Member Info for senseman

i agree mr wilks sentiment re current net zero debt. also there is $4 mill tax rebate due. but monthly running costs till end march next offload prevents all bond cash into escrow interest bearing account until march offload cash into account. i suppose nothing to stop partial sum being 'ring-fenced' in escrow meanwhile. anything HUR can present to market lessening bond cash 'threat' will be noticed. but M & C won't do unless forced to & CA have to prioritise battles. winning the war being more important

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Oil-Prices-Jump-As-OPEC-Sticks-With-400000-Bpd-Output-Hike.html

Well 6 natural flow rate without ESP is exceptional - when ESP last shut down was almost at ESP levels. This is a good security buffer for HUR should ESP experience future problems. I believe there is also a reserve pump

The article by EV writer Andrew Dykes was balanced and fair. I emailed the editor stating this and thanking on behalf of HUR SHs. It is now helpful for future EV articles that EV are aware of HUR BoD's understatements.
Maris & Chaffe stayed in place as if they had been asked to resign July 21 along with all the NEDs, HUR would have had circa only 31 days to appoint new CEO & CFO to avoid delisting from AIM - bondholders would have pressed for this and re-activated trying to steal HUR. It was pragmatic necessity. Whilst HUR currently remain 'in recovery transition' & bond money remains owed, that position still exists. Also, imagine market SP negative reaction if any company CEO & CFO suddenly depart. Add to these factors the normal difficulty of attracting good CEO & CFO to a company still in transition & with litigious bondholders still owed. It is unwise to cut off one's nose to spite one's face.
CA will have conversed repeatedly with Maris & Chaffe that the past can be forgiven if not forgotten and requested they commence acting in SH's interest. These olive branches have been spurned. God has not been found. Maris & Chaffe's egos still overrule judgement. Their current principal concern is to slow HUR's recovery & SP as much as possible so that their CV's can claim 'we simply got 2021 court action wrong' rather than 'we were crooked'. They have zero interest in HUR succeeding. Success for them is HUR failing.
CA are waiting until net benefit of Maris & Chaffe leaving outweighs the net benefit of them remaining. That moment has not arrived. It will. In the interim, CA have proposed an additional NED to control & outvote CEO & CFO deviancy. Mechanism to remove either CEO or CFO is EGM motion (at any time) or AGM motion (annually). Should CA table such motion, it will succeed

I must confess to having given Energy Voice a nudge re CA RNS, via below email to editor Allister Thomas:-

"Dear Allister

I write to enquire if the Friday 28 Jan Crystal Amber Fund RNS excerpt relating to Hurricane Energy (HUR) may be worthy of a short feature. The excerpt is copied below. The Crystal Amber Fund own almost 30% of Hurricane shares

It is effectively a very material upgrade of HUR’s remaining resources (and profit benefit) from Well 6 alone. It also highlights the significant tax benefit value to any potential trade buyer

The HUR BoD have in recent months been remarkably loath to promote the extent of HUR’s recovery post a June 2021 failed High Court attempt to force through a needless restructure which would have diluted existing shareholders by 95%. It may be that HUR’s prospects being seen to dramatically improve so quickly would leave the BoD with further egg on it’s face. I would imagine that irritation with this ‘dragging of feet’ in updating the market in timely fashion with material improvements in HUR’s position has caused The Crystal Amber Fund to update the market via it’s own RNS. This should not have been necessary.

I am one of innumerable private long term shareholders who believe that The Crystal Amber Fund’s (a highly regarded ‘activist investor’ fund) upgrade of Hurricane’s prospects should legitimately be brought to the attention of the wider market in timely fashion.

I leave the matter in your experienced hands to decide if the Crystal Amber Fund’s upgrade merits bringing to a wider industry audience.

Kind regards
(Name & Phone)
Shareholder

Hurricane Energy ("Hurricane")
(copy excerpt CA RNS re HUR)"

The main benefit of publication being that EV is widely read in the industry. It matters the industry is aware the BoD persistently understates HUR's potential. Also the more solid the SP foundation, the better. Let us hope that Maris does not issue a revenge release with his own undercooked estimates.
I would also hazard a fair guess that CA may have emailed a copy of their RNS to EV. I would have.

I can see SA & Russia not wanting to see oil spike much above $100 for any significant period as this will impact world economies & demand. But can see them being perfectly happy with $90 - $100 for a lengthy period of time and working together for this. If so v.good for HUR

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/90-Oil-Is-Only-The-Beginning.html

About bl**dy time!
No naughty RNS this morning from the bad guys to knock the SP down 20% after CA upgrade. Maybe scared as would look to obvious. It's wait & see for a few days

I am certain CA are 'hurrying slowly' as fast as strategy permits. HUR recovery could be huge earner for both CA & Saba. I am confident they are liaising- the amicable 2 yr CA winding up timespan indicates this. RB of CA will not have taken Saba winding up request personally, he knows CA articles give Saba the right to do so. CA Fund was never meant to be 'evergreen' (ie.perpetual')
In 2021 HUR Bod hugely revised downwards HUR's potential via 'internal review'. For consistency they should now via similar internal review significantly revise upwards. I doubt they will. What would help CA's yesterday's upward revision is if one of the trade writers/publications picked up CA's RNS and articled it under an appropriate heading eg 'HUR's potential improves dramatically'. The question is - will any have the cojones to write something not based on a HUR RNS?
My immediate concern is whether the HUR baddies are spending the weekend constructing a 'counter-RNS' to immediately hammer down the SP 20% as they have done twice previously the moment CA RNS posted positive HUR information. I imagine M, C & W spitting bile over their cornflakes this morning. Monday/Tuesday may be interesting
This years AGM will certainly be an event, whatever occurs between now & then. In light of yesterday's CA RNS it may be opportune nearer the time to SH's concertedly to press the BoD for release of the investigation report. I don't see the need yet as there may be BoD changes before then which ensure it surfaces naturally.
Yesterday's CA RNS gives SHs huge comfort that CA have not only not 'gone native' as a few posters precipitously feared. It shows CA continuing proactively on all fronts. It also demonstrates how much patience is needed. The single biggest imperative remains - that well 6 keeps pumping sans unforeseen problems. This automatically further clips the baddies wings & gives scope for CA to ensure that further secure building blocks are cemented into place.
The current 'big sleeper' is HUR's tax benefits to an industry buyer. Despite knowing little indeed sod all about tax specifics, instinct tells me that this may be of greater interest to trade buyer than many of us imagine

careful - i may be wrong but that is how i firmly read it. i just cannot see how CA would have not informed via their monthly RNS if they were/had proposing wolfe. it also explains how M & C have been able to continue naughties, and the invest whitewash. the proposal of a new NED to equal things and return deciding vote back to Chair makes me certain.
i can't figure out how M & C managed to swing it past CA + 2 NEDs, but am sure they did. CA too trusting for a short while - showing too much good faith - or momentarily eye taken off ball?

it's a beautifully written CA RNS (HUR portion) - huge content in small space - RB certainly a wordsmith!
for CA not to have even been spoken to as part of investigation is sickening. i bet M & C worked full time to limit the invest to a paper-only trail which they controlled

The RNS answered 2 questions been rattling round my head awhile, ie: why CA not commented earlier on (i) investigation outcome (ii) appointment Philip Wolfe. Answers now clear:-
(i) They thought it whitewash (it was). Were seeking legal advice
(ii) Wolfe was not CA nominee. Was either Maris, Chaffe or b/holder nominee
Wolfe was roped in to protect the other 2 in investigation also slow down recovery. Maris+Chaffe+Wolfe have been outvoting 2 CA nominated NEDs (thereby negating casting vote power). That is why CA have nominated Juan Morera as NED.
Whereas it may be hard to contemplate CA not having had sight of report, that is the disgraceful position. It may have been a BoD vote (see above) not to disclose and the 2 CA nom NEDs cannot legally disclose contents. I hope CA obtains legal disclosure and pursues legal financial SH redress - the HUR RNS 'not guilty' reasons were transparent lies.

The performance & finance upgrade is excellent and as definitive as one might wish. As is the request for a further NED appointment. I imagine that, with their own time constraints in mind, CA are sequencing progress steps as rapidly as poss. I hope that means the end for the two baddies at some point. It is crystal clear they are still 'at it'

Unanswered questions answered!!
CA not gone native - oh ye of little faith!!
More exciting than watching immortal Nadal fighting as warrior Samurai against inevitable dying of the light Father Time
Get thee behind me Satan! Patience is all! A dog with a bone would looketh a wimp! Phoenix HURRICANE ENERGY WILL SOAR AGAIN!
PS. Reasons later,,,,) Knackered!!

gazelle - yes, clean forgot about that. a shame for us as useful read each month. so looks like we're down to whenever ca issue specific RNS re anything relevant to HUR

fangy & well
well done well for posting HUR May 21 Business Plan hidden from court - page 1 is important page - illustrates well 6 now performing better & likely for longer. page 1 was doc 1 i sent to court
peed off can't upload doc 2 to court showing my financial projections. don't ask me why - am computer need to know. could write them here but don't have hour of juice to do so, were for july 22 - feb 24, used not stupid hur figures but higher legit industry forward rate curve (even that historically 5%-10% below what achieved), would have been stupid citing hur's own stupid figures when CA argued in evidence bundle forward rate was higher than hur argued). but as flavour:-
Dec 21/ Jan 22 forward curve (from memory) circa $70, was $80-$90 - not included
forward brent price sent to court (sent all months, these sample)
july 22 75
oct 22 73
jan 23 72
april 23 70
july 23 70
oct 23 70
jan 24 70
in light of brent current $90, can be seen that barring unforeseen, these now ultra conservative (google brent futures for what market thinks). the above produced revenue £337 mill july 22 - feb 24. well 6 current indices show economic production likely (nor certain) circa 6 months beyond feb 24 + higher barrelage + higher Brent

standing back, in my view legitimate for HUR to update May 21 Business Plan since all material performance indices improved (well 6, production, finances). i would argue illegitimate NOT to inform market of these material changes, imagine impact on SP! M & C of course won't update market re fundamental change as should
would hazard fair guess at some point CA will revise upward via own monthly update HUR's fundamental performance upgrade. this will force HUR M & C to do so couple of months later. seems to be the developing pattern, quicker than arguing with M & C for ever and a day

it strikes me that if well 6 production (& depletion( & Brent continue to perform better than projected in the Business Plan the old BoD presented to bondholders. that (back of envelope sums), there could be 5.5 mill barrels generating $425 mill revenue post July 22, rather than 4.7 mill barrels generating £337 mill, till economic production limit is reached
or in other words, that from Jan 22 - Aug 24 end of economic life well 6 could produce 6.2 mill barrels generating circa $560 mill revenue. deduct operating costs (it's beyond me to work them out) - and one is left with a huge net profit sum for HUR (one well only, producing till Aug 24)

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Saudi-Arabia-Expected-To-Raise-March-Oil-Prices-On-Robust-Demand.html

If one of the trusted guard who is computer savvy wants post email address I can email the 2 docs attached as a single attachment and they can figure out how to post the attachment as highlighted link which can be opened with a click

file:///C:/Users/Peter/Pictures/ControlCenter4/Scan/CCF26012022.pdf
apology - cannot get link to highlight. peeps will have to use own magic to open

file:///C:/Users/Peter/Pictures/ControlCenter4/Scan/CCF26012022.pdf
Page 1 (Doc 1) Business Plan - Monthly Production Profile is from business plan HUR gave to Ad-Hoc bondholder group, but WITHHELD from court documents. Shows expected production June 21 - Feb 24 (economic limit). Note - expected production Dec 21 was 9100 bpd. Production was 9600 (or was it 9650?) bpd (from recent RNS). The Business Plan took into account well 6 bubble point.
Page 2 (Doc 2) was my workings of production & revenue from July 22 - Feb 24 using that document & a conservative $ price.
Crux is Doc 2 shows July 22 - Feb 24 4.7 million barrels, $337 million revenue via HURs own figures, with ultra conservative Brent applied.
These figures need adjusting upwards for (i) well 6 currently producing +500 bpd more (ii) higher Brent. Apply your own imagination & sums.
Both docs were emailed to Justice Zaccaroli overnight after Day 1 of June 21 hearing. Were allowed into evidence. Raised his eyebrows & then some
With Brent today +$90 they make pleasant reading. Doc 2 takes no account of production & revenue 6 mths Jan 2 - June 22