Member Info for adoubleuk

tatt,

"Is there anyone that is hopeful this could somehow come right?"

Yes. Me. But I don't see 60p per share coming back again.

The point being that there have been continuous tanker-loads of crude oil being offloaded from the Lancaster FPSO, bought and then sold to market at a profit via BP for a considerable time now, and the company is in cash-terms solvent. Selling the shareholders down the line at huge loss to them, just to satisfy a potential (hypothetical) loss to bondholders (creditors) who have already been getting been paid interest on their own investment would be an almost unprecidented thing to do. And would (were that were the result) cause an enormous scandal which would (or maybe will) cost the reputations of lots of people, not least the judge (he/her) themselves.

Yes. Maybe I'm personally quite mad. Not much much left to lose. But Bob Dylan once wrote a song about that.

If this scandalous 'financial restructuring' is ratified, I'll peronally be coming in, firing on all cylinders. Not physically, of course, but asking questions right and left, via the press and though my oilfield contacts.

The fact remains. There is an FPSO out there, WoS, delivering oil at around 10,000 bopd via tanker offloads. More than Premier's Solan has ever managed.

No, something very very wrong. I hope that the judge wiill appreciate that.

RNStranslator,

"The cost per bbl is dependent on the production rate because the majority of costs are fixed. So you can’t go back to when it did 20,000 per day and say it was $25 per bbl then because it doesnt work that way."

Utter stuff and nonsense, Nigel, and I suggest you change your hardhat colour back to green as it once was on a certain website before photoshopping it yellow. I have a long memory...

'Uplift cost' is utterly irrespective of production quantity. OK, it might be slightly affected by the amount of fuel-oil used by the FPSO, but hopefully the FPSO is now running on produced gas via the turbines, per plan, but the BoD haven't even had the politeness to inform us about that.

RNSTranslator,

"So what is the cost per bbl mr Sense?"

Interestingly (and to my mind rather tellingly), the latest CPR from ERCE does not give a figure for 'uplift cost per barrel'. So one has to go back to old documentation for that, but of course if the current BoD is to be believed, nothing in years of previous work actually can be believed !

But previous estimates gave an uplift cost (all included) at around $28 / bbl. (Though might be 28 pounds sterling, in which case apologies, but can't be bothered to check.)

Of course, maybe the new BoD might issue a new estimate, saying it's $70 / bbl, that all previous estimates were wrong, and that they're working at a loss, to bolster their attempts to trash the company which is paying their own wages. Nothing would surprise me.

Albie,

"Interesting that we haven't heard a single word from Kerogen bemoaning any lack of dialogue with the HUR BOD as CA have publicly done."

Maybe because Kerogen have no beefs about dialogue with the BoD in the same manner as CA . Or am I just stating the obvious ? Kerogen selling down as they did many moons ago seemed a pretty obvious move. They recouped their initial investment, so anything else became gravy. However, the withdrawal / resignation of having a representative on the BoD remains strange and unexplained. Unless (ok, completely hypothesising here) Kerogen is indeed a bondholder as well as a shareholder and was complicit (or about to be) in the formulation of this latest 'restructuring plan', at which point certain conflicts of interest could come to light, from which suspicions they maybe wished to distance themselves.

OK, I know that sounds 'conspiracy-theorist', convoluted, and possibly way off on the wrong tack. But not impossible.

Other than Kerogen (and right now CA) remaining quiet, so has Dr Trice himself. But from what few whispers I've heard over the last year or so, his departure as CEO was not a 'voluntary resignation', and caused him personally a lot of distress.

Essentially (to my mind, though I'm not a lawyer), ratification by a judge of the 'financial reformulation' would make Hurricane almost a privately-owned company, with remaining shareholders likely to bail out, and with no effective say-so in what happens later at all.

But hang on. I can think of at least one 'private company'. Siccar Point. Drilling (and testing) fractured basement WoS, and seemingly (via the grapevine) with good results. But being private, no requirement to issue public RNS's, operational reports, etc..

Further question. If Lancaster, GWR, Rona Ridge all the way to Halifax are now seen to be so worthless, how come Shell and BP snapped up all the surrounding licences? And why has the 'new BoD' relinquished all the northern stuff (including Halifax), which no doubt OGA will put on the auction-block again ?

oldbutnowisa,

"I stay and hope the Judge smells a rat even if our protests don't alert."

Interesting comment, which raises a few thoughts.

I feel a lot of shareholders (or at least PI's) consider the plan to be a scam. And see no reason why a judge might not 'smell a rat' as well. And it suddenly strikes me that the outcome of the court case might not be binary, or yes/no.

Does a judge not have the right to defer judgement, requesting that the plaintiff (in this case HUR) gather further evidence to support their case, and then re-present it ? All it would need would be a few weeks, because by the end of June, the annual AGM would need to have been convened, an AGM at which shareholders have their say.

It also makes me think about the timing of all this. Given that (by rights) the AGM should be in June, when the annual financials should be published AND ACCEPTED BY SHAREHOLDERS at said AGM.

Hmmm.

Slift,

"A company is insolvent if it is unable to pay debts owed. Just paying interest payments on debt isn't enough to make a company solvent when the company is unable to pay debts owed at maturity."

You are talking nonsense. Confusing bonds issued at a certain price and with certain initial conditions with 'debt'. The two are not the same, and the latter can always be renegotiated. The company seems unwilling to do this, as evidenced by its 'take it or leave it' documents, which leave shareholders high and dry. Also, over the last 12months or so, there is no evidence whatsoever that any effort has been made to improve productivity, nor to pare operational costs to save money, the latter being the usual way most companies use, even if it might mean cutting down on staff and the directores themselves taking a slight salary cut.

Shareholders invested in something WHICH IS STILL WORKING. Maybe not quite as well as envisaged initially, but still not a 'dud'. So they should not be cut out of the loop arbitrarily.

Slift,

"Can you provide why you think that it's not insolvent? The company can produce ECONOMICALLY between now and May 2022."

You have answered your own question.

I would remind you of a statement which is written below almost any RNS. Sometimes the exact wording changes in detail, but this is from the latest one.

"This announcement may contain projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, returns and/or opinions in relation to the Company (together the "Forecasts"). These Forecasts can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology, including the terms "believes," "estimates," "aims," "targets," "anticipates," "expects," "intends," "may," "will" or "should" or, in each case, their negative, or other variations or comparable terminology. The Forecasts involve significant assumptions and subjective judgments which may or may not prove to be correct and there can be no assurance that any Forecasts are a reliable indicator of future performance, nor that they are attainable or will be realised. There are a number of risks, uncertainties and factors that could cause actual results and developments to differ materially from those expressed or implied by any statements and Forecasts made in the Presentation. If one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialise, or if any underlying assumptions prove incorrect, the Company's actual results of operations, financial condition and liquidity and the development of the industry in which it operates may differ materially from those made in or suggested by the Forecasts. No reliance may be placed, for any purpose, on the Forecasts or the information contained in this announcement."

Slift,

"That document is available for everyone to read on Hurricane's website anyway, along with a detailed document on the proposed restructuring. Basically, nothing new from the RNS and presentation provided by HUR to shareholders."

Oh yes it is. Essentially addressed to bondholders, giving notice to those people that the BoD has a specific plan to 'wind down the company'. This is the sort of information that such explicit plans should be shared with shareholders (PI or institutional) should be provided with in such terms, as well. And upon which such shareholders should be allowed to vote.

Slift,

"There is no shareholder vote as the company is insolvent. "

The company is NOT insolvent. The BoD is simply projecting ('foreward statement') that it may possibly become so in 15 months' time. And any judge with the least amount of grey matter between he or her ears will immediately question what has been done by the Directors to try and avoid such a situation, as is their duty, to protect the shareholders. I'd be interested as to what kind of answer might be given to that.

No, a 'vote' by shareholders (even through a rapidly-convened EGM) might not achieve anything now, or at least, not immediately. But 'shareholder votes' are no longer what's in question. Instead, it's a court decision, with many, many reputations at stake. Not just that of the judge, the BoD, assorted investors, bondholders, and so on, but assorted journalists, people like Malcy, other professionals, etc.,etc, etc..

So whicheverway it goes, there will be a real sh**storm, at least in the UK. I suspect that the bondholders themselves, or at least those in the USA and maybe China will keep fairly quiet, not least because they themselves may not be too happy with the plan, and wouldn't want to be peronally exposed in a 'guilt by association' situation.

Maestros,

"If this deal goes through shareholders will have enought left to buy a few pints to drown their sorrows GET OUT WHILE YOU STILL CAN."

You'd make a dam hopeless poker player. Personally, if I'm terribly behind and 'short stack', I'll fight like hell, not leave the table with just some short change, wondering what might have happened next. So long as one's taken the ( essential) precaution of ensuring one's got enough fuel in the tank to get home, it's better to arrive there flat broke and eat a bit of stale cheese from the fridge than buying a McDonalds on the road which one might not enjoy, feeling sick enough already.

Adrianuk,

"Thanks adoubleuk, really helpful. Did you email the link to Crystal Amber?"

No. If I've received the link, just from a friend, I'm sure that CA will already be aware of it.

Slift,

"There is no shareholder vote as the company is insolvent. Not even production to end of May + liquidation of company will pay off the bond. It's well informed in the presentation."

If that's the case, I hope the BoD have their houses well protected, or that they're prepared to be unemployable for the rest of their lives, cast out as jackals, and maybe do some jail-time.

I have been sent a 'link' by a person who I trust completely. And I very much hope that she will forgive me for passing it onto everyone here, wich may be an indiscretion, but it seems to me of significant importance to all shareholders.

Read it in depth, make up your own minds...

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1859547/000121390021023963/ea140089ex99-1_hurricane.htm

mcadder,

"The criteria under this legislation is that....

"In order to use a Plan, the company must be in financial difficulty, and the Plan must address that
financial difficulty."

In what way is the company, with over 100 million in the bank, in 'financial difficulty' ?

Despite being in current dire financial straits, personally I'm still managing to pay my rent, electricity and other utility bills, and so on. So cannot declare myself bankrupt, based on forward projections.

However, this is what the HUR BoD seem to be trying to do.

Heck, I might get a big win in a poker tounament which mightr help turn things around for myself. But the current HUR BoD haven't even done anything proactive like 'continue playing'.

If the restructuring is judged OK, I hope the judge involved sleeps very badly afterwards.

RNSTranslator,

"perhaps rather than simply grasping at straws you could tell us how after you dismiss the Board, perhaps put yourself in charge, how you actually get round the going concern issue. Trading whilst insolvent is your thing perhaps? A massive placing to raise enough to pay the bondholders in full... perhaps you could walk us through how that would work?"

Put myself in charge ? That made me laugh. I've only been a member of one BoD, which was a newspaper, in a 'non-executive' role and for which I was also a journalist. I've worked in 'management role' fo an independant oil company, and consulted for many, but mainly working in the field, or writing post-well reports based in town after the project. But 'in charge' of a multi-million oil company like Hurricane ? Utterly no way. (Though I wouldn't mind giving it a try.)

But I do recognise 'good practice' and can differentiate between honesty and doubtful stuff, and especially when people senior to me in the heirarchy are trying to squirm out of things just to save their own a**.

The company is NOT currently insolvent. Projects such as a further well to enhance production have been 'backheeled' to next year. Maybe to save money and thus cover repayment of bonds. But this is simply the BoD selling us out, to the benefit of bondholders, some of whom some of whom may have personal connections and thus maybe (in the future) they will receive 'backhanders', though I wouldn't make any accusations like that, right now. But I hope the judge appointed will have his staff investigate such a possibility.

With current revenue from ongoing production, a "massive placing to raise enough to pay the bondholders in full" is not required. Sure, maybe a slight shortfall, but if so, only a small one. And anyway, debt can always be restructured, without selling shareholders down the line, which is the thrust of this 'proposition'.

The whole thing now stinks to high heaven. There's a rat away, somewhere.

Slift,

"Not sure what exactly CA can do either. Anything they do will be irrelevant to the whole situation. "

Well I certainly can. And whatever they are no doubt currently doing will lead to sparks flying !

OK, I'm just an impoverished little PI. Don't have the resources of a Richard Bernstein. But were I in that position, I know what I'd be doing right now. Buying like crazy, to become 'major shareholder', and overturn this restructuring plan.

The BOD is prepared to give away 95% of the company for 50 million. CA has already made 43 million profit in the past from the shares they hold. I think I'd personally use that as colatteral against 50. CA can afford it. Whereas what maybe the can't afford is loss of reputation, having their own holding wiped out (and that of some of their shareholders) on behalf of some bondholders whose situation can be renegotiated: there's 15 months to go. Or two weeks, depending on how you see it.

"The company has defaulted under a going concern assessment. They will not be able to pay the bond back, and there is no choice but to restructure the debt which is what HUR are doing."

No, so far the company has not 'defaulted' on any bond repayments, or at least not in a way anyone has heard of.

"Calling an EGM would be pointless as the company would still default unless bondholders agree to terms."

Those terms could be discussed at an EGM, with shareholders present, either physically, or 'virtually'. But no such idea has been proposed.

"Sure even a statement from CA may make the share price move, but it won't help the company"

I feel getting a bunch of current t*ssers getting chucked off the Board might be a good start, though.

"Shareholders should not bet on instituitional investors to buy or sell. Those that do are simply gambling. Don't gamble peoples."

Why not, just once in a while? Don't tell me what to do. I just love it when leaving a casino, I discover a forgotten 100-euro chip in my pocket, so toss it on 'red'at the roulette table. Pure gambling and chance. Nice when the ball lands in a red slot. And if it doesn't, what the heck ? I'd already forgotten about the chip in my pocket, might have been through the washing-machine, so lost anyway.

boracic,

"How about 199% of the blame? Think he might own up to 100% ."

Interesting 'peudo' you have. Not from Romania by any chance ?

Who are you referring to, anyway ? Dr Trice ? So now you're playing some nasty sort of 'blame game'. Advocating bringing in the bailiffs when the company isn't broke, but based on some 'foreward looking premise' ? Sounds a bit Hitlerian to me.

Sure, I now believe with hindsight that Dr Trice maybe took his eye off the ball from time to time. Such as considering 'deep oil' from well 7 to be actually 'mobile' or commercial. Bad mistake. Also basing certain conclusions about OWC on findings from some very dodgy MDT log results, which the RPS CRS's conveniently didn't say much about. Though the 'perched water' hypothesis is still not impossible. I also feel he made a bad mistake in allowing Petrofac / Schlumberger / Transocean to not drill a horizontal hole 7z sidetrack as contracted, but allow the thing to 'droop', therby contacting a higher OWC than his own confirmation bias had led he (and us) to believe.

But I still refuse to believe that there was any deliberate 'scam' involved. Whereas I consider the current BoD's proposals to be such. If they had new data from the field, why not contract RPS to revise their appraisals, which wouldn't have cost that company a bean? They'd still have been paid.

If anyone writes to 'Prufrock' on the FT, remind them of a deliberate scam pulled off back in 2006-7, offshore Greece, by a company whose name I won't mention. (I also happen to have copies of the well-logs, proving it to be a dry hole, which never produced anything other than a bit of H2S.) That story ran and ran for months in the aftermath. Because a lot of people lost lots of money, PI's, pension funds, etc.)

Not the same thing here. The Bod are trying to persuade a judge that a field producing more than many, and selling the product, is bankrupt. It's not true.

Showmethemonet,

"Crystal Amber will do nothing. "

That's a very bold statement to make. Remember, CA is a major shareholder which stands to take a huge hit to their potfolio if this restructuring is allowed to happen. People have in the past surmised that CA is also a bondholder, but there is nothing in their financial statements to suggest that this is the case.

I do not know what CA and Mr Bernstein are doing right now, but the silence and lack of comment, is very telling, I believe. Maybe they're just shovelling up as many shares as they can to increase their leverage vis-a-vis the BoD. I don't know. Also, it's the weekend coming, so it would be a real laugh if a TR1 were released on Monday showing that CA was now the major shareholder.

Also, we know from the past that Mr Bernstein has good contacts in the financial press, and is not afraid to use them.

As mentioned, I haven't a clue what CA are doing, but I'm sure it won't be nothing. Maybe we PI's are clutching at straws hoping for a 'white knight', but sometimes when things are essentially out of one's own control, there's nothing wrong with retaining a little hope that one may actually see justice done. Because (imho) I feel the company is proposing a huge and scandalous injustice. The least that they could have done would have been to propose a further equity raise, to see what happened. Furthermore, keeping shareholders 'in the dark' as the BoD has done for months, then dropping this bombshell on them as they have now done is shameful, and they (the BoD) should be ashamed of themselves.

"May I suggest you phone the Sun and ask to speak with the financial editor or the editor in chief -"

Can't do any harm. Also might be worth calling or writing to the Prufrock column in the FT.

Adrianuk,

"Share Prophets might be worth contacting, as they have done some great investigation work before. "

I would advise against doing that.

I was emailed two days ago (for the first time in many months, and completely out of the blue) by someone who works for that outfit. A message full of doom and gloom, telling me 'it's all over', that I should sell, and so on.

I didn't reply to him, but such contact seems to imply various (maybe conflicting) things to me. Maybe my contact is correct, but just working on 'gut feeling' and taking the CPR as gospel truth and the restructuring a done deal. Or alternatively he knows something which we shareholders don't, which would be scandalous as he claims to not hold any of the shares about which he writes. Or (another possibility) some 'insider dealing' is happening, which would also be scandalous.

Whichever way the court eventually rules, I strongly suspect there will be a lot of noise about it in the media.