Member Info for senseman

IF is a very HUGE word, oft misused to easily disguise perspective

All are aware of HUR's parameters
The current relevant issue is which of the 2, Harbour or HUR, is which is the better buy, eg short to medium term, investment. The answer is common sense - HUR - hands down
Some of today's comment by certain posters is comical

Flying - I quite agree with you that at their respective SPs, HUR is a significantly better profit risk-reward share to buy

then you should be able to vote via Barclays- phone them they will tell you how - it's same for us all - Lloyds, Barclays, Hargreave Lansdown etc, all the same

hank - if you are with a broker they act as your proxy and notify HUR on your behalf. so phone them and ask - usually there is choice of doing it by phone there and then, or online via your message centre with them. i'd opt for phone first up and given deadline

jhbroch
i didn't predict - i said 'fair chance'. so don't mis-cite me, just to stir. go elsewhere
also, the post's meaning and intent was to illustrate the wrongness of sunak's 60-70 yardstick in a world where russia sanctions are semi-permanent, a supply crunch is in the pipeline, and the world must pay via oil price go green.
i looked at your posting record - comprised of pokey jibes at others and not a single constructive word, ever.

Have tidied up this post since Resolution 10 came to light. Also, I have learnt from 2 brokers (mine is HL), that although voting 5 working days prior to AGM is ideally advised, usually anything up to 3 days prior to AGM enables proxy brokers to inform HUR of votes. Since the AGM is next Wed 29 June, advice remains to VOTE ASAP. And to remember, as always, it takes just a few minutes and one has he satisfaction that one has not left it to others. HUR is OUR COMPANY.

TIDIED UP POST (from original post yesterday Tues 21 June 08.25am)
"From the 10 resolutions tabled (9 + 1 'Special Resolution'), AGM voting is likely a foregone conclusion in favour of all resolutions. Likely because major SHs CA & Kerogen (combined 45%) have decided it more pragmatic to retain CEO than appoint new CEO. Of course, if both voted against a particular resolution (unlikely), that resolution would fail.

I have voted
FOR - Resolutions 2,4,5,6,7. That is , for the Auditors + 4 CA nominated, supported or appointed NEDs.
I have voted
AGAINST - Resolutions 1, 3, 8, 9, 10
RESOLUTION 1
(Annual Report) - contains no acknowledgement that even 'errors' were made April 21 - April 22. I find 'airbrushing' ethically unacceptable & insulting to shareholders.
RESOLUTION 3
(Philip Wolfe - Director & Chair) - Not a CA nominee. I find Chair's failure to control & direct the CEO (incl RNS's), failure to positively promote HUR, and actively assist 'airbrushing' (Chair wrote significant Annual Report message) offensive.
RESOLUTION 8
(Antony Maris CEO) - I find the CEO, minimally, incompetent & negligent. And an existential threat to HUR's well-being.
RESOLUTION 9
(Director's Power to Issue Shares) - No reason is given how this power is likely intended to be used, despite the BoD must knowing. If a BoD cannot be bothered to provide adequate information, do not expect SHs to vote positively! I believe it too wide ranging a power to be voted for whilst the current CEO & Chair remain in situ.
RESOLUTION 10
Identical reasons as for RESOLUTION 9 above.

I believe a healthy protest vote to be good for HUR when certain company aspects and personnel clearly need improvement. I do not believe a healthy protest vote injures the Company. Rather, I believe and hope it aids & assists. Voting with conscience also enables me to sleep more easily. I also believe that in different & ideal circumstances, the major SHs would vote differently to how they pragmatically intend to.

Whatever PIs differing views, I urge voting. There will naturally be a wider range of opinion that for last year's AGM voting, as the situation is more nuanced and PIs are unfortunately voting more 'blindly'. No one knows the perfect answer. Indeed, some will find voting solely against Resolution 8 (if voting against any at all) most pragmatic. Conversely, some PIs may wish to support the BoD's recommendations by supporting for all resolutions. The direction one votes is secondary to ensuring that one votes

Oldman
Feel for you if still in 60s or anywhere near if already averaged down a bit. May be worth adding a few more to get the position down a bit. It's good risk-reward ratio at current SP

well done Mister E
and sounds about right re the EPL, Tiger

Apology - forget to include
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/421572/rishi-sunak-aberdeen-oil-industry/

Apparently Sunak sees return to oil price historic norm at being $60 - $70 so EPL likely to stay in place till Dec 25. How can you apply that yardstick when fair chance oil will NEVER return to $60 - $70, never mind by Dec 25. It's a fatuous yardstick. You can't apply historic norms/averages when in a new era wherein world changed so dramatically. So much for EPL being a 'one-off tax'. Pound to a penny if oil still at $100 at Dec 25, EPL will be extended.
Pity EPL details aren't published till post AGM sometime in July. Be nice if someone in gov leaked something before then

M.S - good fella. Tedious but necessary. Voting likely still good till end of business tomorrow Friday. We can do nowt re SP (will take care of itself). So we do what we can. Peeps - VOTE if have not yet

Yes Glouc. Put simply - big guys eg BP Shell (public + gov targets) get huge profits but haven't hedged as no need. But small guys (eg HBR) hedge for safety/survival - so forfeit huge profits (the EPL target) but still get stung by EPL. And most other smaller guys eg HUR, barrel volume is smaller and need profits for safety/survival after tough few years in any event.

Amongst which will be UK's HBR Harbour Energy (Premier/Chrysaor 2021 merger). Producing +200,000 bpd & servicing huge debt mountain ($2.3 billion end Dec 21, £1.7 billion end March 22),HBR hedged it's oil long term at significant cost - 2022 Q1 av oil sold was $103 barrel, post hedging $84 barrel received (ie hedging cost $19 barrel). It did so to ensure survival/financial stability/planning till debt mountain reduced. THEN EPL introduced (gov U-turn on stated no EPL policy). So now pretty peed off as finds itself back in sticky doo-dah after taking what it perceived to be sensible company-survival/recovery hedging decision at huge cost.

HBR will bend Sunak ear re exempting UK small/mid-oilers from EPL. And HBR important to UK energy security so Sunak must listen. So today's meeting important x 2

Also highlights how costly ($19 barrel) hedging is and how right HUR were not to hedge. Imagine - hedging cost + EPL!
Other matters - yesterday's thread re poster currently boring the pants off all been pulled - let's park that for another day.
Important today - VOTE VOTE VOTE on AGM Resolutions if not already done

I have tidied up the post since Resolution 10 came to light. Also, I have learnt from 2 brokers (mine is HL), that although voting 5 working days prior to AGM is ideally advised, usually anything up to 3 days prior to AGM enables proxy brokers to inform HUR of votes. Since the AGM is next Wed 29 June, advice remains to VOTE ASAP. And to remember, as always, it takes just a few minutes and one has he satisfaction that one has not left it to others. HUR is OUR COMPANY.

TIDIED UP POST (from original post yesterday Tues 21 June 08.25am)
"From the 10 resolutions tabled (9 + 1 'Special Resolution'), AGM voting is likely a foregone conclusion in favour of all resolutions. Likely because major SHs CA & Kerogen (combined 45%) have decided it more pragmatic to retain CEO than appoint new CEO. Of course, if both voted against a particular resolution (unlikely), that resolution would fail.

I have voted
FOR - Resolutions 2,4,5,6,7. That is , for the Auditors + 4 CA nominated, supported or appointed NEDs.
I have voted
AGAINST - Resolutions 1, 3, 8, 9, 10
RESOLUTION 1
(Annual Report) - contains no acknowledgement that even 'errors' were made April 21 - April 22. I find 'airbrushing' ethically unacceptable & insulting to shareholders.
RESOLUTION 3
(Philip Wolfe - Director & Chair) - Not a CA nominee. I find Chair's failure to control & direct the CEO (incl RNS's), failure to positively promote HUR, and actively assist 'airbrushing' (Chair wrote significant Annual Report message) offensive.
RESOLUTION 8
(Antony Maris CEO) - I find the CEO, minimally, incompetent & negligent. And an existential threat to HUR's well-being.
RESOLUTION 9
(Director's Power to Issue Shares) - No reason is given how this power is likely intended to be used, despite the BoD must knowing. If a BoD cannot be bothered to provide adequate information, do not expect SHs to vote positively! I believe it too wide ranging a power to be voted for whilst the current CEO & Chair remain in situ.
RESOLUTION 10
Identical reasons as for RESOLUTION 9 above.

I believe a healthy protest vote to be good for HUR when certain company aspects and personnel clearly need improvement. I do not believe a healthy protest vote injures the Company. Rather, I believe and hope it aids & assists. Voting with conscience also enables me to sleep more easily. I also believe that in different & ideal circumstances, the major SHs would vote differently to how they pragmatically intend to.

Whatever PIs differing views, I urge voting. There will naturally be a wider range of opinion that for last year's AGM voting, as the situation is more nuanced and PIs are unfortunately voting more 'blindly'. No one knows the perfect answer. Indeed, some will find voting solely against Resolution 8 (if voting against any at all) most pragmatic. Conversely, some PIs may wish to support the BoD's recommendations by supporting for all resolutions. The direction one votes is secondary to ensuring that one does vote

stockopedia gives 95 rating
https://www.stockopedia.com/articles/could-quality-and-value-be-the-key-for-shares-in-hurricane-energy-269999/
i'd prefer wait till bonds paid, $100 free cash, EPL details (may help HUR), poss plan & +20p. one can but hope

I have tidied up yesterday's post since Resolution 10 came to light. Also, I have learnt from 2 brokers (mine is HL), that although voting 5 working days prior to AGM is ideally advised, usually anything up to 3 days prior to AGM enables proxy brokers to inform HUR of votes. Since the AGM is next Wed 29 June, advice remains to VOTE ASAP. And to remember, as always, it takes just a few minutes and one has he satisfaction that one has not left it to others. HUR is OUR COMPANY.

TIDIED UP POST (from original post yesterday Tues 21 June 08.25am)
"From the 10 resolutions tabled (9 + 1 'Special Resolution'), AGM voting is likely a foregone conclusion in favour of all resolutions. Likely because major SHs CA & Kerogen (combined 45%) have decided it more pragmatic to retain CEO than appoint new CEO. Of course, if both voted against a particular resolution (unlikely), that resolution would fail.

I have voted
FOR - Resolutions 2,4,5,6,7. That is , for the Auditors + 4 CA nominated, supported or appointed NEDs.
I have voted
AGAINST - Resolutions 1, 3, 8, 9, 10
RESOLUTION 1
(Annual Report) - contains no acknowledgement that even 'errors' were made April 21 - April 22. I find 'airbrushing' ethically unacceptable & insulting to shareholders.
RESOLUTION 3
(Philip Wolfe - Director & Chair) - Not a CA nominee. I find Chair's failure to control & direct the CEO (incl RNS's), failure to positively promote HUR, and actively assist 'airbrushing' (Chair wrote significant Annual Report message) offensive.
RESOLUTION 8
(Antony Maris CEO) - I find the CEO, minimally, incompetent & negligent. And an existential threat to HUR's well-being.
RESOLUTION 9
(Director's Power to Issue Shares) - No reason is given how this power is likely intended to be used, despite the BoD must knowing. If a BoD cannot be bothered to provide adequate information, do not expect SHs to vote positively! I believe it too wide ranging a power to be voted for whilst the current CEO & Chair remain in situ.
RESOLUTION 10
Identical reasons as for RESOLUTION 9 above.

I believe a healthy protest vote to be good for HUR when certain company aspects and personnel clearly need improvement. I do not believe a healthy protest vote injures the Company. Rather, I believe and hope it aids & assists. Voting with conscience also enables me to sleep more easily. I also believe that in different & ideal circumstances, the major SHs would vote differently to how they pragmatically intend to.

Whatever PIs differing views, I urge voting. There will naturally be a wider range of opinion that for last year's AGM voting, as the situation is more nuanced and PIs are unfortunately voting more 'blindly'. No one knows the perfect answer. Indeed, some will find voting solely against Resolution 8 (if voting against any at all) most pragmatic. Conversely, some PIs may wish to support the BoD's recommendations by supporting for all resolutions. However any PI votes is perfectly understandable. The essen

BLOOPER - WE HAVE ALL MISSED - THERE IS RESOLUTION 10 - SIMILAR TO RESOLUTION 9 (see below). It is the price paid for inattention & preoccupation when SP price is behaving strangely, and the forum is also imbued with other stresses

Part 2
'Special resolutions'
To consider and, if thought fit, to pass the following resolution, which will be proposed as a special resolution:
Disapplication of pre-emption rights
10. To empower the directors, subject to the passing of Ordinary Resolution 9 and in accordance with Section 570 of the
Companies Act, to allot equity securities (as defined in Section 560 of the Companies Act) for cash pursuant to the
general authority conferred by Ordinary Resolution 9, as if Section 561(1) of the Companies Act did not apply to any
such allotment, provided that this power shall be limited to the allotment of equity securities up to an aggregate
nominal amount of £99,593.57.
The relevant authority granted pursuant to this Special Resolution 10 shall expire, unless previously renewed, varied or
revoked by the Company, at the conclusion of the 2023 AGM of the Company and 29 June 2023, whichever is the earlier
(save that the Company may, before such expiry, make an offer or agreement which would or might require equity
securities to be allotted after such expiry and the directors may allot equity securities in pursuance of any such offer
or agreement notwithstanding that the power conferred by this Special Resolution 10 has expired).

We have all missed it as it is contained on a page following Resolutions 1-9. under new heading "PART II 'Special resolutions' ". Despite it being a pain to do do, I have written via my Hargreave Lansdown message centre instructing Resolution 10 to be voted against. My voting is now
FOR - Nos 2, 4, 5, 6, 7
AGAINST - Nos 1, 3, 8, 9, 10

Anyone, who has voted against Resolution 9 may wish to (despite the hassle) instruct or re-instrust their broker to vote against Resolution 10. Those not voting against Res 9 are (for consistency) unlikely to want to vote against Res 10. I confess that 'Special resolutions' always make my ass twitch as it usually signifies a specific known intent for that Res to be utilised. My view, especially when confidence in BoD is low, is that the nature of that intent needs to be stated

Upon inet returning I see I have received a courteous reply from the moderator APOLOGIZING for the removal error & advising that my above titled thread today 08.25 has been restored (together with response posts). Scroll back to 08.25amto read. Also that since my later post re 'freedom of speech' was written in response to the 08.25am thread removal, it is considered unnecessary & will stay removed.

it is the first time I have ever received a moderator apology. My reading is that the issue was referred to a senior moderator who ruled the post did not breach posting rules, and that the original complainant's grounds for complaint WERE SPURIOUS. I have thanked the moderator on behalf of the forum. I repeat - scroll to 08.25 today & now see the post

boz - someone is complaining to the moderator and having all threads/ posts relating to AGM voting + freedom of speech removed. i am repeatedly writing to the moderator team and hope they will review the position, realise they are being played, and reinstall the removed posts