Hurricane Energy Share Discussion Threads

[marmar80] 03/5/2023 08:26

Weird. 4th double trade posted. An error or someone is trading this way?

[kooba] 03/5/2023 08:03

I guess we might find out if the company think they can't win today..they will have a good idea by the close. Deal could be pulled or postponed? But with brent back at $74 the go it alone doesn't look as strong either. At least we will know deal or no deal very shortly ..but rather bored of it all right now.

[wbodger] 03/5/2023 07:54

Is that you sheepshagger?

[kooba] 02/5/2023 18:05

They were appointed as the company required a large fundraise to develop the B's of barrels which was out of Cenkos league , so chunky equity and bond issue was done much by Stifel , they have done well for themselves since appointed..shareholders not so much !

[wbodger] 02/5/2023 11:42

If the sellers were already neutral about the bid they might be be worried about a fall in share price after the vote and concerned about being locked in for two+ years if they don't sell. After all, after they're out they don't care who wins.

Ophorst's bet is pretty safe according to their own model and buying more just reduces the uncertainty of a No outcome. The decision is different for a fund, where the ISA/SIPP issue doesn't apply, compared to a PI where keeping a listing is probably pivotal. The fund sees a decent profit where I see two years of purgatory.

I think CA had their pants pulled down by a combination of Stifel and Saba. Bernstein can't defend their 29% with the wind-up happening. And in 2021 he couldn't get rid of Maris+Chaffe after Stifel made their threat.

Lesson: be careful of Nomads, especially Stifel.

(Aside, can anyone remember why Stifel was appointed? They were appointed after Cenkos, and I don't know why Cenkos left. Were they fired? It was about the time of the CVB financing of Lancaster EPS.)

[kooba] 02/5/2023 10:36

Appears that there is still the decent buyer still around at 7.5p must presume Ophorst..going to be a larger volume day but its difficult to think that they can use a vote on shares bought today at the meeting on 4th ..maybe there is a way?

[nasturtium] 29/4/2023 17:49

I have voted NO to everything because if the scheme does not pass, we will still have: -

• 150 million plus in the bank (including last lifting but excluding sums in escrow)

• A capital return from the above, may be – not taxable, I believe

• A still operational and producing well, bringing more revenue in the future than what is being proposed –current production c.100M/year eq. 5p/share

• 100% revenue of all future liftings

• Breathing space to improve the share price

• Prospects of further exploration(s) and/or acquisition(s), ensuing more riches

• A likely change of BOD, and not a moment too soon, in my view

• All other assets

And - appreciated contribution from fandg2 (from LSE bb)

• 230/250M tax credits – could be utilised towards OUR OWN revenues

Could you think of anything else?

[nasturtium] 28/4/2023 21:04

Hello all,

My first post here.

I post on LSE under the moniker “machin” and Jacquibic graciously suggested I should re-post my latest offering there, so here it is -

Is it not strange, now as in 2021, how hard the interested parties, in cahoots with BOD, are working to obtain something worthless - a dying single well with doubling decommissioning costs etc., according to them.
Furthermore, in both cases, more or less for free - In 2021 via an outrageous dilution and now with our own cash reserves and resources, present and future, just as contemptibly.

In 2021 Zacaroli J saw through the con, hopefully this time the same will happen.

Since 2021, in less than 2 years, we have repaid the balance of the Bondholders loan and accumulated a large amount of cash, in the sum of roughly 200M+.

The offer on the table is for 250M maximum over a period of 3 years, with no guarantee whatsoever, beyond the initial payment.
However, this includes some 150M that already belong to us, cash in hand and latest lifting, leaving 100M outstanding, roughly a year of production.

If it were to go ahead, we would be short-changed by some 200M (2 years of production) - eq. to 10p/share

I have not taken into account the tax credit of c.230/250M that could compensate for the decline of the oil well P6.

I have not also taken into account other assets, equipment, properties etc that we may have.

But what is really disgraceful is that the BOD has squandered 20M+ of OUR MONEY during the failed “first steal” in 2021 – eq. 1p+/share, and now, it seems, they use again OUR MONEY to cover the costs of this proposed acquisition, the “second steal” aka a con.

Please comment/correct at will

[senseman] 28/4/2023 13:34

courtesy senseman LSE

VOTE TILL 5 PM TODAY - GOOD CHANCE WILL STILL COUNT

HARGREAVES LANSDOWN
Today's 1pm deadline was on HL website/login - but deadlines rarely fixed in stone.
Hargreaves Lansdown my still accept votes till close 5pm this evening.
If cannot vote online, phone HL 0117 9009000 and ask if will accept votes by phone (they always have done)
In short - STILL VOTE if not already done so - LIKELY WILL STILL BE IN TIME

OTHER BROKERS - STILL VOTE
Either online or by phoning direct
As likely that votes will still be accepted - have always been in past

MESSAGE - STILL VOTE THIS AFTERNOON TILL BROKERS CLOSE 5.00/5.30pm

[philwalker36] 28/4/2023 13:12

Thanks again sense for all of your effort

[senseman] 28/4/2023 10:00

courtesy of senseman LSE
VOTE TODAY - FOR 4TH MAY - DONT DELAY - DEADLINE FRIDAY 1PM
DEADLINE TODAY 1PM - VOTE VOTE VOTE - DEADLINE TODAY 1PM

See earlier posts re why crucial, and how to vote.

[bill hunt] 28/4/2023 08:40

Thanks, laser.

[laserdisc] 28/4/2023 08:07

Looks likely 525,000
we know
As of 16 April 2023, Lancaster was producing c.7,460 bopd from the P6 well alone with an associated water cut of c.53%. As of 17 April 2023, the FPSO held c.450,000 barrels available for lifting. The next cargo is anticipated to be lifted in late April 2023.

[marmar80] 28/4/2023 08:02

Thank you laser the man

[laserdisc] 28/4/2023 07:49

Offload complete and tanker showing draft of 12.6 good increase from the 8.5 now off to Finland refinary on 2nd May

2023-04-26 19:47 Moored
2023-04-27 17:44 departed

[senseman] 27/4/2023 21:09

courtesy of flyingpie LSE 19.00

Crystal Amber WILL Revert to EGM and Albion Deal If Scheme Fails

I would like to confirm @Johns..'s statement regarding Albion Energy. I also emailed them, and Franco Castelli himself confirmed that Albion are still very much interested in the deal.

[senseman] 27/4/2023 18:26

courtesy of senseman LSE 17.02

RE: Crystal Amber WILL Revert to EGM and Albion Deal If Scheme Fails

At last truth surfaces. And since Johns has no history of falsehood, I do not question his post. I posted 5 weeks ago how I believed things went down:_
"senseman post: Costs 24 Mar 2023 14:39
I have stated before and I restate - if the deal fails, CA will EGM removal of HUR chief execs, and replace with Albion. That is, providing that Albion still want to play ball. I know from a completely reliable independent source that the CA EGM Albion plan was wholly genuine. I told kooba this on ADBFN forum (I am 'filtered' there also now...))). So there are 3 options, rather than just 2. And if Albion do still want to play ball if CA have not peed them off too much, there are likely 2 - accept deal, or refuse deal and have BoD out and Albion in"

[senseman] 27/4/2023 17:39

courtesy of Johns, LSE 17.02
Crystal Amber WILL Revert to EGM and Albion Deal If Scheme Fails

Dflynch's earlier great post energised me to do some digging and phoning. And what surprises a few phone calls can unearth!

An impeccable source has told me that Crystal Amber, pressured by Saba because of the sudden oil price drop and whiff in the USA of impending banking squalls, chose the Prax deal rather than it's preferred option of pursuing the EGM removal motion and installing Albion.

But crucially, Crystal Amber have told Albion that if the Prax Scheme fails, it will revert back to it's original and preferred plan of EGM removal and Albion installation. And Albion have stated they remain willing to run Hurricane.

No wonder this has been kept hidden! If institutions had known about this 3-4 weeks ago, pound to a penny half of them would have, given Tony Buckingham's oil record, voted NO. And the Scheme been immediately dead in the water. I am still recovering from the shock!

[senseman] 27/4/2023 16:47

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!"

[idc48] 27/4/2023 16:31

If the vote is NO, and the Prax deal is therefore off the table, haven't HUR stated that they will embark on the Return of Capital as agreed at the last court case? 3.1 p / share comes to mind.

I voted NO, I will take the RoC and re-invest. I expect the share price to fall by the RoC amount until further news is released and we replace the current BoD with something more pro-active.

Does the previously suggested Albion plan still have merit?

[wbodger] 27/4/2023 12:29

Anyone opposed really must vote. I suspect shares not voted by owner will be voted by nominated holder. (Your broker.) This needs to be better known.

There's a frequent poster on LSE who posted that Ophorst's Yes votes would have to be overcome by three-for-one voting No. Completely the reverse of the truth. Every No requires three Yes to overcome it. Moreover if you are a Nominee client and you want to defeat this Offer read the bit about Abstaining. Your vote will still exist but will be voted by your broker according to his wish, not yours. My broker stated that there is no such thing as Abstaining - that implies he will use my vote if I don't. The only abstentions might be from Certificate Holders who don't register a vote.

Finally, selling your shares is only a good idea if you're afraid the Offer price from your broker will fall after the vote. Otherwise at least keep them long enough to vote your wish.

I'm voting No even though the share price might fall if the Offer is rejected. Good luck everyone.