Member Info for senseman

euston - my this morning's AGM voting thread incl your reply stating have voted has been pulled. i can't see how it can have broken posting rules. can you? any idea why pulled?

Euston - thanks for reporting as having voted - will encourage others to vote if they see others have. Peeps no need say how they voted, and no one going to get handbagged by anyone however they vote. Important is just to vote.

From the 9 resolutions tabled, AGM voting seems to be a foregone conclusion in favour of all resolutions, likely because majors SHs CA & Kerogen (combined 45%) have decided it more pragmatic to retain CEO than appoint new CEO. Of course, if both joined and decided to vote against a particular resolution, that resolution would likely 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
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 the Chair's failure generally to control the CEO (incl in RNS's), failure to positively promote HUR, and assisting '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 as to 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

I believe a healthy protest vote to be good for HUR when certain aspects and personal clearly need to be improved. I do not believe that such injures the company at all. I can also have the luxury of sleeping easily upon following conscience. I believe that in different circumstances, the major SHs would vote differently to how they pragmatically intend to.

Whatever PIs differing views, I would 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, many will find voting solely against Resolution 8 (if voting against any at all) most pragmatic. That is perfectly understandable

tiger - of course my posts are just my opinion - what else could they be? all anyone writes is just opinion - save for those deliberately lying
the relevant issue is this - what is the quality of someone's opinion?
and if i am 'dangerous' - that makes you outright certifiable. you are as flakey and inconsistent as a fairy cake

my thought also, flying. drop SP so when resolution 9 voted for at AGM, can issue shedloads of performance related shares to themselves at circa 5p-6p instead of at fair value?
not hard to drop SP - just need be prepares to sell small volumes of own or proxy shares at small loss

Only 2 reasons SP dropping
(i) Pis selling
(ii) MM selling own shares to lower SP (yes it happens to targeted shares)

The answer is simple - individually & collectively - PI's DO NOT SELL
And yah boo sucks to those opining it is wrong for a SH to advise others whether to sell or not. I have broad shoulders.
If Pis sell and depress the SP further - PI's forfeit the right to complain
DO NOT SELL DO NOT SELL DO NOT SELL

I do not think it advisable to sell a valuable asset for peanuts and commit financial hari-kiri. it is a time to batten the hatches and not assist scaremongers. Your share is worth multiples of current SP

the EPL windfall tax has irrationally and collectively hit small to mid oiler sector 15%-20% whether we like it or not.
people see 25% tax - and overreact - it will take 1-2 months for objectivity to return
2 things will in time assist HUR :-
(i) EPL details (eg, can one year's drill costs be spread over 2-3 yrs for tax relief - likely yes). Fat Boris introduced the tax within 24-46 hrs to save his skin after partygate threatened his existence - hence no details as he swore against it till then)
(ii) Realisation that HUT uniquely placed to maximally benefit from EPL - 91% all development costs offset against tax, + development results likely to alter HUR single well dependency & increase barrelage.
HUR SP currently part of 'distressed sector' & 'distressed seller' syndrome. It will pass. Overall, the EPL assists HUR, not injures it. Just will take time for market to see HUR uniquely positioned. Truly in Warren Buffet territory

though he knows current policy is overkill harming china, xi jinping won't relax china covid total lockdown policy to any significant extent till post the nov 22 CCP national congress. doing so before then would be admission of failed policy which his rivals would seek to use against his re-election for a third tenure (& thereafter likely for life). if re-elected nov 22 thus politically secure, he will embrace western vaccines & move from total lockdown policy - for China economic well-being

win - are bell a broker? i am with HL. all brokers are automatically notified of voting agenda - with HL can phone or email them via message centre after logging in. they then tot up and register all votes as a HL 'block' with HUR, if struggling, phone bell & ask

hi ronny
specifically which numbers have you voted against? (if you want to say) i take your point re annual report and am still musing (we still have another 4 -5 days to vote). did you vote against ALL BoD, or just CEO?
a few people giving specifics + short reasons might help form a consensus and will likely help a fair few people in their deliberations

apology
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/hurricane-energy-sees-5-mln-hit-from-uk-windfall-tax-up-to-july-271655362542?mod=markets

Sadly, just noticed below HUR article illustrating perfectly how
(i) lazy writer misuses figure for rogue headline
(ii) danger of CEO waffling on about 'lack of detail and $5 mill tax bill, and OMITTING main point that 91% of any HUR work costs can be offset against windfall tax bill. apart from the omission - how can a CEO not know that journos (& potential new SHs) seek out ANY depressive headline?

tiger
i don't have a high horse. i detest certain board members more than you. but all understood CA post june 21 had to retain ceo & cfo as the nomad otherwise threatened to walk & HUR would have faced delisting
since june 21 the BoD could and should have bought bonds back sooner and cheaper than they did and save HUR maybe $30 million more than they did. and the RNS mood music has been a disgrace and despite recent improvement is still lacking.
that said, please explain what forward plan could be announced with bonds still live and thus a plan needing b/holders agreement? and whilst HUR had no free cash in the bank? i repeat, please explain
no one can blame CA if they have taken a pragmatic decision it helps their intent that ceo and cfo remain. not only do they have that absolute right, but they saved our bacon at their own financial & reputational risk. people have short memories!
the BoD may have planned to announce a plan by now (we don't know) - dividends, work plan, company sale, do nothing, whatever.
but EFL now only a month old will have postponed any oiler announcing an intended plan. so we need to give at least some time or reworking. my deadline for getting seriously peeved is end july/mid august. but will be sooner if AGM and/or july update doesn't start giving firm indications.

the oil price was $63 and rising in june 21 (court hearing) as vaccines which started jan 21 started killing covid
the oil price recovery was wholly predictable as market quickly recovered as per historical norms. as it did, a wholly predictable supply demand shortfall caused by covid killing investment funding, impacted. i wrote in august we would see $80 oil by xmas and £100 oil by end jan
i despair at the oft repeated lazy and inaccurate nonsense that oil 'saved hur', as if the oil price is/was a surprise. i repeat, the oil price rise was wholly predictable and expected
and the supply/demand crunch due to underinvestment is still slowly building steam - it hasn't fully impacted yet
the only unexpected was russia/ukraine/war, which has currently added $20 so now $120

we are currently in warren buffet territory - when fundamentals disagree with the SP, buy when others fear to tread.

no one's expert, tiger. and nothing ever changes fundamentals. the more pis that panic & sell, the lower the SP. it's basic stuff. would your advice to all be to sell?

i agree with flying. am fairly sure pre EPL that dividends was HUR/CA plan. so why change now?
EPL effectively covered by russia/ukraine/war 20 dollar a barrel uplift - which won't end as sanctions will last till regime change plus. and EPL pays for work plan
so russia pays for HUR work plan
so common sense is work plan + dividends
anyone see anything better? views please gentlemen. if common agreement is that it is sound way forward, I'll email CA. even though i think will already be their thoughts

oil at 120 - 8% off top (BW) = 110. prod costs say 30 a barrel (i think less) so 80 dollar clear
530,000 next offload x 80 = 42..4 mill dollars
or
530,000 x 110 = 58.3 million less 2 months running costs (June July)
60.5 mill already in bank + 42.4 mill = 105 mill

let's be kind to ourselves for once and ignore EPL as not payable for yonks and likely will be offset by new works so it's akin to spending our own money anyway
so 120 oil sees 105 mill in bank
and say 20 mill month future profit, so 205 mill in bank by end dec 22, or 225 by end jan offload. knock off 15 mill for summer servicing shutdown

no pi should be selling now unless needs must. by any yardstick 7p is artificial low and selling plays into MM hands

yesterday's RNS covered already by 5-6 of the usual outlets, so HUR's finances getting out there. this from yahoo
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/west-shetland-pioneer-signals-commitment-040000927.html

I'd phone up a couple of papers and tv stations and embarrass the hell out of the Energy Sec. It's a fair point (up to a point) that you can't commit to a spend without knowing the rules. A CEO can make a lot of noise via the phone. I'd do full time screaming till they gave a date and then the rules