Member Info for senseman

You are all fur coat and no knickers intent on having the pyrrhic satisfaction of the last word.
Get on and filter me!
Love and kisses x

Again?
The forum thanks you.
Enjoy the whisky
The only thing peeing you off is I disagreed with CA & Kooba risk assessment & figures (which mirror HUR's). And you now want the Scheme to succeed as you have bought further in hoping to make more money
Have a nice day x

Broomtree
The forum currently has no time for your nonsense and handbags. Neither have I.
Have a nice day x

Broom
You can forget trying the misinformation old swannee act with me - it won't work.
The email questions thing started Tues am and and Fri am - 4 days total.
Your 14.29 post today was just plain nasty - as well as being drivel.

broom
what are you banging on about?
the email questions discussion thing started tues am and ended thurs am - 3 days total. people sending started thurs am and ended fri am - 1 day total. whole total - 4 days. it was a group effort. you are the only whinge
i don't have a facebook page
there is a difference between popping onto the forum as and when during work breaks, and leading something which would need consistent effort. if i want to support Johns and Pic, as others have, as they consider whether they want to take on a job, that's my business
today 12.54 you posted...' On the matter of this BB it’s for everybody and hurling abuse and insults at those who take a differing view is hardly adult'
so adhere to what you preach. or is your position now that because you see buying at 7pish a chance to nearly double your current punt, that you want the Scheme to pass and it's back to nasty broomtree trying to derail those who may hold alternate view?
you post sensibly and well, then suddenly try to suck the life out of a poster with a complete nasty. don't think that others have not noticed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceX5jJ5fggs

IEA, OPEC+, Uncle John Cobbly and all suddenly extreme bullishness 2023 highly oil demand highest ever as China fires up, with consequent effect on oil price. Worth a 10 min scan
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/14/global-oil-demand-on-course-for-record-as-chinas-economy-rebounds
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/OPEC-Raises-Forecast-For-Chinas-Oil-Demand-Growth-Again.html
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/oil-demand-record-prices-supply-opec-production-cut-energy-markets-2023-4
https://www.investing.com/news/commodities-news/crude-oil-edges-higher-after-iea-forecast-record-demand-this-year-3055808
https://www.investing.com/news/commodities-news/oil-up-as-iea-sees-2023-demand-spike-strong-dollar-cuts-gains-3056074

johns
a start may be to set up an email address for those wishing to chat re the court issue - it's free. if proves unwieldy can always go to plan B premiums accounts. can anyone say if premium accounts are any better than email for such purpose?
things are never perfect. discussing here will invariably invoke lots of handbags from gloomsters. if email comms produce anything concrete needing wider or tactical support can always post on here then. these just my musings by the way. if i knew best answer i'd opine so

Dive is right re privacy. How much does premium cost a month? Likely worth 1-2 months subscription, for thoroughness and peace of mind.
Flynch hits nail on head - (i) leader/coordinator (ii) funding if not pro bono. I am currently screwed on both.

The argument would be (top of my head) something like:-
1.
Largest SH CA wished to monetize it's holding hence HUR BoD acquiesced by commencing FPS when there existed no good other reason for HUR to be sold. Is largest SH wishing to monetize an asset sufficient grounds to sell a company?
2.
Largest SH CA presented HUR BoD with choice of achieving a deal suitable for it's (CA) purpose (but not necessarily other SHs), alternatively facing an EGM certain to remove 3 senior execs. Is this fair (ie.legally permissible) pressure?
3.
The FSP resulted in a Scheme which (i) largest SH found acceptable (ii) ensured HUR chief execs remained in place (iii) was a 'gift' to buyer Prax (iv) is hated by most PIs. Does this 'cabal of vested interests' scenario fail to meet the appropriate legal 'fairness' principle, upon which PIs place their objections.
4.
HUR's risk assessment scenario and projected financial figures cannot be relied upon (for reasons cited below - cite reasons). HUR chief execs have historical form for 'risk assessment & financial projection manipulation' (cite 2021 more fully. In lay terms, the Scheme docs are carefully massaged toilet tissue similar to 2021.
5.
The Scheme guarantees only circa 6p p.sh. All else is conditional and risk-carrying identical to HUR not being sold (enlarge argument + reasons)
6.
HUR currently holds circa $155-$160 mill cash - 6.6p p.sh (with April offload). PIs financial projections @ $80 Brent see (work out $s) cash by end 2023 & (Ss) by end 2024. At $90 Brent those figures rise to (Ss) & (Ss) cash respectively - on a P6 standalone basis. By end of P6 economic life PIs project (Ss) cash is achievable. By any reasonable metric this scenario outperforms the Scheme's benefit to SHs. Particularly when no sale allows for new progressive senior execs to develop HUR in other substantially more profitable ways.
7.
HUR's Scheme analysis relies on unquantified and unpublished risk and cost analysis relating to black swan events. These are incorrect metrics to use and unsustainable as reasoning to sell the company.

Spirit is willing but I can't be relied upon. I may be incommunicado 1-2 days at a stretch and can't commit for reasons stated
Simple remedy is for someone to set up new yahoo email (it's 5-10 mins) and post email for use as coordinator.
I will read and chip in as and when - may be little may be large. You know I will always try

mariog - i and also a friend received exact similar

johns & pic
have not considered the court issue as compartmentalising things as only way am getting by at present
but i get the drift. and would comment that i saved a couple of the legal magazine comment after the 21 case - one which cites it as legal precedent - 1st time judge didn't rubber stamp, sets precedent etc. one would imagine that referenced to in a court presentation would alert the judge that the BoD got it badly wrong before so current application needs looking at properly not rubber stamp.
i have at least a week's serious deadline work for non-hur other stuff so cannot help with court. absolute cannot, other than keep up to speed and comment as and when if helpful. so sorry
a question for Johns - please explain how court vote works - i don't get it - who can vote and won't HUR already have 46% (CA & Ker) of all HUR share votes already in the bag?
advice if helps - writing always seems harder till you get stuck in. it doesn't matter how rough it sounds as long as you get it down, tidying it up can be done later and many times. write in short sentences, short words and point order. pics or someone else can smooth content and style.
i intend to attend tuesday unless something prevents me. if only for form's sake, never give up etc. i would encourage others to make effort to attend. boring and tedious it may be, but that's where we are

investorcommunications@kerogencap.com

Being past HUR comms deadline is irrelevant.
Whereas British correctly states they have been invisible, they own 16% and signed the Irrevocable. Should 75% fail, or another offer appear and instigate an auction, Ker's 16% may become newly relevant. On that basis, for little effort it matters to keep them informed. Being silent does not mean uninterested.
I have jus cc'd my email to Ker, and encourage others to do so.

10am deadline - Total 32 emails sent
Gentlemen, well done.
On usual basis that a few emailed but not posted, I expect circa 35 have been sent
Thanks to Mariog for cc to Kerogen. We missed a trick there - all should have been cc'd to Ker. My error in not including Ker email address. My apology.
Had we the weekend, would have seen usual 50+sent. But time-short, 30 is a decent, sufficient bloc.
I would encourage anyone missing the 10am deadline who wishes to email, to still do so. A few more post-deadline reinforces better numbers for HUR to be aware of.
Again, gentlemen, well done.

Current total = 29
30 mins left till 10am deadline
We need 1 more braveheart to reach 30 target

Current total = 28

Gentlemen, thank you
Current total = 27
Will 3 more brave souls step up before 10am to enable us to reach our 30 target?

Current total = 25
Deadline is 10 am.
I would urge anyone who has not yet emailed to spend a few minutes doing so

comms@hurricaneenergy.com
philip.wolfe@hurricaneenergy.com
rb@crystalamber.com
investor.relations@prax.com
"Dear Mr Chairman

See questions resulting from PI discussion. Please ensure that as many as possible are PROPERLY addressed within the 18 April GM presentation. Thank you.

1. Will DCUs remain under ISA umbrella, if shares currently held there? Such is an issue of fact under UK tax law & should be clarified for PIs. Also, please explain the difference between Class 1 & Class 2 DCUs.
2. Why were not a RANGE of Brent sensitivity figures included in the cash production P6 standalone figures estimates? NB. Brent is today $87
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 been mutated into being major?
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. Please explain the reasoning/cost breakdown for the new $120m wind down figure.
5. What is current OPEX April 2023. Also projected 2023 OPEX average?
6. Is there opportunity to develop the Lancaster sandstone reserves of 20m barrels of oil? If not, why?
7. Which party was the principal instigator of the Irrevocable Undertakings? Prax, HUR or CA?
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?
9. Will the CEO, CFO & Chair resign if 75% YES is not achieved?
10. What are FSP expected total costs?
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?
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?
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.
14. Prax - (i) why cannot HUR remain AIM listed until 2026? (ii) how soon will the first added production be brought into HUR?
15. Why is Court vote being held 15 mins before Scheme of Arrangement vote?
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?
17. If YES vote is 75%, is the deal binding on ALL SHs?
18. Why is HUR confident the NSTA will agree the Scheme?
19. PIs (a 21% block) consider the Scheme horrifically unfair. Why does not Prax immediately improve it's offer to gain greater PI support?