We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Tools
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 | 0.0% | 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 |
| Date | Time | Source | Headline |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/6/2023 | 06:00 | UKREG | AIM Cancellation - Hurricane Energy plc |
| 08/6/2023 | 16:28 | UKREG | Hurricane Energy PLC Update on Matched Bargain Facility and DCUs |
| 08/6/2023 | 07:52 | UKREG | Cigogne Management Form 8.3 - HURRICANE ENERGY PLC |
| 08/6/2023 | 07:11 | UKREG | Investec Bank plc Form 8.5 (EPT/RI) - Hurricane Energy Plc |
| 08/6/2023 | 06:30 | UKREG | AIM Suspension - Hurricane Energy plc |
| 08/6/2023 | 06:00 | UKREG | Hurricane Energy PLC Scheme of Arrangement becomes Effective |
| 07/6/2023 | 18:55 | ALNC |  UK Court approves Hurricane Energy takeover by Prax |
| 07/6/2023 | 16:34 | UKREG | Hurricane Energy PLC Court Sanction of Scheme of Arrangement |
| 07/6/2023 | 11:00 | UKREG | Stifel Nicolaus Europe Limited Form 8.5 (EPT/RI) - Hurricane Energy plc |
| 07/6/2023 | 06:29 | UKREG | Investec Bank plc Form 8.5 (EPT/RI) - Hurricane Energy Plc |
Hurricane Energy (HUR) Share Charts1 Year Hurricane Energy Chart |
|
1 Month Hurricane Energy Chart |
Intraday Hurricane Energy Chart |
| Date | Time | Title | Posts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/11/2023 | 03:36 | HURRICANE ENERGY - Fractured Basement WOS | 37,834 |
| 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 25/10/2023 07:08 by laserdisc extract from Crystal amber accounts rns todayAt the start of 2022, the Fund's holding of just over 575 million shares, representing 28.9 per cent of Hurricane Energy's issued share capital, had a carrying value of £23 million. In June 2023, following the acquisition of the entire issued share capital by Prax Exploration, the Fund received cash proceeds of £34.7 million. However, those proceeds are not the end of the Hurricane Energy journey. The offer included a deferred consideration element based on revenues from April 2023 until January 2026. Earlier this month, the Fund received additional proceeds of £1.8 million from these deferred consideration units. This equates to 2.1p a share to the Fund's shareholders. Should the deferred consideration units achieve their maximum payout of £37.3 million, equivalent to 41.6p per Crystal Amber share, the total potential consideration due relating to the sale of the Fund's shareholding in Hurricane Energy would be £72 million. This compares very favourably with, the January 2022 stock market valuation of £23 million. Hurricane Energy is an example of the Investment Manager's determination to fight for Shareholders when necessary and the financial reward in doing so. Shareholders will recall the 2021 judgement from the High Court which prevented a 95% dilution for ordinary shareholders which the Hurricane Energy management had sought to push through. Whilst market participants had written off Hurricane Energy as little more than an embarrassment, the Investment Manager, with its long standing and deep technical knowledge, fought and succeeded in blocking the restructuring. Without the Company's intervention, Shareholders would have been deprived of any meaningful exposure to this improvement in the Company's fortunes. |
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 26/4/2023 22:57 by senseman Courtesy of LSE's DF (dflynch) original postCRUCIAL - Vote your HUR shares today It is now getting critical that Investors, if they have not already done so, cast their votes for the Court Meeting and the Extraordinary General Meeting taking place on Thursday 4th May. At the Court meeting individual Investors on the HURR company register at 6pm on Monday 1st of May can cast their one vote. Beneficial owners of HURR shares, that is Investors holding HURR shares in a Broker’s “Nominee” However, and of particular importance to these disenfranchised Investors is the vote at the Extraordinary General Meeting, which follows the Court meeting. At this meeting PRAX and the HURR Board of Directors require 75% of the votes cast at that meeting to be in favour of the Scheme. That is not 75% of HURR shares on the company register; it is 75% of the shares voted at the meeting. This is where the disenfranchised beneficial owners of HURR shares can influence events, as they can vote all their HURR shares held in Brokers “nominee accounts. Your vote will count and influence the result. Each individual Broker will have a different method of recording votes cast by the beneficial owners of HURR shares. These usually are by either “secure” message, a telephone call, or a corporate actions “voting” function on the Broker’s website. For example, Interactive’s clients use a corporate action’s voting function – very easy and efficient. It would be helpful if posters could post the method used by their brokers so that others may benefit and vote. In order to process these votes Brokers usually close the voting days before the meeting so it is critically essential to CAST VOTES TODAY! |
Posted at 23/4/2023 17:33 by senseman senseman LSE 18.08DANGER OF USING FORWARD PRIVE CURVE AS OIL PRICE FORECAST Today 18:08 In arguing on 18 April that HUR's P6 standalone figures were valid, CFO stated a Brent forward curve figure of $76 was used. See below a link (& quote therefrom) explaining the limitation of such approach and how it historically has been useless as a forecast. This approach was used disastrously by HUR in 2021 in attempting to restructure via 95% dilution. The approach takes no account of political events and what forecasters at the sharp end eg oil fund managers and those investing, actually think and back with their money. In light of most predictors forecasting 2023 highest ever oil demand fuelled by China reopening and a supply squeeze, basing P6 standalone cashflow on $76 Brent partly explains HUR's fantasy figures, and is wholly wrong. hxxps://timera-energ "Chart 1: Evolution of Brent crude spot and forward prices Source: Timera Energy (based on ICE Brent Futures settlement prices) These phenomena clearly undermine the logic that ‘the forward curve is a forecast of spot prices’. Why would a three-year forecast change every day, and by the same amount across the whole forward period, and by the same amount as today’s spot price change? Who changes their long-term forecasts every day? Who thinks that an increase in today’s spot price, perhaps caused by the weather or a well-understood physical event in the supply chain, has any bearing whatsoever on prices three years from now? What kind of implicit fundamental modelling would give rise to such a result? The Brent price animation illustrates a very simple test: has the FC been a good predictor of Brent spot prices? The answer is that it has clearly been a very poor predictor indeed. In the articles to follow in this series we will consider a number of econometric theories as to how the FC relates to physical markets. We will see that they often bear very little relationship to reality: and that the dynamics of FCs is a subject best studied empirically." Another concerning aspect of HUR's figures is the projected 2023 OPEX average $45.5-$54.7 (mid range $50.1 - what CFO said HUR's figures were based on). End June 2022 OPEX was $33.7 (CFO at 2022 AGM). April 18 2023 OPEX $38.6 (RNS 18.04.23). That is $4.9 (say $5) increase in 9.5 months. Since the cost variable is decreasing production, which to date has been linear - it is hard to see how $38.6 OPEX will, by end Dec 2023 (18 April + 8.5 months), increase to average $50 for all 2023. That is, it would need to increase by $11.4 pb by end Dec 2023 just to REACH $50. And increase significantly above $50 by end Dec 2023 to average $50 for 2023. HUR's figures are undercooked by at LEAST $5 re Brent, and overcooked by at least $5 on OPEX forecast. That is, by at least $10 a barrel. Over 4 remaining offloads this year, +4 more next year - and +1.5p.p.sh magically appears. This CFO failed to buy bonds at 30/40c in $. And whose July 21-June 22 forecast was +$150mill wrong. |
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 |
Posted at 22/4/2023 23:03 by senseman senseman LSE Sat 23.51PRESENTATION - MEETING REPORT(S) - FURTHER INFO Sat 23:51 PART 1 NB: Read in conjunction with senseman post Wed 08.08am ‘PRESENTATION - MEETING REPORTS’. Further info below, for simplicity as per 19 questions emailed to HUR format. NB: P = HUR Presentation 18.04.23. M = following Q&As 18.04.23 1. Will DCUs remain under ISA umbrella? Explain the difference between Class 1 & Class 2. A. HUR do not know. Scheme announced prior to ascertaining. Because of PI concern it recently wrote to HMRC for decision. HMRC cited a 30 working day response time – between mid-end May, ie: after 4 May vote. Only difference between Class 1 & Class 2 DCU (SHs can opt which one) is one allows payment 6 months later than the other, if such preferable for tac purposes. NB. HUR advised PI’s the Scheme should be supported despite not knowing (or caring) if DCUs remain under ISA umbrella. PIs hold circa 39% of shares not owned by CA or Kerogen. 2. Why were not a RANGE of Brent sensitivity figures included in the cash production P6 standalone figures estimates? A: Ignored in P. Asked in M but unanswered – waffle. 3. Why have the CEO & CFO's 2022 AGM comments that P6 catastrophic failure risk was minimal now been consigned to history, and the risk now mutated into major? A: Ignored in P. Unasked in M. 4. On 27 March, Hurricane communicated to a SH that up to another $60m would be needed in wind down costs on top of $60m already escrowed, leading to only 0.83p expected dividends per share in 2024. Explain the reasoning/cost breakdown for the new $120m wind down figure. A: Ignored in P. Asked in M but unanswered – waffle, ‘trust our figures’. 5. What is current OPEX April 2023. And projected 2023 OPEX average? A: Ignored in P. Asked in M. OPEX April 2023 $38.6. 2023 likely average $45.5-$54.7. NB: OPEX stated in 18 April RNS 7.00am day of M. NB: OPEX June 30 2022 AGM $33.7. 9/10 months later April 2023 $38.6, ie only $5pb rise in 9/10 months. Since production declining linear slowly, difficult to see how 2023 average will exceed range low of $45.5. CFO - HUR figures based on mid range $50. NB: HUR 2023 average OPEX cost figures thus likely overstated by $5pb 6. Is there opportunity to develop the Lancaster sandstone reserves of 20m barrels of oil? If not, why? A: Ignored in P. Unasked in M. 7. Which party was the principal instigator of the Irrevocable Undertakings? Prax, HUR or CA? A: Ignored in P. Asked in M. Answer - Prax. Refusal to answer if offer conditional upon Irrevocables. Or if HUR, CA or Kerogen fought against. 8. Having restated in a recent RNS it has no confidence in the BoD, have CA made clear what action it will take if 25% vote NO? If so, what action? A: Ignored in P. Unasked in M 9. Will the CEO, CFO & Chair resign if 75% YES is not achieved? A: Ignored in P. Unasked in M. 10. What are FSP expected total costs? A: $3.5mill. Ignored in P. Asked in M. (to cont) |
Posted at 13/4/2023 12:28 by senseman sensemanLIST OF SHAREHOLDER QUESTIONS - HUR GENERAL MEETING PRESENTATION 18.04.23 To: comms@hurricaneenerg philip.wolfe@hurrica rb@crystalamber.com investor.relations@p "Dear Mr Chairman See questions resulting from PI discussion. Please ensure that as many as possible are PROPERLY addressed within the 18 April GM presentation. Thank you. 1. Will DCUs remain under ISA umbrella, if shares currently held there? Such is an issue of fact under UK tax law & should be clarified for PIs. Also, please explain the difference between Class 1 & Class 2 DCUs. 2. Why were not a RANGE of Brent sensitivity figures included in the cash production P6 standalone figures estimates? NB. Brent is today $87 3. Why have the CEO & CFO's 2022 AGM comments that P6 catastrophic failure risk was minimal now been consigned to history, and the risk now been mutated into being major? 4. On 27 March, Hurricane communicated to a SH that up to another $60m would be needed in wind down costs on top of $60m already escrowed, leading to only 0.83p expected dividends per share in 2024. Please explain the reasoning/cost breakdown for the new $120m wind down figure. 5. What is current OPEX April 2023. Also projected 2023 OPEX average? 6. Is there opportunity to develop the Lancaster sandstone reserves of 20m barrels of oil? If not, why? 7. Which party was the principal instigator of the Irrevocable Undertakings? Prax, HUR or CA? 8. Having restated in a recent RNS it has no confidence in the BoD, have CA made clear what action it will take if 25% vote NO? If so, what action? 9. Will the CEO, CFO & Chair resign if 75% YES is not achieved? 10. What are FSP expected total costs? 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? 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? 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. 14. Prax - (i) why cannot HUR remain AIM listed until 2026? (ii) how soon will the first added production be brought into HUR? 15. Why is Court vote being held 15 mins before Scheme of Arrangement vote? 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? 17. If YES vote is 75%, is the deal binding on ALL SHs? 18. Why is HUR confident the NSTA will agree the Scheme? 19. PIs (a 21% block) consider the Scheme horrifically unfair. Why does not Prax immediately improve it's offer to gain greater PI support? Yours sincerely etc Shareholder" |
Posted at 31/3/2023 13:02 by senseman RE: Cont'd Today 13:08 - Senseman LSEMy subconscious whilst aslumber tried to fit the jigsaw pieces and gauge if my 01.11am post was too unnuanced. It was. With caveat I may be wholly wrong this is my best quesstimate of how things evolved, and current status:- 1. CA's EGM request & Albion plan genuine. RB bats straight. And Albion wouldn't be party to tactical misuse. It evidenced time & effort input by RB. In short, RB worked his side of the fence whilst HUR & Stifel worked theirs. CA was not prepared to rely on HUR finding a suitable deal. CA will have communicated to HUR that any deal, if not whole cash, must be part-cash returnable to SHs + beneficial interest in future. As well as Albion deal, RB will have worked phones with other companies to see if any would provide the ideal - a 'farm-in'. Always biggest deterrent - HUR chief execs - mistrust of which by now industry-wide. 2. HUR execs & Stifel, facing EGM removal, actually work to deadline to achieve deal meeting CA basic requirements in some albeit convoluted form, & achieve such (amazing what can be achieved when needed, eh?). I remain sceptical of HUR & Stifel inputting same effort into other party deals which did not ensure senior execs & Stifel remaining in-situ. 3. CA board meet to consider. A decision must be made. Brent -$80, share price 6.8p?, banking squall imminent. Such magnitude decision is not RB's to make - it's board time. CA Chair & board fear Brent crash to -$70, share price to -6p, lengthy bank unrest, CA share price dip. Irrespective of RB view, Chair & board view is CA risk/reward dictates deal acceptance. RB may or may not hold similar view. But even if RB holds different view, will be outvoted. CA board votes yes to deal. I have avoided criticizing RB personally always believing was CA board decision, not RB personal decision. Hence my always writing CA this, CA that, rather than RB this or that. 4. I would be surprised if RB was not still working phones to find a 'farmee' or 'better deal' which, though CA & Ker have signed Irrevocables, HUR BoD would be obliged to consider. HUR itself can walk away from Prax deal. Which leads nicely to 2 further clarification points:- 5. I rarely consider things over till the fat lady sings, and don't now. With 1 month till AGM, 2 things have happened:- (i) HUR is now in 'auction territory'. I've read enough since 2021 re oil deals to know a month is a long time. Other companies now know the deal they need beat. Clarity focuses others' minds. It would not surprise me to see another bidder surface. NB. this is not saying I EXPECT such. (ii) PIs' outcry will have provided CA (& thus HUR) honest ammunition to put before Prax & say deal needs be improved otherwise AGM 75% may be at risk; alternatively 90% wont be achieved thus Prax may have a rump of PIs electing to remain noisy disgruntled SHs in new private HUR. 6. I would be astonished if RB had ceased working to achieve farm-in or better deal. Will post final thought when time allows. ReplyRecommend (3) |
Posted at 29/3/2023 21:24 by marmar80 I have sent the below email/Option B/ to Hur BoD, RB of CA and Kerogen. Tried to ask for any opinion today as no reply has been received however my new email has been classified as a spam, unfortunately, what a surprise. Dear Sirs,I have an idea which I would like to share with you all.The idea is to proceed with the "Prax deal" and to keep the Hurricane Energy listed. There are benefits for both sides in this outcome. Let me explain this please.I believe that Prax is interested in the Hurricane's producing P6 well, license and in access to the tax losses. You can correct me if this is incorrect or something is missing here.Large shareholders such as like Crystal Amber or Kerogen are happy to proceed with the "Prax deal".Many of the Hurricane private small shareholders are rather interested in receiving more funds upfront or keeping the company listed and operational.What if you could split Hurricane Energy into two companies, say Hur A and Hur B and this way satisfy both sides?Hur A - retaining all the unrestricted cash as they are on the sale day, keeping the stock listed on the exchange and retaining entitlement to 17.50% of all future net revenues earned by the Hur B (part of DCU).Hur B - receiving P6 well, licenses, restricted funds and tax losses in 100% (if not possible to keep a small 10% in Hur A for their future use).Prax buys Hur B for cash, but not for 0.83p per share as currently, but for 4pps (approx £80m). Same time Prax will keep ALL the cash stream from the operational P6 (no bi-annual dividends), license, £300m of tax losses and £45m of restricted funds. Hur A to pay dividend of 4pps to own shareholders from the sale proceeds.Hur A to return part of unrestricted funds of 3pps to own shareholders on the sale day.Hur A to pay special dividend to own shareholders from 17.50% of all the future Net Revenues earned by Hur B (capped at 6.48pps).Hur B (Prax) to proceed with the acquisitions as they wish.Hur A remains listed - to represent existing shareholders in future dealings with Prax up to end of year 2026. No shareholder is concerned about understanding of tax implications related to DCU proceeds or ISA, no shareholder needs to cash any cheques, trade DCUs on the matched bargain portal or talk to own financial advisor about understanding of DCUs (this part is is impacting many small shareholders).Hur A retains 10% of tax losses (if possible) and with own cash is able to proceed with a takeover of a low cap producer with debt to clear. Hur A to clear that debt immediately. This deal is allowing Hur A to pay annual dividend of 0.50-1.0pps as the taken over company is a producer and has no debts.This deal is allowing Hur A to spend £1 and receive £91p back while investing in a new project.Advantages to Hur A shareholders:A) 7p per share paid in 2023 (capital return + sale proceeds)B) right to a special dividend from 17.50% capped at 6.48ppsC) no need to deal with tax matters related to DCU proceeds received off the exchange and no need to deal with ISA holdings before and after the saleD) keeping the company listed will allow shareholders to sell their shares at any timeE) any share price higher than 0 (zero) is creating additional value to shareholders immediately after the splitF) possibility of receiving 0.50-1.0p per share from 2024 (from taken over company)Shareholders to deliver a list of companies meeting the criteria. Dividend of 0.50p per share should be available if the taken over company delivers 10m return a yearG) return from investment can be higher than 12.50per share by end of year 2026.Disadvantages to Hur A shareholders:A) no bi-annual dividend from Prax (Hur B)B) possibility of receiving 0.50-1.0p divi per share from 2024 (from taken over company) depends from a success of finding a suitable company to buyC) selling shares too early will disqualify from access to 6.48pps special divi (17.50% of all Net Revenue).Advantages to Prax:A) Prax to receive a producing P6 well and licencesB) Prax to retain all £300m or 90% of tax lossesC) Prax is able to proceed with any acquisitions immediately after the dealD) Prax to keep access to the restricted cash of £45m.E) no need to distribute DCU dividends bi-annually to thousands of ex-Hurricane shareholdersF) no need to distribute 17.50% of all Net Revenues to thousands of ex-Hurricane shareholdersDisadvan |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
|
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com |
| ADVFN UK Investors Hub ADVFN Italy ADVFN Australia ADVFN Brazil |
| ADVFN Canada ADVFN Germany ADVFN Japan ADVFN Mexico |
| ADVFN France ADVFN US ADVFN Korea |
