Member Info for senseman

NOTE FOR THE RECORD
ADVFN's kooba has refused to explain to the forum why he is suddenly permanently resident here.
He has been shown to be a bare-faced liar
He has filtered senseman

NB
Also, kooba, within our ADVFN message exchanges I informed you (though I knew you already knew) that I copied certain posts of yours I thought of value to LSE)

4TH REQUEST
kooba
you are a bare faced liar
we spoke by phone once and i told you if you advfn posted anything i thought lse may especially appreciated reading, i copied it over
and i have made clear on advfn i occasionally copy valid posts over (and nonsense ones if needed to evidence a point)i
i have never complained about anyone copying a post of mine attributing it to me - i complained about a multiple alias poster plagiarising my post and posting it under his name - as well as plagiarising other posters.
so stop bare-faced lying and kindly answer the courteous question put to you on behalf of multiple members

i have no interest in whether you filter me or not. i have never filtered anyone.
if you post trying to mislead the forum, i will hold you to account, as others are beginning to do

3RD REQUEST
koob
let's clear up your latest clever deflective try-on
1. I have copied posts from advfn to here for years and made no secret of it. and posts from here to advfn. No one has ever complained - and certainly not you
2. others posters have done similar, vice versa
3. both are public forums and NO ONE needs authority from ANYONE to copy and paste any post from A to B.
4. if someone posted on advfn that authority was needed for someone to copy a post from one forum to the other you would be the first to post on advfn that no authority was needed and they were talking nonnsense
5. so you know that your reply is nonsense
6. you are not so thin skinned that you care about what people here think of you, and know well enough that usually least said soonest ignored and forgotten
7. so sorry - your reasons for being suddenly residence here don't stack up and i again ask you to explain - why suddenly permanently on LSE?

koob - you're at it again with the faulty abacus
and it is not i who has made a beano out of costs projections - i cited 6-8 mil without one-offs as a reasonable yardstick and gave no forward projection. i didn't include one offs and natural increase and i'd be quite happy with 9-10 mill pcm 2023 AVERAGE - it's not alarming as your projections were.
my main purpose has always been to illustrate that yours are exagerated - which they significantly are - you picked them from a cornflake packet when you knew HUR had extraordinary one-offs and ran with it - even now your current 10 mill pcm (March) and rapidly rising through 2023 is WAY MORE more than HUR's own 2023 estimated total. as i said - kooba's faulty abacus
people here are slowly being to see you write cleverly but content when analysed is less than kosher.
and yesterday/today have had 4 emails from posters posing the same fair question - why has kooba suddenly, at a crucial time, taken up permanent residence on here? it's a fair question asked previously but not answered. to be clear - no one objects to you being here - they are just curious at to why now? perhaps you could explain why, suddenly now?

Have spent half an hour playing catch-up on Rod's patient analytical posts re fact that despite P6 pumping merrily away, each year with HUR BoD ERCE CPR revision, our 2P reserves are not depleting, ie ERCE at HUR's request are consistently uprating them.
This may be seismic - indicating (not my field at all) that sandstone oil may be seeping into P6 as P6 pressure decreases? - which may mean that P6 flow stabilises at above bpm economic production limit for several years ie 2006 and beyond?
Hats off to Rod for keeping at it - the value implications are clear and all should be aware of them

kooba's making big on the other channel his costs figures are spot on - err NO they are not
he cited current $10 mill pcm, increasing rapidly. below my response on the other channel response. he's 10-20mill out, or 1-1.6 mill pcm out (perhaps more)
so - exagerating costs + citing permanent low oil - it's easy to see how kooba's figures suddenly replicate HUR (& now CA's) fairy tale

"and by the way - your costs were NOT accurate
you cited 10 mill a month (march) and increasing rapidly (let's say to what, 12 mill by end 2023?)
hurr say 2023 AVERAGE 110 mill - 120 mill ie 9.1 mill to 10 mill pcm average
so costs are NOT currently 10 mill a month and rapidly rising
your figures and prediction would have costs at least $130 mill for the year,ie between 10-20 mill out ie between $1 mill - $1.6 mill a month out.
you are good at misleading people with the stroke of a keyboard
ps. we also don't know if costs include EPL levy and/or some FSP costs - hur costs being notoriously opaque and us not having access to accounts
i repeat - $10 mill pcm in march 2023 and increasing rapidly (for another 9 months) is MUCH higher than $110 mill-$120 mill for whole 2023
you're a devious little tinker when you get going, eh? and you can add up as well as i can - so ignorance is no defence"

apology typo - should read 'koob'

kook
stop taking all for fools via sleight of keyboard. after for years being one of the staunchest critics of the veracity of HUR communications, you are now it's biggest advocate. below my recent post re pump - accurately what Maris & Chaffe said at AGM - reported same day or day after by several attendees myself included.
"senseman
RE: Reasonable? Discuss Wed 18:00
I asked Maris the pump questions at the AGM. He put the odds of the backup pump working when stitched on at 75% - 100%, citing the wide range as being industry standard when citing probabilities. He stated there existed 'no good reason' it should not work but since nothing mechanical could ever be cited as 100% if inactive for a while he could not say 100%. That if far different from a 75% probability and much more towards 100% than 75%. Since he always been considered a decent COO (chief operating officer), and it's his field of expertise, in discussion afterwards we all put it at +90% and him opining it would work barring the wholly unforeseen.
From firm memory of when they had to switch it over before, the fault was a topside electrical fault and nothing intrinsically actual pump related - again from firm memory production was only down for a few days - PI's will remember it was considered such a minor matter PIs chastised it being included in the next RNS because it normally would not be and inclusion was viewed as Maris dark mood music keeping the SP down. So it is not a case of the pump itself having an unknow fault which may suddenly reappear.
He also stated the downtime to be 3 weeks total for switchover using ROV and Chafee backed him up on this.
What was openly said by Maris & Chaffe - it was definite with no huffing and puffing - can be relied upon as being more accurate than a protective written email response to the same question being issued by HUR comms"

Rodney
Re ESP - Several AGM attendees, including myself reported on here at the time (was only what - 9 months ago?) Maris & Chafee ESP risk comments. So my memory now (only 9 months later, not 9 years) does not need be relied upon. By the way - it merely repeats what several attendees reported at the time.
Maris's email to kooba 4 months ago Nov 22 was written when the for sale sign was being put up via CA pressure and it was in the BoD's interest to put buyers off by increasing the risk red alerts - expecting if company was sold they would be jobless.
The Maris email is toilet tissue. kooba knows so but is yanking your chain trying to take all for fools. he does that at times

Mariog
I'd write suggesting (could just copy & paste our argument here) to RB of CA, + 3 HUR senior execs. In their minds then to run with it re Prax as a better way or way out of conflict. Unless you've stated it I wouldn't assume it's crossed their minds

mariog - yes i agree
and BoD will press them to up it as don't want to lose jobs
but if getting too messy always a point where Prax will pull out
win win for PIs - better deal or Prax exit

Have been serious musing:-
CA RNS confirms CA still detest HUR chief execs.
The severity of the Irrevocables suggest a fragile deal of forced bedmates uncertain 75% will be achieved.
The speed and extent of a Q & A RNS suggests panic after overwhelming PI outcry at deal.
Which leads me more firmly back to the elephant in the room unaddressed by the Q & A and the question I raise re Q6, ie:
"Q6 What happens if this deal doesn’t get approved? Would you switch to another bidder’s offer,
or go straight into a capital return process?
Relevant missing part 3 of question - IF DEAL FAILS 75% - WILL CA REISSUE EGM REQUEST, REMOVE BoD, INSTALL ALBION AS EARLIER PLANNED?"

I firmly believe that if 75% fails, CA will, rather than leave BoD in place till well 6 economic limit, reissue EGM request, oust chief execs, and install Albion. The question is - will Albion still want in if it perceives it has been messed about. But I am fairly certain that this is what CA will want to do. Since Albion have thick skins, they would likely still play ball.
CA of course will never admit this whilst the deal is in play. But you can bet your life HUR BoD are scared stiff of 75% failing!
So I would build scenario 3 into your thoughts - if 75% fails - BoD out and Albion likely in (in my view).
Opinions?

Apology no time to opine save in note form.
Beware new false prophet joining discredited old false prophet in busy abacus posting blitz

Deal negative reaction FAR greater than expected by Prax, HUR, CA. Damage limitation 44 Q & A document rushed out - speed & length extraordinary.
Quality: toilet tissue on fundamentals: Qs & As cherry picked

SHRIEKING OUT
Q4 How much cash is Hurricane generating now?
Projected $80 Brent. Historic HUR fiction. Today Brent $77. Project $90 Brent (more accurate) - see figures rocket
Deliberate omission - Projections with Brent $85, $90, $95, $100
Q5 Won’t Hurricane have cash equivalent to 12.5p/share by the end of 2024? If so, why should
shareholders not just wait for that cash?
HUR standalone cash return figures - fiction
Q6 What happens if this deal doesn’t get approved? Would you switch to another bidder’s offer,
or go straight into a capital return process?
Relevant missing part 3 of question - IF DEAL FAILS 75% - WILL CA REISSUE EGM REQUEST, REMOVE BoD, INSTALL ALBION AS EARLIER PLANNED?
Q7 Will Prax come back with a higher offer?
Question unanswered. If Prax offer final, would state No. Truthful answer - YES
Q9 Why have the Board, Crystal Amber and Kerogen agreed to an irrevocable support for this
deal – what happens if a better offer is forthcoming?
True answer - Irrevocables signed anticipating vocal 21% PI backlash, attempt to present as nearly done deal
Q12 Why the deferred payments? Why not all the cash at once?
HUR BoD deliberate exagaration of Well 6 catastrophic failure
Q13 Is Prax not just buying Hurricane with its own money?
Question unanswered. Correct answer - YES
Q14 What about a dividend in the ordinary course? Why did management decide to push on with
finalising a deal before returning capital to shareholders?
True answer - if circa 3p had been returned as promised, even more PI's (and Inst Invests) against deal and 75% target made harder.
Q17 Was this the best offer in terms of immediate cash consideration?
Question irrelevant to PIs main value concern
Q18 How much money will management make from the deal? Will any of Management retain
their jobs and will their pay increase?
True answer - (i) A lot, espec seniors (ii) CEO & CFO will (iii) Likely
Q20 Is it a court-led process? Does it require 75 per cent support from voting shareholders?
Fuller answer - (i) If 75% not achieved, Prax higher offer or walk away (ii) If 75%-90%, those voting against cannot be forced to accept deal but can elect shares in private HUR (offerer's nightmare) (iii) 90% needed for compulsory purchase of those voting against. Is there a forum expert to expand upon this?
Q23 How common is this type of deal structure?
Rare. Usually when offerer getting target for below value
Q38 Will we have any voting rights in Prax activities?
Non-sellers between 75%-90% threshold - YES
Q44 Why are Stifel involved with all these share trades announced on the 8.5 RNSs?
NOMAD should not also be b

kooba
Thank you for revealing so much in a singe one line post.
2 days after arriving on the forum, you consider it appropriate to comment that you cannot be ****d to give a respected member of this forum (for all his limitations) a good kicking - essentially (all fine detail aside) because he fails to accept your opinion that HUR well 6 standalone end cash figure would be circa 8p, and thus the proposed deal is good.
If that is your view of a poster with accepted fair intellect, knowledge and ethics, it begs the question - in what regard do you hold other members of this forum? Also, why are we suddenly benefitting so much from your esteemed presence?

kooba
Our messages crossed during the mutual writing thereof. Thank you. Whilst being fully aware of your ADVFN post, this forum has many multiples of ADVFN member, very few of whom peruse ADVFN. Your ADVFN post now stands on here as your response to my courteous request. I am sure many LSE members appreciate your clarification.

3RD COURTEOUS REQUEST
Kooba
Sorry to press, But you have had time to post on other aspects, so it is clear time is not an issue. Yet again I courteously request a response to my courteous query. Which is below. There is no need to be shy. This is an understanding forum. If you are not prepared to respond to my courteous query, just state so, kindly citing reasons:-
"Kooba
Whilst am sure your full shift here today on various technicals and important detail is well-appreciated, please could you attend to a little outstanding housekeeping?
Yesterday 16.37 you heavily implied your involvement was greater than I (and thereby others) had any idea of, ie:

"Yep i know all about it as i said..both hearings everything thanks. I don’t want to fall out senseman but you have no idea of my involvement."

For the benefit of the forum, please could you confirm that you currently have no active professional relationship with any of the main interested parties, or any institutional investor invested in HUR? Or put another way, that your interest in this matter is solely as a private investor? I did ask the question here yesterday, but you did not respond. Am sure clarification via a reply will be appreciated by all."

During the writing of this your new best friend ex-bondholder ex-shareholder ASI has posted you have already replied to this query. So sorry, but your earlier reply whilst angered was too imprecise. Whereas you may also be a private investor, such does not exclude you from also being employed by a main interested party, or an institutional investor. Your further comment is also too imprecise.

You must excuse my pressing. But this forum has over time been invaded by many Trojan horses of exquisite design, all of whom have over time been revealed. I have received several emails citing that your immediate precise knowledge of all things HUR (save in their view an objectively fair overview) is so considerable that it exceeds only that of mine and perhaps 1-2 others. Also queries as to why you are gracing this forum, of far greater population than ADVFN, so suddenly and fully at precisely the moment the proposed deal is announced, opining so eloquently that the deal is good and should be accepted.

I trust therefore there will be no problem answering this 3RD COURTEOUS REQUEST, and look forward to receiving your reply.

Kooba
Whilst am sure your full shift here today on various technicals and important detail is well-appreciated, please could you attend to a little outstanding housekeeping?
Yesterday 16.37 you heavily implied your involvement was greater than I (and thereby others) had any idea of, ie:

"Yep i know all about it as i said..both hearings everything thanks. I don’t want to fall out senseman but you have no idea of my involvement."

For the benefit of the forum, please could you confirm that you currently have no active professional relationship with any of the main interested parties, or any institutional investor invested in HUR? Or put another way, that your interest in this matter is solely as a private investor? I did ask the question here yesterday, but you did not respond. Am sure clarification via a reply will be appreciated by all.

I asked Maris the pump questions at the AGM. He put the odds of the backup pump working when stitched on at 75% - 100%, citing the wide range as being industry standard when citing probabilities. He stated there existed 'no good reason' it should not work but since nothing mechanical could ever be cited as 100% if inactive for a while he could not say 100%. That if far different from a 75% probability and much more towards 100% than 75%. Since he always been considered a decent COO (chief operating officer), and it's his field of expertise, in discussion afterwards we all put it at +90% and him opining it would work barring the wholly unforeseen.
From firm memory of when they had to switch it over before, the fault was a topside electrical fault and nothing intrinsically actual pump related - again from firm memory production was only down for a few days - PI's will remember it was considered such a minor matter PIs chastised it being included in the next RNS because it normally would not be and inclusion was viewed as Maris dark mood music keeping the SP down. So it is not a case of the pump itself having an unknow fault which may suddenly reappear.
He also stated the downtime to be 3 weeks total for switchover using ROV and Chafee backed him up on this.
What was openly said by Maris & Chaffe - it was definite with no huffing and puffing - can be relied upon as being more accurate than a protective written email response to the same question being issued by HUR comms

Thank you Eski for your kind words - as usual still nothing constructive
I argued against what I viewed unfair CA criticism for lack of HUR news, reminding people of what they had done for us (and themselves), and saying it was wrong to desert a friend without good cause. I stated the news delay was likely because CA were allowing enough time for the FSP to be completed. That has proven correct.

I have never tried to stifle debate. Don't lie.
Had a deal been announced which I perceived to be fair to PIs, I would have had no complaints. I may personally not have liked the deal, but I would not have chastised CA. I now criticize CA because I believe it agreed the deal (to my considerable surprise) to suit it's own narrow purpose, and which it knew most if not all PIs would hate. It was under no pressure to do so. if I were a CA lickspittle (your previous accusation), would I not now argue the deal was good? I believe the Irrevocables are in place because Prax, HUR, CA & Ker know that whilst the deal suits all their narrow purposes, it would be hated by us active 21% PIs which it knows could endanger the necessary 75% AGM vote needed. The best way to secure 75% is to persuade other inst invests it is a done deal so easier to follow the already 45% herd, and to disenchant the 21% PIs.

Should I keep quiet when I believe CA have, for the first time, knowingly let us down when it need not have? What would your comment be then, Eski.? Or should I voice criticism? I believe CA was obligated not to agree a deal it knew PIs would hate, and have earlier given my reasons. It was my view of that reciprocal obligation which caused me to opine that PIs should not precipitously criticize CA when no just cause existed. it's called loyalty - something I place great store on. But being loyal does not mean blind loyalty. If a friend let's one down badly - should one keep quiet, or call that friend out? The answer is clear. FWIW, I have made my views crystal clear to CA.

The logical consequence of what you say, Eski, is that I would be a CA lickspittle and be dammed if I opined the deal was good. But I am also dammed because I argue it is a bad deal and CA have needlessly let us down. That is the problem of malicious argument such as yours Eski - it seeks to damn the target all ways. Sensible posters understand both the concept of loyalty, and also that loyalty does not mean turning a blind eye when bad things occur. Are you a sensible poster, or not?