Member Info for Slift

Capt,

"it may be salvageable with the right forward plan /funding"
Agreed, but time is running out and any DECENT FWP to bring in value (and payback investment) to the the assets will come at a huge cost. More than that of the FWP proposed by HUR.

The question is, will CA or the new board or whoever be able to find investors to fund the FWP?
Hard sell.

adoubleuk,

If you have a reasonably good memory.. then you'll know that the cash set aside for Lancaster decommissioning is a lot more than Lincoln.
Also, HUR HAVE CONTRACTED A RIG to P&A Lincoln.

Lancaster Decomm in escrow: $41.5m as of May 2021 (This doesn't include OPEX cost - estimated at $17.1m)
Lincoln Decomm cost (at 50%): $13.1m ($26m for the P&A operation).

Makes full sense to me as the rig that HUR have contracted is for 3 months.
You do the maths.

CaptainSwag,

Yup, $80/barrel sounds about right assuming 11.6k bopd can be maintained for 12 months (unlikely).

Also, useful link to see Brent forward curve:
https://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/crude-oil/brent-crude-oil.html

mrc,

From latest final results:
"Total cash and available facilities were $284million, including ring-fenced accounts associated with Magnus, the Sculptor Capitalfacility and other joint venture accounts totalling $108million."

An RBL facility will provide a debt capacity to ENQ based on reserves base.
Of the deby capacity, ENQ will have drawn $Xm to pay off existing RCF facility (+ other facilities) and drawn $Ym to fund the GE acquisition.
The remainder $Zm will be the liquidity headroom that ENQ are able to draw on immediately if and when required for other working capital requirements.
Debt Capacity = X + Y + Z

Assuming no contract wins between now and end of May..
Estimated backlog reduced to c. $4.3b.

Not good.

romaron,

Liquidity headroom for cashflow and working capital requirements.
Typically, ENQ will require $200-250m liquidity for general cashflow movements.

Since the new RBL debt will take on the loan for the 15% Kraken facility and the Magnus vendor loan, there is a requirement for ENQ to provide working capital associated with these too (with the new RBL facility).

Foresight,

Yes, I simply used 10k as average including declines. But it will likely be less than 10k. Possibly 8-9k average over the 12 month period.

Doesn't change the fact that it's game over.
Missing weather window for drilling in 2021 has had huge implications.

Interesting to see who will take the fall to save this company (if it is going to be saved) but it will be shareholders either way.

"Slift
Posted in: HUR
Posts: 3,157
Price: 0.69
No Opinion
RE: HUR Shareholders Today14 May 2021 14:57

Anne37,

Did comissioning liabilities and termination fees slip through your mind or..?
Not even $70 can provide enough cashflow for the company to pay back the debt.

The company needs $90/barrel oil price or higher than 10k bopd production to be able to repay the bondholders.
Try persuading the High Court that Brent price will be $90+/barrel average for the next 12 months.
Or try persuading the High Court that the water produced is actually oil lol."

CaptainSwag,

"one of the objections i have had with hur's whole financial projection has been the oil price. hur have had it decreasing over the next few years . Personally i find this unlikely and when one of the shareholders brought up general oil price predictions he made this very valid point. "

HUR have always used the forward curve for projection. Many oil companies do.
The current forward curve is in backwardation (decreasing).
I think it will soon switch to contango (increasing) as the economy opens up and inflation rises.

"however the bondholder lawyer dealt with it very well by quoting the exact price needed for any shareholder gains (after bondholders are satisfied) and then also how long it had been since the price of oil had been that high."
Was this $90+/barrel by any chance?

Hello Jubileey,

I'm not sure about your numbers.

But what do you think production is going to be in 2021 and 2022?

Well, that makes more sense now.

I think the new RBL will have a capacity of c. $750-800m, with liquidity headroom of about $400-450m+ following refinancing.

Shouldn't be difficult to pay off by 2023. Would be nice to have net debt below $1b by YE21.

"Ours will be paid off in full according to JC by Oct 2023.."

Yes, JC did mention this.. but still quite hard to believe.
To pay off in full, ENQ will require c. $1.5b FCF to from start of this year.
34 months for $1.5b FCF.

Must be assuming that oil prices stay stable and production is maintained and/or increased.

I think ENQ will be looking to refinance debt (maybe $200-400m) rather than pay off in full by Oct 2023... That is assuming FCF is used to service debt and no further debt is taken on board by ENQ..

NGR1616,

LOOL.
I wouldn't get him mad if I was you!
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/marveldatabase/images/2/22/Frederick_Dukes_%28Earth-7964%29_from_X-Men_Legends_001.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090813025612

Oil_Beast,

"Plenty left to this story but today was a great day for holders end of."
Sure, great DAY for holders..
But has it been great 3 WEEKS for holders? Certainly not as share price has plunged from 2.3p to 1.5p.

dflynch,

By no means am I sticking up for directors - Pretty sure I was one of the first to doubt their ability and competence here.
Sack the lot of them.

HeidHoncho,

By all means, buy in heavily here if you think otherwise.
But there is negative equity here as it stands, and HUR will not be able to pay bond debt in 12 months time if nothing is done to mitigate it.
Therefore, insolvent.

"slift mate the shareholders had a victory today we haven't won the war yet"

"Slift! The fact your surmising 5% or 0% after today"

I'll change my views when SOMEONE (whether the new board, CA, bondholders, or whoever) provide an alternative to the restructure to save the company.

As it stands, nothing has changed imo.
HUR are still in a financial difficulty and are insolvent.
An EGM nor judge ruling won't change that.

dflynch,

Not quite.

Here's the governance extract:
"The Board as a whole has responsibility for ensuring that a satisfactory dialogue with shareholders takes place. It believes that shareholder dialogue is key to developing an understanding of the views of shareholders and encourages two-way communication, providing prompt responses to queries received orally or in writing. The Board also remains informed by monitoring the main movements in shareholdings and reviewing brokers’ reports.

In the normal course of business, the CEO and CFO are available to shareholders in investor meetings and at public events. The Chairman and Senior Independent Director are also available to shareholders, if communication through the normal channels fails to resolve a matter, or if it is felt inappropriate to discuss the matter involved with the CEO and/or CFO.

Currently the Chairman and Senior Independent Director take the lead on these matters and ensure that the views of shareholders are communicated to the Board as a whole."

Chairman = Steven McTiernan
Senior Independent Director = Dr David Jenkins

Both should be rightfully sacked.
But also note above that CEO and CFO are responsible for the interests.
NEDs (minus Bev who was an interim CEO) - John and Sandy are only there for support in commercial, legal and financial aspects. They don't run the company, and are only invovled in a couple committees that have nothing to do with the technical aspects, nor communication with shareholders.

Oh wells, I'm not gonna argue for them rofl. But I'll be very surprised if CA decide to keep Antony Maris and Richard Chaffe in the near future.

Whitelot1,

Outcome is 5% or 0%.
To be decided at a later date.

DiveCentre,

The NED's will have enough knowledge or at least the financial aspects of things.
I think Richard Chaffe should have gone and John Van de Welle/Sandy Shaw kept to transfer knowledge.

No idea what Antony is doing still LOL