Member Info for adoubleuk

"Great presentation." (Quoth haggis_trap) And having got away from losing money on an internet poker tournament, printed out the presentation, and gone into it in detail, I consider that to be understatement. The Q2 presentation (haven't lingered over the 'roadshow' one) is a completely different beast from those which have come before. Those people in Lower Easham have been very busy bees indeed. In fact I wonder if it might not be the influence of the new Chairman showing already. Because this presentation is a highly professional document compared with its predecessors. And I get the feeling the 'slant' has changed just a tad. Accentuating the positives, as the old song goes. Just printing it was a happy thing. Because at last it fits perfectly on the page! A minor detail maybe, but it was an irritation with the previous ones that they didn't, correctly. Just a formatting error maybe, but the sort of tiny thing which can get on one's nerves. I simply hope that its publication will lead to there being slightly less speculation on this BB about stuff like initial EPS flowrates and suchlike, because the answers are all in that document. That way we can get on with 'shipwatching' and immediate things like that. I must admit that I noticed a thing on the initial page 4 which gave me the impression that this time round the update is properly 'businesslike'. That being the anticipated annual cashflow now being predicated on $60 / bb Brent, instead of RPS's fifty. That's good. About time to stop hiding the light under a bushel and let it shine for once. Only one thing niggles me, in my usual nit-picking way. Page 21 has remained unchanged for yonks. But it still has a picture of the Spitsbergen as a 'completions rig'! I might drop a line to Ben and suggest he changes it to the PBLJ for the Q3 version! It shouldn't be too difficult. of course the pictures are generic, and not illustrations of the actual vessels which will be used. But at the same time, he could maybe slot in a photo of the Skandi Feistein, 'our' PSV. With the teeth...

extrader, "Surely these aren't mutually exclusive propositions ? " No, they're not. Looking at the 'windows', there is the POSSIBILITY that the FPSO could be on site by the end of September, sure. But as thing progress I feel that all 'regular, long-time' posters here should feel a slight duty to 'newcomers' not to be ambiguous about solid things like the timelines as published in company documents. Maybe RT said the boat could maybe get WoS by September, but if it doesn't, that doesn't mean there's a delay. The 'newsflow' has improved enormously over the last six months or so, which is a good reason why not to try gainsaying it with inaccuracies or 'possibilities' heard ages ago in interviews. If that all sounds a bit schoolmasterish, on other topics such as whether RB's a spoiled brat, which is the best wine to have with spring pheasant, or whether my aces being cracked by a poxy pair of jacks counts as a 'bad beat', anything goes! As usual.

IJWT, "RT has previously stated he expected AM to be on site in September 2018" This is not my understanding of things, confirmed by looking at the latest 'timeline'. FPSO 'sail away' (from Dubai) is any time in Q3. Though that window has been 'tightened'. FPSO 'arrival on site' is sometime in Q3 / Q4.

HH, Sorry, my mistake! Either way, it's a rig...

Jacdaniels, "To me from the above 2 docs suggest that FOIL is not going to happen this year." I quite agree. But IT MUST BE UNDERLINED, the company itself has never said that FoiL would be before 2019. That scenario has been pure speculation on the part of posters on this BB and others. The only reason I'm writing this message is that some people might misconstrue your own as suggesting there's some sort of delay. Which is not the case.

Ricfle, "Thanks to Bill Hunt on ADVFN there appears to be two new presentations on Hurricanes website." Thanks, (and to Bill Hunt as well!). Good to see some people are keeping their eye on the ball. A quick 'scan' shows a fair bit of new information. Which may hopefully form the basis of further discussion / debate here instead of some inanities (some posted by myself!) seen recently.

Ricfle, "What has happened to the ship-watchers on here? All the news seems to be on ADVFN or iii." One (known and trusted) 'shipwatcher' has moved his preference to advfn mostly, but we also correspond by PM. To answer your question from a purely personal standpoint, I'm not reporting any 'shipwatching news' here because there isn't much to report. The PBLJ is where she's been for months. The fact that the Stena Spey is moving into Shaw is very interesting (the SS is a jackup drilling rig), and I have no wish to speculate about what it means. The presence of Jumbo Kinetic off Dubai is of mild interest, but I have no information concretely tying her to Hurricane (yet) so not worth 'reporting' as others are doing so anyway. Don't worry, there'll be plenty of 'shipwatch reports' once things get moving!

"I kind of wish the Casino was open 7 days a week." (Wellwell) So do I.

casapinos, "In addition my spies tell me that RB is spitting because he offered to bailout " (wrt Delarue) Let him spit and dribble. Throw more toys out of the pram. That's interesting info, which I'm sure his shareholders would love to know more about. 'Bail out' a company which has lost its bread-and-butter contract which is politically very sensitive? Wow. That would have made it to the beeb, let alone the FT. Where would such a 'bail-out' have gone to? Legal fees involving an appeal against the passport decision? (Which would be a lost cause: fighting Whitehall never works.) " who knows RB and CA may re buy HUR now that the CVR have imploded!" Can't see how that could happen, because it would increase CA's value percentage 'exposure' to HUR, presumably against their own internal rulings. Rocks and hard places spring to mind. And meanwhile, a blue day despite CA's recent sell. I wonder who's buying?

Joesoap, "Got to love a CA holding RNS for generating some traffic..." Yes, fun, isn't it? Nothing like raking over old muck just to see if some new magic mushrooms have sprouted there, though. Meanwhile, despite CA's sell, we have another blue day. That's nice. And meanwhile various 'shipwtchers' are filling their thermos flasks and putting on their sou'westers in anticipation of some busy times to come!

Wellwell, " DrT knew who he was getting into bed with...." I suspect not, if you're referring to RB. Maybe 'Daltry' could enlighten us about such old folklore. First came Huddlestone. (spelling?) Then CA on his recommendation. And that lit the fuse on the rocket. If this is wrong, I accept all corrections.

Ricfle, " Why would you invest in CA who's share price is relatively static and not just invest in Hurricane without the middle man?" Now I HAVE TO take you to task, my man. For plagiarism. Because that's EXACTLY the same phrase I wrote here about 18 months ago. Including the typo regarding 'whose'.

Ricfle, "Looking at CA present holdings and doing a back of a fag packet calculation, CA's NAV attributable to Hurricane is approx' 30%, so there is no onus on RB to sell any further shares at present." Agree. That's in line with what I posted earlier in reply to Genghis, as well. While you've got your pencil out and if there's some space left on the back of your fag packet to scribble on, what do you reckon the next 'threshold' will be where CA has to sell further? Just so that 'newbies' won't be taken unawares by an RNS similar to that of today? My reckoning is somewhere around the 47p mark, but could well be wrong. In fact I reckon RB has sold enough now to get himself beyond having to take any action before the CB holders may do some conversions and start shorting them as a hedge, which will mean the easy life for him between May and St Leger's day, coincidentally!

IJWT, " He (RB) has a job to do." No he doesn't. RB could unscrew the plaque from his door, cash in, and go to the Bahamas tomorrow. And all completely legally. CA isn't Morgan Stanley.

IJWT, "The fact he (RB) remains invested" This I dispute, though don't have any material evidence to support that. Crystal Amber remains invested. If the CEO has personal investments in HUR as a PI, that's different. But I suspect not, as it would represent a serious conflict of interests. The beef I have with RB (though I've never met the man), is the evident self-serving high-handed manner he has vis-a-vis a company I am invested in (HUR) and his attempts to run roughshod over things at time which suit him. His own company CA is nothing other than a small AIM-listed outfit after all. With a Mcap smaller than that of the company he criticises. I don't consider CA to be an 'Institutional Investor'. Just a money-brokers which backed the right horse at the right time. But they don't own the nag.

pijoe, "there is nothing wrong with investing to obtain gain- in fact its why i invest!" Precisely! I can't argue with that: I'd be an idiot to even attempt doing so. And anyway have no reason to propose some alternative argument, because it'd be absurd. But also it's why the recurring mentions of CA pose a conundrum. On the one hand, that company is owed considerable thanks for having supported Hurricane from the outset, but subsequent actions (not so much the trading, but more the tweets and press-releases) have proved that CA's CEO is not a person one would invite for dinner. Or rather, I wouldn't. And yes, I completely agree that if CA sold out completely it would be cause for immense worry and looking for a parachute. But a sell right now isn't that. Everyone who's been here for any length of time anticipated it.

Genghis, "I would wager CA are not finished selling yet, and will continue for a while as long as the SP stays at this level." Agree with the first part, indeed I'd suggest it's guaranteed. However I don't think we'll see further selling by CA at this particular level, but the next one up, whatever that may be. I reckon RB will have calculated the present 'chunk' to be enough to satisfy his auditors for a while. Remember, this time round (unlike last year) there's no share-issue placement on the horizon, and no reason to spin crazy T/O rumours, so things should (hopefully) move more steadily. Imho.

Wellwell, I mentioned in my earlier post the fact that without CA's initial interest, the company might not exist. In some ways, that poses a conundrum. However, over time it has become evident that the early involvement was in pure self-interest. (Nothing terribly wrong with that, either.) But I believe in an old-fashioned concept called 'loyalty' and certain tweets and press releases last year are proof that the word is quite foreign to RB. I don't think there's much point in pusuing this, because I was anticpating a reply from you expressing exactly what you have! My posting was really just to say that a CA dale should not be a cause for worry. It's become normal, unfortunately.

Boyzee, Yes. CA selling should in no way influence anybody's personal investment decisions regarding HUR. They do not indicate lack of confidence nor anything like that. This scenario illustrates why I wouldn't p**s on RB (or his ilk) if he was on fire. He complains bitterly about things like last year's warrents issue and the placing driving down the SP, but doesn't hesitate from 'filling his boots' at the same time, then selling into rises and thus acting as an albatross round the neck of other investors. He has his cake and eats it as well. And still complains. Spoiled brat.

Snail, " have you seen the two biggish sells at 14.07 today?" Can't say that I had, because I no longer look at intraday trading figures. Just the volume after close. But beware! Jast because LSE is flagging those two trades in red, it doesn't mean that they're sells! In fact the SP has just ticked up a notch or two, so I suspect they may not have been. Or rather, every trade has two sides: for every sell, there has to be a buyer. But LSE's trade reporting can be unreliable and misleading at best as a way of figuring out what's going on...