RE: HUR6 Mar 2020 12:59
I've only just read the RNS, financial press's interpretation of it, and most of today's posts.
I would add only the following comments:
First, after all the muck thrown at HUR, with certain people - including TLF, Jamie Ashcroft, James Hosie and - last as well as least - TSD - questioning whether HUR's barrels contain oil, whether the company is a stable producer, and whether the company even has a future,
and with all the doubts expressed here about whether HUR was producing 12,500 bopd, let alone 20,000 bopd, because of sightings,
and despite the reasonable expectation that initial production would be slightly less than 20 kbopd,
the company confirms an increase of 50 percent to 20 kbopd
and the share price makes a new - almost 4-year - low!
To be honest, the thing that impresses me most is not the confirmation of 20 kbopd, which I said I didn't doubt would come, but the reaction of all genuine investors here.
As I said a few years ago (!), the things to worry about are the oil price and general stock market, not the HUR management.
I hadn't reckoned at that time with a concerted 'character assassination' of the company, but that should pass.
One final thought: if RB knew about the likely contents of the RNS before accumulating his stake, does that mean he has read the market correctly?
:
First, after all the Muck thrown at HUR, with certain people - including TLF, Jamie Ashcroft, James Hosie and - last as well as least - TSD - questioning whether HUR's barrels contain oil, whether the company is a stable producer, as whether the company even has a future,
and with all the doubts expressed here about whether HUR was producing 12,500 bold, let
it is entirely fitting that on the day that HUR confirms a