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 Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.086 2.09% 4.20 4.102 4.138 4.44 3.946 4.05 24,166,526 16:35:16
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Oil & Gas Producers 170.3 -1.8 3.0 1.4 84

Hurricane Energy Share Discussion Threads

Showing 78526 to 78543 of 79675 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  3151  3150  3149  3148  3147  3146  3145  3144  3143  3142  3141  3140  Older
Yes, that's right 11.7 m up from 9.2 m. More than the usual 400k, I think.
11.7 👍on draft of tanker not got my notes think it was 9.2 on arrival sorry can’t update as working
My dear Tournesol, I am sure your illustrious career in the oil industry was impressive, I was referring to the debate about tax losses , where I defer to the chartered accountant. As for the warning signs were there, and anybody holding was a fool, hur claimed the water was perched and issued RNS's indicating production was going well for many months before the tone changed. Moreover, if everyone had come to the same conclusions when you did, the share price would have been decimated then instead of later. I dont rule out a recovery here...even if grand ambitions of earlier years have been tempered..
Not really Frank. What he’s saying - and behind the flowery prose and verbose posts it’s all he ever says on here - is he considers himself smarter than everyone else in the room. I don’t think there’s a hidden agenda. I just suspect he’s a conceited, tedious, insecure blow hard. IMHO. DYOR.
anderson sw
sirmark 11 Oct '20 - 18:07 - 20490 of 20497 0 1 0 Who said they sold the lot !!!! They have fallen below the 3% ..... your assumptions may be correct but also the could be sitting on 2.99% for all you know. The RNS stated they no longer have a notifiable interest. .................Hurricane Energy plc announces that on 7 October 2020 it received notification that Alken Asset Management no longer has an interest in the issued share capital of the Company.
Possibly both?
tournesol: So are you saying , categorically, that there will be no recovery AT ALL in the current share price enabling some loss recovery???
fat frank
My dear Leo, you can't evaluate an argument by looking at the characteristics of the person who advances it. Surely that's obvious? You don't trust my opinions simply because of my long career in the oil industry? or my 25 years successful investing in E&P? or my exit at 19p which was kind of timely I'd say? Actually what you and other stale bulls who missed all the clear warning signs do, is indulge in magical thinking. You want the share price to recover, you want to reduce your losses, you want to stop feeling bad, so you delude yourself that things will get better. It's called being in denial. It never ends well.
Post 20490.For clarity, Alken did not issue a TR1 when it went below 4% or 3%. HUR. were informed via RNS that they longer had an interest meaning the 4.92% went in one go. Where did it go to that is the question.
Indeed, Tournesol was singing Hur's praises for many years.....I would rather trust a chartered accountant than a BB former bull.
You seem a bit nervous about your short, Pro. Do sleep well!
Who said they sold the lot !!!! They have fallen below the 3% ..... your assumptions may be correct but also the could be sitting on 2.99% for all you know. The RNS stated they no longer have a notifiable interest.
Crystal they manage like a couple of hundred millions pounds ? Alken Asset Management, who happen to manage many billions of pounds, decided to sell all their HUR shares. So, we have CA buying HUR, and the last Holdings RNS was Alken having sold the lot. Who is right ? Millions CA ? or Billions Alken ? Lots of people saying tiny CA buying is so so so so so so so positive. Yet the same people dont even mention the very much bigger Alken, who sold the lot. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ;)
Yes, don't pander to sunflower's glowing conceit. He's always adored the sound of his own vitriol and for some bizarre reason seems to assume what he has to say is balanced, informed and important. Best filtered.
I’ve seen it many times in the past too sloppy (and thanks for your earlier post) but I wouldn’t be sharing client information to satisfy Tournesol’s stupid and ill mannered request for support cases. He says the company is a busted flush as much to remind himself for the umpteenth time how sage he was to sell when he did as to state a fact his confirmation bias desperately hopes is true. Perhaps it is. But a new buyer should one emerge definitely won’t think so. Crystal Amber already don’t think so. And justifying a valuation uplift of even 30 to 40m to cover tax losses should that be all a buyer truly wants to access would be a doddle. My guess is he doesn’t understand the carry forward losses and tax position which is why he’s getting up on his toes about his own half billion EV estimate.
anderson sw
Tournesol you are clearly speaking about a subject matter for which you are not qualified to speak about. Your initial post on this subject was factually incorrect and misrepresenting the situation with regards to tax losses. The ring fencing, that you cited as being a limiting factor, is completely irrelevant; it is the underlying nature of the transaction that is important. Like I said, in my experience, a current change of ownership would likely meet the criteria to gain clearance to use the losses against non RFP's but for sure it is not a forgone conclusion. Who mentioned paying half a billion for HUR ?
SloppyG I think you are deploying a circular argument You already said that ring fenced losses could be used outside the ring fence IF the reason for the acquisition was not primarily to acquire the ring fenced losses but not otherwise. Given that Hur is a busted flush which has a value of very little, how can you argue that anyone paying half a billion to acquire the co is doing so for reasons other than to acquire the tax credits? and instead of saying that redeploying tax credits is commonplace please provide an example where the circumstances are similar.
With a large PI, the production wont be materially affected by declining reservoir pressure, even when bubble point is reached - they'll just keep opening the chokes, at least until everything is fully open, at which point the rate will drop, but only slowly. But as water cut increases then the liquids rate will need to be increased to maintain oil production, and this will accelerate reservoir pressure decline. When the water cut get to around 50% there'll be insufficient gas to lift the wetter fluids, and they'll need to run the ESP (like they had to do for 7z). BUT if reservoir pressure declines such that the flowing bottom hole pressure (FBHP) is below bubble point then the ESP cannot be used. At that point they'll need to shut back TOTAL production and allow the FBHP to rise. Whether it's the water cut increase or the reservoir pressure decline that starts to constrain oil production first, and when that occurs, will be critical in determining the economic life of the 6 well... and also what the remedial works are likely to be.
Chat Pages: Latest  3151  3150  3149  3148  3147  3146  3145  3144  3143  3142  3141  3140  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
Hurricane ..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20201128 05:43:48