Member Info for adoubleuk

Slift,

"Complaining about the situation isn't going to help. Can you provide an alternative?"

I am not complaining about the situation, nor suggesting an alternative. The company in which I am ashareholder has decided to go to court in order to sell the shareholders down the hill. Nothing I can do about that.

Other than hoping that the judge will be open-minded enough about the matter to accept that maybe the BoD have been lax, lazy, incommunicative with shareholders (other than in a negative way and with no true third-party guidance) and that thus their 'plea' has no real foundation without further investigation and / or presentation of evidence. And if such evidence may be presented, it doesn't imply conflict of interests nor internal collusion.

RNStranslator,

"Go on go for the double .. call them both out...!!"

Why not?

And if I get any communication from either of those two outfits, or anyone representing them, the answer will be the same. "Go f*** yourselves ", putting the ball squarely back into their own court.

It's their reputation at stake, not mine.

RNS,

"The auditor is Deloittes and the cash flow scenarios were done and signed off by PwC."

Both companies with lovely squeaky-clean reputations. Bring 'em on.

RNS,

"So the auditor who is currently preparing the annual report is bent...(or incompetent?)
Would you be prepared to mention them by name and repeat that accusation? I dare you! "

Were any of us yet provided with the number and name of the upcoming court-case, yes I would, and not make an 'accusation', but would most certainly ask for their credentials and on what evidence they base their own suppositions. Expecting that any judge would accept that those were perfectly reasonable questions to be answered.

Game on.

RNStranslator,

"Aduk you still don’t get it:

"That’s because you don’t understand the rules"

Oh yes I do. And 'foreward-looking' estimates by bondholders based on 'negative estimates' proposed (with no real proof, other than by doing nothing to improve the situation) is a SCAM.

"Directors of listed companies incorporated in the UK are required by Listing Rule 9.8.6R (3) to include in their annual financial report a statement that the business is a going concern, together with supporting assurances or qualifications as necessary, that has been prepared in accordance with this Guidance."

Quite.

The auditor is required to make its own assessment of the directors’ conclusion on going concern. If the auditor concludes that a material uncertainty exists "

Can we see an 'auditor's report', please?

Not a bent one.

Gold,

"Post on social media, tag news agency to cover scam story"

Unfortunately, although I agree with the message, and have now seen a number of such videos from the same person (dunno who he is) I feel he's not a great representative (clothing, general demeanour, language) of those who have a genuine beef against the company as it now stands. Some people have lost some serious money. Not a laughing matter.

mcadder,

"Sorry I didn't quite catch that amongst all your diatribe....is that you've managed to prove your alleged claim of a scam involving Hur or not?"

To whom is that questione posed? You don't make it clear. If to me, I'll respond, but it will be lenghy...

RNStranslator,

"Nope, no wailing and gnashing, just wondering how you can be bothered to continue your somewhat cringeworthy diatribe... nothing but the same childish words, no reasoned discussion. "

OK. You've asked for it.

Once upon a time, there was another website. Inhabited by some HUR investors. We had photos posted, and so on, not just of rigs, buoys, FPSO's and so on, but also occasionally of ourselves.

One time, there was some 'chat discussion' about the colour of hardhats, and what the colours might signify if 'in the field'.

The next day, you'd photoshopped a different colour onto your hardhat.

Memory is long...

mcadder,

Wrt your message "Perhaps you should focus on the upcoming court hearing next week "

Please reference details of said court hearing.

RNSTranslator,

"You may want to sign up for the same courses as Senseman."

Whereas you, sir, might like to sign up for courses in how not to use multiple aliases on multiple BB's, and how to cover your tracks a bit better ! Remember, I know who you are, and who your cronies are, even if that got me into a bit of hassle here a couple of years ago.

I have no idea who 'senseman' nor 'British' are, who post here. We're not in personal contact, nor via any independant website.

However I personally absolutely support the stance they seem to be taking, if for no other reason than matters of principle.

The 'new' uncommunicative BoD of Hurricane are trying to push this Financial Restructing proposal through a High Court at lightning speed, just prior to a (yet to be announced) AGM, effectively reducing shareholder value to nothing. This, to my mind, is downright WRONG. Wouldn't matter if I were a shareholder or not, were such a story to attract my attention out of curiosity, I'd still find it wrong.

Some people have compared HUR with Sirius, the fertilizer-mine people. But I see no comparison, other than that some people have lost a lot of money on their investment in SXX. Because Sirius overreached themselves, and may continue to do so. And haven't yet transported a ton of produce through their tunnel-network, which has yet to be finished.

Hurricane Energy is a different kettle of fish, giant squids, shuttle-tankers, and so on.

The EPS (Early Production System) has been producing oil from the outset, despite various initial hiccups, and at a profit. Sold on by BP. (Those people who want to 'turn green', but who were responsible for the Macondo disaster.) And who remain partners with Shell in the huge Quad 204 West of Shetland, both of whom curiously 'coralled' the licences around those of Hurricane not long ago, despite Lancaster seemingly being now worthless.

I'd urge any concerned PI's to contact whoever, just to stir up the s*** and get the judge to sit up and take notice that this is not a simple one-hour 'company facing bankruptcy case'.

In fact, although I'm not a lawyer, I'm not aware of any precedent for a company going before a court before pleading that they may become bankrupt in 15 months' time., but that the BoD may continue drawing salary in the meantime.

senseman,

"By the yardstick the BoD seek to apply. half the explorers and small oilers would be insolvent."

No, disagree. 95% or more of them, including the 'majors'.

Slift,

"Reference document: The Refinancing presentation.
https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/investors/presentations"

Thank you for the link, which is definitely 'required viewing', as distinct from the RNS text version.

It would appear that whatever happens, the BoD are intent on operationally 'winding down' the company by 2014, (unless takeover of assets, of course), regardless of profitabilty, potential increased production, or whatever. While doubtless continuing to draw their own salaries.

Daylight robbery.

British,

"The lady at the Hurricane reception does not have a clue of the case number so we have to rely on someone replying back."

I've been to 'Hurricane Towers' at Lower Easham, back in the 'good old days'. And if you think it's like a 'normal' oil company's setup, forget it. Lovely place. But no 'front desk', no 'switchboard operator', nothing like that. I was lucky to get in the front door, ended up having an informal chat with a couple of charming ladies manning the first office in, who told me that the person with whom I had a possible appointment 'was in a meeting' (in other words had decided not to meet me) and didn't let me any further where there might have been well-plans on the wall and schematics, which I would have memorised instantly. Which was my motive, anyway !

Was politely shown the door.

Went to the adjacent pub, where I got some 'social scuttlebutt', but nothing about well-planning.

I doubt if much has changed in that respect. A tight ship. The lady you spoke to is probably perfectly aware of the case-number, but simply told you she didn't.

I hope that you or others might find it through other means, however, and will post it here.

Albie,

"We? Do you work for Kerogen then Adrianuk?"

Ah ! You noticed that as well. I've only just logged in and it stood out like a sore thumb. Nice to see that major shareholders watch this board............

:-))

Albie,

"So a high chance Kerogen are Bond holders then?"

This is what I strongly suspect, though through proxies. Hence the sudden unexplained resignation of their Board membership, as it could be seen as a blatant conflict of interests, which any judge will recognise if he / she has researched the affair at all.

I urge PI's to continue petitioning the various sites that contributor 'British' has suggested to us here, if only so that those various organisations and media sit up and take notice.

Whichever way the 'judgement' goes, it'll create a firestorm in the financial media.

Slift,

"But bond is due in 14 months, and operations will cease in 12 months."

Where, anywhere, is it stated that 'operations will cease in 12 months' ? Please reference document and page.

Because if that is stated, I'll just sell tomorrow (or rather back down to just one share). Then call my lawyer, citing such a statement, and wait a year. And if the twelvemonths pass and Hurricane hasn't 'ceased operations' (of whatever sort), they can expect a writ though the door.

Slift,

"But doesn't change the fact that even during "operations" beyond production (decommissioning), HUR will not be producing cash, but instead burning cash."

However, wading back through the literature, I see no mention of the BoD stating explicitly that they intend to decomission the field next year. Instead, it's an implicit threat. Sabre-rattling.

More likely that the Aoka Mizu is still on station in five years' time, but with a Shell logo on the side rather than that of Hurricane.

Slift,

"But bond is due in 14 months, and operations will cease in 12 months."

'Operations will cease in 12 momths" ??????????????

Well that's new news.

Please quote source.

Also any eventual decommissioning will still be 'operations'.

"Adoubleuk - good for you, good for you....all part of the continued denial process for you"

Mcadder,

Just go have a cup of tea.

mcaddr,

" I suppose your going to say Proactive is in on the scam too? "

Of course.

Anyone hanging their hat on a 'Proactive.com.uk' hook is as bent as a nine-bob note.

Or any such sites.

Go take a cup of tea.