Member Info for adoubleuk

senseman,

"BW were seriously peed off - also scared as BW need HUR as much as vice versa"

Don't know where your information comes from, but it makes total sense. Extension (even in short-term increments) is win-win for both parties. 'The scam' was 'lose' for everyone other than some still anonymous so-called 'ad-hoc committee' of bondholders (maybe just one bondholder) wanting to grab the whole thing on the cheap.

I still reckon the SFO should look into it.

In fact (just thinking and writing aloud and on the fly), maybe this is why Maris and Chaffe have been retained. It means that they can't hide. Because the SFO doesn't necessarily investigate individuals, but instead their stewardship of a company, or lack of it.

Bidds,

"Didn’t you mother tell you, don’t say ‘what’ say ‘pardon’"

I was taught to say "I beg your pardon, but could you repeat that, please?".

Unfortunately some of my manners escaped me during my years in the oilpatch. So such phrases sometimes devolved into "run that past me again, this time slowly, so I might understand if it makes sense".

DC,

"What is now quite apparent is that when the new BoD downgraded reserves the bondholders sniffed the opportunity to bag the company for themselves and put pressure on a weak and inept BoD who fell for it. "

I respect your posts (and opinions), but simply can't accept such an interpretation as being 'factual', nor the way things have panned-out, especially seeing so many of the ex-BoD running for the hills. Because (just a hypothesis), there remains the possibility that the 'inept and weak BoD' were not inept and weak at all, but very apt at running the company down via negative news, possibly getting backhanders, on behalf of an anonymous 'ad-hoc group' which may not have been a 'group' at all, but simply one major bondholder who wanted to take over the company and its assets for peanuts, at the expense of the shareholders, and then exploit those assets for their own profit in the future.

That (and it's only an hypothesis) is where it becomes interesting, and worth further investigation to see if there may not be some truth in it.

In the past, some months ago, on this BB, various posters asked why the 'new BoD' weren't actually buying shares in their own company. Is it imposible to posit that they were already part of a 'plot' which might make those shares essentially worthless?

I think not.

The FCA might not help, but continue writing to the SFO, folks.

schlemiel,

I hate to appear nit-picky, but have to correct you.

"This is an interesting quote by the CEO of Bluewater and reveals Bluewater's current thinking which bodes well for Bernstein's negotiations with Bluewater to secure an extension to the AM FPSO contract"

Although we know that Bluewater have been in contact with Mr Bernstein, he is the CEO of Crystal Amber, not a member of the BoD of Hurricane. Any potential contract extension between BW and HUR will be between those two parties, not with CA.

Yes

HeidHoncho,

Those are good questions, which I have posed also myself (or to myself), and not received any answers.

Especially the bit where you say

"Interestingly, I cannot identify anywhere where it states the simplistic manner to redeem the $230 million principle amount merely by giving the bond holders $230 million cash, as when it comes to the mention of a "cash alternative" it does not appear to be as simplistic as merely giving them 230 million greenbacks."

I too do not understand why this is not the 'simplistic' alternative, but which seems the quite logical one. Someone loans you money, you pay some interest on the loan, you give back the initial capital at the specified time. Or if unable to, and if the creditor is agreeable to it, you negotiate an extension based on actual incomings, while still paying interest to the creditor.

This, to my mind, is simple straightforward honest business practice.

You do not 'dig into the kitty' to finance a plan which repays such creditors a certain amount prematurely, and takes all other possible potential profits away from speculative shareholders to the extent of 95%.

This is why the judgement in this case was correct, and to be applauded, as it will cause anyone else trying to pull such a possibly fraudulent and criminal scam to have second thoughts.

I know it's a total pipe-dream, but I think it might be just vaguely (very very vaguely) possible, should enough shareholders get together to try it, to launch a civil case against 'Hurricane 2's' lawyers to have them return the 17 million spent back into the company's cash-balance sheets.

y11-shx,

"I agree a massive example should be set. Hopefully prison time so for anyone else in a position of power to abuse it in this way will think twice."

I too agree. But one must be careful. I did not, do not, and still do not believe that 'Hurricane 1' was some put-up-job under Dr Trice, and under false premises. But he was ousted by 'Hurricane 2' who were (I believe, though that's my own simple opinion) acting in their own interests and possibly getting backhanders from some third party, but until their tax records are examined will probably be hard to prove.

So now we have ''Hurricane 3', and with now Crystal Amber as major shareholder. Determined to go ahead with things.

But Crystal Amber are themselves rather 'under threat' by their own major shareholder, Saba Capital, subject to a vote to be made at their AGM in November.

Saba Capital, although having their 'headquarters ' in the USA, are 'licenced' in that notorious channel-island tax-haven, Guernsey. Just (literally a few hundred yards) from where Crystal Amber hangs their hat and holds their AGM. I bet those people know each other.

OK, coincidences, coincidences. Not enough to pin any sort of conspiracy-theory onto. Not that I'd wish to. But there are still inconsistencies, and questions to be asked.

DiveCentre,

"adoubleuk. There is nothing surprising about the fall in the bond price. It is a refection of the fall in the SP over the same period arising from an increasing loss of confidence. "

Thank you for your detailed reply to my comments.

As you well know, I'm an 'oilfield techie', not a financial whiz-kid. Even though (on a day-to-day basis) had to figure out and report on things like drilling costs, which can occasionally run into more than a million dollars over a 48-hour period. I'm no slouch with numbers, and seven-figure sums like that don't frighten me. Just wish they were mine ! But when it comes to 'corporate finance', stuff like bonds and so on, I'm a bit of a numbskull, which is why I may have overlooked the earlier link. Because I'm just a poor ignorant PI shareholder.

The thing is, though, now that the (imho completely correct) judgement has been made regarding this sorry affair, I've become interested in trying to find 'connections' and 'coincidental events', especially via RNS's from the past, attempting to 'link' technical news (or indeed lack of it) with the financial / legal / scam stuff. Just (for now) out of personal curiosity. Trying to find out what was actually happening.

This of course has led me to looking at the bonds, and their own 'financial curves'.

Now you say that the shareprice and bond value are interconnected. This I don't doubt. However, a thought came instantly to mind. Does SP drive bond value, or is it the other way round? Or do they act similarly?

Looking at the 'bond curve' link on the Frankfurt exchange, kindly posted by Rosienas earlier, there is an obvious disparity. A 'disconnect'. Something doesn't 'click'. It doesn't 'compute'. If SP followed bonds, it would be back up in double figures now. If bonds followed SP, they'd still be at rock-bottom.

So back to not quite square one, but trying to correllate the financial side with the technical one, timings thereof, operations untertaken and large amounts of money being spent without shareholder knowledge, and some very negative RNS announcements made without proper explanations.

Yeah, there's a good story here. Not surprised most of the BoD ran for the hills. Exposure of the scam could possibly put them in jail. And unlike in the USA, there's no ability in the UK to 'Claim the Fifth', which is what got many people off the hook during the hearings regarding the Macondo disaster of 2010.

RosieNas,

Many thanks for the link. The chart is startling, and very informative. Essentially, at the same time as the SP was being trashed, so were the bonds. OK, later, the curves SP / bonds don't match, with SP trailing behind quite a lot, but with a staggering vertical rise in bond value in late March. What the heck has been going on here, and who's behind it ? OK, the court case is over and (good) judgement obtained. But looking at that chart, something reeks of conspiracy and shady dealings. Maybe a planned (but failed) cheap takeover attempt ? About which shareholders were kept in the dark. Maybe the financial backers of such a hypothetical takeover suddenly getting cold feet and pulling out, having realised how much trouble it could get them into ?

Curiouser and curiouser...

Fevertreeman,

" the tune of the 'ad hoc' (i.e not formal) group of bondholders"

You raise an important point there. Something which started waving red flags everywhere, and which the judge suely won't have missed. The 'ad-hoc' nature of the anonymous group of bondholders, their remaining anonymous, and the lack of any formal nature or representation. Except one person claiming to represent them at the hearings. So far as anyone knows, at least in the public domain, such an 'ad-hoc group' might not even have existed, and could just have easily been one single third party acting in their own interests. This is one of the 'fishier' parts of the story. I'm not sure (lacking some serious detective work) we'll ever find out who this so-called 'group' were.

Personally, were I a bondholder, or to that extent had lent money to someone on a specified timescale, and was being paid interest, I wouldn't have the outright gall to try to get my money back early, while depriving others (the shareholders) of their own individual potential profits. This was a pivotal part of the case, and why the judgement was the correct one. Plus naturally, now that the conspirators have (in the main) resigned, there will be no appeal lodged.

Does anyone know what the bonds are trading for now ?

Rodgetrades,

"I reckon we can expect news on BW imminently "

Why ? The contract doesn't expire for ages. Although the (ex) BoD did not extend the original FPSO contract for a further three year term, we have already learned that Bluewater and the (new) BoD are in negotiations for an extension under possible different terms. Such negotiations may take weeks or more to settle, principally because there is no terrible rush to do so.

The only news I'd expect is about the result of such negotiations, and don't expect it soon. The principles have already been made clear. BW wants to extend, and so does the (new) BoD, and so do the shareholders. So what's new to learn right now ?

schlemiel / Dire Emblem,

"Is ERCE saying RPS's figures are bogus? Such a downgrade of that magnitude is simply not believable"

Personally, no, I wouldn't think of it like that. But at the same time, I feel that the 'downgrade' is wildly over-estimated, and is just in accordance with past BoD outlook and strategy (for whatever reasons) rather than based on empirical technical facts, especially when regarding the facts already gleaned regarding the Lancaster field alone.

And as for running that over to Lincoln, and conclusions drawn as to that field (recently seemingly P&A'd) I simply do not believe them.

As mentioned in posts long passim, I was very shocked to read some data towards the end of last year, published for the first time in public, specifically in regard to some 'wireline MDT logs' performed on well 7, (expensive and took too long), and the interpretations made. This I lay entirely on Schlumberger's doorstep, because I believe it led to Dr Trice becoming instilled with over-optimism and 'confidence-bias'. And not that he was deliberately trying to mislead shareholders.

And then, following that well 7, 7z was drilled, in a truly sloppy manner which I again lay firmly on the doorstep of Petrofac and Schlumberger, and has caused some problems. Here, Dr Trice is not entirely without some 'blame'. Because he's a geologist, not a drilling-person. The lack of his presence at the 2017 (?) AGM as CEO because he was 'out on the rig' was inexcusable to my mind. The people on the rig could have done without him for a couple of days, allowing him to be back in London.

So yes, a few mistakes have been made here and there.

But 'wiping out' Lancaster and the commercial future of WoS Fractured Basement oil reservoirs is a totally false notion. Plus fields such as Lancaster and Lincoln produce 'Rolls Royce' light oil, not 'heavy oil' such as Siccar Point are going ahead with, which is of far less commercial and practical value.

schlemiel,

"What about the possibility that a new and revised CPR may be produced UPGRADING and reversing the findings of the downgrade ECR CPR report? If they can downgrade by a huge margnin then there's surely room for an upgrade if it can be proven that the ECR CPR downgrade was based on myopic data"

That, of course, now becomes a huge, pivotal sort of question. One which is extremely difficult to answer.

Firstly, a CPR takes a while to build up and compile, and also doesn't come cheap. Plus one must immediately question the competency of the 'competent person'. In the case of WoS Fractured Basement reservoirs, I still believe Dr Trice knows more about them than anyone, and probably would be willing to admit to some previous 'interpretations', but of course that might be seen as a conflict of interest.

Also there's a secondary problem. A new CPR, if it contradicts the most recent one, reverting to a more 'optimistic' viewpoint is going to confuse people a lot. Because naturally they'll ask themselves which is correct and which is not. Partly because many people don't really understand what a CPR really is. They're crammed full of technical data, which goes waaaay over the heads of most people, so they think of it as a 'technical document' which they don't understand. So then they might have 'switched off' before reading the financial bits, which are more or less at the whim of the company who has asked for the CPR.

All a CPR is for is as a marketing-tool.

I, personally (though I could be wrong) see huge 'holes' in the most recent ERCE 'competent person's report', and not just that it was compiled by them rather than RPS. The bigges hole being that it is mainly based on production (EPS) data, but then extrapolates this over to the field assets in general and their valuation, but without any further drilling having been done to gather data on which to base such conclusions. This, to my mind, is 'bad science'.

By the way, I'm on my fourth re-reading of the CPR, which I printed-out so I can read it properly. It's more full of assumptions and holes than a gruyere cheese.

DireEmblem,

"It’s the misreading of the original Halifax data that should be questioned. No more drilling took place there, perhaps we now know why?"

On exactly what do you base that statement?

I see nothing which 'disproves' Halifax, and also the failure of the DST there was almost to be anticipated, and could possibly be changed by a new well / sidetrack. Instead of which, an utterly HUGE block of acreage, about 34 km in length, covering all the Rona Ridge from N.Lancaster up to and including Halifax has been 'relinquished', and is back in the hands of the OGA. To be leased to whoever in the next bargaining-round, if offered. And I see no reason why it will not be offered, and if it isn;t, I personally will think that in istself rather suspicious. So it'll be interesting to see who takes up the lease, or otherwise isn't given a chance to.

As the days go by, I become more convinced that there are some people in OGA who are possibly feeling rather uncomfortable themselves. It's a quango, working in cahoots with government, a government bent on destroying oil and having us driving electric cars, instead.

Like all good detective stories, the difficulty is not so much finding the facts, but the links between the culprits.

schliemel, Haggis,

64,000 - dollar question, so far gone unexplained. I am sure that RCS would have provided a revised CPR, if new data had emerged. No skin off their nose, they'd have been paid anyway, even if the new CPR contradicted their earlier ones. New data means new ways of looking at things, that's all. Nature of the beast.

It's another of those questions just begging for an explanation.

Haggis_Trap

"however that doesn't necessarily fix all the geological / technical issues."

Yes, I'd agree with you in that. But it all depends on what or how you interpret this buzz-word 'issues' to start with, and tend to be bandied-around these days as meaning 'serious technical problems' as sometimes an excuse for financial get-outs.

Oilwell-drilling does not come without problems. In fact often. the problems come quicker than the swift solutions. Part of the game, and also part of the whole fun of the whole thing. Recognising the problems, and then sorting them out.

There is NOT (underlined) a 'geological problem'. That's a meaningless tautalogical statement. The 'geology' will not change. Maybe the interpretation of the 'geology' was wrong or right, but the geology will not change. This (very importantly) should not be confused with 'fraccing', where the actual rock-structure becomes changed through human intervention. Not the case here, however.

Yes, however, I agree that assorted 'technical issues' may require investigation. But I hope that will be done.

DC,

"Maybe someday someone will write a book and I guarantee it will be a thriller. The film rights will probably be worth more than the present MC."

Watch this space. Not impossible.

Haggis,

"For investors it is currently impossible to know where the incompetence ends and the scam begins... Thoughts ?"

Sorry, but (in the friendliest way) i'd have to disagree with you there.

It's not a criticism, just an observation, all of which rather depending on which way investors are / were looking at things. From the 'tech' side, or the financial / stockmarket / share-dealing one.

I was amazed (quite a while back) when the SP hit 60 and the mid-fifties. It seemed unbelievable, still does, I did a bit of 'amateur trading' around then, and although having lost a small bit overall, nothing which will cause me to jump into the river and drown myself. Because simply 'following the story' has been worth it, and (stupid as it may seem to others), I rather prefer believing in Narnia than Deathriders 2.

I strongly suspect (and hope) that there will soon be a new statement in RNS, once the two new directors have done some close investigation of the books, with at least an outline of what they have found to have been occuring over the last 18 months or so.

But at the same time, I (personally) do not wish to appear as some pie-in-the-sky overoptimistic 'ramper'. There may indeed be both financial and operational issues to be addressed. But the 'breath of fresh air' seems to me to be a good one.

DireEmblem,

Thanks for your educational reply.

As I mentioned in my own post, this is not the CA chatboard, but that of HUR. However, CA having now announced that they are 'major shareholder', some interplay must surely be allowable.

You mentioned three potential 'ways forward' regarding CA's corporate affairs, which I found interesting. But I think you may have forgotten a fourth (but only maybe). What if the most recent ERCE 'CPR' has doubt thrown upon it, or is seen as the negatively-slanted put-up-job which personally I now (on assorted re-readings ) believe it to have been ?

It could change the positions of both HUR and CA significantly.

By the way, and for the record, despite my scepticism regarding the ERCE CPR, that is not to say that (technically) everyone should revert to earlier RCS ones, nor take them as 'bible'. Far from it. Some mistakes were made, and as an old oilfield saying goes, "if you don't make a mistake now and then, it shows you're not actually doing your job."

So just treading cautiously right now, trying to see what happens next, and watching out for tight bends in the road.

littlened,

CA will not attempt a takeover of HUR, of that I am convinced. CA is an investment fund company, not an oil exploration / production company. Although they may have 'expert' O&G consultants advising them on O&G affairs, CA have fingers in many pies such as pharma, 'alternative energy', and so on. Manipulating finance is their core business, not managing oilwells.