There is a point about the costs which as far as I am aware has not been mentioned previously. At the conclusion of the hearing CA’s brief asked for a costs order, meaning that CA’s legal cost would be paid by the other party, i.e HUR. To the best of my recollection Zacaroli agreed the request so that needs to be added to the $17m, and can the amount be disclosed.
Bernstein calls for an investigation28 Sep 2021 18:41
“The Fund has written to the Hurricane Board under Article 94 of the company's articles of association to request that a committee (comprising the non-executive directors) be established with a mandate to investigate what happened and to engage external advisers (should that be needed) for the investigation. The committee would then make a recommendation to the Hurricane Board.”
This is quite extraordinary because you have to ask what benefit RB expects to achieve by this. There is no point in having Wright and Craik waste their time on a blame game exercise if there is to be no financial benefit. So is RB accusing the old board of being inept or does he suspect something sinister, and what benefit does he think might be achieved?
Thanks for the post. It is an interesting read. For all who are not FT subscribers google "Gas crisis shows why we must stop demonising fossil fuels" and answer the questions.
It’s what is know as simple arithmetic. They have bought 34% of the bonds leaving 66%. 66% of 230m is 151.8m. As at end of August they had free cash of $144m out of which they are committed to paying the tendered bonds plus interest The tender payment is said to be $62m including interest which leaves free cash of $82m. So they need to generate $69.8m (151.8 minus 82) between now and next July to clear the bonds. If they can continue to produce at 10-11 bopd and subject to the oil price not crashing they should do it comfortably. The big issue is whether they will be able to generate sufficient surplus cash to allow then to commit to further drilling next year.
It was Alistair Stobie at the 2018 AGM who referred to the WSOP tieback as an enabler. This was quite correct then as the gas price was trivial in comparison to the oil value and the point of the tieback was to accommodate increased oil production. The irony is that they are now struggling to maintain 11k bopd when back then they were looking to exceed 20k. I imagine this is why the OGA stipulated the tieback for Lincoln. My point is that the gas price has increased so much, and is expected to rise further that it could actually be profitable to pay for the connection and sell it. Regarding Bluewater I am not particularly concerned as to the parties reaching a formal contract. Hurricane need the AM and Bluewater need a customer. The chances of Bluewater finding another customer are minimal and if Hurricane fails the AM will more than likely go back to Danzig to rust. Circumstances have changed from when the original contract was negotiated and I’m sure Bluewater appreciate that and will be accommodating to the extent that if Hurricane need a bit of extra cash to pay off the bondholders the contract cancellation fee will be released.
With gas prices having risen, and If my calculations are correct the current gas production is worth £69,440 per day or $35m per annum. Would it be profitable to pay for the tie in to the W0SP? Anyone an idea of the cost. Apart from additional revenue it would resolve the flaring issue and earn brownie points with the OGA.
I know this is behind a paywall but if you have access it is worth reading and somewhat encouraging.
This is the opening paragraph: “Boris Johnson will face down calls to ban further licences exploiting Britain’s North Sea oil and gas fields, despite the UK’s commitment to reaching net zero by 2050.”
My main concern at the moment is that potential partners are holding back until they have an idea of what the government intends to commit to at COP26. Hopefully this may help to allay fears.
Whilst this is a very good result the annoying part is that the old BoD considered this 12 months ago and chose not to give it a go. Had they done so the saving could have been over $50m and they would not have wasted $17m on the restructuring plan.
VK The price targets are quite possible subject to one factor and that is the ability to persuade some one to fund the development. You either keep faith in the prospect of the BoD getting a partner or you bail out. Nothing has changed over the last 5 months and the price has drifted down only because some have bottled it. We are now in the time frame for a deal and the next few weeks or months will be crucial if the Company is to have a future.
RE: “Oil Rallies As China’s Success Against Virus Eases Demand Fears”24 Aug 2021 23:41
"HUR SP will be back in double figures lot sooner than some may currently expect" What no comment from the Bartle bard! Is it a sad demise or just a Rip Van Winkle.
Interesting to see our oil is going to Fawley as it is usually destined for Rotterdam or Wilhelmshaven. Noted that draught is 11.8 from 9.2 so a good load. About 500k as an estimate.