Member Info for senseman

True. But CA have been in HUR 10 yrs and sweated blood. don't see them turning turtle for the sake of iffy deal. 6p cash (already nearly half way to 7p) must give them confidence. they hate senior execs. they and we are 50%. whichever way i look, can't see iffy deal being ok'd. And Saba, CA's biggest SH, I would imagine have to agree any deal for CA to. They are red hot

even with a few quid knocked off for epl, the offload due circa april 20 should see circ $160 mill cash, so no need leave $90 mill cash in bank. as gloucs says likely idea was planned for mid Q1 not end march or early april. good board would hand over 4p for those reasons
other thing is that, if deal is recommended for SH vote, and sale process likely to take few months, BoD could both recommend a deal and issue cash back before end march. deal price lower to take account of returned cash. would keep SHs happy till see deal money as always a risk of deal failing before final signing off

Dive - thanks for calm reason & for coincidentally precising my views. Given my oft expressed view I would be unhappy with any bid below 20p, & wish a new BoD + drilling/dealmaking, it's hard to see how I sleep with CA. And yes, yesterday's Pinky & Perky, you did opine CA were useless for not already executing the EGM, killing the FSP (which many PIs want to succeed) & replacing the BoD. And opined they couldn't be trusted not to support a low ball deal in return for a big brown envelope. The fact they have absolute right to support a deal many PIs would not support represents an understandable & natural divergence of interests inevitable at some point. It does not make CA any less of a friend in the sense I used the word.

Thinkers will see the significance of the last 12 month offload record below (dates + price achieved):-

22.03.22 116
24.05.22 110
24.07.22 111
08.10.22 93
10.12.22 81
16.02.23 81 (say)

Brent was £120 before the war started due to supply crunch, and sensibly expected to remain +$100 mid-long term. Net effect of the war has been to lower Brent. The figures show direct correlation between increase of Russia selling Urals oil to China India Sri L etc at vast discounts (low as $40-$45) as sanctions bit, and Brent retracing to $80. Those countries simply lowered their OPEC/non Russian buying, and increased Russian buying. Supply pressure on OPEC/non Russian supply eased and Brent dropped. Simple. Sanctions worked - Russia income dropped & western oil prices lowered.

This trend is ceasing as Russian Urals must be seaborne, world tanker supply is maxed out, & Russia can't build new ships quickly enough to increase carrying capacity and further increase sales to China, India etc. Proof is recent Russia production cut 500,000 bpd - they can't store it, can't ship it. China reopening projects 2023 2 mill bod demand increase - it means China must return to OPEC/ non Russian buying. Brent will henceforth rise.

The war affected 3 offloads has cost HUR circa 2p cash per share. The EPL has so far only cost HUR circa 0.5 p per share cash - but affected investment confidence in all UK small oilers. So EPL SP effect minimally 1p. My point being - without the war or EPL - neither of which CA could control or be blamed for - the SP would today sit comfortably at 10.5p, with 8.5p p.sh cash banked + 5p/6p addable by end 2023 as $100 oil would not have disappeared. And how many would now be complaining? It's something for CA bashers to ponder while reflecting if it's their brain talking, or misdirected frustration.

I am appalled and ashamed that some, forsaking understandable patience, turn their backs on CA for no good reason
I'd rather be a rat on a sinking ship
Esk & Tiger - remember this day

WE are being held back by CA? Are you demented?
So our friend is now our enemy?
CA want out (not out of desire).But it now has until Dec 24 (and variable longer) to wind up. It sees exactly as we do the potential for cash increase and the merit of declining a low ball offer. Plus the potential of a new BoD given 18-21 months free rein.
CA will make a commercial decision when necessary. But that is a million miles removed from them being back stabbers. That is what you have been calling them the past hours. You're barking

Tiger
So sorry. You have called out CA as backstabbers, providing on evidence.
I called you out on this, and provided contrary evidence
Because of this you have called me out as a lickspittle
Rather than say 'mea culpa' and row back, you have doubled down
Classic case of ego exceeding brainpower.
I have tried my best, gratis. I am not paid to educate you in basic fairness and reasonableness

robbie -ye gods!, CA wrote 'not before 6 Feb'. It's 27 Feb.
If there was a 14p deal being finalised and CA pushed the EGM button and stymied it, 75% of institutional and PI investors would shoot CA down in flames for killing that deal!
help me someone. am i today's lone voice of reason?
CA will NOT give further warning. If no good deal surfaces, it will act. That is what all want, yet now are calls for further warnings!

tiger
really? the only gobbies today stating CA are backstabbers and senseman is a CA lickspittle are eski and you.
leaving CA aside, are you truly so imbecilic and small minded that you would even consider senseman being lickspittle to ANYONE?

eski
you can backtrack all you like
but you called out our friend CA as PI backstabbers
and you also called senseman as a CA lickspittle
you undoubtedly are not a permanent disgrace
but today you are

eski
you write what you want
i'll write what i want
SO SORRY - i am not telling you what to write. DO NOT LIE!
time will tell who is sense and who is drivel

eski - then with due respect keep your gob shut and don't write drivel about PIs best friend who has saved us, never let us down, never betrayed us and at present likely will have the responsibility of a decision which will affect all. it's easy to open yer gob, try shutting it for a while. pleading innocence is boring

Tiger & Eski
SO SORRY - I agree with you many micro issues and most macro - but on this macro you have CLOTH FOR BRAINS and UNCONTROLLED FOGHORNS for mouths. You are wholly out of order, and wrong.
I bet the farm that if no fair value deal is announced, CA WILL detonate the nuclear EGM option.
CA will NOT engage in skullduggery. NOR sell PIs down the river.

I have never met RB of CA. But I have exchanged emails, spoken by phone, researched his background,& education (ie. what makes him whom & what he is) and formed a human being view of him. He, and thereby CA , do NOT shaft PIs.

At the 2021 High Court hearings, a principal CA vulnerability was an expected attack by the bad guys that CA were Johny Come Lately in and out quick profit merchants. All fiction. RB reached out for PI support to counter this nonsense. PIs supported by over 400 emails directly to Judge Zac. CA's cause was cemented by it's ABSOLUTE 6 month email record of seeking engagement & dialogue with HUR, and ZERO response. It was POWERFUL. CA's patience in allowing HUR BoD to achieve successful FSP is duplicating same provable reasonableness & patience.

'One needs vey good reason to doubt a friend'
CA have NEVER given ANY reason to be doubted.
It mutual interests naturally diverge, I have zero doubt CA will state it's case and be happy to be judged.

senseman's bottom line is this:-
be patient when the village idiot knows best friend CA are being patient
do not sh it on a friend because you are peed off
lastly - if senseman, has given all for the cause, sold his lifelong treasured possession and everything of immediate value he has in order to limit the number of shares he has sold to pay a corrupt bill, is it too much to ask that you bozos cease throwing your toys out of the pram and exhibit necessary patience?

flying - hat's off for reason & balls

'and, as previously announced.......'
amazing & sickening how goalposts can be moved via a sleight of hands few words
again. K3, good spot. thanks to oldman for checking

good question K3. i also can't recall an intervening reset statement. maybe someone with time can have a looksee at the intervening RNSs?

broom - was monthly then they mooted changing to 3 monthly. after a punch up between us & CA on one side and HUR on t'other, it was agreed to be after each offload. that's what it's been since.

the next ops update has to be within the next couple of weeks as last day Feb tomorrow HUR will know if we get Feb 1st 5 days average or last 5 days average Brent for the Feb offload.
the next ops RNS update is also the natural update point re the FSP which has now taken 4 months. with both updates eagerly anticipated and NED & CA pressure to keep informed, i can't see silence beyond mid March.
the FSP update will likely be a natural timeline point for CA decision making if no deal emerges. 4.5 months is a long time and i don't see CA allowing drift if nothing solid exists

I reckon 200p's a fair deal and would be happy with it. Would be only half of what several reputable analysts + Malcy ('it's like buying £20 notes for a fiver') said would be when SP was 60p and 400p was predicted by now. We've lost half our acreage and only have half of the 2 billion barrels we thought we had. So half price 200p deal would be fair. No need be greedy.

NAV fell because HUR SP fell half a penny mostly 'cos Brent fell and no news. Just temporary numbers

flynchy - i rather think folk can work out i meant the 3 'senior' execs, don't you..?)

Sefton
You don't hold shares and have posted 17 times in last 30 days re HUR. You joined LSE May 20. If you're going to post as if you know HUR intimately, state in each post that you don't hold shares. Or readers will assume you do. Your post is alarmist, of little constructive value, and a rehash of a few days ago. One of my then counter-posts see below:-

RE: Cash aside22 Feb 2023 09:34
Crystal Amber have to be seen to be being reasonable at such a crucial FSP juncture. They will have communicated their 'reasonableness' timeframe to the BoD & Stifel.
I would expect the EGM request to be resubmitted if no fair value acceptable deal (in CA's eyes) to be achieved.
An EGM would see the 3 chief execs removed. The 3 chief execs will know and expect this.
I would not expect an EGM to occur. The 3 chief execs would resign before such via mutual agreement, for both financial & reputational reasons. Thus a long wait for an EGM may not occur. I would not be surprised, if no acceptable deal emerges, for resignations to occur without the need for a further EGM request. Such would suit all parties' interests, and crucially, benefit HUR most"