Member Info for senseman

Pics & I at 18 April meeting went for broke full tonto to repeatedly make the point that given HUR's rogue accounting and figure-presenting history, that no PI believed any current P6 cashflow projections, and viewed Scheme as toxic. And we spoke on behalf of most PIs - wasn't contested so they knew true. Visibly ruffled Prax , HUR & Stifel feathers so message clearly understood.
We occupied maybe 50% Q&A time - any more would have been counterproductive. Other 2-3 guys chipped in to break things up nicely. Only downside was gobby newbie in at 7p asking Prax & HUR CFO daft questions enabling both to wax lyrical about how great Scheme was. RNS likely response to very uncomfortable Q&A session

"No Increase Statement
Prax considers the financial terms of the Acquisition to be full and fair. The financial terms of the Acquisition are therefore final and will not be increased, SAVE (my capitals) that Prax reserves the right to revise the financial terms of the Acquisition where: (i) there is an announcement of a firm intention to make an offer for Hurricane by any third party; or (ii) the Panel otherwise provides its consent."

A whiff of someone else sniffing around?
Remember - until HMRC provide a letter to HUR stating otherwise - regard DCUs as outside ISA & SIPPS, thus taxable.
Also - at just $80 Brent, using HUR's own figures correctly, P6 standalone cash in bank will be 7.87p (-0.25p EPL) = 7.62p at end Dec 2023

A certain poster at it yet again
I do not and have never owned any CRS (CA) shares. Nor have I posted that I do.

No, mea culpa
Deduct $5mill 2023 (HUR figure)
2024 - expect same or slightly lower as lower production/profit

NB. Should read at start
Cash at end March $130mill (HUR figure)

ACCURATE, TRUE P6 FIGURES
Cash at end March £130mill (HUR figure)
Costs $10mill pcm (HUR figure)
4 offloads due rest of 2023 - April, start/mid July, end Sept/start Oct, Dec
At $80: 80 x 92% = 73.6 x 540000 = $39.74 mill x 4 offloads = $159mill
Costs 9 months (Aprl-Dec) = 9x $10mill = $90mil
Cash increase April-Dec: $159 - $90 = $69 mill. Less $3mill FSP costs = $66mill
Current cash $130mill + $66mill = $196 mill
$196mill = £157.5mill (today's exchange rate)
$157.5 mill divided by 2 billion shares = 7.87p p.sh END DEC 2023 at ONLY $80 BRENT
At $85 Brent = $209mill = £168mill = 8.4p p.sh
At $90 Brent = $219mill = £176mill = 8.8p p.sh
NOTE - Above using HUR's OWN FIGURES CORRECTLY - position end Dec 2023

2024 - 4 offloads. Costs same (costs constant, production falling). NB - Likely actual 4.3 offloads, but figures for 4.
Brent $80: Add $39mill cash (£31.3mill) = 1.56p
Brent $90: Add $59mill Cash (£47.4mill) = 2.37p

HUR's CFO cooked the books re it's P6 standalone cash prediction figure by AT LEAST $10 a barrel via:
(i) employing a forward Brent curve of $76 - an historically useless metric to use
(ii) employing a 2023 average OPEX pb figure of $50, when it will be maximum $45
It's easy to win an argument via deliberate falsehood

Our pantomime dame is still giving it large mis-citing others out of context, and constructing miasmas of confusion where none exists.

In arguing on 18 April that HUR's P6 standalone figures were valid, CFO stated a Brent forward curve figure of $76 was used. See below a link (& quote therefrom) explaining the limitation of such approach and how it historically has been useless as a forecast. This approach was used disastrously by HUR in 2021 in attempting to restructure via 95% dilution. The approach takes no account of political events and what forecasters at the sharp end eg oil fund managers and those investing, actually think and back with their money. In light of most predictors forecasting 2023 highest ever oil demand fuelled by China reopening and a supply squeeze, basing P6 standalone cashflow on $76 Brent partly explains HUR's fantasy figures, and is wholly wrong.

https://timera-energy.com/the-dangers-of-mixing-forecasts-and-forward-curves/
"Chart 1: Evolution of Brent crude spot and forward prices
Source: Timera Energy (based on ICE Brent Futures settlement prices)
These phenomena clearly undermine the logic that ‘the forward curve is a forecast of spot prices’. Why would a three-year forecast change every day, and by the same amount across the whole forward period, and by the same amount as today’s spot price change? Who changes their long-term forecasts every day? Who thinks that an increase in today’s spot price, perhaps caused by the weather or a well-understood physical event in the supply chain, has any bearing whatsoever on prices three years from now? What kind of implicit fundamental modelling would give rise to such a result?
The Brent price animation illustrates a very simple test: has the FC been a good predictor of Brent spot prices? The answer is that it has clearly been a very poor predictor indeed.
In the articles to follow in this series we will consider a number of econometric theories as to how the FC relates to physical markets. We will see that they often bear very little relationship to reality: and that the dynamics of FCs is a subject best studied empirically."

Another concerning aspect of HUR's figures is the projected 2023 OPEX average $45.5-$54.7 (mid range $50.1 - what CFO said HUR's figures were based on).
End June 2022 OPEX was $33.7 (CFO at 2022 AGM).
April 18 2023 OPEX $38.6 (RNS 18.04.23). That is $4.9 (say $5) increase in 9.5 months.
Since the cost variable is decreasing production, which to date has been linear - it is hard to see how $38.6 OPEX will, by end Dec 2023 (18 April + 8.5 months), increase to average $50 for all 2023. That is, it would need to increase by $11.4 pb by end Dec 2023 just to REACH $50. And increase significantly above $50 by end Dec 2023 to average $50 for 2023.

HUR's figures are undercooked by at LEAST $5 re Brent, and overcooked by at least $5 on OPEX forecast. That is, by at least $10 a barrel. Over 4 remaining offloads this year, +4 more next year - and +1.5p.p.sh magically appears.

This CFO failed to buy bonds at 30/40c in $. And whose July 21-June 22 forecast was +$150mill wrong.

PART 4
20. Why are HUR's communications & modus operandi always so bad? eg: (i) stating re P8 that the NSTA would not give 'sufficient comfort - language so woolly and unspecific so as to be meaningless (ii) issuing an RNS today (18.04.23 7.00am) containing relevant information too late for attendees to access pre-meeting.
A: (CEO) (i) that was the language NSTA used in communicating to HUR it's position, so we used it is communicating in P8 RNS (ii) apology for today's late RNS
NB: The P8 fuller explanation given by CEO amounted to - NSTA would not give us specific OK undertaking ahead of time (as per usual practice), so we decided we could not take the chance.

Wed 08.08 reposted for ease of reference.
PRESENTATION - MEETING REPORT(S) Wed 08:08
No juice to post yesterday. No time today. PIcsmaister intends to post report when time allows. I will add if and when I have time.
BASICS
10-15 SHs attended, 6 asked questions. No time to discuss stuff before kick off.
Pics & I sat side by side to divi questions up. He played good cop, me bad.
3 others clearly not short term holders chipped in with serious queries to break things up nicely. The fourth clearly new, whose phone kept going off and yapping, asked Prax silly questions allowing them to repeat how great the deal was. He later stated to Pics he was new SH so bought at 7ish for the deal upside & thinks Prax great.

NOTE: Both the morning's RNS and Presentation clarified (to some extent) much from the 19 questions +30 SHs emailed, so yaa boo sucks to those who said it was a waste of time.
NOTE: We were again seriously attendee and questioner light. Had we 2 more LTSH to play good cop bad cop on the other side of the aisle, we would have done better. Pics & I both bust a gut to attend and were peed off others didn't make the effort.
NOTE: Mr Stifel & Mr Dentons solicitors were there front row 5 grey suits to ensure neither HUR not Prax said anything out of order.
That said, Q & A lasted 1hr.40mins (a long time) 10.40am-12.20pm needing Chair Wolfe to call an end twice. The platform had to work hard, were clearly under pressure and glad to wrap up. Pics & I rather knackered & stressed

PLEASE could other 3 (or) 4 other questioners + other attendees show themselves and report even briefly re yesterday. I meant to collar the 3 questioners afterwards to chat but erred via tiredness in falling for being waylaid by Mr Stifel then it wrapped u - think by then rooms' booking time was up. Only spoken wit Pics by phone briefly since so don't know whom else he spoke with.

SPECIFICS: Amount of good detail stuff revealed, uncovered on RNS or Pres. No doubt Pics will start the ball rolling. other attendees please chip in, and I will add if and when I have time. If I don't have time, I don't

PART 3
19. PIs (a 21% block) consider the Scheme horrifically unfair. Why does not Prax immediately improve it's offer to gain greater PI support?
A: Ignored in P, asked in M. Prax refused to answer question despite question repeated 3 times.
NB: Prax later stated to Picsmaister that offer constructed to beat other FSP parties, ie: not on ‘fair value’ assessment.
20. Has any other party expressed interest post Prax offer announcement?
A: Stifel - HUR are not allowed to answer that question.

Please could Picsmaister or any other attendee opine re accuracy or otherwise of above. Also post any omissions etc

PART 2
11. What confidence can SHs have in HUR's risk assessment & P6 standalone cash production figures when, one year after the 2021 failed High Court 95% restructuring attempt, at bond due date, it's risk assessment proved overstated, and cash projections understated by circa $150 million in a single year?
A: Ignored in P. Asked in M. Answer - only POO (which no one could have predicted) made us $150mill out in 12 months. You can trust us and our figures. We have used POO forward curve figures @ circa $76.
NB: POO forward curve figures historically cautious by $5-$10pb. Take no note of political climate eg: China re-opening & possible supply crucnch.
NB: Answer was drivel lies. In 2021 Judge ruled even on HUR’s own POO figures bond money would only be $10-$25mill short, borrowable from multiple normal sources if needed.
NB: Judge’s estimate after Hearing showed HUR’s accounting for court purposes had written off/not included circa $50mill, ie: HUR tried to bury $50mill (separate from POO issue).
12. Prax - Why do you have confidence in and plan to retain, HUR's CEO & CFO, in light of Q11 above? Also, when HUR's relationship with the NSTA has failed?
A: Ignored (both parts) in P. Asked in M. Prax declined to answer. HUR CEO Maris seized question. Answer – HUR excellent NSTA relationship. Also, (astonishing not RNS’d(my comment)) NSTA some wks/months ago gave permission for crucial P6 production metric to be changed from 300 to 360psi (or other way around - techies please explain). This has enabled & explains why P6 reserves? have been upgraded to extend P6 commercial life & barrelage to 2026 (again techies, please explain the 300/360psi metric & import)
13. In the last 2 ERCE reports, the 2P level of oil in P6 effectively increased by around 3m barrels (ie: it did not materially drop despite oil being extracted for the last year). Please explain the reasons, and by how long this extends P6's projected economically viable lifespan.
A: See 12a above Answer. Ignored in P. Asked in M.
14. Prax - (i) why cannot HUR remain AIM listed until 2026? (ii) how soon will the first added production be brought into HUR?
A: Ignored in P. Asked in M. Prax – ignored (i). Stated ‘we plan to’, no specifics, trust us.
15. Why is Court vote being held 15 mins before Scheme of Arrangement vote?
A: Ignored in P. Asked in M. Stifel answer – both votes held at 4 May General Meeting. HUR need pass 2 hurdles (i) for Court - 50% of SHs who vote– a broker representing say 500 SHs counts as 1 vote. (ii) for Scheme – 75% of votes cast – 1 vote per share held.
16. When P6 pump was previously changed over, natural flow almost matched pumped flow. What is natural flow rate expected to be should pump changeover be necessary again?
A: Ignored in P. Unasked in M.
17. If YES vote is 75%, is the deal binding on ALL SHs?
A: Ignored in P. Unasked in M.
18. Why is HUR confident the NSTA will agree the Scheme?
A: CEO - Because we have excellent NSTA relationshi

PART 1
NB: Read in conjunction with senseman post Wed 08.08am ‘PRESENTATION - MEETING REPORTS’. Further info below, for simplicity as per 19 questions emailed to HUR format.
NB: P = HUR Presentation 18.04.23. M = following Q&As 18.04.23

1. Will DCUs remain under ISA umbrella? Explain the difference between Class 1 & Class 2.
A. HUR do not know. Scheme announced prior to ascertaining. Because of PI concern it recently wrote to HMRC for decision. HMRC cited a 30 working day response time – between mid-end May, ie: after 4 May vote. Only difference between Class 1 & Class 2 DCU (SHs can opt which one) is one allows payment 6 months later than the other, if such preferable for tac purposes.
NB. HUR advised PI’s the Scheme should be supported despite not knowing (or caring) if DCUs remain under ISA umbrella. PIs hold circa 39% of shares not owned by CA or Kerogen.
2. Why were not a RANGE of Brent sensitivity figures included in the cash production P6 standalone figures estimates?
A: Ignored in P. Asked in M but unanswered – waffle.
3. Why have the CEO & CFO's 2022 AGM comments that P6 catastrophic failure risk was minimal now been consigned to history, and the risk now mutated into major?
A: Ignored in P. Unasked in M.
4. On 27 March, Hurricane communicated to a SH that up to another $60m would be needed in wind down costs on top of $60m already escrowed, leading to only 0.83p expected dividends per share in 2024. Explain the reasoning/cost breakdown for the new $120m wind down figure.
A: Ignored in P. Asked in M but unanswered – waffle, ‘trust our figures’.
5. What is current OPEX April 2023. And projected 2023 OPEX average?
A: Ignored in P. Asked in M. OPEX April 2023 $38.6. 2023 likely average $45.5-$54.7.
NB: OPEX stated in 18 April RNS 7.00am day of M.
NB: OPEX June 30 2022 AGM $33.7. 9/10 months later April 2023 $38.6, ie only $5pb rise in 9/10 months. Since production declining linear slowly, difficult to see how 2023 average will exceed range low of $45.5. CFO - HUR figures based on mid range $50.
NB: HUR 2023 average OPEX cost figures thus likely overstated by $5pb
6. Is there opportunity to develop the Lancaster sandstone reserves of 20m barrels of oil? If not, why?
A: Ignored in P. Unasked in M.
7. Which party was the principal instigator of the Irrevocable Undertakings? Prax, HUR or CA?
A: Ignored in P. Asked in M. Answer - Prax. Refusal to answer if offer conditional upon Irrevocables. Or if HUR, CA or Kerogen fought against.
8. Having restated in a recent RNS it has no confidence in the BoD, have CA made clear what action it will take if 25% vote NO? If so, what action?
A: Ignored in P. Unasked in M
9. Will the CEO, CFO & Chair resign if 75% YES is not achieved?
A: Ignored in P. Unasked in M.
10. What are FSP expected total costs?
A: $3.5mill. Ignored in P. Asked in M.
(to cont)

No juice to post yesterday. No time today. PIcsmaister intends to post report when time allows. I will add if and when I have time.
BASICS
10-15 SHs attended, 6 asked questions. No time to discuss stuff before kick off.
Pics & I sat side by side to divi questions up. He played good cop, me bad.
3 others clearly not short term holders chipped in with serious queries to break things up nicely. The fourth clearly new, whose phone kept going off and yapping, asked Prax silly questions allowing them to repeat how great the deal was. He later stated to Pics he was new SH so bought at 7ish for the deal upside & thinks Prax great.

NOTE: Both the morning's RNS and Presentation clarified (to some extent) much from the 19 questions +30 SHs emailed, so yaa boo sucks to those who said it was a waste of time.
NOTE: We were again seriously attendee and questioner light. Had we 2 more LTSH to play good cop bad cop on the other side of the aisle, we would have done better. Pics & I both bust a gut to attend and were peed off others didn't make the effort.
NOTE: Mr Stifel & Mr Dentons solicitors were there front row 5 grey suits to ensure neither HUR not Prax said anything out of order.
That said, Q & A lasted 1hr.40mins (a long time) 10.40am-12.20pm needing Chair Wolfe to call an end twice. The platform had to work hard, were clearly under pressure and glad to wrap up. Pics & I rather knackered & stressed

PLEASE could other 3 (or) 4 other questioners + other attendees show themselves and report even briefly re yesterday. I meant to collar the 3 questioners afterwards to chat but erred via tiredness in falling for being waylaid by Mr Stifel then it wrapped u - think by then rooms' booking time was up. Only spoken wit Pics by phone briefly since so don't know whom else he spoke with.

SPECIFICS: Amount of good detail stuff revealed, uncovered on RNS or Pres. No doubt Pics will start the ball rolling. other attendees please chip in, and I will add if and when I have time. If I don't have time, I don't

One could understand there being a rational for allowing a single SH (whatever % they hold) for having only 1 vote re the Court vote. But not all SHs holding shares with a broker eg HL, to have just one collective vote

I get it (or I think I do). But many (blamelessly) won't as they can't be expected to read nuanced things 20 times. That is why it needs to be explained in simple terms in plain English.
If Johns and xxPro are correct, how votes received from brokers (eg Hargreaves who hold I think circa 50% of PI shares) are treated for vote purposes does become crucial. I suggest a few PIs phone brokers to ask. For Hargreaves you need ask to speak with a Senior Investment Consultant. The name of one is Luc Enright whom I shall try to speak with

Sorry fellas - the Court thing is still as clear as mud
Someone needs to imagine readers have just arrived from Mars, and explain step by step in basic English what HUR need to achieve to win the Court vote
To illustrate - all know that to win the Scheme vote HUR need to achieve 75% of all votes cast by SHs or their proxies. Not 75% of al HUR shares, but 75% of those cast.
I open the floor for someone to explain in simple terms what HUR need to achieve to win the Court vote

Address: The Science Suite, Royal Society Of Chemistry, Burlington House, London W1J 0BA
Bring:
Broker email confirming HUR shareholder status (entry desk may insist)
Alternatively broker computer printout of current HUR shareholding. Shout if entry problems - other SHs will help
Printed copy of questions emailed to HUR comms etc - IMPORTANT
Pad & pen for notes
Arrive: 9.15-9.30am - to allow time to speak with other SHs and divi up questions

Instinct will be to not bother - either it's a done deal so why bother, or others will attend so I need not.
Make the effort. Do not leave it to others. It is YOUR company. Do you not want to question those who previously tried to give away your company, and whom now try to sell YOUR COMPANY cheaply? Do you not want to sleep easily at night knowing you at least tried?

Address: The Science Suite, Royal Society Of Chemistry, Burlington House, London W1J 0BA
Bring: Email from broker confirming you are HUR SH (entry desk may insist)
Alternatively broker computer printout of current HUR shareholding.
Shout if entry problems - other SHs will help
Printed copy of questions emailed to HUR comms etc - IMPORTANT
Pad & pen to take notes
Arrive: 9.15-9.30am - to allow time to speak with other SHs and divi up questions

Instinct will be not to bother - either it's a done deal so why bother, or others will attend so I need not.
Set aside instinct - embrace your SISU - your Finnish characteristic of stoic determination, tenacity, courage, resilience, hardiness & idealism - a concept making the Finns the happiest nation on earth - which defeated the Russians in WW2 - which via Viren, Vaatainan, Vasala in the 70s restored Finland to being the greatest distance running nation on the planet, 40 years after Paavo Nurmi.
Make the effort - take a day off work - do not leave it to others - it is YOUR company - do you not want to ask questions of, and front up to, those who previously tried to destroy you, and whom now try to sell YOUR COMPANY cheaply? Do you not want to sleep more easily at night knowing you at least tried? ATTEND!

broomtree
i specifically go out of my way to avoid crossing swords with you because i know you have a mean streak
and to get all your porkies out of the way in one go (in case anyone is daft enough to believe them) - i do not and have not had a go at you for holding an opposing view
you started today's insults. i stopped you.
and drop the 'lord of the forum' garbage - if it wasn't me, you would be having a go at the next in line
it is as clear as a bell you want the Scheme to succeed and are worried in case 75% fails. hence you are talking your book