Member Info for LONGWAIT

I'm just guessing, Double, but I think you're using predictive text (possibly on a phone) and producing howler typos like mine.

I'll colour you stubborn, if you like, but would prefer to call you stubborn.

Or Double.

I agree with you, Chessman.
'Analysts at Morgan Stanley reiterated their 'buy' recommendation for shares of Hurricane Energy, telling clients they continued to see a "realistic bull case" for the company under which its shares would trade over five times higher by the end of 2020.
... Under said 'bull" case scenario, which assumed a long-term price for oil of $75.0 a barrel, and a value of $8.0 for each of the approximately 785m barrels of 2C reserves at Lancaster and Lincoln, Morgan Stanley estimated a net asset value for the shares of 347.0p.'

The valuation appears not to include the potential at Halifax, Warwick and Whirlwind.

If reserves are ultimately proven there, what effect would that have on the NAV?

Does anyone have a rough idea of how many SOU shares are traded on a normal trading day?

You mean, SG, that some LTHs have given up?
I've been holding HUR shares for five years and other shares for fewer years and it seems to be an endurance test.
Even if you hold blue-chip shares, there are from time to time broker recommendations to sell them.
That means that if you accept all negative broker recommendations, you cannot hold any share long-term.
If you read BBs, you are bombarded by sell recommendations on every sharp share price fall and every setback.
You need to be very foolish or very stubborn to hold on.

'Somebody's excited '

If so, then it's someone who believes that SOU is worth more than the 5 to 10 pence per share claimed by many posters when the share price was still falling.

But maybe the share price reached 17.5p on hope.

Now, there seems to be increasing despair.

If there were a leak that a bid of 50p has been received, the price would go higher than 8p or 9p.

I'm not so sure: 9.00/9.99 +0.56 doesn't make sense.
The bid/offer spread is absurdly wide and the rise is understated.
What's more, LSE's later quote is 9.0/8.9, which is impossible

If TE-10 had been successful, maybe Chuckle Bros could have acquired the chip shop (possibly through a combination of cash and Chuckle Preference Shares) and then JTF and STZ could have awarded themselves free chips as perks.

To think of what might have been...

I wrote: ' I think the market is acknowledging that there is oil in Lancaster'

but maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe they don't believe that either!

Sorry - I forgot I was posting on LOGP and was referring to the PVR share price.

Yes, you're right about it being a bad year, but I think HUR, JOG and PMO will come good.

The only problem with PMO is that it needs a high oil price to pay off its debt pile.

If it could pay it all off, the shares should fly.

I think you could be right, but presumably that would mean APEC being in breach of contract, unless a further extension is agreed.

Either way, it probably means the share price drifting further.

I honestly didn't imagine it would go this low again.

At this rate, it might be wisest to wait for Barryroe to be given the go-ahead before buying any more, because the share price could still be very low.

Not sure about that, Malchy, but I think the market is acknowledging that there is oil in Lancaster and nowhere else.

Here's what Morgan Stanley were saying before the recent drill failure:

Under said 'bull" case scenario, which assumed a long-term price for oil of $75.0 a barrel, and a value of $8.0 for each of the approximately 785m barrels of 2C reserves at Lancaster and Lincoln, Morgan Stanley estimated a net asset value for the shares of 347.0p.

However, under their base case scenario the projected NAV was now a lesser 58.0p, which was down from 56.0p previously, and under its bear case it was 17.0p, which was up from 14.0p previously.

"We believe a Price Target at this point is not relevant, given the wide range of valuation outcomes."

https://www.sharecast.com/news/broker-recommendations/morgan-stanley-reiterates-buy-for-shares-of-hurricane-energy--3932926.html

'It was an attempt to keep the share price propped-up...'

You mean, in anticipation of the $3m placing?

Whoever took up the placing shares are losing too.

My post, yesterday at 18:44:

'Some posters have in the past made the point that during the past five years, there has been a large increase in the number of shares in issue, which has to be taken into account when considering the share price performance.

Nevertheless, historically, share prices of successful, growing companies have taken such increases in their stride.'

Lest we forget: two directors recently bought 150,000 shares each at 10.6p and 12.04p.

The purchases were dismissed as derisory, but why would two directors throw away nearly 34,000 pounds between them?

They may have made a mistake; after all, Keith Bush, of Northern Petroleum / Cabot Energy infamy, bought shares which are now practically worthless.

However, the SOU directors bought, knowing that Tendrara would be marketed.

If they thought Tendrara would be sold for 5-10p per share, why would they buy at 10.6p and 12p?

I don't know what your estimate was!

I don't think you're missing anything except possibly the fact that the market is expecting something to go wrong.

It used to be failure to raise finance, then it was failure to produce first oil, and now it's more failed drills and the oil drying up, in which case HUR will no longer have any revenue.

That is how AIM works - as well as the idea that the share price is supposedly unsustainably high.

That is why HUR's share price is at about the same level as when it was floated.

Has anyone ever tried suing the Chinese?

If the Chinese pay, but regulatory approval is withheld, then presumably PVR would be contractually bound to return the money to APEC.

So what are the Chinese worried about - that TOR would flee to the Bahamas with their cash?

Malchaufa: my estimate was obviously wrong, because it's was based on 40,000 bpd every day.

However, I think my general point is still valid, that some time during the next few years the accumulated revenue can be expected to equal the current market capitalisation.

You could be right.

There is some more coverage here:

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/189604/hurricane-boss-plans-seamless-execution-of-drilling-campaigns-off-shetland/