Member Info for senseman

we all would dive.
but reality is that most PIs justly wish HUR had never been created, because most have lost huge sums of money. or are still likely to avoid doing so whatever their exit point
the only way Dr T will ever be exonerated will be if the future shows that he did not significantly overegg the pudding. if he did overegg it, that is unforgiveable

if and when new chief execs in place, and 3rd CPR, MIGHT then be valid and helpful to HUR to have Dr T as consultant, for obvious expertise. but even then egos would need be set aside. can't ever see the BoD thing unless 1st CPR was proven kosher and 2nd CPR rubbish

i think essential point still stands - only relatively small percentage held by PIs. most of which will be in LTSH sticky hands. ie. unwilling to sell at anywhere these levels. this 'small free-float' should be helpful as usually means that if and when serious good news occurs, new buyers should be fighting for limited shares. institutional SHs will also have an eye on the main chance so will also have a firm eye on their exit point and unlikely to be bamboozled into selling too quickly

cebo is correct. reasons stated in my 12.35 post today. there has not been a sudden rush by other institutions to buy HUR

been thinking - dont know about these things, but possible that some double accounting going on - butterfield nominee holder of 12% CA HUR shares, and same with hong kong holding kerogen HUR shares. hard to see oh 94% UR shares suddenly held by institutions and only 6% left in PI hands

well done Braines re Reddit page - let's hope this one stays up, most helpful
good comment fand re small number shares available on market - those now clearly in pi sticky hands, good news will impact
and shame Justice Zacaroli wasn't sitting on CAS skating panel in Beijing

dark forces they be at work. speed suggests complaint made, rather than normal forum oversight. hard to see what rules broken - was nowt on it yet. someone wants shut down baddy-discussions before they start
moral - somewhere is something needing kept hidden

yes fand. provided that other issues eg water cut gas etc remain controllable. basic maths logic i guess, if brent high, need produce fewer barrels daily to remain profitable. add to that a slower than projected depletion rate and one is on a winner. hence ca's rns argued well 6 economically good till 2025 and perhaps beyond. consistent high brent helps HUR tremendously

VanNuys - do stop lying to the forum. You and I expressed differing viewpoints re Russia/ Ukraine a while back. I was happy to leave it at that. You clearly are not. I did not write what you state I wrote so kindly desist. If they wish, people can read the post you cite by clicking on my post name and finding it. Ditto they can also click on your poster name and read your related posts. That is, they can form their own view.
They are a number of unpleasant individuals on this, as in all, forums. I suggest you do not join their ranks

https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/oil-price
what cannot speak cannot lie - Brent S95 as writing - magic moment hasiba

https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/oil-price
what cannot speak cannot lie - Brent S95 as writing - magic moment

cebo promptly endorsed by the for some time most detested man on the forum who advised us all to sell up at 0.7p.....))

cebo - the man who thinks he knows HUR better than senseman...!!

cebo - i am not your son so go condescend to someone else. and if you want ask people questions, make them fair ones, not ones you know are impossible to answer

ron - cebo or one of the other double-standard crybabies will likely report my previous innocent post few mins ago so please copy it and retain in case they do. i despair sometimes at the nonsense posted

cebo
why don't you ask ron an intelligent question rather than a puerile one? i read through your old post. you really are the pits. how can ron or anyone tell you what data HUR gave ERCE may or may not be incorrect? The only way that question can be answered is by having access to all HUR data and checking that all relevant data was given to ERCE. This is simple logic. Which means there are 2 alternatives. Either you are stupid and don't understand simple logic. Or you are just a troublemaker. There is no possible third alternative. So which are you - stupid or troublemaker?

ron - be interesting to see if your post survives. someone is reporting posts which are nothing more than fair exchange of views and the forum police are removing posts they should not

yes fand, the pre court case ones detailed CA failed efforts to obtain information from HUR, culminating in declaring they had lost confidence in the BoD

hello fand
yes, i notice 2-3 of my posts today have been pulled. an unpopular posters on the forum is reporting stuff they don't like. becoming a habit. i know the likely culprit but if i write who it is they will report this post also. no prizes for guessing who is favourite.

einstein wrote that if one could not explain things simply, one did not know one's subject well enough
HUR BoD have never explained via RNS or any other means to shareholders the gargantuan disparity between CPR 1 and CPR 2. it would not be a difficult task. it it is difficult to see why they would not have rushed to do so, quite apart form it being a fundamental obligation to shareholders
i am perplexed by the canaries being so against a 3rd CPR, if they are so sure of their absolute ground