Member Info for ronwoking

The high court could have demanded that the bond holder group identify themselves but apparently did not do so.
The advisors are unlikely to do so.
If the bonds are registered then the registrar will have those details as will the paying agent.They will not disclose the identities of the payees due to banking confidentiality.
If the bonds are in bearer form then the owners are not identifiable other than through paying agent.
In short it is very unlikely that those bond holders who joined in the bond group will be identifiable unless perhaps ordered by a court as part of a criminal or civil litigation.
Be careful using the allegation of collusion.You may have your suspicions as I do,but that is not proof.
Suspicions are easy.Proof is not.If an EGM we’re ever called on the subject, I would vote for an independent 3rd party investigation and if improper activity was shown, a lawsuit against the directors and advisors for the return of all fees and costs incurred by the company.
Slim chance I would say.We have more important fish to fry in the next few months.

I suspect that a share price of 15p based on cash accumulation and no drilling would create a welcome exit point for many shareholders who are entirely disenchanted with this company.
However if 90% of drilling costs are effectively paid for by a windfall tax reduction then I think that that qualifies for a “no brainier” decision. That phrase has been used before.Let’s hope that the bod takes notice.

0161
I do believe that the bod and others feel that any problems with the well 6 pumps are unlikely to be material to the company.
I added the possibility of a production interruption as a negative as the accumulation of cash is critical at this point and a supply interruption in our single well would be in my opinion be very badly received by the market and bearing in mind that I am not an O&G expert it is a possibility that I scares me somewhat.
I certainly hope that for those expert in this field it would be a minor glitch.

Flying pie. Correct but it would be foolish of CA to allow themselves to be backed up against a deadline.

Liverpool
On the positive side hur is generating substantial surplus cash with oil prices at current levels
Hur has more that sufficient cash to repay its outstanding convertible bond debt later this month and is expected to have at least $90mm surplus cash afterwards.
The surplus cash accumulation makes hur an attractive bid target to other oil and gas companies and or allows hur to fund additional well drilling or cash distributions to shareholders.
Hur has substantial accumulated tax credits that add to its bid attractiveness.
hur has the license to the substantial Lancaster field
On the negative side,hur is currently dependent on a single producing well,which is expected to deliver reducing productivity over the next. 12-24 months.
The well is vulnerable to pump failure which would cause substantial expense as well as downtime.
The well’s overall economic lifespan is not certain
The board of directors has engendered a lot of controversy over the past year due to its management of the company
The board has not as yet produced a forward plan to handle it rising cash hoard.
The most substantial institutional shareholder (29%) is obliged to sell its holding in hur over the next few months.
The new windfall tax will impact hur but it is not certain to what extent.
In summary you can see that there are many positive and negative factors that will influence the share price.
Most contributors to this forum consider that hur is very much undervalued,but the market says otherwise.
My own opinion is that barring a production problem,the share price will rise over the next few months to a level of 15-20 p by the end of 2023 based on the rising cash accumulation.
I would doubt very much if it will reach 41p unless a new drilling program strikes a very productive result.
This is is highly speculative investment.

I would say that the chances of getting a pi NED on the board are slim to zero
It would take the formation of a pi action group to elect representatives and grant them their proxies.
Armed with pi proxies representing 20% of the voting shareholdings the pi’s would gave a good opportunity of getting a Ned on the board.
Tough but not impossible.But remember that at the recent AGM the board was supported by 90% of shareholding.
That does not suggest a pi revolt.

I understood very well what senseman was saying as I suspect most readers of this forum did. No way did a reasonable and rounded read of his comments imply what simples suggested.
Regrettably simples seems to take a very literal and narrow view of the words that posters use on occasion.Why he should do so I know not and I certainly would not imply any malign intent to his posts.
This forum is not a legal situs like a courtroom.We are not under oath or subject to obligatory cross examination for every word that we use,some of which will be well chosen and others less so.
This forum would be better served with more civility and a less judicial reading of posts.

I am confident that the board will issue an RNS to confirm when the bonds have been repaid together with accrued interest there on.After all, they issued an RNS dealing with the bond tender offer and the tender results.
I am not legal enough to know if it is mandatory,but I suspect it is otherwise the bondholders would have inside information that the shareholders would not have,especially as this debt has conversion rights and could not be remotely described as debt issued in the ordinary course of business.
I am less confident that a firm fwd plan will be announced,let alone their take on the EPL.
Perhaps a few jam tomorrow sentiments.

Gentlemen,this is getting out of hand!
Large shareholders frequently “request” that they may nominate a NED to a board.They do this because they wish to get closer to the business decisions of the company and have influence through the NED.
Ofcourse it is the directors who make policy decisions and ratify if necessary the decisions of the executives,not the shareholders directly. But to suggest that major shareholders do not have influence and do not exercise it via their nominated NEDs is naive.Why else would they nominate them?
As to the “shenanigans” of last year,It was entirely proper given the decision of the court,to institute an enquiry as to the procedures followed by the board and the motivations of the directors proper or otherwise.
I have my own suspicions in that regard and if I controlled the board I would demand a totally independent enquiry into the entire business. A proposal to deprive the shareholders of the company of 95% of their shareholding is not a minor matter and warrants in my opinion a major , independent , third party investigation.
The 2021 business has left a very bad taste in the mouths of shareholders so it is not surprising that they have suspicions.
But suspicions do not make for truth and the board will have solid arguments to support their actions , no doubt backed by impressive third party advice. Some shareholders may not like the BOD and not trust them in view of past history,but that does not make their conduct improper.

Simple,quite correct and the bidder will have to offer all shareholders at the highest price they have paid in the previous 12 months.
Ofcourse shareholders need not accept the take over offer,unless the bidder manages to acquire 90% of the shares he did not own prior to the bid in which case the remaining shareholders can be forced to sell.
So the crucial questions are, at what price is CA prepared to sell their 29% and who is able to buy it …..kerogen …… the bond holders…….another o&g player and what price can induce the long suffering shareholders to sell?
I suspect that all will be answered by end September.

Simple
Not quite the only way.If a take over bid was was triggered the bond holders might end up with the entirety of hur and its cash
As the identity of the bondholders is secret we have no idea of their resources other than the bond redemption plus interest proceeds.

Schlemiel,I wish we knew.The identity of the bond holder group that organised last years proposed restructure was kept secret.I had hoped that the high court would order their disclosure ,but that did not happen.
No doubt that the current bondholders are somewhat different,but will be bound to include a fair sprinkling of the secret group.

Dflynch,I suspect that you missed my point.On July 24 the bond holders will receive the redemption proceeds of the bonds.They could use these proceeds to buy CA’s shareholding which ofcourse includes the expected 90mm of cash in hand held by hur.That might trigger a take over offer ……hence the bond holders getting hold of the company

Golden badger,I believe that the take over code rule is that after having to make a mandatory offer the bidder has to offer the shareholders the highest price it has paid in the past 12 months.
So if a buyer pays CA 15p for its 29% holding and if that triggers a mandatory take over bid the buyer must offer the remaining shareholders at least 15p.
Meanwhile fears of a recession are depressing the oil price and the lack of any activity from the board is damaging the SP.
Perhaps the bond holders may yet get their hands on hur

Even without bod action the sp should benefit from cash accumulation by about 0.7 p per month.
Assuming continued well 6 production of at least 8000 bod and poo of $100 , during 2023 that will accumulate cash to about 13 p per share by the end of 2023.
That ofcourse is a relatively low risk low expense strategy and would not accord with the bod’s expressed intention at the AGM.
But no action this year would would allow a buyer to come in at a very cheap level and with control benefit from a development plan in 2023 as well as the cash accumulation

Schlemiel
You are quite correct.We are all grateful to senseman for his efforts on this board and the issues that he has highlighted.
In reality, any experienced bod can run rings round private shareholders in an AGM
The shots are ALWAYS called by the institutional shareholders BEFORE the AGM.
Private investor feelings can only be effectively reflected through the media.
Right now these investors clearly are supporting the board and through their sponsored NEDs are fully aware of the boards intentions.
I see no likelyhood of change until there is a corporate action.

Flying pie your quite right ……. If kerogen get a very high percentage they won’t be fussed about the last few percent unless they want to take the company private and rid themselves of troublesome regulation.
My greater concern would be if there were a very large minority shareholding …… up to 49%.
In that case ,as you say things will actually get done, but I would feel very vulnerable with the existing bod and kerogen ownership.Going by past actions these people are not to be trusted.They might well still manufacture a cheap Chinese takeaway.

Flyingpie.I guess that depends on the price of the offer.If it is high enough I suspect that shedloads of shareholders will be glad to be shot of hur and kerogen might get their 90%.
Also as I do not trust either Kerogen or the current board , I would not want to be a minority shareholder under their control.If the price is right then I am out of here .There are plenty of fish in the sea without the governance angst that we have been drowning in for the last year.

Flyingpie,my understanding is that once a shareholder together with any concert party friends reaches a shareholding of 30% they are obliged to make an offer for the remaking shares under rule 9 of the takeover code.
Of significance is that their offer must be made at the HIGHEST price that they have paid for shares over the previous 12 months.
Success is regarded as achieved if the bidder achieves 50% or more of the shareholding.
In order to be able to clean up the shares of the minority shareholders the bidders must have acquired at least 90% of the shares that he did NOT already have when making the take over bid.
If he achieves the 90% hurdle he can force the remaining shareholders to sell to him.

Daltry.If Kerogen hold the majority of the bonds then it is safe to assume that they were the driving force behind the big steal attempt last year. I was very disappointed that the high court did not demand that the identities of the secret bond group be made public.
That said,if Kerogen fronted a bid for hur there would be massive publicity about Uk energy supply falling into Chinese hands and the govt would forced into making a decision such as demanding a golden share that gave them control or an outright prohibition on Chinese control.
Given the shenanigans of last year I would be very unhappy to be a minority shareholder of a company that Kerogen controlled.
A 12 p bid would give me pause for much thought.A 20 p bid and I would be gone.This company has been a vale of tears for too long and an appalling example of Natural resource company management on AIM.