Member Info for ronwoking

The big question is why crystal amber would support the prax scheme.Clearly they would only do this if they felt confident that the DFU's would deliver a return acceptable to them.
IMO there can only be 2 possible routes.
1) They are totally confident that the scheme will ultimately deliver 12.5p per share.That explanation, given that crystal amber are obliged to wind up their fund earlier than the scheme would deliver the 12.5 p is questionable.
2) They have established another way of receiving an acceptable return (to them) from the DFU's,namely by selling them and have already reached an understanding to do this.

As agreed by most posters,this is a terrible deal. The acquirer is trying to buy HUR with our own money and has added a "jam tomorow" incentive that they could wriggle out of in a flash.
I shall vote my shares against this disgrace and urge all other PIs to do the same.
With the new CPR report we will be just as well rewarded by running HUR to the end of its economic life and by paying the max allowed dividends and with more certainty.
The downsides of the proposal are many and include
the handsome incentives to the directors to go along with the scheme
the delisting of the shares leaving the PIs with illiquid DFUs that could be used by the buyers to acquire the DFUs held by the major institutional shareholders without extending the same offer to the PIs.That MAY explain the willingness of CA and Kerogen in supporting the scheme.
To pass the court and various resolutions the scheme needs 75% shareholder support.They already have nearly 50% from CA and Kerogen.75% is a tough hurdle but given normal shareholder apathy might be achievable.
lets hope not.
The board have once again tried to put lipstick on a pig to persuade us that this is a good deal.It is NOT.
lets hope that either we can defeat them or that a better offer is received.

Simple you seem to be incapable of posting a message without adding some personal poison.
I have filtered you out as the personal aspect detracts from the occasional informed and useful commentary that you have provided.
I would suggest that all viewers of this board do the same.
I add my thanks to the others who have expressed appreciation to Sensemans contributions.
Also as a long term antagonist against freehold investors,I trust that senseman has made the effort to band together with other affected leaseholders in his situation to ensure that the freeholders actions are legal and properly conducted.

I believe that a dividend can only be made from distributable reserves.
I do not think that Hur has such reserves due to accumulated losses over many years.
Accordingly hur will need to create distributable reserves,most likely by a reduction in capital via a transfer from its share premium account.
That will permit the dividend.
I see no Reference to a share buyback.
If that were contemplated and shares were bought and cancelled it might take crystal ambers shareholding to 30% or higher and the complications that would follow.

Just another word of thanks to senseman for his huge contribution to this HUR forum.I do hope that he will see this through to the end.I am not a subscriber to conspiracy theories but I felt perhaps like senseman intimated that the rejection by the govt of the new well drilling proposal was unusual.. Further comment might be considered as libellous so I will leave it there.

Emailed today.
I will fwd it to the seperate Secretary of State address.

Nig wit
So you describe all shareholders of hur as misguided and stupid ( not sensible )
Plus all contributors to this forum that share any positive views a having the same qualities.
I must say it take a brave man to suggest that Crystal Amber shares these qualities.
I dispute your description of hur as a failed explorer with. One asset.
Hur drilled a production well that is delivering millions of dollars to the company every month.
Plus it holds a licence to the Lancaster field and has hundreds of millions of dollars in tax allowance assets.
Ofcourse it is a high risk,speculative company as are many others.That does make its shareholders either misguided or stupid.They accept the risk and expect high rewards if the company is successful
I suggest that that the only misguidance here,for whatever reason is coming from your end

Ofcourse CA’s objective will be to maximise their exit price and their strategy will be to achieve this.
also CA have no interest in managing an oil exploration and production company ,so they will wish to exit before any hard decisions need to be taken by the board.
None of the above is inconsistent with encouraging hur to announce fwd looking plans if they believe that that will be positive for the SP.
The detailed decisions on the execution of the plans will be taken by the new owners once CA is gone.

Schlemiel. I did not ask RB what his view of fair value is.Given that CA is obliged to sell its hur holding in the next view months he would not have told me.
I agree with you that the cash accumulations into hur over the next few months assuming continued well6 production will improve the hur sp and that any sale of their holding will be bound to include an element of the company tax credits.
That being said ,the upside is substantial.A realistic plan to create a second producing well also be helpful and if a second well is productive the upside will be huge.
If a second well is not productive and the capex is wasted,then IMO the outlook is bleak as well6 has a limited lifespan.

Nigwitty
RB was clear in his response to me that he is not happy with the move to quarterly reporting and has asked hur to resume reporting after each uplift.
RB’s response was way beyond polite …….it signified agreement not only on the matter of reporting but with the need for shareholders to make their views known to management.
I see little evidence of misguided investors here or counter factual nonsense.
Just a normal spectrum of varied views and opinions

Schlemiel
You are quite right that there is no overhang.Crystal Amber are obliged to sell all their assets as the fund is being liquidated and given the size of their holding that can only be accomplished via an off market placement.
Timing is uncertain but CA have committed to very large cash distributions to their shareholders in the near future,which will be funded by sales of their investments.
Ofcourse CA has been a good friend to us and who knows who the new shareholders will be.
That uncertainty …….the lack of a fwd plan and distrust of the BOD accounts for the poor sp.

I also had a very supportive response from Mr Bernstein who made the point that it is important for shareholders to express their views to company management.
So much for being irritated mr nigwit.

Nigwitty so you care about irritating the directors after what they tried to do to us last year.I certainly do not care.They are supposed work for us as owners of the company.
One guarantee that we will be rolled over by the board is if we fall asleep and just accept silently what they do.
I do not think that we have p———-ed off the institutional shareholders.This board has been very respectful for efforts of CA in particular who we can thank for the demise of the big steal.

With this bod we should be grateful to receive any operational updates at all. How can a responsible board in current circumstances and considering past history reasonably justify reducing transparency.
Tells you all you need to know about this boards priorities.
I have sent a protesting email.

The bond market convention is that where a payment falls on a non business day ,then the payment is made on the next succeeding business day.
That would not constitute a late payment.
Additionally although the payment is made 1 or more days after the due date,no interest adjustment is made.
As these bonds are convertible bonds and are a significant amount,I would expect that a RNS would be mandatory. If not then the bondholders would have inside information relative to the companies equity that is not available to all shareholders.
So I expect the bonds to be repaid on Monday and the RNS to be issued on Tuesday.

It is entirely normal in company bond borrowings that the lenders require a whole slate of covenants that the company must adhere to.
These may include compliance with certain ratios , liquidity ,cash balances,investment spending and would give the bondholders substantial influence and control over the company’s activities.All ofcourse intended to preserve their bond security.

I have no sympathy for this person,but bare in mind that it is more than likely that he has signed a non disclosure agreement with hur and is therefore prohibited from making any comment.
If I were running hur I would have insisted that he sign a nda after the activities in 2021.

Usual payment procedure when a bond payment falls on a non business day is that the payment is made on the next succeeding business day.In this case on Monday. Often without any interest adjustment.
So I would not expect an RNS till Tuesday.
Ofcourse the bond covenants may say something different, But I am not privy to them.

I ofcourse defer to those more expert in corporate tax and the machinations of hmrc than I am.
However I see no provisions that allow for a carry back or fwd of any unused or excess allowance and I severely doubt that hmrc will be cutting any rebate cheques to companies that have an allowance in excess of their liability.
I think that my word of caution to hur to ensure that their allowable expenditure does not generate an allowance in excess of their liability holds good.
But I certainly defer to those more au fait with corporate tax than I am.

Sense
Correct except in one respect.I am no tax expert but I do not believe that hur could receive a tax reduction in excess of its eligible EPL relief in any one year.
Bear in mind that hur’s tax year is jan1 to dec 31.
Using your figures it’s EPL charge in 2024 would be $40mm and it’s eligible expenditure would be $50mm generating 91% relief of $45.5mm.That would suggest a negative EPL
I do not believe that the annual EPL charge can be carried fwd or back so in that year only $40mm relief would be given.
Hur need to careful that their eligible expenditure does not exceed 109.89% of their profit liable to EPL