Member Info for senseman

glouc - fair point, one wishes one knew the truth of many things. but imagine the divis which could be thrown off with a new well adding 10K-12K barrels a day...we and CA SHs could all be buying porsches...)

Would not successful P8 likely prolong their tenure and thus, now dividend die has been cast & P8 won't reverse that, be more attractive to chief execs if P8 means FSP is, minimally, paused? With 2 wells producing, SP, cash & divis would be silly money and need for winddown sale would cease?

i rather think (i may be wrong) that if it went to a vote, majority of PIs would elect for P8 and accept the risk. remember that many remain deeply underwater at far higher SP. also, whilst oil is inherently risky, so are rewards. to lose sight of rewards for fear of embracing reasonable risk is the mark of a poor oilman - a view expressed to me by a former chief exec of an oilco. also, what better scenario is there than now to accept P8 risk - nil debt, large cash, high Brent, years of collected data. EPL in force to partially offset costs (or even majority offset with clever accounting as EPL likely to rise to 30% & till 2028). even if P8 cost say $40 mill HUR own money and a bust (possible but unlikely) that's only 2p a share lost. If P8 a success SP +30p? and risking say $40 mill does not kill dividend plan, just delay it by max 2 offloads or by say 4 months.
it's now of course a moot argument. but imagine P8 progressed + dividends starting just 4 months later than current planned, and HUR FSP formal sale process not activated (but as ever for sale at right price if anyone wants to knock eg in same vein as unsolicited offer just received). i'd go for that!

should read ....'something the NSTA were plainly UNABLE to give...'

Yes, good post Dive. Explanation fits the bill and flows from 3 monthly monitoring position we already knew. So if the BoD's 'sufficient comfort' was the impossible ask of a definitive yes now - something the NSTA were plainly able to give for the reasons Dave states, no wonder it it did not get it.
The question is - why on earth could not such brief explanation (if correct) be included in the RNS? Because then the BoD would effectively be stating - 'for whatever reason we have decided to accept zero risk, not even normal industry-accepted standard risk. The 'comfort' we sought was an impossible ask"?
So basically P8 was only ever a deliberate paper chase exercise - a deliberate waste of time and money. The chief execs AGM mood music re P8 suggested such. The deliberate omission of RNS satisfactory explanation speaks loudly. I agree Dive's concluding view.

From Laser on AVFN

7/11/2022
17:35 Brent futures trading at $99
from last accounts
Extending the base case assessment (using
average Dated Brent oil prices of $82/bbl
in 2024 and $78/bbl in 2025), and on the
key assumption that neither the Group nor
Bluewater exercises their respective termination
options over the bareboat charter of the
Aoka Mizu FPSO earlier, the Group is projected
to continue generating positive cash flows
from operations until approximately the third
quarter of 2024.

i have a not too pleasant quite senior finance acquaintance i asked circa 6 months ago about the tax thing. he confirmed standard accepted value in a deal was 50% and commented that if the new company could not utilise 90%-95% of the 100% they either needed a new accountant or should not have bought the company being sold in the first place. don't know how good or bad he is at his job.

Boss - they have all been there a long time so stick with what they know, same as you and i stick with lse, but they check over here same as we check over there. here is better for writing in paragraphs and seeing everything in one go - over there harder to write in paras separating issues. am sure main thing is what you know and horses for courses. because this board more 'open' it's easier to make mischief and certainly to get posts removed. advfn folk wouldn't dream of complaining about a post to get it removed - they'd just poke fun. but against that, and it's important point - LSE more widely read and would have been impossible to organise campaign against June 21 restructure via ADVFN

Re value, for example - Kooba on ADVFN whom always writes sense and with whom I spoke with a while back, values oil dividends at 11p ish so differs from me. But he is more risk averse than I, thinks costs are higher than I do cos last 3 months have been 12 mill a month before the BW 8% (I think some big 'one offs' have occurred - cash rose only from $89 mill to $99 mill in 3months 31 July - 31 October), and is less optimist re oil price than me. We want the same thing but come at it from different angles so wouldn't dream of arguing. I know he knows more re oil & finance than I, but against that my cash predictions sine Jan 21 have been remarkably accurate and always well ahead of HUR's. That may not continue and his view may prove to be correct & mine not so - the problem is if a quick cheap sale occurs there won't be time to find out. That's why I wrote I would have preferred last weeks RNS did not occur till Feb by which time 2 more cash offloads would be in the bank and the 2023 oil price more clear. But we rarely get what we ideally want. So I am glad CA have acted because anything (apart from perhaps a further 3 month wait) was better than everlasting inertia and darkness. Instinct tells me that the current doom and gloom re 7.7 and only slight uptick from that may be somewhat overdone and a quick sale may not occur. That's my gut

Gloucs - You are correct. My error citing 4p, I realised immediately. CA told several PIs before they joined BoD they assessed tax losses/ credits at 16p but applied normal industry 50% buyer discount so 8p would be normal, then deduct further 2p to sweet/make deal work. So value them at 6p for deal purposes. So if my oil dividend figure value at 16p is optimistic, one can drop it to 14p and I'll still stick with 20p as current fair value.
Boss - I wouldn't go overboard re ADVFN. They have solid oily/finance posters - Kooba, Laser, Fat Frank & others. But scroll over past week (and months) and you'll find Sheepshagger occupying the board for days & driving them mental. LSE is more user friendly as it shows ALL posts on ALL threads on the visible page - ADVFN use an algorithm which selects certain posts to show on the visible page & puts the rest in the original poster's 'box', so you have to click his box to read it.
Canetois, Dive & rfarfa - your thread/posts, as expected, didn't last the morning & have been removed. I wouldn't fret, but just let it go. The surprising 60 recommends in a single day for my original post on this thread shows that forumers who don't post, do read and make their own minds up. So your comments will have been noted by many

CAN PIs DO ANYTHING?
Little. But collectively writing to RB, all HUR NEDs & chief execs indicating that PI’s would understand & prefer patience to allow cash pile to build & enable correct fair value to be more forcefully argued to interested parties might be an idea. If CA think similar, proven PI support provides ammunition with which to argue at board meetings, if & when offers surface. It would not be necessary for PIs to cite a specific figure, though opinion of cash pile by certain dates might help illustratively. But such a missive would require a likely difficult consensus as PIs have differing timelines & targets.
BITTERSWEET RNS TITLE
Bitterness that our Phoenix risen from abhorrent ashes to fly amongst the treetop canopy will not soar sunwards to 30-40p heights which P8 or beneficial farm-in may have rendered possible. Sweetness that our major SH has acted to curtail the ‘personal fiefdom’ occupied by incompetents at our expense.
RADIO SILENCE
Even a senseman runs out of juice & needs respite. My sang-froid recovery was not helped by a post yesterday Friday 16.13 - given that I have ignored a certain poster for several months & am not fueled by ego but by a desire to do my best in a team effort. This post was written purely out of that obligation, and sportive comment made by reasonable forumers. My end point is this – if our BoD, CA, PIs & other shareholders do not collectively believe in HUR’s true value, how can we expect a buyer to, and to be persuaded?
END

RNS FIGURES – I DISAGREE
HUR cash projections never correct. Weeks ago y/e cash estimate $108 mill, now $118 mill. But cash already $99 mill. I see $130 cash by y/e, excluding $19 mill in escrow & AM oil. Also average +$100 Brent all 2023. I disagree $210 mill total dividend figure. I concur the $350 - $400 mill figure posted by several. 2023 indicates 6 offloads. EPL somehow being substantially offset. HUR prediction at $65 Brent was economic life ends Feb 24. At $100 Brent I add minimum 1 year. End Feb 23 will be better time to assess value - with Feb offload cash banked & 2023 Brent price better indicated post EU Russia sanctions kicked in & China Covid plan clearer. My today fair value view 20p, ie 16p oil + 4p tax credits (25% of value). I view buyer getting $280 mill tax credits (75% realizable money) + undrilled oil in ground (it’s there) + equipment/kit, as fair profit reward. Persistent $110 - S120 Brent would amend my view upwards. That said, I am always glass half full, valuations are not my field, and 20p requires patience.
7.7p OFFER
Haven’t a clue if offer was out of the blue honest bidder, ex-bondholder group on the prowl, CA induced stalking horse to kick-start process, or lowered bid from previous interested party (remember CA ‘expected’ to give 60p p.share to SHs as dividend) - lowered because P8 did not materialize. It is opined on ADVFN that P8 was killed to mute that interest. If such was the case, it spectacularly backfired. I do hold a view, which I will keep private.
WILL CA/ HUR BoD ACCEPT LOW BALL OFFER?
I would be surprised. For several reasons. CA after SH consultation have placed achieving fair value above speed & announced flexibility regarding Dec 2023 monetization target. Second, dividends de-risk CA. CA will closely monitor Brent price & cash pile to see if dividend frequency & sums can be increased. Third, CA have been in HUR a long time, endured, done serious grunt work &, like us, want semblance of fair value. Fourth, I have never met RB. But having spoken with & emailed him at crucial times prior to CA (via it’s NED) joining the BoD, I believe he will work to obtain as high a fair value for ALL shareholders – right to the point where duty of care to CA SHs & his own BoD obliges him to settle at a price below his own personal fair value target. I would also be surprised if our chief execs would rush to sign off a low ball deal, if such would mean end of tenure.

Been a bit low, out of juice. Not banned. I did post last Sat 29 Oct I felt like the cat kicked once too often. My RNS views:-
As I expected, CA were not idling. And have now acted.
HUR
At AGM, chief execs were asked if dividends would occur. Categoric ‘NO’. Promised P8 decision & forward plan by end Sept, & to correct BoD unaligned, no skin in game position. NOTHING delivered. If HUR sold, chief execs lose position, salary & pension benefits. Fair assumption - chief execs do NOT want HUR sold, NOR dividends paid.
CRYSTAL AMBER
June 21: NOMAD Stifel (forfeited £1 mill ‘success fee’ when restructure failed) ensured chief execs retention via threat of ‘walking’, with poss AIM delisting. Fair query - would unhappy chief execs have otherwise ‘spilt the beans’? June 21 - June 22: Chief execs ‘tolerated’ by CA who knew bond repayment & cash build imperative. Meanwhile CA place own NED(s) in situ for future crucial BoD vote(s).
June 22 - Sept 22: Wait & see if chief execs deliver. They don’t. CA decides to act.
OVERVIEW
CA have batted straight. Been in HUR 10 years (far beyond usual timespan). Inputted serious funds early doors. Plus serious support funds when later needed & no one else would, and were hit. Then accepted professional reputational & financial risk in fighting 95% dilution restructuring attempt. In short, it did grunt work in spades. Do not imagine that CA does not understand & appreciate that we also did our bit.
CA don‘t micro manage. If it did, chief execs would claim constructive dismissal & walk. Rather, after giving fair warning, it gives allows chief execs enough rope to hang themselves. Had P8 or other sound corporate plan been delivered, I believe CA would have supported on basis that such would increase SP in time for disposal prior to it’s variable Dec 23 winding up target - which CA SHs would likely extend by 12 months minimum should need exist. Seeing ‘nothing to offer’ from our chief execs, CA acted - ‘Better a plan, than no plan at all’.
CHICKENS COME HOME TO ROOST
I ascribe no merit to senior execs for the RNS content. I ascribe merit to CA & NEDs. I picture a BoD meeting with a question & solution phrased by CA’s NED being: ‘No P8, no plan. P6 non viable mid 24. A derisory 7.7p offer. MY company obliged to monetize. WHAT SHOULD BE DONE? I propose rejection of offer. And with no growth plan, but cash flowing & large tax benefits, listing the company for fair-price sale. Meanwhile cash periodically returned to SHs via dividend to progressively derisk all SHs. I propose a vote”. With no valid counter argument against, vote carried by NEDs (with or without chief execs support). RNS issued through gritted teeth by chief execs. Chickens come home to roost! CA’s plan is smart. For that we should be grateful. Though for value reasons set out below I hope any sale takes a year.

In Dec when G7 & EU oil sanctions kick in, Russia will lose 1.5 million bpd day - roughly 750K bpd of seaborne, and 750K bpd pipeline. In Sept - Oct Russia sales to China, India & S. Lanka flatlined. Russia will not be able to find alternative market for it's excess 1.5 million barrels a day. Brent will rise.
PS. Thanks to all for earlier support on other matter - appreciated

To let you know - the Moderator has reviewed & reinstated my original Sat 13.57 pm post (scroll back to see - worth a read if not already read)
I have thanked the Moderator via email.
Reinstatement will have rendered my subsequent post/thread superfluous & thus caused it's removal.

SUNDAY TIMES
"Windfall tax on energy firms may hit 30% and run to 2028
The levy could rise by five percentage points and be extended amid forecasts of energy costs staying high for years
The windfall tax on energy companies could be raised to 30 per cent and extended by three years, amid internal government predictions that oil and gas prices will not return to normal levels for the rest of the decade.
Under options being considered by Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, the energy profit levy would increase by up to five percentage points to raise billions of pounds in extra revenue on top of the £25 billion it had been due to bring in by 2025. The tax could be extended until 2028, the end of the period for which the Office for Budget Responsibility has drawn up forecasts, according to senior government sources.
Officials have also been working on plans that would extend the levy beyond oil and gas companies to electricity generators.
While no final decisions have been taken on the November 17 budget, insiders say Hunt and Rishi Sunak are receptive to the idea. Last week Shell reported global profits of $9.5 billion (£8.2 billion) in the third quarter.
Hunt is likely to justify the rise on the grounds that the costs of buying energy have more than quadrupled since Covid-19 and the invasion of Ukraine.
According to a government source, before the pandemic the UK was spending £40 billion annually on energy. It is due to spend £180 billion this year. Treasury forecasts also suggest that wholesale gas and energy prices, while falling, are expected to remain at an “elevated level” until at least 2030."

EPL will almost certainly be increased and/ or extended. Politically & financially now almost unarguable. The crucial question being – will small oilers (HUR) be protected (as should be) or it applied broad-sweep (most likely).

Other Matters
Have just finished short ban to the naughty step by Moderator. Thursday am Daltry called me a 4 letter word. I returned the compliment. A certain poster (one wonders who?) reported me. Only my post was removed. So I reposted same. Again – complaint - removal. So I reposted 3rd time. Moderator finally got message & removed both posts. But senseman briefly on naughty step for temerity of reposting removed comment. Such is life.

Yesterday Daltry proposed (07.44 am) that I construct a template email for all to send re CEO removal, because ‘…he’s good at writing such presentations.’

In June 21 pre-court my reward for sweating blood for the cause was (i) my area location being posted on forum (ii) receiving 2am-6am silent phone calls to my home over a 2 week period (iii) a stranger posing as a former acquaintance visiting my building & pumping my neighbours about me. RB & I decided not to put this information before the judge because, already confident the restructuring application would fail, we did not want to occupy court time and risk muddying the waters to HUR & ad hoc bondholder group advantage in any way. I do not know how my name, address & phone number were obtained. What I can state is that those details were included in standard query emails to HUR sent when I first became a SH.

The reason people propose actions but do not themselves construct template emails & nurture others to send is that doing so requires considerable time & effort, and is stressful. And by raising one’s head above the parapet, one becomes the cat easily kicked.

I understand why any ex-bondholder(s) may actively belittle me and certain others – it’s hard to lose an expected free windfall – but then again why cry so much about something which was never rightfully yours? My sadness & confusion is why others who are not ex-bondholder do so. Whilst at the same time expecting difficult emails to be written & promoted which seek to hold the BoD to account and support the SP. By the way, I firmly believe that carefully selected emails do impact by, minimally, providing backup and ammunition to CA & responsible NEDs. There is one which might usefully be collectively sent prior to Xmas. But I doubt I will be the writer as currently I feel like the cat kicked once too often.

Note to Moderator - I have carefully read posting rules and this post does not trangress any.

I refer readers back to my today's post 08.55am
bozwoll - you are wholly correct - village idiot sees SP huge bargain
Dalt - you are correct. the contrary poster is not. 2 appropriate sayings (i) can't make an omelette without breaking eggs (ii) if someone tells you to shut up - immediately ask 'Why?'
My 08.55 am post makes crystal clear that posters with undeclared agendas wait and choose their moments!!!! How many times do I need to write the same?
It is currently the WORST time to sell, and the BEST time to buy. IGNORE THE NOISE

Should nothing continue, a communal, powerful pre-Xmas email to all the usuals + brokers + EV etc may be merited. Raising certain issues + resignation requests

haggis - good man
I reiterate that mailing maris and comms alone is easily binnable. Given it takes time and energy to write, minimum is cc to Chair, RB, and Morera (HUR NED). Ideal is copy to all - couple of extra mins gives satisfaction of job done as best one can