Member Info for ReachForTheSky

Fyi and if helpful to notify ? - from AI:

The U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) is the primary U.S. government agency tasked with countering China’s presence in strategic regions by financing mining projects and infrastructure

Https://www.forbes.com/sites/timbajarin/2026/05/05/critical-minerals-are-the-new-center-of-global-competition/...

Lets see if this accepted bid is either an utterly incompent final play or a clever tactic to provoke competition?

...key extract from RNS imo:

."...particularly when considered against the timing and execution risks attached to financing, developing and operating the Ewoyaa Lithium Project under the Project's current joint venture arrangements..."

Smacks of great naievty at the very least and I'm being extremely. To arrive at this "solution" in the best interests of the shareholders because of the above "risks", which should have been managed and mitigated in the quiet months the BOD had to do so beggars belief. Either uttlerly immature and/or outmaneouvred OR a crude Trumpesque tactical stroke not to be taken seriously at all to prompt a proper offer pre Dec...

My interpretation- means Motion maybe put fwd with less than the normal notice period required for it's delivery at the relevant Parliament forum for its consideration. Double check if there is then a strict constitutional obligation on MP voters to actually pass that accelerated Motion on the same day it is delivered, or whether they can indeed can kick?

From AI this morning:

Based on the most recent Parliamentary updates and corporate filings as of Tuesday, March 10, 2026, the ratification of the Atlantic Lithium (Ewoyaa Project) Mining Lease is the focal point of today’s session, but it remains a developing situation.

​Current Status (March 10, 2026)

​On the Order Paper: The report of the Select Committee on Lands and Natural Resources regarding the revised Mining Lease was scheduled for presentation to the plenary. This follows a high-stakes committee meeting held on February 12, 2026.

​The Ratification Vote: While the report is being "laid" (formally presented) today, the final vote for ratification often follows shortly after the presentation of the committee's findings. The government is pushing for a swift conclusion to end the "regulatory limbo" that has persisted since late 2025.

​Company Confidence: Atlantic Lithium recently issued a corporate update (March 9) stating they are receiving "positive signals" from within Parliament. This optimism was a primary reason the board recently rejected a 100% takeover bid, betting that ratification today or this week will significantly re-rate the company's value.

DYOR.

100%.

Waited as long as possible but decided to finally bail today after eight years interest. Been fun but frustrating. Materially down but not out and as ADUK taught us, some things more important than share dealing.

Good luck whichever path you choose.

RFTS...and out.✈️

From HL to me today, still not a great comms but feel more accurate than AJ Bell's which I would suggest is misleading..ie a [distribution] WILL be made:

Hurricane Energy plc - Return of Capital Update

Dear
Further to our email sent on 19 January 2023, we would like to update you on the return of capital announced by Hurricane Energy plc. We previously advised that the proceeds were expected to be paid on or around 1 February 2023.
On 2 February 2023, Hurricane Energy plc announced the following: "The registering of the court order with the Registrar of Companies will complete the Reduction of Capital process, which allows the Company to make capital returns to shareholders. The completion of the process does not itself automatically trigger a capital return and, as previously announced, the next steps in terms of timing and exact quantum of a return of capital to shareholders will be decided in conjunction with the ongoing Formal Sales Process and we look forward to updating shareholders in due course." (Hurricane Energy plc, 02 February 2023).
Following this announcement, we are now awaiting a further update as to when to expect to receive the return of capital proceeds. If there is sufficient time following the announcement of a timetable ahead of the receipt of the proceeds, we will communicate this to you. However, if not, please be assured that upon receipt of the cash we will add this to your account without delay. We will contact you following the return of capital to confirm how your portfolio has been affected.

If you have any queries, please contact us.

Never underestimate the ability of "professionals" to muck up their announcements - very sloppy wordsmithing.

Best

RFTS

...fair point.
Not sure CA are bothered about strong leadership, strategy or plan at the granular level?..certainly havent seen it since Maris onboarded? I speculate that its in CAs better interests to keep a neutral passive and compliant "captain" in charge of a "tanker" I suspect they wish to offload anyway in the short to medium term?
RFTS

No evidence to support so mere speculation on my part but from everything I see right now ( no apparent exploration strategy or plan, CA's raison d'etre, lack of RNS noise, bond pay off and cash build, current climate, tax credits) points to a future wrap, pack and shift perhaps...timing key.
Best

RFTS

Daldry
That's interesting. NDAs by their nature have to be time bound to be legally enforceable. If one posits that RBs exit was linked to the ex BoDs plan which has failed and given the passage of time, RB might be soon exiting his confidentiality obligations in a more welcoming environment than he or we as curious shareholders may have anticipated- only speculating.
Best
RFTS

Interesting stuff.
For those better informed accountancy-wise than I on this forum , am I correct in thinking that for any losses to be acquired and to be able to be fully set off v profits in any acquirers accounts any acquisition would have to be on a going concern basis only? If so, does the potential risk re single well in the nearish future, which could jeopardise Hurrs ongoing ops, create a natural guillotine on the timeline for any such deal to be done...assuming the main prize for any big fish is indeed the losses as opposed to further material field development by Hurr itself?
Thanks
Rfts

Intelligent insight DC.
Only challenge I would make is inability to seal and therefore announce any news of a Bluewater extension...current BAU dependent on the ongoing existence of the FPSO , so whilst cash restraints and bond paying priorities might preclude locking in a long term extension as part of future planning, I'd be surprised if we didnt hear at least some kind of news of say an interim rolling deal...?.Only speculation however.
Kind regards
RFTS

" in the event of a corporate transaction..." ( per Schlemiel)..in the ongoing absence of a full development plan and accounting for CAs historical modus operandi ( ie activist shareholder v oil producer), doesnt this give us insight on the real "plan" ?
Can anyone refresh my aging brain on what CA also needs to do in November to face down any windup threat against it?
RFTS

Whilst I genuinely applaud the passion and energy of forum members targeting our woeful ex directors in line with the mood music pushed by CA I think I need help here on understanding the commercial value of actually instituting formal action against former directors at this stage.
Are they worthy of pursuing in principle? Yes.
Does it make commercial sense at this stage to expand $ on a financial recovery that in practice ( in my view) would be highly remote ? No.
Markets , investors and shareholders need certainty and I believe Hurr has enough on its plate already tackling priorities around that to solidify its future. Whilst correct on many levels , I'm not sure a public laundry washing of ex Hurr directors behaviour will necessarily help that certainty nor support the brand. Journos dont necessarily always let the facts get in the way of a true story, so careful thought needs to be applied about what the desired outcome is here. My own suspicion is that CA are only making cosmetic noises on that front to ensure they are seen to be correctly governing ....I'm happy to be wrong.
Best
RFTS

Very sad news.
The best contributor to this forum. Always added value and considerable knowledge to the debate which will be very much missed. Shocked that he has gone, which a measure of the impact he made here.
RFTS

Agreed. Given CAs primary modus operandi, at least historically, as activist shareholder for the purposes of driving significant short term value for the Fund it will be interesting what shape that Plan takes, whether for CA to become involved as a de factor operator of HURR as an ongoing concern or alternatively to build up the prospects with a view to flipping the business on in the short to medium.
RFTS

If the case that no right of appeal that is a hugely forceful decision.

Sorry Alavib but I think your well motivated language is misdirected and actually counterproductive to how shareholders should be thinking of securing a " result " here.
A result will not be composed of the BoD being pursued by the FCA, convicted of fraud nor even being disqualified as directors. The burden of proof for any criminal activity here is too high for current circumstances and even a breach of CA2006 resulting in their disqualification unlikely. There is no crookedness or scam perpetuated here but rather a very flawed non- strategy led by at best an incompetent board with no vision or in their minds , alternatives.
Should the BoD be voted out and the plan be rejected?..absolutely, but not driven on non existent criminal grounds. The " result " will be a new proactive board with vision and funding to redirect this tanker and make it a viable proposition once more, subject to the geology.
Kind regards
RFTS

Acknowledge your well crafted note RNSTranslater...Hobsons Choice.
Judge will be compelled to act in accordance with the shareholders wishes if their vote carries ( otherwise why determine they could vote on this anyway? ) in which case the incumbent BoD ( who are not in my mind corrupt or scamming, but incompetent and lack vision) will instigate wind down proceedings, unless they are chucked out first, which is where the focus of every disenfranchised shareholders attention should be. The test will then be for CA as majority dissenting shareholder - how far will their activism extend...replacement of the BoD by figureheads as a symbolic act or introduction of a real board with experience that have a strategy to turn this ship around. That in turn as others have flagged is predicated on the real geology.