinking. Other than unearthing, as you say, 'anything fishy', CA would have a difficult time debunking the geological/reserves case being put forward by Hurricane and the legal/financial case would remain unassailable. On the point of cost cutting the 2019 corporate presentations which outlined the prospective work programmes for 2020 show that many millions of dollars of capex was scheduled to be spent last year. We await sight of the accounts but it appears almost nothing was spent on the programme. The H1 results report $34 million of capex but we will have to await the full year results to see what that was spent on.

[ghhghh] 13/5/2021 14:47

Asagi You are addressing general principles which are unequivocally correct in the case of the P8 option. But you don't address the specifics of the NFA Option which are a result of amended insolvency legislation and this is the first time I've seen it in use. I probably don't understand or haven't seen the small print but it looks premature.

[nigwit] 13/5/2021 14:45

If I was "stupid" to buy an oil stock at between 26p and 58p and sell at up to 60p for a profit what does that make all those who still hold the shares at this week's all time low price? Some bright sparks even bought since the restructuring announcement on April 30th and are down from 2.3p to 0.7p. A loss of 70% in two weeks. It's not investing. It's throwing wealth away out of greed, ignorance and incompetence. I think you all need professional advice.

[kaos3] 13/5/2021 14:00

1. as I hinted before on many kinds of corporate "operations" that are ongoing behind the public eyes - RB is "investigating" - if there was anything fishy - "proposal" must be canceled 2. if the new CEO saw nothing but running the present wells till the end - why did he not react by cost cutting etc?

[asagi] 13/5/2021 13:46

"Why not give equity more time to benefit from the clearly improving macro environment?" I don't think that this line of reasoning is sound. The directors want to stay on the right side of the law and not end up trading while insolvent etc. Their deal near as dammit does that as it retains cash to repay the rest of the corporate bonds (CBs). Not doing so risks that macro environment subsequently moving from improving to deteriorating and default on the corporate bonds. It would not look good then at all if the Board had not explored, or previously rejected, a scheme that would see the CBs repaid with significant certainty. Crystal Amber (CA) need to present an alternative, which would likely involve significant fundraising from other corporate investment intermediaries. The fact that no other such organisation has been stumping up for equity at these apparently distressed levels suggests much about the probability of that happening. It appears that CA itself has not deigned to stump up more cash for equity at this level, even with the share price depressed by the prospect of the Proposed Financial Restructuring. While the macro environment has been improving, confidence in Hurricane's assets has been going in the other direction. I think that CA need to bite the bullet here and give it up as a bad job. Asagi (short EUA)

[peaky traders] 13/5/2021 13:41

Check out SYME . CEO promising a cracking RNS to come.

[ghhghh] 13/5/2021 13:25

Log Agreed re P8 option However you don't address why restructure now (15 months pre redemption) if NFA option? Why not give equity more time to benefit from the clearly improving macro environment? I agree that equity must convince the Court that realistic chance. Conversely HUR must explain how CBs are disadvantaged by a delay. Let's take an extreme. Redemption in 5 years and projected revenues not sufficient. However other assets of significant value that can be sold to bridge gap but not at fire sale prices. Can creditors demand an immediate restructuring? Obviously not - 5 years would be ludicrous. So what about 15 months? Only issue I can see is extending AM lease but this benefits CBs? So why not give equity 6 months grace and then restructure? CBs lose nothing? But might get ALL their cash back if equity successful.

[luckyjoe999] 13/5/2021 13:08

Post from lse bb today: RetiredFella Posts: 18 Price: 0.7205 No Opinion RE: SPToday 11:10 “Hi Rosie, this was the reply i received from Richard Bernstein. The email address is [e-mail]” ''Regarding an EGM, even if we had written to Hurricane Energy calling for this on 30 April, the timelines before the meeting could take place would mean that by the time a vote would be taken, bondholders would hold 95% of the shares and the votes. As I wrote on Tuesday, planning is essential. You should not draw any conclusion from the fact that you have not yet seen us announce a legal challenge. There are several areas that we are currently investigating. We have to be thorough and ensure that if we are able to restore shareholder value, it is done in the best possible way. We are unable to give any guarantees other than that if it is possible to recover value, we will.''

[kooba] 13/5/2021 12:22

Tend to agree with you there however i think the method they have used employing emergency legislation to disenfranchise shareholders is a point of order..if the court did insist on a shareholder vote then it would certainly put a spanner in the works. If they felt like an equity solution had not been explored and an equity holder sort time they may grant a postponement for said equity holder/s to make an alternative proposal. Unfortunately the board has the upper hand as they control the data and their interpretation is what is being used in their modelling.If it went to a shareholder vote i think the board would have to resign?

[loglorry1] 13/5/2021 11:46

GHH you are right it is a bit pointless. I guess we differ because you think the BoD will have to convince the court that they are giving equity a fair deal. I think the way it actually goes is that equity have to propose a better, feasible solution. Since the BoD are saying to the court kicking the can to see what happens is no longer an option (and they are best placed to know why), I don't think the court will consider equity's pleas unless they stump up some cash. Switching it around a bit - when has a court ever sided with disgruntled equity who claim that there's hope (but fail to invest more cash) when the BoD are saying this is the best way to protect stakeholders interests?

[pro_s2009] 13/5/2021 08:31

Yes, I did post on here at the time it was IMO a "Cover Your Ass" small director share purchase so that in future they can say......we lost money just like you......... Turns out that opinion and post back then might be spot on...........easy to spot these things..........if your eves are open.

[kooba] 13/5/2021 08:23

One of the points i have made to the company along with the upbeat January statement and the promotional research at that time ..they cite three risk warnings, but having looked at the Dec one it was rather vague and talked dilution but not little value.Think the bondholders shot some big threats off to the board after January and the board folded and threw shareholders under the bus.

[ghhghh] 13/5/2021 08:06

Also directors purchased 1.2m shares at 3p end September.

[kooba] 13/5/2021 07:15

Good question not only what has he done to progress the' significant value in our West of Shetland portfolio" that he apparently still saw in January citing an increase in oil (delivered) as further enhancing value , but if as with hindsight many are saying the whole thing was a basket case with no future back in Sept why he didnt see that? His expertise apparently is in production operations not in corporate restructurings..in fact it appears no one on the board has any experience in such a complicated field.So he took the roll where his hands would be tied by bondholders in a company that appears to have no future..begs the question apart from money and his contract being paid up what he thought he might be able to offer.I took the view that him signing on meant after his due diligence he must have seen decent prospects in developing further accessible reserves...i was wrong there it seems!

[monkeybusiness1] 13/5/2021 07:08

So what happened to “A continued recovery in oil prices would further enhance the significant value we see in our West of Shetland portfolio.” OR is that value just for bondholders?!

[ngms27] 13/5/2021 06:47

I think he came on board, looked at the specifics and decided that anything other than running Lancaster until it's no longer commercially viable was the only real option given the high risks with other options.Remember PHAR had dud production wells on their fields, water injection worked to a degree but they had much deeper reservoir section to OWC. They are now moving to gas injection.

[monkeybusiness1] 13/5/2021 06:43

A good Question here would be, what has the HUR CEO Antony Maris actually done/achieved since taking on the CEO role last August, wether on strategy, planning/forward planning, operations, logistics, talking to shareholders, or working on and seeking funding from various financial institutions, all to enhance shareholder value which must be top priority in his job description! I am sure as CEO he has a relatively very fat salary and for a company who should be doing maximum cost management and control at this stage unless bringing in the CEO has a purpose as it certainly should! Then was he simply brought in by the Chairman to deliberately run the company down so they can basically give it away to bondholders via rubber stamping this crazy proposed scam? Interesting thoughts here, which should be transparently clear along with all other very key points already raised and highlighted by some above for any judge to see, DYOR.

[kooba] 12/5/2021 20:10

It is a convening hearing nothing will be sanctioned on the 1st court hearing on the 21st May there would be a second sanction hearing after a creditors meeting sometime in June to approve it. Leaves room for challenge ..but I'm sure you know everything already. Not sure why you think it will be all done and dusted on the 21st?Were you an idiot to buy the stock at 58p btw..all full of the i sold aren't I clever but you'd have to have been stupid on your reckoning to have bought an oil stock etc...that's you that is.

[whitedukejay] 12/5/2021 19:56

No problem answering yer question, although its vulgar to quote actual figures ,i invested circa 15% of my PF at time of buys and probably lost 80% of sum invested in HUR at the time of my capitulation. Painful lesson in ignorance which i admit to.

[nigwit] 12/5/2021 19:35

I paid between 26 and 58p and sold every share at a small profit. I sold for the reasons I have already given. Now, since you’re (not your) interrogating me it’s my turn to ask you some questions. How much have you lost and how much more are you willing to lose before you admit you made a mistake?

[whitedukejay] 12/5/2021 19:04

Trouble is my friend your a liar,one of your first offerings on here stated you were a LTH and also you sold at 60p down to 48P but most damaging you stated "i made a SMALL profit" so being a LTH what did you actually pay for your imaginary shares? Nothing more than a daft attention seeking liar and dreamer. Get a life..Also why didnt you sell all at 60p ,make the reason good if you answer.

[nigwit] 12/5/2021 18:36

I don't know about banana republics but I bet the the judge in the high court will have the papers written up the day before. However, since I sold at 60p the share price has dropped to 0.75p. One eightieth of what is was so what do I know?