Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Hurricane Energy (HUR)

PeterGray
Lemon Slice
Posts: 847
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 782 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#408301

Postby PeterGray » April 30th, 2021, 11:44 am

thehaggistrap wrote:Wow.... 95% dilution. FWIW : back in October the head of investor relations (Phil Corbett) assured me on phone that dilution wasn't an option. However he had a history of lying to me but not putting it in writing/email. Thankfully I didn't trust him and sold out - like everyone at a large loss....

It isn't mentioned who the bond holders are in today RNS. However I am near certain that KEROGEN CAPITAL just acquired Hurricane Energy on the cheap. The £50 million they paid to acquire the company is peanuts and easily covered by the cash in bank!

Despite the well documented problems the whole thing stinks. Kerogen clearly see something in the corpse...
Tax right off against debt, acreage, cash in bank <etc>. They commissioned the revised technical report then quit their seat on board (Dr Parsely) once that work was delivered.

The new-board (Anthony Marris and co.) have deliberately trashed share price to a point where there are no long term share holders left to vote against this.


I'm not quite clear what you think they could have done, given the situation inherited? Declining production, far less than predicted and large debt to pay off with no obvious source of funds to do so. What do you think they should have done differently? It was always clear the bond holders held all the cards once the real issues with Lancaster became clear.

thehaggistrap
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 110
Joined: January 2nd, 2020, 8:20 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#408307

Postby thehaggistrap » April 30th, 2021, 12:09 pm

^ agree : the bond holders held all the cards and despite rising oil price and cash in bank the board was working in their interest.
that is one reason I sold out in October 2020.

Kerogen will take control of the entire company and (likely) take the company private before potentially funding the required remedial work.

Tinderboy
Lemon Pip
Posts: 61
Joined: December 29th, 2019, 2:55 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 34 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#408656

Postby Tinderboy » May 1st, 2021, 8:14 pm

Should have listened to old ADUK over on LSE all those months ago...lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0SBlkK8pss

thehaggistrap
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 110
Joined: January 2nd, 2020, 8:20 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#409311

Postby thehaggistrap » May 4th, 2021, 5:26 pm

Lemon Fools,

There are lots of knowledgeable people who have posted about HUR on this particular bulletin board.
There is a law firm who are seriously considering raising a class action on behalf of private-investors against the firm.

Two questions:

Q1) Are there any fellow investors interested in submitting claim?
This would be on a no-win / no-fee basis with legal firm keeping 40-60%

Q2) Would anyone be able to assist with providing a summary time-line of events.
The aim of this would be to prove that the company presented misleading information from 2017 CPR to the market.

Early days... It might come to nothing...
However if anyone would like to assist getting it off the ground then help appreciated.
Legal firm will accept case if :

- Enough private investors with significant losses are prepared to make a claim that it would be worth their while.
- It can be proven that the company knowingly made mis-leading statements via RNS

Likely any claim would be under a section 90a, which is used when companies knowingly present dishonest information to the markets. In the case of HUR issues with the reservoir likely were known internally to the company as early as 2017? This can potentially be proven when Robert Arnott resigned from the board after 9-months service publicly stating "corporate governance issues". Should legal firm accept case then they would do most of the heavy lifting and hard work.

https://www.cms-lawnow.com/ealerts/2020 ... cc_lang=en

Clitheroekid
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2858
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:58 pm
Has thanked: 1385 times
Been thanked: 3773 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#409327

Postby Clitheroekid » May 4th, 2021, 5:44 pm

I'm sure ether would be plenty of people interested, but you don't say what they should do or who they should contact if they are.

There is a law firm who are seriously considering raising a class action on behalf of private-investors against the firm.

Who are they? The link to the CMS website is just a generic link, and so far as I'm aware there is no official shareholder action group. If you know any different please let us know.

thehaggistrap
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 110
Joined: January 2nd, 2020, 8:20 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#409333

Postby thehaggistrap » May 4th, 2021, 5:59 pm

^ correct. there is no share holder group (... yet).
however this afternoon I spoke for 40 minutes with partner in leading legal firm who are very interested in this case.

they will take further action if :
1) There is evidence company knowingly mislead investors. For example via 2017 CPR / common market days <etc>
2) Enough private investors are prepared to claim to make it worth their while.

Foritza
Posts: 8
Joined: February 6th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#409385

Postby Foritza » May 4th, 2021, 8:28 pm

"Likely any claim would be under a section 90a, which is used when companies knowingly present dishonest information to the markets. In the case of HUR issues with the reservoir likely were known internally to the company as early as 2017? This can potentially be proven when Robert Arnott resigned from the board after 9-months service publicly stating "corporate governance issues". Should legal firm accept case then they would do most of the heavy lifting and hard work."

Haggis, I'd be up for it. In the past I've had conversations with a "friend" who was on first name terms with R Arnott. I asked him to ask why he left. His belated answer began with the letter "r" and rhymes with deserves. As a point of principal I'd be willing for them to take all the money because for me it's not about the dosh but accountability.

Proselenes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1372
Joined: November 15th, 2016, 6:04 am
Has thanked: 58 times
Been thanked: 389 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#409452

Postby Proselenes » May 5th, 2021, 7:34 am

thehaggistrap wrote:Lemon Fools,

There are lots of knowledgeable people who have posted about HUR on this particular bulletin board.
There is a law firm who are seriously considering raising a class action on behalf of private-investors against the firm.

Two questions:

Q1) Are there any fellow investors interested in submitting claim?
This would be on a no-win / no-fee basis with legal firm keeping 40-60%

Q2) Would anyone be able to assist with providing a summary time-line of events.
The aim of this would be to prove that the company presented misleading information from 2017 CPR to the market.

Early days... It might come to nothing...
However if anyone would like to assist getting it off the ground then help appreciated.
Legal firm will accept case if :

- Enough private investors with significant losses are prepared to make a claim that it would be worth their while.
- It can be proven that the company knowingly made mis-leading statements via RNS

Likely any claim would be under a section 90a, which is used when companies knowingly present dishonest information to the markets. In the case of HUR issues with the reservoir likely were known internally to the company as early as 2017? This can potentially be proven when Robert Arnott resigned from the board after 9-months service publicly stating "corporate governance issues". Should legal firm accept case then they would do most of the heavy lifting and hard work.

https://www.cms-lawnow.com/ealerts/2020 ... cc_lang=en



Some posters on ADVFN are interested. If you have a contact person please post their details and I will put it over on ADVFN or you can post directly there.

.

thehaggistrap
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 110
Joined: January 2nd, 2020, 8:20 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#409496

Postby thehaggistrap » May 5th, 2021, 10:01 am

re : class action.
It is *very* early days... Basically I have made initial contact with partner at a legal firm who specialise in such cases. Having listened to the story they are interested enough to allocate some initial resources to a preliminary investigation. There is likely to be a credible case based on misleading contents of 2017 CPR. If there is a "business case" (from legal firms perspective) then they would take the case up and run with it on a no-win / no-fee basis.

I am certain there are enough HUR private investors who would be interested in hypothetical class-action. However we are not yet at stage of gathering names (... yet). It would obviously be uphill battle and might not even get off the ground, let alone succeed.

As next step I have offered to submit a 5-6 page time-line of events to the legal firm.
Any offer of assistance with this much appreciated!

@Clitheroekid, @Proselenes, @Foritza : have sent you my email via PM.

JonnyT
Lemon Pip
Posts: 83
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:54 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#409563

Postby JonnyT » May 5th, 2021, 2:26 pm

Two questions:
1) How long to get to court? HUR's likely dead and buried by this time.
2) Who's going to pay if you win.

In my opinion you're clutching at straws.

thehaggistrap
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 110
Joined: January 2nd, 2020, 8:20 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#409574

Postby thehaggistrap » May 5th, 2021, 2:55 pm

JonnyT wrote:Two questions:
1) How long to get to court? HUR's likely dead and buried by this time.
2) Who's going to pay if you win.

In my opinion you're clutching at straws.


^ valid questions - both of which were discussed...

1) sooner, the better. share holders have 6 year window to make a claim
2) Hurricane have £120 million cash in bank. In addition they will have insurance.

PM for more details. Reputable legal firm are interested enough to allocate a partners time to make initial investigations. As you state, it might be uphill battle that never gets off ground. First step is to assist them by submitting a timeline.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#409627

Postby dealtn » May 5th, 2021, 5:25 pm

I made a decision, don't feel mislead, and so take it on the chin. Same as if the outcome had been a 5-10 bagger, happy for me to be responsible for my own monetary outcome on the decisions I take.

thehaggistrap
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 110
Joined: January 2nd, 2020, 8:20 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#409674

Postby thehaggistrap » May 5th, 2021, 9:23 pm

dealtn wrote:I made a decision, don't feel mislead, and so take it on the chin. Same as if the outcome had been a 5-10 bagger, happy for me to be responsible for my own monetary outcome on the decisions I take.


Fair point, I have accepted loss.

However many made that decision based on 2017 CPR and optimistic oil-water contact based on dodgy data.... Someone should accept responsibility for that?

If 2017 CPR worst case was correct then company would be fine

murraypaul
Lemon Slice
Posts: 785
Joined: April 9th, 2021, 5:54 pm
Has thanked: 225 times
Been thanked: 265 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#409679

Postby murraypaul » May 5th, 2021, 9:37 pm

thehaggistrap wrote:However many made that decision based on 2017 CPR and optimistic oil-water contact based on dodgy data.... Someone should accept responsibility for that?

If 2017 CPR worst case was correct then company would be fine


The problem you would have as shareholders is that it is the company who have lost money.
As a shareholder, you cannot sue just because the value of your shares has gone down, that is the company's loss, not yours, and they would need to be the one to sue.

thehaggistrap
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 110
Joined: January 2nd, 2020, 8:20 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#409682

Postby thehaggistrap » May 5th, 2021, 9:46 pm

murraypaul wrote:The problem you would have as shareholders is that it is the company who have lost money.
As a shareholder, you cannot sue just because the value of your shares has gone down, that is the company's loss, not yours, and they would need to be the one to sue.


Correct, you can't sue simply because shares went down. However : if companies knowingly make misleading statements (2017 CPR) to market they can, theoretically, be held to account. See section 90-A legislation link above.

I agree, class action might not get off ground. However if anybody wishes to help review a time line of events / erroneous statements then please PM...

PeterGray
Lemon Slice
Posts: 847
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 782 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#409791

Postby PeterGray » May 6th, 2021, 12:27 pm

I'd be amazed if anyone could prove that HUR "knowingly" mislead. Or more importantly that those who drew up the CPR did, or were deliberately fed false information.

It's clearly true, that their model was badly wrong. But it was always clear it was based on limited drilling and information. They may have presented an overoptimistic view, but that's hardly unusual. Knowlingly misleading is something else again.

As others, I put too much faith in their modelling, and lost a large sum, but I read the presentations and the CPR and knew that there was a lot proving up to do, and plenty of risk.

Clitheroekid
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2858
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:58 pm
Has thanked: 1385 times
Been thanked: 3773 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#409877

Postby Clitheroekid » May 6th, 2021, 6:16 pm

thehaggistrap wrote:However many made that decision based on 2017 CPR and optimistic oil-water contact based on dodgy data.... Someone should accept responsibility for that?

A big problem for many prospective claimants would be proving that they did rely on the CPR in making their investment decision.

I suspect the vast majority of PI's never read the CPR and couldn't have understood it if they had. They based their decision on what other people in the media and on bulletin boards were saying about the CPR.

thehaggistrap
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 110
Joined: January 2nd, 2020, 8:20 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#409895

Postby thehaggistrap » May 6th, 2021, 7:02 pm

PeterGray wrote:I'd be amazed if anyone could prove that HUR "knowingly" mislead.


Yes and no. The 2017 CPR and subsequent "billion barrel claims" were based on completely erroneous oil water contact.
HUR never flowed oil from depth. Rather we later found out in September 2020 the oil water contact was derived from oil shows in the drill logs.

There is reasonable evidence that company was aware the oil water contact wasn't dubious long before September 2020.
Indeed I have spoken to at least one person who challenged Robert Trice about this...

PeterGray wrote:A big problem for many prospective claimants would be proving that they did rely on the CPR in making their investment decision.


Yes, if class action is taken up each claimant will need to submit a statement, time scale and evidence.

thehaggistrap
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 110
Joined: January 2nd, 2020, 8:20 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#409924

Postby thehaggistrap » May 6th, 2021, 9:35 pm

This document for bond holders in an interesting read.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data ... ricane.htm

This quote caught my eye
" An announcement was made on 22 May 2020 that one well had been shut due to excessive water cut."

Because that is not what HUR actually said at the time...
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/HUR/operation ... h6a4j.html

PeterGray
Lemon Slice
Posts: 847
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 782 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#410043

Postby PeterGray » May 7th, 2021, 11:44 am

Yes and no. The 2017 CPR and subsequent "billion barrel claims" were based on completely erroneous oil water contact.
HUR never flowed oil from depth. Rather we later found out in September 2020 the oil water contact was derived from oil shows in the drill logs.


If you look at the presentations of the time, several years back, they included a lot of discussion and diagrams showing how they had inferred OWC from the data and oil shows. I can no longer remeber the details, but my membory is that they never suggested they had flowed oil from the inferred OWC depth.


Return to “Oil & Gas & Energy (Sector & Companies)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests