Member Info for senseman

BRENT
31 Jan $85: 3 Feb $79: 8 Feb $85
As someone posted earlier, $81 & bits is likely receivable for Feb offload. Exceptional bad luck for 2nd offload at circa $81.
EU loaded up with Russia 1 mill bpd of finished petrol & diesel products prior to 5 Feb EU sanctions commencing.
Henceforth EU must source that 1 mill bpd from Western markets. China re-opening.
Supply shortfall pressure set to increase

Russian oil & gas income Jan 23 down 46% from Jan 22 (pre-war last full month) - huge drop
Russian Urals selling at 40% discount to Brent: ie: $45-$50 pb to India China etc
5 Feb - Russia lost 1 mill bpd EU finished product market
Russia now needing sell $114 pb oil to balance national budget.
Sanctions at last biting hard.

I don't think anyone should be offended if no reply ensues from CA. They bat straight whilst on the BoD (not least for their own protection) and will not disclose anything which should not be disclosed. But rest assured they will take note of all emails they receive re HUR

Jfallon
I would copy the reply you received to RB at CA. It may be of interest to him, particularly the last para re full BoD support. I would title it clear 'Today's reply from CEO Anthony Maris'
Just a suggestion

so as of today maybe 3 offloads ie circa 3p further cash to add to current $122 mill 5.1p p.sh cash. making 8p cash.
gonna need a wonga offer to persuade most on here

Oldman - well done. If anyone else writes my advice is:-
1. Write politely but FIRMLY. Do not be afraid to call a spade a spade. Avoid 'Special Pleading', ie: apologetic tone. The BoD are at fault, NOT us!
2. ALWAYS copy to RB at CA. It provides ammunition for CA to use. Also, the stress on CA management (a small team) is huge. NEVER underestimate the emotional encouragement & practical help that evidence of PI support provides CA.
3. Ideally copy also to HUR Chair, CFO & comms. Do not underestimate the value of all 3 chief execs feeling pressured. It takes 2 mins longer to copy to CA, Chair, CFO & comms. But as well as making CA's job easier, it filters down to NEDs.
rb@crystalamber.com
antony.maris@hurricaneenergy,com
philip.wolfe@hurricaneenergy.com
richard.chaffe@hurricaneenergy.com
comms@hurricaneenergy.com

Apology - line 6 of 19.40 post should read ...'failure to buy BONDS when they should have been bought.'

One cannot discount that the 3 chief execs (& Stifel) are afraid of what may come to light if CA are able to have a good look, and have always tempered their tactics accordingly. After all, Stifel threatened to walk post 21 court date if CEO & CFO were kicked out

CA 'reserved it's position' upon HUR announcing it's investigation post 2021 court found nothing untoward has occurred. That is because it always held (and likely still does) that deliberate value destruction did occur and a successful claim against HUR's insurers could be made for monies exceeding the value of BoD members' assets and it envisioned making a claim on behalf of SHs not only for the wasted $17 mill court costs (est) + CA court costs HUR were ordered to pay, but for the value destruction principally caused by failure to buy when they should have been bought.
If no bid occurs/succeeds, 3 chief execs depart & Albion guys are installed, for the first time CA will have access to HUR's records including comms with ad hoc bondholder group, legal advisers, NOMAD etc.
CA's appetite to pursue the matter was understandably curtailed by losing it's necessary 75% continuation vote which it did not expect to fail until Saba announced it's 26% negative voting intention shortly before the vote. Because then CA's attention was necessarily forced towards a Dec 23 target winding up date. Since I believe that is now extended with Saba agreement till end 24 and possibly longer, if CA do have a look at HUR's records (incl CPR 1 & CPR 2) and find anything untoward, it would have the time to progress an insurance claim and personal redress against the appropriate BoD members.
For the above reasons I don't think the door is completely closed on all chance of justice. From memory I believe CA had in mind an insurance claim circa $50 mill from which it expected a negotiated settlement.
At the post 2022 AGM chat a Stifel representative introduced himself to me (hello, I'm Joe Bloggs from Stifel), and stated the reason no HUR RNS (incl half yearly and annual Reports) expressed mistakes had been made, nor the AGM BoD itself (we were pressing like mad) was that HUR doing might open itself to civil or other action. He meant as per paras 1-4 above. My error was not being astute or experienced enough to engage with him for further information, and excused myself to speak chief execs before they disappeared. I was just too shocked to deal with being approached like that by Stifel whom I considered (ripe French language), and kicked myself afterwards for the missed opportunity

jf - see the user name at 14.42
it is copy and paste of my earlier email LSE post

sf - i agree
jf - i give up on you

J - login to ADVFN forum. it's public, no need to be a member. it's simple stuff. see the posts i refer to

Jfalloniri
To see what games certain posters play games google Hurricane Energy Share Chat & click the ADVFN link (our forum brothers)
See yesterday's posts at 14.42pm & 14.58pm
ADVN consensus (very serious oil fellas there) is that the posters are one and the same & that he has several other ADVFN monikers. He both plagiarises good LSE posts (see 14.42 post) & seeks to discredit posters by selecting confusing monikers with a single letter difference. ADVFN nickname him 'Billy No Mates'

i would take the 7p top slicing and selling doomsters with a pinch of salt. they will be buying whilst you are selling. the tree shake has triggered stop losses down to 7p on little volume, that was it's purpose. just outwait & outpatience them.

the paper value of the tax credits is circa 16p-18p p sh
12 mths ago CA cited a realistic sale value of 6p (8p - 2p to swing a deal)
their current value diminution is slow enough not to be of concern
usable tax credits constitute part of the 'full value' of a company being sold. for 'full value' substitute 'pragmatic value'
only a fool or hidden agenda merchant would argue otherwise

jally
i have dealt with this hoary old chestnut before but here goes again.
i have zero personal interest in the poster you refer to. save when he corrupts the integrity of the forum by rewriting history for undeclared motives or other shabby acts
i have made clear he survives by folk like you interacting with him because he can write sufficiently well to seduce fools.
in other words, he is provided a platform by fools
if you elect to interact with him you elect to become one of his fools and bear some responsibility for his actions
he can write as much as he wants, for ever, without adverse comment - provided that he does not try to persuade that night is day, threaten, or indulge in other unacceptable activity
a fair question - do you believe that he truly believes some of the nonsense he writes? or that it is acceptable?

hasiba - nice to see you back. nowt currently happening. for my views quickest is to click my name and proof read last 1 months posts, will be 2-4 that sum up my view of current situation

to you, it's shorthand. don't ask questions you already know the answer to. you're boring the teats off everyone save the troll you're serving

or do you get your jollies by feeding and supporting trolls? 3 of us have given you the heads up and yet you are still at it

tax credits and other aspects of a company are rightly included by reasonable men in working out 'fair value' . this is simple stuff. if one had a porsche 911 with 30K of factory fitted extras on it, would one sell it for the value of a baseline model?
jally - are you deaf?

jally - methinks what flying and cat are gently suggesting you to do is...stop feeding the troll! Who is smart enough to answer simple questions thus creating a veneer of respectability

oh dear...oh dear
we're back with the old intimidation routine......
nothing like showing one's true colours to the forum....