Member Info for LONGWAIT

'The share price speaks for itself.'

The share price was 55p several months before First Oil and Ashcroft said that a successful EPS would 'underpin' the share price.

It was 64.5 p the day before First Oil.

Now, after eight months of steady production, with an increase of about 50 percent apparently recently having happened, and HUR having made about £ 140 million clear profit, you say I'M deluded??

Today 14:13

Short positions actually reduced last month as per Euroclear data. This drop is obviously due to more bad news being leaked. Last 6 weeks this company has lost over 300 million market cap. This is not all manipulation I am afraid.

06 Feb 2020 08:37

As I said something was going on and news had been leaked. Once the water problems are confirmed this is a dead duck. Sorry for all those still invested. Most will be lucky to get their money back.

(Indy)

So, the bad news you are predicting is, presumably, that the directors have been lying to us all along and there really is a serious problem with water cuts?

And, although it is obvious to you that the share price can only go lower, the shorters have been closing their positions, when they could have kept them open and carried on making money??

It seems RG took advantage of the rise caused by a director's buying to offload some more.

Yes - you're right, but I was using the idea as a literary device.
I expect the negative comments to continue.
Maybe they will spread a rumour that the attempted increase in production failed, and HUR will be forced to issue an RNS denying the rumour.

Indeed, WW!

If HUR confirm that production has increased to 20 kbopd, expect rumours of an increased water cut, and depressing reports that RT's dream of turning HUR into another PMO or TLW is in tatters, and that he has given up all hope of ever being able to pay a dividend.

Thanks, WWN.

If, in July 2022, sterling has risen to its more normal rate of $1.50, a share price of 34.67p would suffice.
If, by July 2022, HUR is producing 40 kbopd, then its revenue in dollars (assuming a stable oil price) will have trebled.
Even Ashcroft, OJ and company will have a hard time justifying a lower price than 34.67 p.

So, Dubliner, it turns out that HUR don't 'need $300m in bank for 2022 bond buy back' after all.

'Quelle surprise!' as Double and Escargot might say.

And I thought the $300m 'missing' from the bank might have been a key part of Oilman Jim's fundamental analysis - so fundamental that he hasn't even provided it.

'People looking for issues where there is none.'

... in order to try to explain the collapse of the share price?

I don't follow, MCB.
HUR's revenue comes from Lancaster.
How can a farmout of GWA put HUR in a precarious position?

Maybe JTF/STZ could set a date for his/their own departure?

I wish them no ill, but whenever I visit this page, it is covered with these messages:

?'This message has been filtered, please adjust your filters to view'

' it sits right in the middle of a number of finds and looks like they think they have found the "sweet spot" that covers a number of the discoveries.'

Can you elaborate?

I agree with you, Manyana, about SF's unsavouriness, but what effect is their electoral success likely to have on the Irish oil industry?

I think Double answered that previously and said it would be difficult, if not impossible, but he said the other day that you could always drill somewhere nearby.

The thing is: oil prospecting is not the same as looking for a needle in a haystack.

'I think we'll be re-visiting LC probably next year when Spirit is under new ownership.
Meanwhile the OGA will likely grant the extension.'

Just to be clear: if an extension is not granted, we can't revisit LC - or not the exact same location?

I think the most effective way to fight back is to do what HUR is doing, which is to increase production and, thereby, income.
That produces figures that cannot be disputed - unlike NAV estimates based on exploration.
Critics may be able to get away with saying that HUR's NAV is 11p per share when a reasonable estimate is 110p per share, but they aren't going to be able to get away with claiming that HUR has earned 2p per share when published, provable figures are 10p per share.
This episode is disturbing, infuriating, aggravating and stressful, but HUR's detractors are going to look increasingly ridiculous if they don't charge their tune.

I think you meant 'deserting a sinking ship'.

Yes - they certainly won't 'swim against the tide'!

But they may 'change their tune' when HUR's 'tide turns' ...

' is this confirmation bias writing (it's far easier to follow the herd, rather than risking a reputation by going with a personal opinion...?'

(pecten11)

It does look as though many commentators are succumbing to peer pressure and the share price movements.

I gave an example of the movement in price - rather than real opinion - determining the analyst's 'opinion' with GS's coverage of the oil price a few years ago.

I said that Ashcroft may have wanted, like GS, to avoid looking stupid by going against the market, but the thing that makes me think there may be more to it than that is that he said HUR was overvalued at 22p, having been neutral when it was 55p.

It has also just occurred to me that in my younger days, when I read the IC, they were in the habit of assessing the value of a company partly by reference to its price-earnings ratio, yet - like Ashcroft - they have studiously avoided the issue.

Ashcroft spent some space in his article making curious comparisons between HUR and other producers, PMO and TLW, but also managed somehow not to mention that HUR was already on a derisory P/E ratio of barely two.

That is suspicious.

Thanks for your replies, Double.

I was actually going to put the questions to you personally, but didn't because obviously I'm interested to see what other posters think too.

At first, I thought you had mis-typed and omitted the 'g' from organist, although as an organist, Howie would probably be less dangerous than as a journalist.

I had to look up 'onanist' and am certain that onanism too would be a much less harmful occupation for the same Hosie.

Whether HUR would be able to pay dividends was probably the one point where I thought he might have hit the target, but as you point out HUR has never said that it aims to be able to pay anyone a dividend, which does render Osie rather impotent.

I suppose that means an anti-climax for Osie's article, the very opposite of successful journalism - or even onanism.

'Hurricane Energy (HUR) has had a setback in production at its Greater Warwick Area project, with the decision to abandon the Lincoln Crestal well.'
Question: is it actually true that HUR announced in its latest RNS a new decision to abandon the LC well?

'Barclays analyst James Hosie said the abandonment was bad news for Hurricane’s ambition to be a stable producer. “[This year] was supposed to be when Hurricane provided the tangible data points needed to elevate the stock from a basement reservoir concept with niche investor appeal into an established UK oil production growth business,” he said. Mr Hosie said the company’s path to medium-term cash flow had stalled.'
Question: is it true that the latest news about LC is 'bad news for Hurricane’s ambition to be a stable producer'?
Question: is it true that HUR now can no longer provide 'the tangible data points needed to elevate the stock from a basement reservoir concept with niche investor appeal into an established UK oil production growth business' this year?
Question: is it true that the 'company’s path to medium-term cash flow has stalled'?

'As Mr Hosie said, Hurricane has pushed hard to join the next level of oil and gas companies - those with cash flow and shareholder payouts. Instead, its share price has collapsed from £1bn to around £350m, and additional production has been delayed.'
Question: is it true that because of the collapse of its share price, HUR cannot become a company 'with cash flow and shareholder payouts'?
Question: is it true that 'additional production has been delayed'?

Hurricane in rough spell

Hurricane Energy (HUR) has had a setback in production at its Greater Warwick Area project, with the decision to abandon the Lincoln Crestal well.

The company’s share price was down almost 20 per cent on the news, to 17p. Hurricane’s North Sea activities are based on feeding oil and gas to the Aoka Mizu floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel it has in the area. The company said it was not possible to connect the FPSO and Lincoln Crestal, although did not detail why. Under Oil and Gas Authority rules, Lincoln Crestal should be plugged and abandoned by 22 June, but Hurricane said it would ask for an extension on this to “obtain interference data”. Lincoln Crestal had been tested at 9,800 barrels of oil per day (bopd) with the aid of pumping equipment and 4,682bopd in natural flow conditions.
Panmure Gordon analyst Colin Smith said there were still questions for Hurricane on the abandonment decision. “It is unclear why [Hurricane and minority owner Spirit Energy] have concluded that the Lincoln Crestal well could not be tied back to the FPSO and that will delay production through the FPSO until the new Lincoln producer has been drilled, tested and tied back, assuming it is successful,” he said.
Barclays analyst James Hosie said the abandonment was bad news for Hurricane’s ambition to be a stable producer. “[This year] was supposed to be when Hurricane provided the tangible data points needed to elevate the stock from a basement reservoir concept with niche investor appeal into an established UK oil production growth business,” he said. Mr Hosie said the company’s path to medium-term cash flow had stalled.

Hurricane said it would still try and make “maximum use” of Aoka Mizu by drilling another production well in the Greater Lancaster Area.
As Mr Hosie said, Hurricane has pushed hard to join the next level of oil and gas companies - those with cash flow and shareholder payouts. Instead, its share price has collapsed from £1bn to around £350m, and additional production has been delayed. We have had a hold recommendation on Hurricane based on its new revenue from the Lancaster early production system and prospect of new wells. The exploration troubles have taken away some upside expectation but the transition from explorer and developer to producer is never totally smooth. Hold at 17p.
Last IC View: Hold, 47p, 20 Sep 2019

https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/shares/2020/02/07/hurricane-in-rough-spell/