Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
I was just thinking the same (so we're probably wrong ;)
Possibly the buybacks have started. I expect a TR1 very soon
Couldn't agree more NSTA - I got out of Enquest in 2022 but kept an eye one them. Having got back in two weeks ago I started looking on here again - same posters with same dreary banal guff about anything but Enquest interspersed with the odd post of relevance
That would have been good news when we were reliant on cheap energy.
Not sure if this'll get past the self-appointed censors as deemed off topic but it revolves around buybacks. Some of us do talk away from this board and I have the other investors permission to post (he thinks that calling this board a "four-ale bar" overrates us and kindergarten is more accurate; plus he doesn't drink).
What if timing is of little consequence? Guesswork from here but who is to say it has to be done in the market. The stock market is and always will be a popularity contest. It does mean the most deserving don't always win. An Off-book trade will relate to the market price but is the natural home for large trades. If the buyer is already lined up then as long as they haven't been seen to getting stock at a ridiculously cheap price then who could complain? For the buyer a lower price is preferred obviously. Ahah, one of you sharper ball-bearings will say "but EnQuest is the buyer".
But didn't Craig say they were discussing cancelling or placing in Treasury? If M&A is about a cheap 5% share block is surely a good bargaining tool. In fact I'd go further. It might be the best way of filching 5% of liquidity at the bottom of the market. Could the 5% be part of the jigsaw? AB doesn't think short-term.
Energean up 3.5% and they've got an FPSO moored about 60 miles from Israel. About the same distance from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the South.
NST and redbuff maybe don't understand politics is our biggest problem we all face, nothing to do with what the company does it all boils down to loonies in Parliament.
If it wasn't for them we'd have already forgotten about the nasty hangover caused by our 60p party and I'd be sitting somewhere hot and not busting my balls at work in this freezing workshop.
Apparently these clouds are man made now by chem trails
Now that NSTAbz has made his little request we can get on with living in a free world where people can post what they like.
What’s the weather like with you all? A bit grey here.
Should be, that's what was said during the presentation, we have about 175 trading days left this year including this week so that's about £72k per day of buybacks if we start this week.
Buybacks to start this week ?
Correction - (yesterday 14:37) "The movement against Net Zero has run its course" - what I meant to say was that the climate activists and the ESG crowd are a bit like Tesla shares. They've made their impact but now the real world takes over. Costs can only be hidden for so long and subsidies cannot go on forever. The Overton window sums it up neatly.
*thanks to an offline investor for pointing it out to me. Politics and ideology can trump common sense.
I love waking up on a Monday. I always find it a bonus. I can then go about my business being 'Openly Bonkers'
This message board is a "four-ale bar" just as Lloyds of London began as a tea house. I can assure you that in any hostelry in London or elsewhere frequented by business people don't stick to discussing interest rates or the price of raw materials. Access here is FREE and when something is valued at zero then often that is what the information is too. If someone can give me access to information behind a paywall I'll take it. This isn't Investor's Chronicle or Bloomberg.
We even have humour on here sometimes (Juan-monkey) which does cheer me up.
The following is a text I received on Saturday from my oldest pal who gives me earache whenever we meet for getting him invested in EnQuest (£5k but he was always a tightwad).
"When we were stranded in Kuwait in the Marriot Hotel we were with people on their way to oil conference in Dubai. Chatted about EnQuest they were all very positive. They worked for various companies in Aberdeen. A couple were from Worley Services and another company shared the offices in Aberdeen with EnQuest. All were positive about extraction in Cambo and Kraken etc. I got a good vibe, but they get paid regardless and go on jollies to the Gulf. I think the other one was Weatherford or something"
He added that they were all pretty bullish. It surprised him (and me) because he is a very cautious investor and jumpy. I've known him for over 50 years and he would have been looking for bad vibes.
Totally off topic and for anyone who doesn't want to read this stuff the filter button is right next to the 'Share Chat' button.
Absolutely nothing wrong RedBuffet's post. the Enquest forum has descended into inane topics about lamenting the EPL (no amount of crying here is going to change that), wider energy policy (little to no bearing ONLY to Enquest), and all sorts of assorted politics which again has no near term impact to Enquest, which is not already priced in. This board appears to be taken over by a motley crew of individuals who are wallowing in their own misery and posting any random banal gibberish they can find on the internet, which has no material impact to Enquest's current share price action. I have used the filter button, but the shout out is to those posters who do post relevant topics but are getting sucked into replying to off topic nonsense. Just a request really, stick to Enquest.
Voltaire’s message comes to mind here, and makes me think both posters are right.
Topic,a hazelnut in every bite, what's that got to do with gas and oil? Gla monkey
Just for you redbutocks I will keep on topic !
Where should we have the 60p party ?
Should we book a date for it in 2024 or 2025 ?
Oh typo , sorry it's redbuffet.
O&G essential do what is our Ed going to do ? : https://www.statista.com/statistics/494956/projected-primary-energy-demand-by-source-uk/
I was on a Twitter/X space this morning with Dr Anas.
Iranian oil sanctions in the short term at least are as much good as a chocolate fire guard.
A) Don’t take effect for the next 180 days ie after US election (as they don’t want higher gas prices to influence the result)
B) lots of nations won’t sign up to sanctions
C) tankers will be sent to third countries to reload for other destinations
He reckoned there was a $7-10 war premium in the price of which half had come off as matters didn’t escalate.
Link here if you want to listen, I think I summarised fairly well and accurately. There is a Q&A at the end https://x.com/anasalhajji/status/1781834646633722053?s=46
Redbuffet what gives you the right to demand we stay on topic? I'd rather see some rubbish than miss information that might form part of my decision making . The general background is important and several posters aren't from or based in the UK. They might find this interesting so I suggest you look away now.
This morning the Laura Kuenssberg programme on BBC was devoted to climate and Net Zero. It was biased (imo) against the O&G industry with Chris Packham and the head of CCC Chris Stark although LK did mention this https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/09/climate-change-committee-chris-stark-net-zero/
What I found most interesting though was that Claire Coutinho turned up to argue for the Tories but Labour sent Shabana Mahmood the shadow Justice Secretary. Where is Ed?
The movement against Net Zero has run its course and repeating slogans just makes the likes of Packham and Stark look silly and out of touch. I mentioned this in my Overton window post (19 April 06:55) and I don't think it strange that both Packham and Greta are on the spectrum.
*If you find any of this O/T Redbuffet there is a Filter facility that I find useful for posters that irritate me.
There is some good discussion about ENQ on here but lots of noise. Can we please try and stick on topic?
Speculation about politics and oil price not that helpful. If there is anything tangible by all means but posting that we think the EPL is stupid etc or that oil is due to go up or down isn't really helping anyone make better investment decisions.
Interesting article and I particularly liked this paragraph, I had not realised that the figures quoted for gas powered electricity had such a large proportion of tax included as a opposed to the subsidies in renewables.
"The offered price for large scale solar at £84/MWh is more than twice that quoted by Newkey-Burden in the National Grid sponsored article. In fact, the prices offered to all renewable technologies are more than twice those in the Generation Cost report. Third, the £114/MWh price quoted for gas includes an assumed £60/MWh in carbon taxes, meaning the real cost of gas fired electricity is only around £54/MWh. Finally, these levelised costs of energy estimates do not include any allowance for the cost of backing up intermittent renewables, nor the extra costs to expand the grid to bring power from remote offshore locations to the source of demand. Moreover, the costs for existing renewables are even higher than those offered in AR6. Contract for Difference (CfD) strike prices for the year ending March 2024 were £173/MWh for offshore wind, £109/MWh for onshore and £106/MWh for solar, as per the LCCC.
The first “myth” is confirmed shown to be true". Clean energy is too expensive!
Whose paying them to brainwash the social media junkies… you do wonder : https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/wood-burning-stoves-greener-heat-32628775.amp
The US House passed new sanctions on Iran’s oil sector set to become part of a foreign-aid package, putting the measure on track to pass the Senate within days.
The legislation would broaden sanctions against Iran to include foreign ports, vessels, and refineries that knowingly process or ship Iranian crude in violation of existing US sanctions. It would also would expand so-called secondary sanctions to cover all transactions between Chinese financial institutions and sanctioned Iranian banks used to purchase petroleum and oil-derived products.
The legislation, which is set to be included in a $95 billion package providing funding for aiding Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, passed by a vote of 360-58 on Saturday. It was pre-negotiated with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and the White House said it supports it.
About 80% of Iran’s roughly 1.5 million barrels of daily oil exports are shipped to independent refineries in China known as “teapots,” according to a summary of similar legislation.
While the sanctions could impact Iranian petroleum exports — and add as much as $8.40 to the price of a barrel of crude — they also include presidential waiver authorities, according to ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington-based consulting firm.
“President Joe Biden might opt to invoke these authorities, vitiating the sanctions’ price impact; a second Trump Administration might not,” ClearView wrote in a note to clients.
US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen in October rejected a widely-held notion that the US had gradually relaxed some sanctions enforcement on Iranian oil sales as part of efforts for a diplomatic rapprochement.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-20/new-iran-oil-sanctions-passed-by-us-house-in-foreign-aid-package
Ergy.
Second, US inflation would prove even more stubborn at a time when progress in reducing price pressures has already disappointed this year, thereby acting as a bigger counter to early rate cuts by the Federal Reserve.
Third, the strong dollar would get a further appreciation boost, undermining trade and financial intermediation.
And finally, with worsening economic and geopolitical situations, risk premia would increase. This would lead to higher borrowing costs than might have prevailed otherwise.
Such considerations assume greater urgency when factoring in what did not happen in the most recent tit-for-tat between Iran and Israel.
Whether by design or otherwise, neither party has inflicted considerable human and physical damage on the other. Also, Iran did not materially deploy its regional proxies in what could easily have been a more comprehensive attack on Israel. Meanwhile, Israel did not go after Iranian nuclear sites in its response. It also did not succumb to pressure from its closest allies, most notably the US and UK, for a greater degree of restraint and de-escalation.
All this points to a significant shift in the dynamic between these two countries, Most importantly, this has changed from a relatively stable disequilibrium, in which each party refrained from direct attacks, to a more unpredictable and unstable disequilibrium in which dangerous precedents have been set and each side has more reasons to escalate tensions further.
When comparing the reaction of markets to the views of most national security experts, I am reminded of the story of the frog in boiling water.
There is no doubt that the latest round of Iran-Israel hostilities has crossed many lines and durably raised the geopolitical temperature in the region. Yet markets seem keen to brush this aside, comforted by the fact that we are yet to reach the boiling point of significant human casualties and physical damage in these retaliation rounds — a point that would cause significant economic and financial dislocations. Given that this is a region that is vulnerable to errors of judgment, insufficient understanding of adversaries, and implementation accidents, that could well prove too complacent a reaction.