Member Info for adoubleuk

RosieNas,

"adoubleuk. Agree. Thanks for refining."

Thank you for the compliment. However I an not a lawyer, and have no qualifications as such.

However, I know a bit about 'contract law', and especially its applicaction in in oilfirld situations. And this one is particularly bad for Hurricane. Because the their NO WAY they can currently declare themselves 'insolvent' right now. They have plans (both utterly stupid) for a so-called sidetrack, or a 'water-injector' abought which they have nothing, quoting 'covid'.

Itt's utter nonsense. 2020 'weather window' thrown down the drain. No attempt, even, to do anything, other than draw their salaries.

The entire BoD should hang their heads in shame, resign, and be taken over by people who know what they're doing. And also, half the people in the Aberdeeen office should be given the boot at the same time.

NGR,

" The reservoir play is a dog."

Producing around 10,500 bopd, selling via BP tankerload just abot every month.

Yeah. real dog.

RosieNas,

" The problem they have is that the more the Plan is looked at the more illegal it is revealed to be."

As you'll have seen, I'm on the same side as yourself. But one must be very careful here., tread cautiously, and carefully.

I am very unsure if 'the plan' is 'illegal' as it stands. In fact, I suspect it may not be. On Friday, the judge did not direct a ruling in that respect.

HOWEVER.

If 'the plan' can be proved to have been based on false premises (especially given that bondholders have been paid on time and that the company is not currently insolvent) I believe there is a very strong case to be made for 'the plan' to be rejected in law. And furthermore, should it be discovered by a court of law that 'the plan' was paid for and approved by the BoD without any consultation with shareholders, criminal proceedings would be justifiable, on the basis of lack of duty, and (possibly) outside influence. (Possibly from non-national exterior and 'hostile' nations, though that's speculation of course.)

Either way, the fun ain't over yet.

Rosienas,

Thank you for onpassing that. I don't look at ADFN often, but there are sone savvy posters there.

Either way, it's evident that the judge at Friday's hearing is nobody's fool, and is very aware that some people are trying to squrm away from their responsibilities, to the benefit of others, in whose payroll (yet unproven) they may be, though if it were suspected could lead to criminal actions.

Seaside53,

"Just popped in to see who's still daft enough to get mixed up in this shoite.......Cant believe ADUK has bought back in! Poker players, they're all the same. Crack heads."

1 I am not a 'crack head'.

2 I am now in profit since 'buying back in'.

3 Poker players are not 'all the same'. That's how I usually come out winning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPifKzxhoGI

garyn,

"adoubleuk - wasn't Lincoln put on hold due to the OGA rejecting a tie-back to the EPS? "

Yes. But there has been absolutely no explanation as to why.

Magnum,

"The bondholders are creditors so could apply for a winding up order."

True. But it is far from sure (especially it would require them to 'break cover' and reveal who they are) that such an order would be granted. We are no longer in the 1920's. A company cannot be wound up on the basis of what if's based on forward projections, unless it can prove insolvency. And HUR is not currently insolvent.

Maestros,

"You are pushing your luck here, if the bod don't get their way liguidation is a great possibility."

This is the bit I don't get.

The company is not currently 'illiquid', far from it. Furthermore the management have demonstrably done NOTHING to try to advance the company's earning potential to both the shareholders' advantage, and thus possibly that of the bondholders. Instead they appear (I use that word deliberately) to be intent on winding the company down, to the benefit of anonymous bondholders (who continue to be paid due interest) and their own (drawing salary) and to the detriment of shareholders.

This seems to me to be inherently ethically, morally, and financially wrong, and was something the judge at Friday's hearing appeared to immediately recognise and question.

In further deliberations, I suspect he will demand better answers than the ones made up on the spur of the moment than those so far received.

Of course, in his position as a High Court Judge, specialising in financial and corporate matters, he is an expert in Law, not offshore oilfield engineering. But nevertheless it was patently obvious that he spotted a blatent dichotomy in the arguments presented bu both the company's and bondholders' lawyers. In that the company (via dubious CPR and RNS) have proposed ways of improving field performance and thus revenue, but have done NOTHING to progress such plans. Instead, they have postponed them, with stupid excuses such as WoS 'weather windows' and so on, which is just so much flim-flam.

Furthermore, 'long-lead' infrastructure equipment (worth millions) has already been bought for tie-in of at least one well to the FPSO, to increase revenue. What's happened to that ? It's of no use sitting in a warehouse somewhere.

And why should Lincoln Crestal be abandoned ?

Janiax,

"They have then gone one further with speculation that if the restructuring does not go ahead the company will be wound down into liquidation. This is not guaranteed, and it is not what us shareholders would vote for (yes shareholders have to vote to go into liquidation)"

VERY good point. And also (someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this), bodholders do not have a right to vote on such a potential proposed move, unless they have decided to convert their bondholding (or part of it) into shares, prematurely, and at current ongoing prices.

wellsite,

"sorry to correct you, a sidetrack of P7Z would be given a new name by the OGA. Hurricane can call it whatever they want to."

No. This is incorrect. And if so, OGA would be breaching recognised standards, likewise Hurricane. Call it 7z/2 or whatever, it doesn't matter. But not 'P8'. I don't really believe any forward well-planning has been done, anyway.

Maestros,

"The BOD kept us thinking that with water injection and sidetrack prospects would shut us up into future possibilities of a return but they were conning us "

Absolutely. Obviously, for those without technical experience, both scenarios might sound very 'nice' and possible improvements. But they are not. They are con-job ideas, without foundation.

And as I keep repeating here (though maybe crying in the wilderness) a supposed sidetrack of well 7z CANNOT be called 'well P8' by any internationally-recognised well nomenclature standards. In proposing this, the BoD have shot themselves in the foot. Not to mention the fact that a sidetrack of 7z would be a very costly and risky enterprise, with a doubtful outcome, and would incur shutdown of the currently-producing well 6 for some period of time, thus robbing the field of incoming production and thus revenue.

Obviously, and quite understandably, not all shareholders are aware of such technicalities. It should be considered in my opinion as any sort of weakness on their part. But they should be made aware of them, so that when questions are asked, answers should be given.

Right now I feel that an incompetent BoD is trying to simply pull the wool over 'non-tech' shareholders' eyes, and that seems very wrong to me.

Heid,

"I’m sure that may merely have been a coincidence, but I’m sure that some may perceive that may have happened to reduce the belief that there may be a conflict of interest, if indeed it is proven that Kerogen are a significant bond holder."

Nothing coincides like coincidence.

The difficulty will be proving the link.

If it can be proved, then a case of financially criminal behaviour can , I think, be lodged.

CaptSwag,

"if that is the case and the bod were wrong in stating a weather window it might be a good idea to have examples of similar drills in the area during those times eg the 2016 dates and description. it would certainly question their ability"

The first place to look would be the history of BP's Schehallion field. Year-round, and also 'deepwater', which Lancaster isn't.

CaptSwag,

"awk - the thing is that if you are going to argue in a court i think there is more to be gained by using the specific info that hur come up with and use it against them."

I have to reply to this.

The other day I had the priviledge to 'attend' the court hearing in an observational way. I wished to add a few points, and was invited to do so, but unfortunately (maybe due to my unfamiliarity with the software) was unable to do so. But the three things I wanted to briefly say, jotted down on paper, were purely informational for the judge's attention, not 'argumentative'.

Might try again at the next hearing.

Heid,

No need to check your records. You and I are going by memory, and yours seems to be as good as mine ! :-))

CaptSwag,

"awk - the thing is that if you are going to argue in a court i think there is more to be gained by using the specific info that hur come up with and use it against them. i have no idea if the drilling plans that they were considering require a weather window or not. if you then bring this up as a counter argument you then need to be able to prove it. if they argue that the increased risk and cost were not worth it on assessment - do we have a strong enough counter argument?"

Well put. And I'm not sure if I have a proper answer. Because judges and lawyers in general are not experts in offshore oilfield technicalities !

"they have repeatedly mentioned the weather window - and so i think we should use it to our advantage. they had a deadline - they knew it and said plans would be formalised by xmas - and they weren't. why not? "

That, however, is a very good question. Because there is a matter of 'doubt' here. Rather than advancing plans to the company's benefit. the BoD backpedalled and did nothing other than issue hand-wringing negative news.

"without formal plans how could they hope to get finance?"

The necessary cash was in place. But instead of using it to progress operations, nothing was done. Other than to (under cover, and without any RNS issued) P&A Whirlwind, and I suspect Halifax, using an unmoored floating vessel. We only discovered this later through 'shipwatching'. The lack of RNS on these operations is not just 'suspect', but I believe dereliction of duty by the company towards shareholders in regard to operations requiring capital expenditure, though I'm not a lawyer, so would leave it to lawyers to argue that out.

" their missing the window put us in this position. was it negligence?"

Again, I would say that that is utter flim-flam. Smoke and mirrors. There is no 'weather window'. Sure, there are 'optimum times' rather than 'rougher times' where the possibility of delays (meaning extra cost) might be anticipated. But these are just risks. The BoD has chosen a 'zero-risk' path, in other words to do sweet FA, other than draw their salaries and procrastinate. Which is not the behaviour of proper oil-people.

"the lincoln drilling in 2019 was finished at the end of november - so before the start of the winter season. therefore this is not evidence."

Yes.

" I do not remember which months the 2016/17 campaign was undertaken . if it were similar type of work then maybe it could be used as evidence to dispel the weather window argument ."

The 'original' Lincoln was drilled in late November, early December, then P&A 'd which was the plan. The well was very cleverly designed, but never suitable for flow-testing. Then there was a period 'waiting on weather' (a couple of weeks) before the rig moving to Halifax. And yes, in respect to 'rigmove', there are distinct 'windows'. Then Halifax was spudded. All in the dead of winter, in terrible weather.

CaptSwag,

"i feel their lack of action led to missing the weather window "

Don't follow that line, please. It's hogwash and bluster put forward by the BoD. It's true that there are 'optimum periods' for offshore operations WoS. 'Out of season' makes things more difficult, can lead to delays, and thus increased cost. But that's the name of the game. Remember 2016 - 17 ? That's when the 'quick and dirty' Lincoln well was drilled, and also Halifax.

'Weather window' my ar*e. It's been used as an excuse for doing nothing.

British,

"I feel after Trice left, the board decided it is too much pain drilling and not finding anything. The oil price demotivated them. By the time they could plan anything, the bondholders were breathing down their back for their money. "

I admire your posts and motivation, and wholeheartedly support your efforts. However, with all respect, the above makes no sense.

The bondholders have so far (according to information received) obtained their 'interest payments' as per contract. So essentially, what is happening now is that they want to be repaid NOW, rather than when the contract comes to term in a year's time. Or rather, a bit of it, even if it results in the company going bust and unable to progress its own future.

And the (currently hopeless) BoD seems to be taking this lying down, and to the huge financial detriment of shareholders who have supported the company's efforts for years.

This is wrong.

CaptSwag,

"if CA do get the bod replaced and come up with a fwp they still might struggle with funding - and dilution could/would still be on the cards. however it will be a lot less than the current plan/giveaway and preferably held by shareholders so that they still have a voice rather than the private feel of a bondholder takeover. they will also presumably look to hur having a future rather than a quick or slow wind down."

Well said. Also, although everyone seems to see CA as the 'motor' in all this (though yes, they will probably have a well-versed legal representative stating their case), private shareholders shouldn't sit back, either. Plus we have yet to learn Kerogen's position. If it should be revealed that not only being a major shareholder they did a 'swap' to bondholding, I feel that there might be a good case to be made regarding conflict of interest.

Either way, a 'wind down' of a company currently making money makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Maybe further debt will have to be incurred, through whatever form. But debt can be restructured, via negotiation. Sticking a gun at shareholders' heads is not negotiation, it's terrorism.