Member Info for RNSTranslator

Aduk you really do take the biscuit...
Nobody has in reality lost their life and gone down with the ship. Some may have lost significant sums, but at the end of the day the sad reality is that if those sums are life changing then those individuals really do need to take some measure of responsibility for investing in a risky company developing an untried oil field. Shell it ain’t.
Lessons will be learned and hopefully not repeated.
I have zero time for those rampers and promoters in these boards whose sole aim is to whip up a self serving frenzy of misplaced optimism in what is in essence a high risk gamble in small cap oil... some work, the vast majority don’t.
I’ve had my losses over the years but been fortunate enough to understand what the risks are from time spent in and around the industry and seen exactly how it works...
Small cap oilers are far riskier than both the management, the analysts would have you believe and especially the promoters that hang around bb’s spewing their uninformed nonsense and lies....

Ah Senseman you seem a bit subdued today... had the letter yet?

Mr Aduk.
“ Also, by whom has it been verified to ensure its truthfulness?”
Well if we ignore the BoD who are after all perpetrating the “scam”...
There’s the Nomad whose legal role is to protect the integrity of market not the BoD. Stifel.
The Brokers and the Brokers Lawyers.
The Advisors Evercore and their lawyers.
PWC who ran the scenarios,
Deloittes the Auditor and their lawyers.
ERCE
The company’s own lawyers.
The Bondholders, their advisors and lawyers (yup these are probably conflicted but I’d suggest they wouldn’t do anything actually illegal)

So Aduk are all these folks part of the scam?

Or perhaps it’s just what it is, a clusterfk where you and senseomatic British etc etc are just pi55ed off that you didn’t get out when the writing was on the wall for 10 months perhaps because CA “must know something we don’t” and now you need someone to blame...because of course you would never have stayed in if you had any clue this was going to happen.... by all means broadcast that you want to go down with the ship as a matter of honour, salute and remember to keep that stiff upper lip as the ship as the waves lap round your chin.... of course the sensible folks involved will save you from your honourable end by handing you 5% of the company to deny your death or glory moment .... and then you’ll probably complain about that..,
“ I wanted to go down with the ship...b@stards!”

They are technically insolvent as they cannot generate enough revenue under all reasonable forecast scenarios to repay their debt when due and the other financial obligations they face.. the Board cannot just claim this for some obtuse scam type reason, it needs to be signed off by Auditors, their advisors , accountants and lawyers .. unless you believe that they are all stupid enough just to agree with what’s in front of them..
It’s making money on a day to day basis but the wells are at risk from single point failure and the rate is declining...that maybe unwelcome but true...

AdmiralSwag ;-)
“ translator - i think they should have made the plan back in september and then tried to raise the finance. i feel they could have tried both CA and Kerogen a”
They probably did, but we don’t actually know. The simple fact is that only Kerogen has the scale to help in that regard...the amount of financial muscle needed to either guarantee the loan, or inject fresh equity was in the order of upper 10’s to 100mm+ dollars. (Putting aside the cost of this and the risk premium it would attract) CA are a £100mm fund, I suspect they at best could have rustled up some single figure millions, without breaching their own investment limits. So what would CA have brought to the table .. nothing material or helpful. Throughout this Kerogen have been quiet and not as far as we can tell a seller...why not? If the company had engaged with them they would have been insiders so unable to trade ...
That could be the explanation or it may not be.
If you have a mountain to shift you don’t talk to the guy with a shovel and a wheelbarrow, you talk to a civil engineering company with the right kit....

Ned, this discussion about ownership is pure semantics.
Once the company is deemed in financial difficulty and is or about to become insolvent then the duty of the board is to the creditors not the shareholders..,,simple but unpalatable fact. Read the Harbottle link I posted earlier.

“ NO visible forward plan was ever in place AT ALL based on which HUR could have gone to various financial institutions in today's ultra low interest rate environment (or even shareholders) to chase funding, and on CBs,”

HUR cannot as a matter of law speak to individual investors on material price sensitive matters without them agreeing to become insiders. any shareholder communication or “soundings” if they happened will have been done through their advisor and/or brokers. This may not have happened to CA but it may have happened to kerogen..we simply don’t know. The broker will advise the company in the ability to raise fresh equity... and that almost certainly will have happened..although we don’t know for a fact.
Wrt debt (I presume that’s what you mean when you say low interest rates) they cannot borrow more money without bondholders consent...that is a fact...
If they could find someone to lend them $230mm then they could have asked the bondholders to depart and replace it with the new debt...I’m sure the holders would have been delighted to walk away with all that was owed. I think the reality is that the new asset base, the reliance on a single well with an esp simply means it’s not financially capable of taking on that level of debt.
I share many folks view that the BoD were asleep at the wheel before the realisation the ship was holed below the waterline...as the Captain told them it’s not an iceberg it just perched ice...
Once that happened their ability to rescue the situation was limited... bondholders effectively took control..once you cannot demonstrate a reasonable case for how the debt could be repaid...incompetence yes, deliberate criminal fraud or a board led scam with all those advisors and lawyers - no chance.

“ like what I do”
‘Nuff said.
Next year Rodders....

“ The bod will be asked to why they did not they consider dialogues with the shareholders whom they (bod) have duties to serve their interests ?, ” so you know for a fact that they did not consider this?
“ and what did they (bod) do to promote the successful progress of the company?” that is a question not a statement of fact
“ Why didn’t they buy back the CB at less than its half value when it was very appropriate to do so and avoid this catastrophic scenario?” They did consider this as stated by CA, but under the Covenants they were not allowed to buy back the Bonds..

“None of the above were considered by bod...“
How do you know if that is a true statement of fact or is it just your own supposition?

Folks:
If you want to know what the rules and legal precedents are you should look here. Harbottles are not involved in HUR so are not part of the “scam”
https://www.harbottle.com/business-law-update-directors-financial-distress/

Note in particular this comment:” In seeking to satisfy this duty, the directors should have regard to a number of factors, including the likely consequences of any decision in the long term, the interests of its employees and the need to maintain high standards of business conduct.

This duty applies to all decisions made by directors and not merely formal decisions made by the whole board.

However, where a company is insolvent, or is close to insolvency, the directors’ duty to the company and its shareholders shifts to act in the best interests of the creditors of the company. This means that directors cannot, for example, repay shareholders’ debts or make any distributions to shareholders in such circumstances without the proper provision for each of the creditors.“

Of course you should read the full Article for context.

Infamy Infamy those rampers (or is it derampers) have all got it infamy...good old Kenneth Williams.
Victimhood is it now... too much time overseas?
Feeling nervous?

Excellent Mr Sense good to hear you have a life and a clock.
Stifel, I understand (being American) are the types who are keen to protect their reputation and usually not best pleased with folks who suggest they are complicit in scams...
Bristol wasn't it?
Feeling nervous?

Mr Senseman good to see you back in the saddle after 4 hours of quiet contemplation.
Appreciate your loving and caring side with all the kisses...
Must have taught you that on your Sociology PhD - no?
I thought you said I was a deramper?, now I'm a naked ramper??
Well takes all types eh!
Feeling nervous?

Always difficult to know which oil commentator to follow other than Malcy (not) I find Rupert Hargreaves over at the other Motley place is quite good at dispassionately assessing the risks even back in 2019... worth a quick read...

https://www.fool.co.uk/investing/2019/03/22/why-i-think-the-hurricane-energy-share-price-could-fall-off-a-cliff/

BP looked at it a number of years ago before it was developed and came to the conclusion it was still an appraisal project not a development project.. HUR agreed to differ and developed it ... I suspect they weren’t the only ones that looked at it... never invest in a company developing a field 100% unless theyre a Supermajor...

Court Scene:
Judge: So Mr Sense, Mr British and Mr Cat:
On the 8th of July 2020 the company said: "The outcome of the technical review may lead to a material downgrade of these contingent resource estimates. "

On the 6th of August the company said "Consequently, the Company believes there is a risk of a material downgrade to estimated reserves attributable to the Lancaster Early Production System, and that there will also be a material downgrade to estimated contingent resources across the West of Shetland portfolio"

On the 11th of September 2020: "Reflecting these new technical interpretations, the Company's unaudited estimate of 2C contingent resources in the Lancaster field has been reduced to 58 MMbbls remaining from 486 MMbbls in the 2017 CPR."

On the 18th of December (as well as the 14th of January21 and 2nd of March 21 and the 7th of April 21) they said: It should be noted that there is a risk of dilution to existing shareholders from a possible restructuring and/or partial equitisation of the convertible bonds. Furthermore, if no agreement can be reached with the Company's stakeholders on additional investment, further development activity at Lancaster might not be possible. In such a scenario, Lancaster could continue to produce from existing wells before reaching the economic limit, the timing of which would depend on oil prices, actual production levels delivered and the level of cost savings achievable. The field may then be decommissioned, with potentially limited or no value returned to shareholders."

On the 30th of April 2021, they announced the restructuring...and the 19 fold dilution, you claimed came as a surprise and was a scam...
So Gentlemen, which bit of these releases over a period of 10 months didn't you read... ?
Approved...next case.

Senseless: "The BoD intended it that way" ... almost certainly they did, probably to saving what cr@ppy little value was left for shareholders.
Are you suggesting they should have left a 7 week gap so that they could have been removed by EGM?
Just what happens then... please talk us through it..

Albino: "Also West Newton may not go as well as hoped, so a share offer no good at all in those circumstances so may be a little hedging going on." be careful what you say the thought police will be watching.

Mirasol you are of course correct wrt the 4 weeks or so to get a definitive answer based on testing both zones "oil" first and gas second. My sense is that its in the nature of these types of companies to release early "indicative data" where they think this will help support the share price...they did of course not do this at WNA even though they did get initial flows...