Member Info for senseman

Gloucs
Power to the people - be as far in front as you can be. HUR's OEPC (running costs) are opaque, so I'll go 8p cash by end June. I think $100 oil will arrive by end Q1 and stay. Putin introduces instability not huge increase - fear of recession etc. But I believe he is well & truly fecked and war will end 2023. As soon as it ends, POO stability will occur but not price reduction as economies will rightly turn back to green agenda etc. The fundamental difference will be that healthy planned economies (ie. no war-political shocks) will better plan/ cope with/pay for, high oil. This, combined with historic exploration under-investment, will ensure high oil.

Any deal would take 2-3 months so we are already looking at 7p banked cash baseline. Add (I say) $120 mill minimum value tax credits 6p a share so my baseline start point 13p. For reasons previously stated I say 20p for fair deal to conclude April 23.. We have a GOOD CAR - good shape, full tank of petrol, lots of toys & extras, unstressed. And P6 with reserve pump conservative +75% probability to operate perfectly if switched on.

My hope is no deal (assuming no one stumps up 20p), 3p divi in Feb, get rid of dross and give new guys a fair creation/deal-making shot.

Gloucs correct
Brent +$87. We need $90-$95 1st 5 days Feb to ensure 6p banked cash post Feb offload. Probability - v.high
Human cost - China protests re elderly deaths suppressed as China continues prioritising market re-opening
Prognosis - 7p banked cash post April offload. 8p banked cash post end June/wk 1 July offload
flying - I agree

Gloucs
If you were CA/ Albion and saw something unseen by others' due to laziness, bias or prejudice, would you broadcast it?

Corry - Fair points. But common sense says most PIs (like most institutional SHs) didn't bother voting because with BoD & CA backing, they expected a resounding PASS vote. Just reading the forum shows almost all PIs want the capital return. I'd bet the farm that if large PASS was not expected as foregone conclusion, PIs would have voted much larger numbers. My understated call to arms was clearly for form's sake - one has to make a little effort. With 99.5% votes cast for FOR, the indicative is the lack of PIs voting against.
Quite agree your timing of announcement point (I see picmaister just confirmed). That's the irritant as most would like to see it nailed down, uncertainty removed, and cash in their bank account

TRADING, OPERATIONAL, FINANCIAL & FSP UPDATE 11.01.23
Free cash $122 mill. P6 performing beautifully.
That aside, Malcy's one line comment fair summary:-
"As usual in recent Hurricane announcements the market is none the wiser after the event."

GENERAL MEETING VOTE RESULT 11.01.23
Votes cast FOR: 99.55% (as good as it gets - 75% required)
% total SH votes cast: 29.84%
CA % total SH votes cast: 28.9%
PI % total SH votes cast 0.96% (circa 20 mill shares, circa 5% of all PI holdings)
A poster (say moniker 'Billy No Mates' (BNM for short) ) mocked PI's voting effort. Firstly, the poster thus mocked all forum members & all PIs - of which he is a part & purports to support. Secondly, with the BoD proposing the resolution pursuant to CA pressure, PI's vote was always symbolic requiring no mass effort. And casting 5% of all PIs shares in a non-crucial vote is not to be sneezed at - it being 5% more than any other SH bar CA. Pertinent vote indicators were (2):-
(i) Institutional holders happy to follow CA's lead, appreciating CA's activist donkey work for value improvement
(ii) PI's overwhelmingly support return of capital & CA's activism

CA 12.01.23 WITHDRAWAL OF REQUISITION OF GENERAL MEETING - SENSIBLE TACTIC
23.12.22 @ 7.00am - CA RNS requests General Meeting
23.12.22 @ 10.30am - HUR RNS announces 7.01.23 bid deadline for previously date-open-ended FSP
It is difficult to see reason for HUR's response other than to:-
(i) secure longer tenure time, for evaluation, processing & SH voting, if bids received (they have been)
(ii) secure longer tenure time if bid accepted by SH vote, since purchaser often retains current chief execs in situ for transitional or quasi-permanent period if perceive them to be competent. Even sales process can take months.
Examination of activist CA's 'modus operandi' (read 6 months prior to 2021 court date + it's other companies interventions) shows CA taking especial care to be seen to give target company every opportunity. RB of CA, having trodden the path many times, knows that being seen to do so is requisite against future stone throwing. I have little doubt CA will have anticipated HUR's response. Hence today's RNS no surprise. Effectively CA have forced HUR chief execs to find acceptable-price buyer by 6 Feb or face EGM confidence vote and removal.

NB. A non-political post directly relevant to oil price & HUR (ie BBC experts' views of Russo-Ukraine war duration) was removed a few days ago upon a certain poster falsely complaining it was not HUR-relevant.. Yet that likely poster freely posts re political issues & other topics far removed from HUR interest, without any member complaint - because all bar him are adults. Yet again, would he kindly desist. Should he not, when such reoccurs, members should express extreme opprobrium. Double standards & spite should not occur unchecked.

picsmaister reports resolution PASSED 99% FOR, will write update when home this evening. only 2-3 SHs there, all BoD like dummies on stage, nomad Stifel waxing lyrical re FSP as on huge money if fails and mega huge money if succeeds. will be advising HUR chief execs over next month re tactics on how to escape EGM clutches.
well done pics + others for making effort

make that donkeys' den

thoughts with picsmaister - about to enter lions den without backup - he'll do ok, we had little chat

just had message enquiry from ADVFN poster
1. Is is a PUBLIC meeting?
2. If they don't want to vote, but are SHs without a broker's letter confirming such, can HUR stop them entering?
Yes or no specifics would help if poss as said would revert to them later tonight.

If anyone else is attending tomorrow let the forum know so picsmeister knows he won't be there alone and can look out and have a chat before 10.00am kick off

picsmeister
if you read this in time and are still going tomorrow, i have mislaid your email and phone number. if you see this in time, please email me at my backup email peter0255@yahoo.co.uk i am still putting out fires so cannot attend. but would like to speak re 1-2 questions you may feel valid to ask if opportunity arises

Robbie is correct and contrarians wrong. The West will effectively NEVER return to Russian hydrocarbon dependency. Politically agreed structural mechanisms will be in place to prevent such. Mis-citing history ad finitum won't change that. A Piontkovsky (BBC 27 Dec 20222) sums it up:-

"The other is the fact that, after years of appeasement of a Russian dictator, the West has finally grown up to realise the magnitude of historical challenge it faces. This is best illustrated by a recent statement by Nato General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg:-
"The price we pay is in money. While the price the Ukrainians pay is in blood. If authoritarian regimes see that force is rewarded we will all pay a much higher price. And the world will become a more dangerous world for all of us." "

When the war ends matters because only then will a serious instability factor be removed and oil find it's true post Russian dependency level. It will be High - cost of energy independence/ climate-green agenda/ renewables. But this will be planned by healthy economies rather than the current shock/surprise response of unprepared economies. So we will cope better.

It's facile to present war/no war as a 'better for HUR' issue since for the above reasons High Oil is now permanent. If a vote choice did have to be made, I would bet the farm that overwhelming PI vote would be war end even if the cost was $10 a barrel less for ever.

Beautifully done Flynchy. Absolutely correct. Written to moderator exactly same points, awaiting response.

Someone has just pulled the exception BBC Ukraine article I posted - despite that the war's future length of duration will directly impact oil prices and is thus directly relevant to HUR.
So we know that a certain poster is STILL at it. Amazing how small a mind can be

gazelle - crossed wires am afraid. wasn't me.

not so quiet - 8.49 to buy
NB. I wrote to Alistair Stobie following his departure. Simply to say I felt that, whatever may have occurred, instinct told me he had been poorly treated. He courteously replied and I became a wiser man. He disclosed no privileged information.

The ONLY CA SH which voted the CA Fund not to continue was Saba
Saba CA exposure is 45p a share. CA SP is $95-$97. Saba know they can make silly money if CA given as much time as needed re HUR
I would be astonished if Saba & CA have not agreed a new end 2024 TARGET to monetize HUR

OPEC won't tolerate low POO much longer but would instigate cuts, it's members need & want $95 oil. They know end Feb is soonest clearer POO picture will emerge - after more significant EU oil sanctions start Feb 5 & China reopening market speed is better indicated. Most oil forecasters remain bullish. China re-opening and underlying structural supply crunch won't just disappear. OPEC will act end Feb/March as short-term fillip if it needs to.

New HUR BoD would not borrow $300 million. Unless I am mistaken, if a sizeable partner farmed into HUR with $300 mill for drilling for 50% of all profits, the new partner could offset up tp 91p in S of that from it's EPL tax bill. Net cost $27 mill.

flying - i of course agree, and then some
i was 'thinking aloud' on here
i suppose, properly put, my argument is that with tax credits in mind, my mid feb BASELINE is 13p (6p cash + 7p 50% tax credits value)
were i a selling ceo i'd be proactively on the phone end feb to mid-major oilers saying ' we know you can use most if not all our tax credits, so we want to give you a $170 mill free gift. our 6p cash + 50% tax credits makes 13p a share. so that's a $170 mill freebie to you. now, there's zero risk to you as all out decommissioning costs & 6 months notice to BW are already paid. but to get your hands on our $170 mill gift you'll need to run P6 for a few months minimum, or you can opt to run it till end of economic life currently estimated at 2.5 yrs. since you're not stupid, you'll opt for the latter. so let's discuss P6 recoverable oil value. the back of our *** packet says there's $200 mill profit left there - so let's be gentlemen and agree $100 mill ie, 4.2p a share. so at 17.2p a share you get $170 mill free gift, + poss $100 mill further profit as protection against P6 misbehaving which of it does will cost you $20-$30 mill to sort. by the way, you've got the knowledge and funds to make p8 a goer by sorting out any excess gas issue. so that's a likely $200 mill extra profit. and don't get me started on that there may be a further few hundred million barrels there you can find with a further CPR at $5mill cost, so let's be gentlemen and add 2.8p and agree a deal at 20p in round numbers. agreed? you're a gent. luvly jubbly for both our companies.
in senseman's dreamworld, of course, new chief execs negotiate a 50-50 profit farm-in whereby the new partner puts up
$300 mill at nil cost to HUR (or $50 mill HUR max), for new p8 + 3 other wells drilling to see if Lancaster is hiding a further few hundred million barrels

Further 6 months rolled by with no P6 problems - most CRUCIAL fundamental. If no proper bid, FUNDAMENTALS are:-
FOR
well 6 problem free - 6p a share with Feb offload (now half full). Each offload increases cash by circa 1p. 8p cash end June
Bluewater nurturing P6 like a treasured child
$340 mill tax credits
well 6 likely economic viability timeline extended to mid 2025
capital distribution plan vote imminent
new chief execs voting imminent
AGAINST
Disliked chief execs still in situ but vote imminent
No P8 - but tempered by HUR's energy tax payable being so low HUR would have had to spend chunk own money
Well 6 vulnerability

Since banked cash can't be argued against, take 6p as current baseline.
Tax credits (to right company) is REAL MONEY. Industry norm is to pay is 30-50% of value - the more 'stressed' (ie vulnerable) a selling company, lower the %. HUR is NOT stressed. I see no good reason for not currently applying 5p a share value - equating to only 35% of value ($120mill of $340mill). 6p + 5p gives 11p baseline mid Feb 2023. It could be argued that banked cash derisks HUR to the extent that tax credits fair value to a buyer is 50% (7p) a share, since such still provides up to $170 mill rapid profit. In 2021 CA valued tax credits at 6p to purchaser.
Well 6 vulnerability - at 2022 AGM BoD stated that if current pump failed, there existed no good reason why back-up pump would not work - it stated +75% success probability. ie pump failure unlikely to be terminal

I can see genuine economic reasons why CA MAY have had a HUR rethink. Which of course may all be redundant if an RNS pops up citing a decent bid. For sure though, with 6p hard cash in bank come Feb and new options, as Gloucs says we are significantly better off than we were 6 months ago