Member Info for RNSTranslator

Sorry senseman you still are talking nonsense:"Oil futures price build in time money locked up, risk factor, profit factor etc - so are not accurate metric for ACTUAL oil price months later - which is often up to $10 barrel higher"
Oil futures are determined by the market, not spreadsheet jockeys in oil companies. Of course you should also add they are often $10 lower. Most larger oil companies run their own internal price deck for evaluations which will rarely if ever be ahead of the forward curve on a sustained basis.
So how do you determine the ACTUAL Price deck for an analysis senseman... we're still waiting to hear... but feel free to keep digging...

Senseman you do talk bllx:
"save that pwc forward curve is based on oil futures prices - which is the wrong metric to employ for forward curve projections."
Did you read that before you pressed post?... what other metric for future price prediction do you use that has any basis in commercial reality. ? Finger in the air, wishful thinking, a number that gives you the answer you want?
An alternative price forecast based on selective analyst projections from those that fit (Goldman?)

Mirasol.
Im aware he doesn't have to support them, even if they vote against.
He has to chose the best option for all stakeholders, which at the moment is the current restructure and 95% dilution.
Despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth nobody has an alternative plan that makes sense and they're all expecting CA to deliver one...

Senseman
They do not have the information to do this as they refused to be wall crossed...how can they develop a credible alternative plan without that information? They don't have access to capital either to fix it that way...Kerogen have both...

Boris; I'm simply pointing out the judge needs an alternative credible plan that he can dismiss the current one and the Board can be directed to consider the new one... just who is going to do that?

"So from that assumption and if the judge was to sanction the restructure anyway, we really need an EGM to throw out the BoD and get the hearing adjourned."
BorisMoose: Talk me through what would happen then, Board removed, hearing adjourned (by who?)... and then what?

Of course you need to vote, but the reality is that the shareholder vote on the restructuring will not be passed, ie voted down..
HUR have already told us that Kerogen do not support it: "As part of those discussions, the Wall Crossed Shareholder indicated that (i) it is not willing to provide additional financial support to the Plan Company and (ii) whilst the rationale for the Restructuring was understood, it could not actively support it."
We all know where CA are, and so that's 30% that don't support the restructuring, so it can't pass.
The judge will then have 2 options: override the shareholder vote and implement the restructuring, or not approve the restructuring in which case the Board will go into controlled wind down. He has no other option in front of him, and so as he needs to sanction the only option in front of him which protects most shareholder value is the restructuring.
CA do not have the ability to develop a robust alternative plan without access to the raw data (this was their own choice) only Kerogen do... and if the plan is going to come from somewhere thats where it will come from... its probably not helpful to your cause to claim this is some Chinese state sponsored oil grab... they are the only folks with deep enough pockets to step in and solve the problem. with all due respect to CA, they simply don't have access to the capital to make a difference, their main driver is to be seen to be active and voting off the Board... thats what they do.

Read what they actually say and use some common sense:
“ the Company will continue to develop the technical and commercial case for further development opportunities at Lancaster and, >>IF << supported by its Bondholders, “
This will only happen if the bondholders see that it will increase the chance of being repaid in full. They’re not going to allow the company to spend $180mm of a limited cash pile on the off chance it works. Those who don’t like the bondholders having this influence should ask themselves:
Why do we have bondholders?
Why did we develop a field with that degree of uncertainty and borrow money to do so.
Where did this misplaced confidence in the fields economic and technical value come from?
The Board failed to hold the CEO to technical rigour, only setting up a tech comm after he left?
Follow the money....

I'm know that many posters are already aware.
But if you wan to make an educated guess as to who the bondholders are then look here for who is actually shorting the shares...

https://www.shortics.com/hurricane%20energy%20plc

Hasiba:
So if the restructuring plans failed to get the 75% shareholders approval on 11/6/2021 and the BoD alternative is to wind down the company then surely the bonds market value will collapse?"
Not sure how that is relevant or even true...regardless of the bond price in the market, the bondholders will get first claim on the assets/cash after those ahead of them in priority, such as Abandonment liabilities, Staff, Payments under any leases or contractual obligations etc. If it looks like the return to bondholders will be higher or lower than the current market price for the bonds the price will move up or down...

This is not difficult:
If the Bondholders approve (this must be 75% or more by value) and the Shareholders don't approve (ie 25% or more vote AGAINST, same as 75% or more APPROVE) then the court may decide to approve the restructuring anyway.
The court will look at whether the restructuring is better than the proposed alternatives, which at the moment is the BoD saying controlled wind down, there are no other alternatives for the Judge to consider unless someone puts one forward, and that requires someone to do that. CA have refused to engage in detailed discussion (be wall crossed), Kerogen have and they are probably best placed to put something forward because they have access to the details. Without a well considered alternative then I cant see how the judge would effectively sanction and wind down over a restructure...ball is in the shareholders court (CA or Kerogen or a third party as yet unknown)

"There are many methods that can be used to value Victory for the sale or indeed any of the assets in RBD’s portfolio. Victorys’ valuation (NPV10) is currently stated in it’s presentation to be around £146m. That’s based upon a gas price of 50p/therm ( link attached). According to Staista the forecast price of gas for the relevant period we’re looking at however is more likely to be around 38p/therm (link attached). If the lower rate was used the NPV would be nearer £111m all other things being equal. "

Tedoby: They actually show you what the NPV 10 is in RBD's own presentation - page 16. At 35p per therm the NPV10 is reduced by 85% to £21.75mm. So at 38p best your looking at is £30mm. Don't confuse NPV10 with value. NPV10 by definition is the unrisked cashflows discounted at 10%. If you think the project is totally risk free, and that you pay nothing to acquire the opportunity, and you just want a 10% return on any capital deployed, then yes that is the value... however we know that this is not the case.

Repurchase of Bonds:
It's not unusual for bondholders in riskier one asset companies to insert, in effect anti repurchase clauses. If they're not there it does leave them exposed to the debtor deliberately, or through asset underperformance undermining the market and then repurchasing the debt at a deep discount, this reduces the effective security of the bondholder. The latest proposed bond terms include the following, these may or may not have been carried over from the previous terms: Pg 83 or thereabouts.

(i) restrict the acquisition or disposal of a company, shares, securities or a business or undertaking, except in the ordinary course of business or where contained in the Group's business plan;
(k) restrict the Group from incurring any capital expenditure, subject to certain limited exceptions and requirements, including requirements to seek Bondholder approval to incur expenditure to further develop, drill in, or sidetrack in the Lancaster Area;
I suspect (k) is likely a new term specific to the forward programme, but (i) looks like it effectively restricts the purchase of discounted bonds in the market.

Done some ringing around: Looks like the relevant authorities are focussing on the original 2017 CPR and have already "had a chat" with some of those who were involved.....

Dr Dr Senseman " I can have your past 5 yrs tax returns in front of me within 2 hrs"
feel free and then you'll see why accusing me of being paid to ramp is quite so absurd...funny man...

Haggis
I do have sympathy for your statement "At capital market day in April 20 the company so claimed perched water : by that point many investors were in deep but it seemed sensible to hold" that is understandable because most investors don't understand what the implications of ,or even what "perched water" actually means....why should they? A more open and honest company might have said "we believe this is perched water, but there may be alternative explanations such as a shallower OWC, we will continue to monitor and update shareholders as further data on water cut is gathered" - this is the problem, small caps are so determined to spin the positive and avoid the negative that a statement such as that would have hit the share price, and no doubt with lot of shouting and anger from these and other boards.for being negative! ..however it would have been a more fullsome explanation to allow folks to understand the risks....I'd rather companies were honest with both the upside and downside, but to be honest many small cap shareholders just want to hear positives and "news flow". Just visit many of the small cap oilers on these Boards, folks endlessly promoting the stock usually with half truths or words taken out of context...
I simply try to give the other side of the risk story, not because I'm paid to do so, I'm not, simply because knowing the full picture leads to better investment decisions, even if its stuff you don't want to hear... I have the experience to translate what they are actually saying and often what they're not saying. Of course the rampers don't like that because they can't argue with facts and data... so of course they just claim I'm a paid deramper because they can't say anything else...not can they debate the issues.

Haggis:
Look at the share chart it started to fall off sharply in late 2019 early 2020...
Maybe hindsight for some, but Folks in the industry were openly talking about "just watch for any early water" because fractured reservoirs can be notorious for accessing the aquifer and watering out quickly..Of course it could have been as big as they said and a lot of investors believed it, and wanted to believe it... but the single rule of thumb for investors who understand the technical and commercial side is never invest in a small cap ( or medium cap) developing a field 100%, history is littered with failures because they have no co-funding partner to stop them smoking their own dope...
The first mention of a water cut of 7.5% was 2nd Sept 2019...
That level of water cut from wells 100s of meters above the OWC so early in its production history was unusual, the statement within expected range was I'm afraid the start of the head scratching which lead to "perched water" because the thought of a shallower contact was just "unimaginable" because of the ramifications.

Keepwell
Its Market Abuse...
It requires evidence, and if its actually happened Stifel or their NOMAD predecessors will be fined because ethyl are there to protect the market not the company. You're all looking at the wrong end of the issue, once it was kitchen sinked the game was over... arguably most smart investors with oil and gas knowledge left the minute the water appeared and it was "perched"... not impossible, but 95% unlikely....

Senseman or should I say Dr Dr Baker...
"he is a piece of s**t deviant ramper paid by the BoD and/ or bondholders to persuade all to give up and allow the company to be quietly stolen"
Childish tantrums from a failed investor... who doesn't even know what happened other than someone stole my dummy...

Why don't you just hire someone to look at both and tell you?
Neither are guaranteed 100% correct because they never can be, its just that one has far more production data to come to the conclusion, and that data is pretty compelling wrt the OWC.
The simple fact is RPS got the OWC wrong, (the original Chairman left because he didn't believe it, he was a geologist)
The oil was never there below the new OWC, it didn't disappear it wasn't there!.

"CPR has been created should be shared to shareholders or independent people so that it can be understood why 90% of the oil has vanished."
It is you muppet, they are both on the website, get a petroleum specialist to compare the two and tell you what the story is.
Can probably be done for £600...
Why don't you bleaters just do this, its only £100 each...
I'll even post a list of folks that would do it, but I know I'd be accused of providing folks also in on the scam... FFS.
Clue (its principally the failure to spot the 70psi over pressure in the aquifer which gave a calculated OWC at 1650 rather than later proven 1330m.) No charge...