Member Info for LONGWAIT

Sorry, BIM, but I dislike pomposity just as much as you do.
We were discussing the question 'what has changed' about HUR.
Maybe you are referring to the collapse in the SP and the fact that conversion of the bonds now looks unlikely, whereas previously there was a good prospect of the price being above $0.52 at maturity.
I agree with you that the prospect of the bonds being converted has decreased, but is that necessarily a bad thing?
It means that HUR may avoid dilution.

'If you're referring to the current one, it has been producing about 10 kbopd for 12 months, is currently producing 12 kbopd, and the last water cut reported was eight percent.'

Sorry.
That's wrong.
I suppose it has been producing about 6,000+ bopd for 12 months, but currently double that amount.

Taking the first three items on your list, BIM,

'World economy
Covid 19
Attitude to fossil fuels'

as CS has intimated, they apply to all oil companies, but the world economy and attitudes can change again, and COVID 19 is as likely to have a permanent effect as the epidemic of a century ago, which is now largely forgotten.

'Trice gone'

Opinion is divided on whether that is a good thing or bad.

'BP/Shells ambitions regarding oil and NS in particular'

I agree, but attitudes and ambitions change, and BP and Shell aren't necessarily going to go into producing something else.

'Bond issue nearer'

The date of a bond's maturity by its nature is always getting nearer rather than further away.

'Several disappointing drills'

Wrong.

There were three drills, two of which produced oil, one at 9,800 bopd.
It is not yet certain that the OGA will prevent it from becoming a producing well.

'Question marks over producing well'

If you're referring to the current one, it has been producing about 10 kbopd for 12 months, is currently producing 12 kbopd, and the last water cut reported was eight percent.
There are always question marks about production from any well, since nothing is certain in life, but the question marks some people are drawing are exaggerated - take Lemon Fool for example.

'Many LT holders throwing in the towel.'

I agree, but that doesn't mean they are wise to do so.

'Unknown ambitions and direction to be taken by new management team.'

I agree, but HUR isn't the first company this has happened to, and it is not a universal prelude to disaster.

'So nothings changed?
Seriously?
You’re in danger of becoming deluded'

(buyinmay)

Anyone reading my comments can see that I didn't say nothing has changed, but I asked:

'What exactly has changed?

Has the oil disappeared?

Have we heard that there is much less oil than we thought there was?'

and I note that you haven't responded to those questions.

Yes, GM - I know by now how the market in HUR shares works.
I disagree with you that there can ever be a perpetual limit on the price of any share.
The fact that the price has collapsed three times after passing 60p does not mean that the price is 'fixed' for all time.
Surprises happen on the upside as well as downside.
I don't understand why you think the share price could never even reach the 60s again.
I think it's similar to people saying that oil will never reach $100 again.

'unfortunately things have changed'

What exactly has changed?

Has the oil disappeared?

Have we heard that there is much less oil than we thought there was?

I think that with the shares issued since then, but not taking into account conversion of bonds, RB's estimate of the value of Lancaster and Halifax equates to about 300p per share.

At that time, the share price was in the 50s.

At that time, no-one said that RB was mad or that a price of about 60p was crazy.

Nowadays, most people, it seems, laugh at the idea of the share price being 60p again.

No, but here is his comment on Lancaster three years ago:

'A huge discovery from Hurricane Energy.
Macquarie values oil in the ground at $7.50 per barrel.
On 1 billion, that's 500p a share pre-dev.'

https://twitter.com/CrystalAmberRB1/status/846250884174614528

The only thing that detracts from your comparisons, Modestus, is that so far all the examples you have given are of North American companies.
If, however, you are saying that CPG, although a successful company, suffered a share price decrease of 99 percent, that is staggering.

You mean $2 per share - not $2 per barrel, PS?

Wasn't it Richard Dawkins who said that ideas are like viruses?
Mad ideas sometimes have to run their course, like physical disease outbreaks.
For example, people are still talking about water cuts, even though the current water cut is eight percent.

I don't know what the next RNS will say, Genghis, but the water cut has been stable for three weeks and production stable at 10,300 bopd - and the increase to 12,000 bopd has been done previously without any problems arising.
HUR would have to be unlucky even by its own standards for something to go badly wrong here.
Even if, however, all goes well, would that successfully treat the MSD?
I suspect not, because there would then be speculation that the disease is dormant and that there will be a second wave.
It could be that only long-term treatment will effect a cure.
My main concern in the meantime is the company's performance, not the share price.

I think whatever plan they had announced, they would have been liable to be damned, SG2.
Had they said from the start that they would become a producer, something that oilies here discounted, would they have done any better?
The question is: what, if anything, would end the 'strike'?
Themari said that he thought HUR is supposed to be an exploration company, not a producer.
That's fine, if you have the funds to explore at leisure.
On the other hand, HUR cannot afford to be dependent on one producing well for its income.
It need to bring back L7 or replace it with LC or find another well somewhere.
If they could have a handful of producing wells, their income would be very considerable and would finance plenty of drilling programmes.
It seems very strange that the SP is still languishing near all-time lows, in spite of the oil price recovery.
There are explorers which are not yet producing and producers which are not exploring (e.g. JOG & RRE) whose share prices have doubled or tripled.
HUR is both an explorer and producer.
IMO, the main problem with this company is a belief that seems to have taken hold of the market and journalists alike that there is something fundamentally wrong with the company and that something is always going to go wrong.
Almost every RNS is followed by a share price fall.
I haven't noticed a similar perception or reaction with any other company.

Thanks for your encouragement, Modestus.
Someone was saying days ago that it would take years for the SP to get back to the 60s, but like you, I don't see why it couldn't happen quickly - but, unlike some posters, I wouldn't venture a guess as to when it might happen.
I note that GTE peaked on 28 September 2018 at $3.82 and bottomed at$0.18 on 18 March.
What would you say caused GTE's relentless descent - shorting, bad press, bad results, bad shareholders, bad management - or a combination thereof?

Are you leaving too, Albi?

I don't blame anyone for leaving or giving up.
HUR shares have fallen by 80 percent since their flotation.
The company has been rubbished like no other company I have come across.
I have never come across another company like it, with almost all company news sending the share price crashing.
Whether production increases or decreases, or the CEO stays or goes, the price goes down.
Veteran poster wellwell departed when the water cut scare - promoted by The Lemon Fool - was raging.
I can understand Double's despair because he respected RT's expertise.
It seems more and more old-timers are departing.
I'm afraid that when I'm left here, relating to youngster posters the vicissitudes since 2014, it will feel like a veteran of World War Two trying to explain to today's youth which side our country was on.

I've been holding HUR shares for six years, Jamella, and they are down by more than 80 percent since I first bought them and also since flotation.
I have never come across another company like it, with almost all company news sending the share price crashing.
Whether production increases or decreases, or the CEO stays or goes, the price goes down.

Yes, SSB, and I've seen companies where the directors bought plenty of shares but the price collapsed.
Nearly three years ago, a disgruntled SOU shareholder complained to the now-much-despised James Parsons that the share price had been performing poorly.
JP responded by buying 53,000 shares at 47p.
The shares are now 1.31p.
I recall Keith Bush of Northern Petroleum (later Cabot Energy) being called a crook, but he bought plenty of shares at lower and lower prices, at what later seemed ludicrously high prices after they had been rendered almost worthless by a capital reconstruction.

'12p is a 50% increase, do we think that’s possible short term?'

Does that really matter?
My average is 24p, so a price of 12p would leave me with a loss of 50 percent, and I know other LTHs have similar averages - and some even higher.

My question is more like whether we think 120p is possible long term.

I'm puzzled as to why people are asking whether this project can be made to work.
HUR has been producing a minimum of 10,300 bopd and maximum of 20,000 bopd, from one of these two wells or the two combined, for twelve months.
Lincoln Crestal flowed 9,800 bopd.
Why would anyone doubt that similar flow rates can be achieved elsewhere in Lancaster and Lincoln, and even Warwick and Halifax?
There is always the possibility of a problem arising, as has happened, but why do people still question whether FB works or HUR can continue to produce oil?

They had a three-well drilling programme, described by some posters and journalists as a failure or 'disappointing'.

One of the wells, Lincoln Crestal, flowed at 9,800 bopd, but due to regulatory issues may not be able to become a producer.

When the oil price collapsed, it would not have been a responsible action to spend money on drilling.

I am sure we will hear in due course what the company's drilling plans are.

'Fact is it cannot justify much higher with the uncertainty cashflow will be a hurdle going forward.. dilution possible more than ...'

(Shar12)

I don't get that.

Cashflow has always been uncertain because of changing flow rates and oil prices.

HUR has been producing a minimum of 10,300 bopd for more than 12 months.
It is currently producing that amount with a water cut of eight percent.
Why are people worried about whether HUR can continue to produce oil and about water cuts?
Why would there be any need to issue new shares?