Member Info for haggis_trap

Right - that is me back into LBE for a modest amount...

Patience required here, so taking a longer-term view of 2-3 years. If board achieve the stated aim of creating a mid-cap oil company then the upside potential is huge from 77p. As world recovers from covid it is inevitable energy demands will increase as the world sees one final oil-boom before transition to greener energy : so the timing could yet be perfect.

Norway is certainly the right environment to be attempting such a venture in current political and economic climate. No doubt the next 18 months will be more exciting that previous period. Exploration more risky than production - however Equinor are a solid partner with good track record - plus there are lots of clues (job adverts etc) that other deals are in the making. Feels to me like LBE remain under the radar for now but excitement will increase towards autumn. An early strike from first or second well would be fantastic to under pin confidence in the strategy and share price.

Good luck all!

Excellent post and logic. Had Kerogen voted then total votes cast (CA + Kerogen + private investors) would be higher than 32.87%.

Kerogen own 15.98% of shares. Crystal Amber 14.32%.
We all know how Crystal Amber voted. The obvious question therefore is why Kerogen abstained.... I smell a RAT

^ actually. Only 7% of the votes cast (30% share capital) were offer. Which suggests Kerogen either voted against or abstained.

Great result : well done to all who held shares and voted
Obvious question : can we work out which 7% of share holders voted with board? What is Kerogens current holding as %.

There is some history between Faroe & Equinor. Previously (in 2018) they swapped some exploration assets for more mature assets already in production. Might be a clue for strategy here? That move annoyed DNO, who had just submitted initial hostile bid for Faroe : though they eventually followed through to completion.
https://www.offshore-technology.com/news/faroe-equinor-sign-deal-to-swap-norwegian-oil-and-gas-assets/

> Shareholders didn’t buy in for exploration though

Fully agree... Exploration a much riskier proposition than production, all be it with higher reward. This is clearly plan-B after the original assets they planned to acquire feel through. In either case it was clear more cash was going to need to be raised here (the 7 million in bank was simply money to pay the wages and was never going to buy much in North Sea).

I suspect this will re-open closer to £1 as institutions always get to fund raise at a discount. However the real value will be dependent on drill bit being successful.

^ exactly : a raise for institutions at 80p will likely mean it re-opens at closer to £1.
plus there are now reasons (x4 drills) for the share price to rise between now and year end (which it will).

remember the share price was basically reflective of the cash in bank. they now need to raise more cash. so hard to justify doing that a premium - especially when farm in deal on exploration doesn't bring immediate revenue.

I feel your your pain...
Would have expected a raise at small premium to existing prices to reward those who remained loyal.
Certainly > £1. However I suspect the companies hands are tied:

a) Raising finance for oil in current political and economic climate is non-trivial. This will entirely be at behest of the institutions (who may already be invested?) and the terms and conditions they impose
b) Value is added for share-holders not by raising debt but through successful transactions. A farm in deal on 8 drills has massive future potential, but come with obvious risk and no immediate revenue / production.

As I see it this was always a longer-term investment. The next 18 months will certainly be much more exciting than time period up until now. The most important thing is that they finally have some kind of deal and *something* is finally happening. I still believe this could be £3-5 within a few years.

Between them Kerogen and Crystal Amber hold 25% of the shares (and could cancel the re-structuring).
The Hurricane board has spent £17 million on the restructuring.
Why would they do this if Kerogen were simply going to vote against.
I smell a RAT.

Wot : the restructuring cost £17 million....!?
Someone deserves prison time over this fiasco

JockJoy : I would love to believe that PlantedBHA was Dr Trice on a wind-up! Have wondered...

If CA manage to oust the board it's not beyond realms of fantasy Trice returns to the fold. Given the amount of money I lost here not sure what I would make of that.... Either way : Dr Trices silence is deafening. Penny for his thoughts!

p23
file:///C:/Users/doug/AppData/Local/Temp/Hurricane_Energy_plc_Annual_Report_and_Group_Financial_Statements_2020.pdf

Wow - even the company report admits the company is rotten to the core and subject to litigation.
Class Action ?

"The Group is subject to an elevated risk of litigation and regulatory investigation in relation to historic announcements and recent developments in relation to the proposed restructuring. On 10 May 2021 the FCA’s Market Oversight Department requested that the Group provide information in relation to historic announcements and recent developments in relation to the proposed financial restructuring. The Group is not under formal investigation, and is responding to the FCA’s enquiries, which are at a preliminary stage, on a voluntary basis. If any formal investigations or litigation are started and substantiated in the future against the Group, its directors, officers, employees or potentially its joint venture partners, this could result in a finding of liability and requirement to pay redress or criminal or civil penalties, including substantial monetary fines, against the Group, its directors, officers or employees. Any such outcomes in the
future could damage the Group’s reputation and its ability to do business and could adversely affect its financial condition and results of operations and prospect"

Finally, One other quote catches my eye :

"During the first half of 2020, Lancaster experienced a significant deterioration in reservoir performance while attempting to
ramp production up to towards the target of 20,000 bopd. This led to a decision to shut in the 205/21a-7z well in May 2020 and suspend production guidance for the year. This disappointing performance signalled a material departure from pre-production expectations, and a need to revisit the basic geological model and data interpretations."

This is re-writting history. In April 2020 we were told at the capital market presentation that reservoir performance was great and the water was perched. The company never admitted publicly the reservoir performance was problematic until the kitchen sinking in September. At time of the 7Z shut in we were told it was because of "interference" between the wells...

Also, p6 :

"we will also continue to develop the technical and commercial case for further development opportunities at Lancaster and, if supported by our Bondholders, execute any further investment case effectively. "

This quote on page 4 caught my eye : The board plan future activity on West of Shetland assets. But : only once share holders diluted out of the equation. These b@stards aren't even making an attempt to hide what their plan is. The contempt shown for share holders is there for all to see.

"If completed, this restructuring will deliver a viable balance sheet which can support our revised strategy of maximising cash flow from the Lancaster field to repay debt, and in parallel continue to build the justification for future activity on our West of Shetland assets"

well done a long-term holders who had more patience than me to wait for first deal!
really pleased to finally see some action here.
I await the relist price and details with interest.
With 4 drills lined up the next 18 months will be much more exciting than the first 18 months.

>" The oil isn't there. "

Except : That is NOT what company says....

". In parallel, the Company will continue to develop the technical and commercial case for further development opportunities at Lancaster and, if supported by its Bondholders, execute any further investment as efficiently as possible"

Of course everyone knows HUR has had problems. No one denying that. The objection is a board treating share holders with blatant disdain before fixing the problem!

>" The oil isn't there. "

That is but what company says....

". In parallel, the Company will continue to develop the technical and commercial case for further development opportunities at Lancaster and, if supported by its Bondholders, execute any further investment as efficiently as possible"

Of course everyone knows HUR has had problems. No one denying that. The objection is a board treating share holders with blatant disdain before fixing the problem!