Member Info for LONGWAIT

I'm not seeking a spat with anyone, Double.
If Cebo is calling me a muppet and accusing me of pretending to be a HUR investor, then he should withdraw that accusation.
As I said, when I quoted Hitler's Mein Kampf in order to discredit it, I wasn't - and would not expect to be - accused of being a Nazi.

I agree with your comments about Ashcroft and others.
The thing that I find so suspicious about his article is that he wrote that HUR was overvalued at 22.68p.
He hadn't said anything of the kind in the interview ( to which I provided a link) when the price was 55p BEFORE First Oil.

' I too am interested in the way so many media comments seem to be 'accentuating the negative' in parallel with the SP drop.'

That's it!
For example, we read that the three-drill programme was a failure because two drills didn't produce commercial oil, yet one well produced 9,800 bopd!
It's like reading Pravda under Brezhnev.

As far as I can see, Cebo, I'm the only person here today to have quoted from Ashcroft's article.

Are you calling me a 'muppet' and accusing me of pretending to be invested?

Thank you, Drillspark, for that quote.

There really is something strange going on here.
A poster (S7ein) who rubbishes Edison's valuations and reckons HUR is worth about £220 million, had predicted zero revenue for HUR in 2019 and was doubtful that there would be any in 2020.

Jamie Ashcroft reckons HUR isn't a successful producer, is unlikely to be a successful explorer, and won't survive without further finance.

DSPP hasn't anything against HUR - don't get him wrong - but can't stop talking about HUR and water (I can find HUR under 'Oil and exploration' but maybe he thinks it should be moved to 'Utilities.')

One of the recent articles described the three-well programme as a failure, even though Lincoln Crestal flowed at 9,800 bopd.
WD has been described as a duster, even though our resident expert, Double, said it was nothing of the kind.

The list just goes on and on.

HUR issues an RNS more or less confirming something it had said in its previous RNS, and it is reported as a serious setback, with the share price immediately marked down by 19 percent.

And just in case you thought that the 'too many shares, too much oil' complaint would finally go away, Ashcroft keeps them going.

He says HUR shares are overvalued AFTER they have fallen by about two-thirds.

Take a look at this interview

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/310423/LON:HUR/Hurricane-Energy-PLC/

he gave BEFORE FIRST OIL, in which he says what the company was doing was exciting and (towards the end) that a successful EPS would 'underpin' HUR's share price - then 55p.

Yet, nearly eight months AFTER a successful EPS, and with HUR having made £120 million from oil sales, he actually wrote that HUR was OVERVALUED after having fallen by 60 percent!

Having said that a successful EPS would underpin a SP of 55p, he now says at 22p HUR is overvalued!

Maybe, like Barclays, he doesn't want the market to make him look stupid.

In answer to S7ein:

There is a huge disparity between the NAV estimate you cite, of 11p per share, and Edison's latest estimate of 109.9p.

HUR's revenues are expected to be about 15p per share this calendar year.
Based on expected 2022 revenue, it is on a P/E ratio of less than one, which is extraordinary.

Taking these facts into consideration, I know which valuation I find credible - and it certainly isn't the 11p one.

'what they wanted was a bid for Sound at 20 or 30 or 40p or something, which would value them at, maybe, back up to maybe a hundred million quid or a bit more.

But, when you look at it, what have they done here? They've got a deal which gives them 55 million in cash and 55 million in carry, roughly.'

Isn't he underestimating the value of a cash bid?
Bids of 20/30/40 p per share would have amounted to about 200/300/400 million, not the one hundred million he estimated.

As for his comment,
'I don't see why you wouldn't get 50p worth of money out of Sound, but again it's over the longer period.'

he doesn't estimate the value of an annual royalty, but if he had something like 1.5p in mind, maybe he thinks the gas could last about 35 years.

As I said, if SOU found 1 TCF and it paid out at the same rate (estimated by posters) as TE-5 (1.4p, adjusted to take account of recent dilution), the total 'royalty' would be 5p per share, amounting to 179p over 35 years.

I'm not sure I will live that long, but it would be a useful income, and potential inheritance, and I would recover my losses within a few years.

I'm not saying it will happen, but they could discover more. We just don't know.

Because of such considerations, I was tempted to buy at 1.75p, but it seems safer to wait for confirmation, even if it means paying a premium.

Yes.
They don't want to look ridiculous.
You must have noticed some posters ridiculing analysts' valuations as well as brokers' targets when the price dives.
I refer you to my post yesterday about Goldman Sachs upping their oil price forecast when the price had recovered strongly from the low in the 20s, just in time for a less savage correction.
They found a rationalisation in terms of the 'balancing' of supply and demand, but really they were allowing the market to influence their judgment, which is what Barclays is doing.
If my memory serves me correctly, when the price then fell, GS faced the other way, with more rationalizing about balancing.

I have one other thought today: as I have mentioned a number of times, when there was discussion here about how HUR would get oil out of the ground, whether anyone would farm in, etc., I suggested that HUR become a producer.
Eminent posters - who were more knowledgeable than I - dismissed the idea, citing HUR's declared intention not to go it alone, and the difficulties involved in doing so.
Ashcroft wrote in his infamous article, ' if viewed solely as an oil producer, Hurricane is punching way outside its weight class' and
'It has a big market value based on potential and unaddressed resources in the ground, meanwhile, the company's fate lies squarely in the hands of financiers and corporate rainmakers.'

He is saying he doesn't think much of HUR as a producer, that exploration is too big a project, for which it is unlikely to receive the necessary finance, and that since HUR - according to him - can't compete with other producers, its fate lies in the hands of others.
HUR's 'answer' is to ramp up production and income.
It seems to me like a very good response.

Interesting theory, JB.
0.52 % is about 10.3584 million, which is actually more than those trades totaled, BUT in any case CAIUS had reduced their holding to 0.37 % two days before!

It's certainly worth watching the two remaining large shorters: Marshall Wace (about 14.14 million shares) and Squarepoint (about 10 million shares).

Yes, TM, I read that a few hours ago, but resisted the temptation to mention the 90p potential.

The 'after-hours' trades today total more than ten million BUYS (net).

This is no time to fold!

The situation you describe, Double, is like a reverse of the 'Greater Fool Theory,' which states something like (and this is from memory): 'Foolish though I may be to buy at these inflated prices, I can count on there being an even greater fool to buy at even higher prices.'

So, I think what you're saying is that the shorters cannot continue their operation if the panic selling finally ends.
At that point, they may have to close their positions.
I cannot say where the bottom is, but I can confidently predict two things: one, the price will recover and eventually reach the 60s again, and two, when it does, posters like BH1 will be nowhere to be heard.

'On what basis will this ever see old highs?'

(eskibeatbeater)

I know it's difficult to imagine share price recoveries, but I remember how, following the property crash around 1990, no-one would invest in central London properties at bargain prices and record low interest rates.

If I may answer your question with two questions:

'On what basis DID this ever see such highs?'

Remember, it recovered from 8.85p to 67.5p and then from 24p to 64.5p, just before First Oil.

and,

'Why was a share price of 64.5p considered appropriate just before First Oil, but millions of barrels later, 17p is considered the right value?'

Recent articles such as Ashcroft's have suggested that HUR at about 20p was overvalued, yet there was no shortage of articles suggesting that HUR at about 40p was undervalued.

The thing that keeps coming to (my) mind is that whatever the share price does, people are looking for rationalizations, like the football experts who by means of their expert analysis 'proved' that a team won a match because of their manager's tactics or the way they played, when in reality a couple of offside decisions went their way.

After Goldman Sachs had got the oil price completely wrong, they upped their forecast, explaining that they had 'underestimated' how soon supply would be 'rebalanced.'
They were just in time for another correction and then downgraded their forecast.

If the SP has been manipulated downwards, then the next move will be manipulation upwards.

In the meantime, it might encourage the shorters if there were some mega buys - not 9.5 million shares after hours, but a hundred million.

Yes, S/O.

They are saying that Eastern Morocco has up to 34 TCF (previously 31) and the low case for SM is 6.7 TCF.

They certainly have not downgraded their estimates.
And the wonderful thing is that anyone here who still thinks that the whole project is a scam, and there never was any gas, are welcome to take their concerns to Mohammed Seghiri.

Not sure that Moroccans take accusations of being a 'Failure,' a conman, and a criminal, as good-naturedly as JP did, though.

It is amazing that it has not been developed, but the flow rates and seismic data suggest that TOR was right when, in answer to an interviewer's question, he said:

'There's nothing wrong with Barryroe!'

According to TOR, majors were indeed showing interest just a few months ago.

I don't understand why they can't conclude a deal, on terms unusually favourable to the farminee, and get on with it.

The total 'after-hours' net buys so far today are 9.5 million shares, which is unusually high.
We've noticed this phenomenon for several trading sessions, and it hasn't prevented the price from falling!
Eventually, the (genuine) buying pressure, combined with short-closing, must cause a recovery.
We are within 9p of the all-time low.
Incredible.

'1,250,000 share BUY.

Immediately followed a 780,000+ share BUY.'

(Argus1)

... followed by a 5,000,000 share SELL

Thanks, Miss Dosh.
I was wondering when you would reappear.
Since Edison's 109.9p per share valuation attributed only 4p per share to LC and was based on 17k bopd, one can reasonably expect that an increase to 20k bopd will result in an increased NAV and an even greater SP discount to NAV.

I think the shorting/manipulation must have started much earlier than that - at about 64.5p.
Some posters were predicting a correction in the 60s last year, because that's what happened in 2017 - from 67.5 p to 24p - and again in 2018 - from about 60p to about 40p, although I don't remember that one well.
Remember, the price was 46p just ten weeks ago.
The price is down 74 percent (at today's low) SINCE First Oil.
It's got to be the most unbelievable thing I have ever seen in the financial markets.

Okay, Albi.

By the way, I must also correct my notional 1625p price in 2023.
It should be 500p, i.e. 25 x 20p eps.

Perhaps it's AIM-induced debilitation.

If you and T_O_D are right and there are dozens of shorters, each shorting less than 0.5 percent (I think that's the threshold), then imagine what will happen when they close them.

There will be a scramble for the exit.

'If 15p is the bottom, why not sell now and buy back 10% cheaper?'

Because no-one knows where the bottom is!

I myself don't know, but I do know that the price cannot fall by 4p per day for another trading week.
I also know that at some point, an institutional investor is going to start accumulating, as it becomes obvious that production has not been affected by any water cuts and that, on the contrary, it has increased.

'it’s all to do with misleading management statements and leaks of price sensitive info, AIMHO, it really does stink and the Dr should take a long hard look in the mirror and resign, scandalous behaviour by HUR'

(hopalong)

It does look suspiciously as though MMs knew in advance about this RNS, but how can you blame RT for that?
As for the previous RNS, he may have suspected that the LC development had been leaked, but considered that it shouldn't cause a price fall, because production from Lancaster is unaffected.
It seems beyond a coincidence that the water cut rumours and the two unhelpful articles were published in the run-up to this RNS.

By the way, here is a comment about the previous HUR RNS:

'its a perfectly sound RNS from a company hitting its targets and bettering them as well'

You yourself wrote that.
How can you blame RT for the SP fall after writing that?

According to LSE, five-eighths of trades today are buys.
According to HL, 78 percent of trades on Monday were buys.
So, I don't 'buy' the explanation that the share price has been falling just because so many investors have sold their shares.
It seems that MMs lower prices on any or no pretext, and that is why AIM is a nightmare for investors and a paradise for shorters.