Member Info for senseman

Wellsite
The ERCE CPR is fiction. Production & oil price predictions are drivel. **cking criminal. At current prod & oil price bonds can be paid in full. And if one adds $17 million minimum restructuring plan costs p*ssed down the drain - the mind boggles!!

i agree with british - forget the EGM for a while - no need even think about it
i haven't yet voted AGM 30June - simply because no need yet and always best see what develops

Fellas
interesting points. best wait and see as brit says, nowt we can do at present anyway. next 2 weeks may throw up couple of curveballs - resignations etc, if things go SH way. things rarely go in straight line. would also imagine ca wanted maris & chaffe in place for pragmatic reasons not sentiment.
am also surprised given importance of 11 June SH meeting & 21 June Sanction hearing that nothing in newspapers yet. instinct tells me that won't last and expect something to break on that front before too long

British
Solid reasoning. Interesting point arising is that at EGM CA propose keeping Maris & Chaffe in place (for time being) since immediate working nuts and bolts expertise needed. If Judge rejects HUR Plan, AGM before EGM means Maris & Chaffe voted out. How do you envisage that circle being squared?

Albie
Would certainly square the circle on 2 counts:-
1. Exchanging 16% of shares for any % significantly above (up to 95%?) is a no brainer
2. Would explain why 'wall-crossed' Kerogen elected not to cough up cash now to kill 'Plan' dead

IMPORTANT
Peeps - leant today (in trying to get SRN & PIN to attend Friday's virtual Shareholder Plan Meeting & hitting brick wall) that info in HUR 2 June RNS does NOT refer to nominee accounts - ie shareholders with shares held by broker (eg Hargreave Lansdown. The deviant RNS excludes info how such shareholders can (i) access Meeting (ii ask Chair question.
The ONLY way, if your shares are held by broker, to attend virtually on Friday is to phone or email via secure message to Corporate Actions Team (log into your a/c) stating you wish to attend the Meeting and require an SRN & PIN (or alternate log-in details) to enable you to do so). Your broker then contacts HUR on your hehalf before everting back to you with the details you need .
If you wish to ask the Chair a question at the Meeting, state that in your message to Corporate Action Team, and write the message. Again - only your broker can contact HUR
If unsure - phone broker who should confirm the above. If you phone Hurr 'registrar' (in fact Computer Shares Investor Services) phone number you will be told load of crap saying you need letter from broker confirming you as shareholder before they can do anything.

me - twice - no answer

do hur need just 75% of SH votes cast to succeed? Or 75% of ALL HUR shares cast in their favour?

peeps - either way, will be interesting to see how ker vote - and perhaps clarify the major bondholder issue. i have a question - how will we know how ker have voted?

Slitty's the tea boy sent out to hold the fort whilst the other stooge canaries hold their now regular Monday morning crisis meeting

On 1 June 09.38 (see 'senseman' post 'EMAIL BOD RE - MATERIAL PROFESSIONAL FEES COSTS OF 'THE PLAN') I wrote asking for estimated total professional fee costs. I did not expect a reply. I received the below reply (verbatum) at 2.26pm today:-
'Dear

The total costs provision for the restructuring is circa US$17 million, which amount includes the Plan Company’s best estimate of all costs which have been incurred (and which are still to be incurred) in relation to the Restructuring Plan. This figure is fully factored into the Restructuring Plan and the estimated outcomes detailed in the Explanatory Statement.

Best regards,

Hurricane Energy'

I expected costs to top out at circa $10 million. A $17 million figure is astonishing. Since professional fees usually exceed estimates, a final figure of $20 million is not out of the question. It exercises my mind that without $17 million costs being expended, and should the oil price simply remain as current till July 2022 (most forecasters predict higher average). bondholders would be able to be paid in full.
Since the email was not marked 'confidential' I have forwarded copy to Richard Bernstein of Crystal Amber, in case they do not yet have the figure, and it may be of use in relation to their representations at the 21June Sanction Hearing.
$17 MILLION $17 MILLION $17 MILLION $17 MILLION $17 MILLION $17 MILLION $17 MILLION $17 MILLION

Anyone wanting to ask the Chair a question at the virtual 11 June Shareholder Plan Meeting must email comms@hurricaneenergy.com requesting permission and detailing their question. All very Stasi, and unless the BoD suddenly find religion, I expect it to be a cherry-picking process whereby any SH citing a difficult question will not be chosen. It is however incumbent upon SHs to be always seen to have acted properly (not least re poss future investigation/litigation. It is also possible that HUR will allow a few difficult questions, considering it will look hugely suspicious if they do not. I have therefore sent the below email to HUR coms. I believe the questions I have phrased to be the most obvious and helpful that SHs can ask. There will be others. So both those wishing to ask a question at the Meeting, and those who don't but wish HUR to select their question to be answered by the Chair in any event, please write to HUR.

Email: comms@hurricaneenergy.com
'Dear Sir/ Madam

I wish to ask the Chair a question at the virtual 11 June Shareholder Plan Meeting. My question is:-

'Have you revised the financial assumptions of the proposed ' Plan' based on the current oil price? If so, please quantify how those assumptions have changed. If you have not revised the assumptions, please explain why not'

I believe my question will provide information of legitimate interest to all shareholders wishing to vote at the end of the meeting, to those already voted, and all shareholders generally.

I look forward to hearing if I have been selected to ask the Chair a question at the Meeting.

Yours etc'

IMPORTANT - AFTER REFLECTION - PLEASE OPINE SO WE DECIDE COMMON APPROACH
Judge on 21 May stated representations received from shareholders raised issues to be addressed at Sanction Hearing (21 June). Having reflected on best way to remind the Judge that SH feeling undiminished, but not to to irritate by needless repetition, I have sent below email to ChanceryJudgesListing@Justice.gov.uk
Have done so by 'forwarding' my previous pre-21May email, and writing the below new email in new message section above. Thus Judge can read earlier email if wishes. My email content and method clearly can only be utilised by those who wrote pre 21 May hearing. New writers may write wholly afresh - I urge them to
My email posted merely as suggestion - can be amended as wished. Essential problem I perceive - how to simply remind Judge SH feeling remains strong, without boring or alienating. Nothing any SH can write or evidence will compare with what CA will be present in QC form and voluminous evidence bundles. That is not our task - our task is to show Judge continuing SH opprobrium against the HUR plan. Please can others opine how we best deal with the issue - we need address and meet it

Email to - ChanceryJudgesListing@Justice.gov.uk
'SUBJECT: ATTN MR JUSTICE ZACAROLI - CASE CR-2021-000852 - HURRICANE ENERGY - SANCTION HEARING 21 JUNE 2021
Dear Mr Justice Zacaroli

Prior to the 21 May 2021 Convening Hearing, I submitted representations against the Restructuring Plan (see email below). On 21 May you averred that issues raised by shareholders were matters for the Sanction Hearing. I courteously request my earlier submissions be considered at the Hearing.

I also believe that Crystal Amber Fund, one of the two largest institutional shareholders, will submit comprehensive evidence-backed legal argument against the Restructuring Plan, and possibly propose an alternate way forward for the Company. I support all representations made by the Fund.

Lastly, I request to be invited to attend the virtual 21 June Sanction Hearing.

Thank you for considering these representations.

Yours etc'

On 1 June 09.38 (see 'senseman' post 'EMAIL BOD RE - MATERIAL PROFESSIONAL FEES COSTS OF 'THE PLAN') I wrote asking for estimated total professional fee costs. I did not expect a reply. I received the below reply (verbatum) at 2.26pm today:-
'Dear

The total costs provision for the restructuring is circa US$17 million, which amount includes the Plan Company’s best estimate of all costs which have been incurred (and which are still to be incurred) in relation to the Restructuring Plan. This figure is fully factored into the Restructuring Plan and the estimated outcomes detailed in the Explanatory Statement.

Best regards,

Hurricane Energy'

I expected costs to top out at circa $10 million. A $17 million figure is astonishing. Since professional fees usually exceed estimates, a final figure of $20 million is not out of the question. It exercises my mind that without $17 million costs being expended, and should the oil price simply remain as current till July 2022 (most forecasters predict higher average). bondholders would be able to be paid in full.
Since the email was not marked 'confidential' I have forwarded copy to Richard Bernstein of Crystal Amber, in case they do not yet have the figure, and it may be of use in relation to their representations at the 21June Sanction Hearing.
$17 MILLION $17 MILLION $17 MILLION $17 MILLION $17 MILLION $17 MILLION $17 MILLION $17 MILLION

Golden
Not stupid thoughts - principle being don't throw baby out with bathwater. Remember the Yanks drinking a gallon of bile to utilise Verner Von Braun's rocket expertise to reach the moon. Or as Einstein opined 'however much the apparent best solution assault one's mind and preconceptions, embrace the solution until it can be disproved

Mirrorman
Yes you do - each one better cleaned up to help peeps
Now you know what it's like to read your repetitious drivel ad finitum

Anyone wanting to ask the Chair a question at the virtual 11 June Shareholder Plan Meeting has to email comms@hurricaneenergy.com requesting permission and detailing their question. All very Stasi, and unless the BoD suddenly find religion, I expect it to be a cherry-picking process whereby any SH citing a difficult question will not be chosen. It is however incumbent upon SHs to be always seen to have acted properly (not least re poss future investigation/litigation. It is also possible that HUR will allow a few difficult questions, considering it will look hugely suspicious if they do not. I have therefore sent the below email to HUR coms. I believe the 2 questions I have phrased to be the most obvious and helpful that SHs can ask. Please can others opine so we can ask in common fashion as much as poss?

Email: comms@hurricaneenergy.com
'Dear Sir/ Madam

I wish to ask the Chair either one of two below questions at the virtual 11 June Shareholder Plan Meeting. My questions are:-
1
‘What, should the Plan be sanctioned, will be the approximate material total costs sum of all professional fees paid by the Company in relation to the propose Restructuring Plan? Such sum to include but not be limited to, inter alia, fees paid to financial, legal & PR advisors, court costs, accountancy firms, CPR firms, RNS fees, all Ad Hoc Committee underwritten costs etc.’
2.
'Have you revised the financial assumptions of the proposed ' Plan' based on the current oil price? If so, please quantify how those assumptions have changed. If you have not revised the assumptions, please explain why not'

I believe both questions will provide information of legitimate interest to all shareholders wishing to vote at the end of the meeting, to those already voted, and all shareholders generally.

I look forward to hearing if I have been selected to ask the Chair a question at the Meeting. Do note I am happy to be allowed to ask either question.

Yours etc'

MPORTANT - AFTER REFLECTION - PLEASE OPINE SO WE DECIDE COMMON APPROACH
Judge on 21 May stated representations received from shareholders raised issues to be addressed at Sanction Hearing (21 June). Having reflected on best way to remind the Judge that SH feeling undiminished, but not to to irritate by needless repetition, I have sent below email to ChanceryJudgesListing@Justice.gov.uk
Have done so by 'forwarding' my previous pre-21May email, and writing the below new email in new message section above. Thus Judge can read earlier email if wishes. My email content and method clearly can only be utilised by those who wrote pre 21 May hearing. New writers may write wholly afresh - I urge them to
My email posted merely as suggestion - can be amended as wished. Essential problem I perceive - how to simply remind Judge SH feeling remains strong, without boring or alienating. Nothing any SH can write or evidence will compare with what CA will be present in QC form and voluminous evidence bundles. That is not our task - our task is to show Judge continuing SH opprobrium against the HUR plan. Please can others opine how we best deal with the issue - we need address and meet it

Email to - ChanceryJudgesListing@Justice.gov.uk
'SUBJECT: ATTN MR JUSTICE ZACAROLI - CASE CR-2021-000852 - HURRICANE ENERGY - SANCTION HEARING 21 JUNE 2021
Dear Mr Justice Zacaroli

Prior to the 21 May 2021 Convening Hearing, I submitted representations against the Restructuring Plan (see email below). On 21 May you averred that issues raised by shareholders were matters for the Sanction Hearing. I courteously request my earlier submissions be considered at the Hearing.

I also believe that Crystal Amber Fund, one of the two largest institutional shareholders, will submit comprehensive evidence-backed legal argument against the Restructuring Plan, and possibly propose an alternate way forward for the Company. I support all representations made by the Fund.

Lastly, I request to be invited to attend the virtual 21 June Sanction Hearing.

Thank you for considering these representations.

Yours etc

IMPORTANT - AFTER REFLECTION - PLEASE OPINE SO WE DECIDE COMMON APPROACH
Judge on 21 May stated representations received from shareholders raised issues to be addressed at Sanction Hearing (21 June). Having reflected on best way to remind the Judge that SH feeling has not diminished, but not to to irritate by needless repetition, I have sent below email to ChanceryJudgesListing@Justice.gov.uk
Have done so by 'forwarding' my previous pre-21May email, and writing the below new email in new message section above. That way Judge can read earlier email if he wishes. My email content and method clearly can only be utilised by those who wrote pre 21 May hearing. New writers may write wholly afresh - I urge them to
My email posted merely as suggestion. Essential problem as I see it being - how to simply remind Judge SH feeling remains strong, without boring or alienating. Nothing any SH can write or evidence will compare with what CA will be present in QC form and voluminous evidence bundles - but that is not our task - our task is to show to Judge continuing SH opprobrium against the HUR plan. Please can others opine how we best deal with the issue - we need address and meet it

Email to - ChanceryJudgesListing@Justice.gov.uk
'SUBJECT: ATTN MR JUSTICE ZACAROLI - CASE CR-2021-000852 - HURRICANE ENERGY - SANCTION HEARING 21 JUNE 2021
Dear Mr Justice Zacaroli

Prior to the 21 May 2021 Convening Hearing, I submitted representations against the proposed Restructuring Plan (see earlier email below). On 21 May you averred that issues and objections raised by shareholders were matters for the Sanction Hearing. I courteously request that my earlier submissions be considered at the 21 June Sanction hearing.

I also believe that Crystal Amber Fund, one of the two largest institutional shareholders, will submit comprehensive evidence-backed legal argument against the Restructuring Plan, and possibly propose an alternate way forward for the Company. I wish to add my support to all and any representations made to the Court by Crystal Amber Fund.

Lastly, please accept this communication as my request to be invited to attend the virtual 21 June Sanction Hearing.

Thank you for considering these representations.

Yours etc

IMPORTANT - AFTER REFLECTION
Judge on 21 May stated representations received from shareholders raised issues to be addressed at Sanction Hearing (21 June). Having reflected on best way to remind the Judge that SH feeling has not diminished, but not to to irritate by needless repetition, I have sent below email to ChanceryJudgesListing@Justice.gov.uk
Have done so by 'forwarding' my previous pre-21May email, and writing the below new email in new message section above. That way Judge can read earlier email if he wishes. My email content and method clearly can only be utilised by those who wrote pre 21 May hearing. New writers may write wholly afresh - I urge them to
My email posted merely as suggestion. Essential problem as I see it being - how to simply remind Judge SH feeling remains strong, without boring or alienating. Nothing any SH can write or evidence will compare with what CA will be present in QC form and voluminous evidence bundles - but that is not our task - our task is to show to Judge continuing SH opprobrium against the HUR plan. Please can others opine how we best deal with the issue - we need address and meet it

'SUBJECT: ATTN MR JUSTICE ZACAROLI - CASE CR-2021-000852 - HURRICANE ENERGY - SANCTION HEARING 21 JUNE 2021
Dear Mr Justice Zacaroli

Prior to the 21 May 2021 Convening Hearing, I submitted representations against the proposed Restructuring Plan (see earlier email below). On 21 May you stated that issues and objections raised by shareholders were matters for the Sanction Hearing. I courteously request that my earlier submissions be considered at the 21 June Sanction hearing.

I also believe that Crystal Amber Fund, one of the two largest institutional shareholders, will submit comprehensive evidence-backed legal argument against the Restructuring Plan, and possibly propose an alternate way forward for the Company. I wish to add my support to all and any representations made to the Court by Crystal Amber Fund.

Lastly, please accept this communication as my request to be invited to attend the virtual 21 June Sanction Hearing.

Thank you for considering these representations.

Yours etc'