Member Info for adoubleuk

conkclo

Thanks !

Yeah, there's a 'bankrupt company' at work.

Slift,

"I suspect this is the one. All ties up now.
https://www.offshore-energy.biz/petrofac-hires-stena-rig-for-uk-operations/"

Oops, missed that ! You may very well be correct. But note the line about 'undisclosed operator'.

Either way, HUR saying that 'they' have contracted a rig is completely untrue. More smoke and mirrors. Inconsistency and lies. And if indeed they've done so via Petrofac, that should been RNS'd, if they were honest.

Captswag,

"as convenient as missing the weather window has been."

Despite documents saying the contrary issued lately by the company, I can find no record of a rig contract signed with Hurricane Energy for either this year, nor next. More lies.

mcadder,

Oh dear me ! I've really got to laugh. You've just copied / posted something fro 'nigwit' on ADVFN onto this BB ! Don't you know that that man was run of from here a couple of years ago for some disgraceful racialist stuff ?

I suggest you tie your flag to that mastpole and go pour yourself a nice cup of tea, or something like that . In whatever little police-station you work in.

Papilon,

"There's some very angry peeps at ca."

Really ? Must admit that I tend to stick wirh the LSE BB's, rather than others.

Looking at CRS I can only see three posts, from Friday. The previous ones date from last year.

Captswag,

"Awk - assuming kerogen are bondholders and likely to do well out of the giveaway then it really is down to CA. "

However, that's a big assumtion you (and others on this board) appear to be making. For which I can see no evidence at all. Also, I can't really think of any good reason why Kerogen might have become a bondholder, and also, as the major shareholder at the time of the bond issue, I suspect (though I'm not a legal expert in such things) that could (and could still be) considered a serious conflict of interests, with possible criminal repercussions.

Dunno (having bought back in) whether by the end of this month I might have made a little bit of money, or instead jumped in the river to drown myself. But one way or another, I expect some sparks to fly pretty soon.

lonestag,

"Sadly the duty of the court in this instance is to ensure the company has complied with the Company Act 2006 section 26a "

Nothing sad about it at all.

But we must leave it to the judge to decide whether over the last year or so, the company has done that. It must not be forgotten that this is not a 'case' which has been instigated by any creditors (bondholders, shareholders, et al.) Instead, it has been initiated by the current management of the company itself, in an attempt to wriggle their way out of what is maybe a tricky situation, which may expose their own greed, incompetence, and possible collusion with others who may have a background 'interest' in the outcome.

I await the eventual judgement in much the same way as I like seeing myself being dealt a pair of aces.

Though how many times have I seen my pair of aces or kings being 'cracked' by some ridiculous sort of hand? Countless times.

At least things are becoming interesting again, though. I think everybody's getting a bit fed up with the BoD whining on about what a hopeless thing the Lancaster field is, while at the same time there's another tanker almost there to take an offload, paid for by BP.

Captswag,

"I suspect the bod are just expecting to present the case to the judge..give the CPR and get the whole thing rubber stamped as a formality."

I suspect the same, given their total incompetence in everything else. But if that occurs, there will be serious outcry.

Papililori,

"The hurricane board have lied then, probably to save their own arse. "

This, I hope, will be the judgement given in a couple of weeks' time. Because the duty of a court is not to decide upon financial affairs, but instead upon the truth (or otherwise) of the evidence presented.

daltry,

"Just winding you up, my friend....nothing intended..."

No offense taken.

daltry,

It is NOT me ! Underlined twice. Maybe three times. Though I suspect I know who the person is.

For starters I speak with an 'Oxford accent', for second I wouldn't ever wear such glasses, and for thirds, I still have hair on my head.

The only similarity is that sometimes I might tend to use the 'eff-word' as punctuation while in conversation, but not in polite company or if children are present. And yes, despite my poker-playing ways, sometimes I do mix with polite company!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O16hbG22t7Y

This isn't me, by the way...

Joker99,

"Double loves a poker reference"

Yes, I do !

Now if only Mariss could sy 'The buck stops here"....

NigelHaemaglobin,

I reckon I know who you are. Despite your change of pseudonym. I also note you've put an opinion of 'Strong Sell'. Why, may I ask? Because maybe you or your lords and masters want to buy yet cheaper?

"The only opinion I can offer is FFS don't buy any more shares! It's a busted flush imvho. "

Oh. A second opinion, but saying the same thing.

Mine is that you wouldn't recognise a 'busted flush' in an instant. Quite a few hands can beat a flush, such as quads (Quad 204 ?), a straight flush, or a full house. 'Busted flushes' are common, and nothing to cry about. But don't chase the flush when the odds are against it working.

I'm now just waiting again. It'll be interesting to see what CA does. Though I don't anticipate any announcement from them in this regard for a few days. Maybe next Friday, late in the afternoon.

"

"The Bareboat Charter and POSA do not have a change of control provision in relation to GLA or Hurricane Plc Limited"

Exactly.

The thing's a crock. Or crooked.

lonestag,

"If you do one thing this weekend- read the Proposal Financial Restructuring report"

Absolutely.

But it's a terribly dense document, full if ifs, buts, and maybes, which strikes me personally as being a document cobbled-together by a BoD who now find themselves completely out of their depth. And anyway their proposition has to be ratified by a court, and unless the judge is a bent as a nine-bob note will throw the whole thing back in their faces.

For instance:

"The GWA joint venture has contracted a rig for the Lincoln-14 plug and abandonment, with a gross budgeted cost of $13 million for this activity. "

Oh yeah ? So where is the RNS informing shareholders about this contract ?

The current BoD are attempting to sell all shareholders down the line. Something stinks here.

Nb this from the latest.

"The Board is no longer considering a Main Market listing."

PS Please forgive some misspellings and typos in my last post. It's Saturday night !

I don't know how many people have bothered to look at the company website of late. But under the 'Investors' section, and the 'Business and Strategy header, there ar the following couple of gems.

Under 'Appaisal':

"Approach Hurricane was the first company to target fractured basement in the UK and has made a number of significant discoveries. Estimates of contingent resources of over 2 bnboe at the 2C level have been independently certified in Lancaster, Halifax and Lincoln (net to Hurricane)."

Under 'Development'

"Approach Hurricane’s discoveries have been assigned significant contingent resources by third-party reserve consultant, RPS Energy. Contingent resources describe the potential recoverable volume of a discovery, being converted to reserves with an associated development plan. Hurricane believes that the optimum route for capital allocation, data acquisition and risk reduction is the implementation of an early production system prior to a phased full field development."

Both quotations I have just copied / pasted just half an hour ago. But demonstrate that current 'management' is unable to even keep their own website up-to-date, a little issue which could in itself be ligitinous, , given that its out-of-dateness could be seen as presenting people with false (maybe) information.

I have no love of Crystal Amber, nor Mr Bernstein, but I do hope that he and his company become really 'active', and get most of the shower of incompetents currently sitting on the board run off, and install some people who want to turn things around. As a profitable company with prospects, rather than something which some buddy-buddies want to sell off and retire on the procedes.

Taverham,

"ADUK, is Crystal Amber the fat lady who is yet to sing?"

I have no idea. In fact, I personally don't think the nice lady singer has stepped on stage yet. The only point I was trying to make (maybe wrongly, for which if that's the case, advanced apologies), is that I don't see any way that the company can squirm their way out of this, even if it seems evident that that's what the currrent BoD seems to want to do. For reasons which are very obscure, unclear, and highly suspicious, in my own humble opinion.

Let's wait until the 13th or so. Or maybe a couple of days later, by which time maybe the judge in the court has made up his mind. But an oilfield producing approx 11,000 bopd with multimilion-pound infrastucture which would cost a fortune to dismantle, and with cash in the bank andincoming ongoing revenue, cannot in any way be considered a 'failure', possible debt overheads which can be renegotiated notwithstanding. Unless the judge is as bent as a nine-bob note.