Member Info for senseman

haggis - only 1 letter 'r' in maris. any mail to him should be copied to HUR Chair and RB of CA. Thus it gives CA ammunition & Chair has to take account. Otherwise CEO will just bin it
Warren wrote yesterday it's relax & chill time. CA won't be doing nothing (they have news flow due soon) and cash by Feb offload will not speak for itself, but scream

If I believe a poster's motive is suspect (be it short or long term), I NEVER press the recommend button, even if a single specific post has merit. Never!
Because such posters are smart enough to include the occasional helpful titbit amongst their long term instability/ deramping programme. To keep their sewing ground fertile.
I believe this form of 'sanctioning', over time is the most effective. It takes a very exceptional manipulator to survive and prosper beyond the short term without the oxygen of others' endorsement - whatever they may otherwise claim.

I have emailed Energy Voice Editor copy of our email(s)(40) to Rees-Mogg, and copy of Malcy's Blog comment. I also stated that SH confidence in HUR chief execs was so low (2021 failed restructure) that SHs had no confidence in HUR's version of P8 events, and none the wiser as to whether it was NSTA or HUR fault. I stated that there were clear issues he might consider worthy of reporting comment.
At a minimum, better that EV are continually aware of of the murkiness of HUR

I have posted twice today - both removed.
Now - I wonder who can have complained to moderator....????

Gloucs - praise too easily given? - don't bad posters survive & flourish on the oxygen the occasional intelligent post provides them?

CA will make it's views known via action. Anyone imaging they are happy and will do nothing is mistaken. It's not CA style, and HUR is biggest asset. Something is happening in background.
Feb 23 offload will see cash figure markedly different - markedly.
Brent will rise soon
China Xi has consolidated power. Q1 23 will see only slow Covid unwind as Xi places control above economy. But that cannot last. Progress & effect of current Hong Kong relaxing will be closely monitored & will guide China relaxing pace.
Reflecting - we missed a trick by not inviting Energy Voice editor to send writer to last AGM. Also by not copying editor in with recent emails to Rees-Mogg/HUR/CA etc. Editors love free punch-ups landing in their lap. One for the future. We live and learn

two cents
perhaps you could advise us what we could have done proactively that we have not done?

so we're back with - was the poster in question telling truth or porkies as 3 brothers x £18.5K = £55.5K? If it was 'inheritance' as poster claims, then possible that a $200,000 tranche was split between other as well.
not worth expending brain power on - episode summary simply being poster even less trustworthy

dive
what is the import of that? that the minimum purchase size was $200,000? and that a certain poster may have been telling porkies re holding size?

Tig - we 're in an unpleasant triple whammy position - an almost opaque BoD whose RNSs we mistrust - was P8 being binned BoD or NSTA fault? - and CA who can't provide any info because HUR BoD are so bad CA had to join the board. At present for whatever reason EPL payments are low so P8 may even have taken a large chunk of HUR cash. Then the 3rd whammy of CA for reasons not of their choosing having to exit HUR in the near/ medium term. I don't think CA have messed up (I may of course be wrong) since they have only had any degree of freedom to exert any directional change pressure since end July with bond payment and $90 mill in bank. Then they had to wait P8 decision. My own view is that P8 debacle will have seriously peed them and they are generally re-assessing now, including chief execs' positions. Their persistent irritant I am sure is not having the time freedom to make longer term decisions they would normally have. Golden has pointed out that in 2-3 months the MCAP will be wholly underpinned by cash. Because of this I consider HUR low risk and would buy more at this price if I had cash. I would love all 3 chief execs to be sacked but how does one do so ie attract new execs when the company currently has no guaranteed permanency and the main SH is obliged to have a current final exit target date earlier than Dec 23?

Tiger
I think more likely amending/increasing current EPL will be considered simply out of necessity to fill part of remainder of black hole. Narrowing the gap with Labour might be a natural consequence but not the driver. Money has to be found from somewhere and there now exists conditions for decisions which will be hard to argue against. Crossed my mind before, but reflecting now I think that increasing EPL will at a minimum be CONSIDERED & I don't exclude a change. Bit surprised hasn't been raised yet in media but expect it to be at some point. Against that there would be realisation (JRM & Chanc couldn't be completely deaf) that increasing for smaller firms would be counter productive, ie kill all exploration, so I would expect it to be tiered so only increased for biggies. They would squeal but everyone knows they can afford and bear it easily and it won't change their plans

Dicky
Here's (I think) the article you mentioned. I concur. Oil set to rise. Lots of upward pressure kicking in Nov/Dec
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/oil-will-surge-well-over-100-after-midterms-and-december

Afternoon Euston
I don't believe the poster filters anyone. i believe it's bluff because he wants to see everything.
Yesterday's revelation (his own admission) that he (& 2 family members) were bondholders (who would have benefitted hugely from the attempted 95% dilution, had it succeeded) merely confirmed my long held view.
The only surprise was him revealing now something which reasonably should have been declared when he first started posting. I don't know why he did so yesterday. Instinct tells me that yesterday was simply tiredness or error, which he quickly regretted.

I make clear the above is purely my opinion. Since he is likely to carefully scan this post to see if there is anything which can be complained about to the moderator. But then again, I am supposed to have already been placed back on the naughty step & so am not being read by him....)

Someone earlier today asked if it was selling time. Strong no for me. Had I spare cash, I would be buying. Waiting to see if RNS continues to be issued post each offload, as they started to do post CA & our representations against just quarterly.
Re SP - I cannot imagine CA being at all happy and I simply do not see them watching happily & doing nothing. A general election is something likely to hurt SP as Labour would likely uplift the EPL. But I just don't see one happening till late 2024 or early 2025 end of term.

... is, if one posts with a hidden agenda on a forum, to always remember what one has or hasn't posted. Otherwise one day one will be caught with one's knickers down. As a certain poster was today. Fuelled by drink, ego, or something else? Who knows or cares? At least we now have a clear picture

The worst aspects were not just insulting people's intelligence via specious arguments defending indefensible executives, thereby causing genuine distress to those who had lost serious money or remain(ed) deeply underwater, but doing so simply because he was then a bondholder. What kind of reason is that? Does one support a mugger who has just mugged an old lady, simply because the mugger offers to share the proceeds of her handbag with one?

(Respected) canetois received a handbagging earlier by understandably giving vent to spleen. I don't think en-mass filtering is wise, being not only mindful of the censorship principle, but pragmatically because it's unworkable. Not everyone would filter. and over time the disliked poster regains lost ground via having an only receptive audience. More effective is the old maxim....'The fool who carries on speaking proves he is a fool that much quicker.' - as the poster, though he had already been so labelled, did so magnificently today.

I ceased interacting with the poster, or commenting on his posts, a long time ago. Silence says more than words. I broke cover today solely because the poster's admission explained so much, and his postings for a circa 2 months period caused so much forum misery. His tactics remain constant - deliberately embroiling posters in irrelevant detail thus avoiding the main issue, then briefly streaming the forum with 'reasonable man' topics to garner a few 'recommends' and deflect from the latest mischief or ****-up (eg. see today). My advice (for what it is worth) is NEVER to 'recommend' any of his posts (even if it makes sense), NEVER to engage, and occasionally when inner needs must, POKE FUN. I cannot understand those who, with his latest admissions, positively engage with, support or recommend him in any way. Do they imagine he will change?

I do apologize
The asimpleinvestor post I refer to in line 1 of my previous post is timed at 09.58 today, and not 10.17

The forum thanks asimpleinvestor for today's 10.37 am post wherein he at last declares his reason for joining the forum. I apologise to him for my non-crucial housekeeping error in stating he joined Feb 22. He correctly states it was April 22.

£30K worth of bonds (3 brothers £10K apiece - posts yesterday Wed 19.35 & 19.41 pm) represented 0.0001304 % of $230 million bonds. Had restructuring succeeded (2 billion shares x 95% dilution, extrapolated back to current still 2 billion shares), 30K of bonds would have provided 247,760 free shares (again working on a 2 billion shares metric). For roundness, say 250,000. Value at 10p a share = £25K, value at 20p a share = £50K. Effectively, out of our pockets, into 3 bondholder pockets.

Should the poster's amended personal bondholding figure posted at 09.58 today be correct as being £18.5K of bonds, not £10K as previously stated (which figure, it any, should one believe?), multiplied by 3 gives £55.5K of bonds held by family. Which equates to 462,500 free shares (again using 2 billion shares metric). Value at 10p a share = £46.25K, value at 20p a share = £92.5K. ie: BIG MONEY!

A reading of the poster's history shows a morphing from initial unequivocal support of past BoD & still current CEO & CFO, to enthusing about our potential, to one of supporting the chief execs replacement on 'confidence' grounds, to one of (I paraphrase) 'let's not dwell on the past'. Call me a cynic, but does such not smack of 'talking one's book' via impatience that one's new purchases are taking longer to reach the 'bond free profit level' one anticipated from a successful restructuring and is now trying to replace via investment using one's own money?

I make clear the above is merely my opinion (which I accept may be wrong). And that no breaking of forum rules, libel, slander or other imaginations of the poster is intended. I copy and save all posts. I have written to the moderator requesting that no legitimate posts be removed upon request by the said poster. If any are removed, I shall enquire of the moderator which portion of any post falls outside posting rules, and post an appropriately redacted version of the original.

Frits
Your last HUR post before today was in late April. You really shouldn't post so transparently when your mate phones and asks you to

Please - engage thy brains
I have never commented on the poster being a bondholder. Why? Because I did not know he was. He is 'mistaken' that I have ever commented on him being one. Let him post proof otherwise
And the thrust of my query was clearly regarding his ratio of bonds to HUR shares, not numbers or £ value.

It has always exercised my (and many others') mind(s) how and why a poster clearly not a proverbial idiot could join suddenly in Feb 22 with a zealot's fervour that the old BoD (& still current CEO & CFO) & bondholders behaved completely correctly and professionally responsibly regarding the failed restructuring. At last I see the light.

My view (which I accept may be erroneous, though I would wager a fair bet not) is that the poster always knew attempted restructuring stank but as a bondholder wanted (& voted for) it to succeed. After all, a nice little earner to have all your bond money & coupons interest back, plus an unexpected free chunk of a company 95% diluted in your favour. Imagine the cheering on of the BoD from the sidelines! Imagine the chagrin at seeing such an unexpected valuable freebie disappearing!

What then to do? Nothing else left but, post- failed restructuring, to buy shedloads of cheap HUR shares knowing they had been crashed to 0.6p by restructuring fears and were certain to greatly rise . The poster posted several times how he increased his holding substantially post failed restructuring. I bet the great proportion of his HUR shares were bought post failed restructuring, and those held pre that time were minimal.

The proof of being unaware of the poster being a bondholder, and of never having commented on it is this - can anyone imagine my being aware if such and refraining from posting as I do now? As I said, we likely have our mystery explained. As well as the poster's inexplicable (now explicable) detestation of my posts

He may have stated so previously and I missed it. But this is my first awareness of asimpeinvestor stating he was a bondholder.
I am sure readers would be interested in knowing when he became a bondholder, and what value ratio of bonds he held compared to HUR shares.
Perhaps he might be open enough to enlighten us...?

When I spoke with RB last year I asked why Kerogen has done nothing when 95% dilution threatened, and if he thought Ker were bondholders. He said he did not know but thought Ker may have been consumed by a much bigger matter (I checked - they were - I forget the details) and so simply prioritised as companies sometimes have to. He did not think they were bondholders. Apparently there was a line of communication with Ker which went silent at Ker's end.
The bondholders were 3-4-5 investment/hedge/finance (call them what you will) companies, I think mainly UK. To find out who their 'investment clients' were would have required a siege of detection (even for CA). I remained sceptical (and still do) because I had then just read Catherin Belton's ' 'Putin's People - How the KGB Took Over Russia & Then Took On The West' - which detailed the simple mechanics whereby Putin et al bought (& still hold) considerable UK & European assets via proxies investing via reputable UK & EU companies.
With absolutely no disrespect to RB (who is likely correct) given my experience of human perfidity and the murkiness of HUR decisions, I will not discount that bondholders were China based until I see proof (most unlikely). Similarly, I have zero faith in CPR 2 and, were I HUR CEO, would simultaneously seek BoD authority to instigate (i) an update by CPR 1 company using data garnered since CPR 1 (ii) wholly new CPR from a wholly new company.

"Hurricane Energy’s debt restructuring rejected by High Court
Once bright hope for UK North Sea fails to push through plan that would have slashed shareholder equity

Hurricane Energy had hoped to open a new frontier in UK waters by producing oil from ‘fractured basement’ rock formations © Hurricane Energy

Hurricane Energy, the oil and gas producer once considered a bright hope for the UK North Sea, has failed to push through a controversial financial restructuring that would have virtually wiped out its shareholders.

The UK’s High Court ruled on Monday it would not sanction the plan, which would have handed control to Hurricane’s bondholders in exchange for forgiving $50m of debt and extending the maturity date on a further $180m of bonds due to be repaid in July next year.

The plan had been extremely unpopular with shareholders, including activist fund Crystal Amber, Hurricane’s second-largest investor with a stake of more than 11 per cent.

However, management led by chief executive Antony Maris had argued it was a “necessary step” to secure Hurricane’s future following production disappointments, warning it would not be in a position to repay its $230m of bonds next year.

The Aim-listed company had hoped to open a new frontier in UK waters by producing oil from “fractured basement” rock formations — naturally occurring fissures in the granite that lies below the softer sandstone from which most other North Sea hydrocarbons are extracted.

However, Hurricane admitted last year that it was unable to sustain intended production rates from its flagship Lancaster field west of the Shetland Islands and parted ways with its founder and former chief executive Robert Trice.

A hearing on the proposed restructuring, which would have left shareholders with just 5 per cent of the company’s equity, was held at the High Court last week.

In a lengthy judgment handed down on Monday, Mr Justice Zacaroli said “despite the fact that there is projected to be a shortfall between available cash and the sum required to redeem the bonds at maturity”, there was a “reasonable possibility?.?.?. it could be bridged”."