Member Info for Genghis15

Calm down.

It's another brick in the process of building the strategy, and augurs well. Not a SP catalyst in the ST, tho, imo. For that we need solid progress towards commerciality, meaning firm, funded plans for scaled up facilities, This is just a small step along the path.

As my previous, imho they need to start showing us some numbers, not PR flannel.

Well, well.....never expected it to fall back this far.

i sold (bar a small LT holding) at 125 thinking it might see 100..held back thinking mb 90..never thought sub 80.
Still haven't re entered, but very tempting at this level.

A trading update for Apr to Sept would help, esp one that showed NET +/- rather just meaningless gross as per the last update in Aug., which was in any case the ancient history of March 21.

The constant flow of boosterism from TGR serves to unnerve investors, imv, what we need are some firm nos to assess the investment proposition, not constant ramping of the product/projects with little or no figures to atch.

jt321
"The issue here is if Kolomoisky the biggest shareholder formed a concert party to get around the takeover rules and the big shareholders either are his nominees or acting in collusion. If they did it's criminal. If not it's all a nice coincidence for him"

Quite, but....we all know coincidences like that don't happen. Is there collusion./ Looks certain to me. Can we prove it? No.

If there were substantial insti holdings here they would take it to court, but there isn't, and so they know they'll get away with it. Whilst I disgaree with Gambier on the finer definition of the risk here, that's almost a theological point. I pretty much agree with much of his commentary.

Gambier14
'm not sure why you cannt discern the difference, but have it your way. But note that none of the issues you quote in your definition of country risk apply to the current proposals here.
magician
I am not here to advise, and you must read the RNS and decie for yourself. But fwiw my take is
1. Buying bcos it's below 42p
2. I think so, dyor
3.Only if the offer is withdrawn, imho
4. Read the RNS. You would essentially have no liquid market, no regulator, and be trapped, imv
5.read the co Report. Many worst case scenarios. I'll leave it to others to comment.

Gambier
I'm not sure why you're having a pop at me for pointing out the nature of risk. I did my research, took ST chance and was caught out. Lesson learned, but I knew the risk. Lecturing me on investing is uncalled for, pompous, and wrong.
And while this behaviour is common among Russian/Ukraine assets, it is by no means confined to them. It is concert party risk that has enabled this, not country risk.

Having re read the RNS, I cannot see how anyoneon the register on the offer date cannot get thir 42p in the Offer.

So why not buy all you can sub that level? Surely only imoatient PI selling is driving this down.

Gambier14

It isn’t fraud because it isn’t illegal." It is the risk of investing in these sorts of countries."

Not really, This is not country risk, where, Ukrainian governance/legalities/corruption screw you.
It is London listed, and the outrage is being perpetrated in the UK. The risk s/holders have overlooked is having control in the hands of a concert party of major shareholders who can do as they just have.

The lesson is not to be even more wary of Ukraine, it is to careful of exzamining the share redgister. If maj s/holders were intnl instis no Bod would contemplate this,.

Given the geopolitical interest I would be surprised if at least one or 2 partnering deals aren't already in the works.

Will mean giving a share away in return for capital, oc, but that's inevitable, and much preferable, I suggest to the alternatives you decsribe, which are often the only options for projects rather more unloved than MKA's.

Lets hope so, Munchbox.

Certainly the completion of the Talaxis deal would seem to clear the way for some sort of partnering/project enabling, which seems inevitable given the global political backdrop. Then, of course, yjere are the other assets at Mchinji and Thambani....

Some of DC's pointsa were valid, imv, but the whole thing is beside the point. Individual views are not relevant, rants are pointless.

This is an investment BB, and the political, regulatory, and financial environment around O&G will be made by the consensus on net zero.

So get on with it, make investment decisions accordingly. and don't let your own views on decisions you can't change interfere with that.

Yes, but so is everyone else. Withh prices where they are, this SP would be much higher soon, imv, and this is outright fraud on all PIs. Lesson learnt ; AIM shares in dodgy jurisdictions with majority shareholders holding controlling stakes will screw you over.

May we take it from your daily rants that you are not a believer in man made climate change?

daltry, FS is correct, but then there is grey and blue H, variously placed along the green spectrum depending on the feedstock/power source used to make it.

Green H is Not made from oil or gas. Get the basics right.

"HUR’s absolutely massive undervaluation as compared to it’s peers is incredibly evident "

It has no peers. Afaik, there is no comparable co with an uncertain reservoir which could decline or fail over the next 6 months, an uncertain FPSO contract, and a debt overhang due in / months time.

As for its "prolific vast West of Shetland acreage/assets/licenses" none have pruduced at rates that are more rthan marginally, commercial, and the Lancaster experience casts doubt that they ever will. And it is highly unceretain where the co would get the cash to drill more wells once the bonholders are repaid.

Note i have said "uncertain". It is not impossible to paint a rosaier scenario, but those painting it here are ignoring some pretty inonvenient facts, and positing certainty where there is none.

"" Brent was back at $60 early Jan 21 when vaccines kicked in and even village idiot knew was going higher as Covid beaten"

Not so. Jan 21 Brent was just above $50 and the market was nervous. Nobody knew if Covid was beaten, and nobody knew where Poo would go. Nobody does now, either. Poo is not high bcos demand has recovered. It is high bcos OPEC+ are nervous of demand, have shown unusual restraint and kept c. 5m bd off the market.

Cookie
Yes, the tax loss is intruiging. CA say "The Fund has asked Hurricane to assess the financial implications of these tax losses and allowances in the event of a corporate transaction. The Fund believes that the quantum may be very substantial."

I'm not expert in oil industry tax loss rules, but suspect they are quite complex with much ring fencing, hypothecation, and restriction to avoid as far as possible too much loss to Treasury. Hard to know what they could be worth, it will depend on the circumstances of any company that looks at HUr just how much use they are.
But one would think there muxt be some value there to someone.

senseman
Thanks for putting me straight. Has it occurred to you that at the time the Bod made their plans HUR had no prospect of accumulating anywhere near the cash necessary to pay the bonds ; that's why they were trading at such a discount. And that is ultimately their fireproof defence against any legal action.

Much comment here seems, again, to be missing the point.

This is a RB RNS aimed at his own CA shareholders, so he's bigging up the blame on HUR. Fine, but don't take the threat of litigation seriously ; what saved HUR was Poo, enabling the court challenge to succeedbcos the increased revenuesmade bond repayment a possibility. The former BoD may look monkeys now, but they will have been well aware of their legal and fduiary duties ; if a court action is ever launched, which I doubt, ti's Cos will be very, very, small, and i suspect RB knows it.

The significant part of the RNS is "The Fund notes that Hurricane is evaluating options to bolster production from the Lancaster field, as well as pathways towards development of the substantial Lincoln discovery asset. The Fund believes that in addition to the existing P6 well, substantial quantities of oil can be recovered from the Hurricane portfolio." Now, CA will have its own geos, so they disagree with HUR's.
Now, I don't know who's right ; I'm not a geo, and I don't have the data. But I am concsious that so far, the rservoir is behaving in line with the new HUR model, so i see no reason to think them wrong.

But there is no certainty ; if CA are right, this could multibag if not, it's a dead duck. That is not an investment proposition ; it's a coin toss.

So its a casino cxhare, gents ; place your bets.