Member Info for bots

Well I don’t know who came up with the H&S prediction (that ended up playing out); but there’s a giant inverse H&S forming on the 3 year chart that could see us reach £4.50 if it works out. A bit of patience required through the ups and downs though.

Yes madness; and while it persists, energy companies will continue to do as little as they can get away with in the NS. Or sell their assets. Like only last week GTE sold the serenity discovery formally owned by I3e and only acquired 6 months ago.

It’s like pass the parcel - sorry I meant to say tax bomb.

A matter of opinion.

I’d say a LTH would hold for 5 yrs plus.

That is quite late. I take it you were invested the day before the ex divi date. Silly question, I know you were.

Suggest you contact Barclays.

That could have horrendous consequences, not just for energy. If Russia backstop Iran and the US backstop Israel then we have WW3.

Get your camos out.

Egghead

Assuming you owned shares at the ex div date you’ll receive just over 10p per share. The info is there in the RNS statements, yeah?

It’s up to you broker to add money or roll your account and you should receive a purchase statement once you roll back in.

There can be a delay depending on your broker. I receive my dosh on the 22nd and added 6k shares at just over £1.71 manually - Thanks Linda ;-)

EPL destroying growth and jobs, reducing energy security and increasing carbon production overseas as we import energy from the US and Norway.....And the kicker is that it's not bringing in much tax because there isn't much of a windfall to tax with the NS shutting down operations and investment.

Stupid Govt policy.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-14731299/Windfall-tax-destroying-North-Sea-oil-threatening-growth-analysts-warn.html

Manfor

So why are none of these big US oil companies bidding for HBR ?

Two reasons.

1. The current debt situation which should resolve in the next couple of years.

2. The BASF overhang.

Once cleared, the I expect HBR to be a valuable TO target.

You can’t believe politicians.

Probably trying to justify job losses in Scotland.

Suggest folk start looking at Reforms policies cos they’re more likely to be in power next time. Four years is nothing to big business.

In the meantime Harbour need to focus on offsetting the impact of the EPL by growing production away from the UK - it’s the whole idea behind the WD acquisition and they’re totally on it by all accounts.

Whether the conclusions from the EPL consultation will ultimately benefit oil and gas companies operating in the North Sea is a complex question with no guaranteed "yes" or "no" answer. The outcome will likely involve a trade-off between the government's need for revenue and the industry's need for a stable and predictable investment environment.

Here's a breakdown of potential benefits and drawbacks for companies:

Potential Benefits:

* Long-Term Certainty: The primary benefit the consultation aims to provide is clarity and certainty about the fiscal regime beyond the temporary EPL. A well-defined, permanent mechanism would allow companies to make more informed long-term investment decisions.

* Price-Triggered Mechanism: If the new mechanism is indeed price-triggered, it would only apply during periods of genuinely high oil and gas prices. This means that during more normal price environments, companies would likely face a lower overall tax burden than under the current EPL.

* Potential for Investment Incentives: The consultation acknowledges the need for continued investment, particularly in the context of the energy transition. The final mechanism might include some form of investment allowance or incentive, although the appetite for this after the EPL experience remains to be seen.

* Simpler Administration (Potentially): A revenue-based model, which the government seems to favor, could be simpler to administer than a profit-based levy with complex deductions, potentially reducing compliance costs for companies.

* More Predictable Cash Flows: A clear and predictable fiscal regime would allow companies to better forecast their cash flows and plan future projects.

Potential Drawbacks:

* Taxation During High Price Periods: Even if price-triggered, the new mechanism will still extract a portion of revenue or profit during high-price periods, limiting the upside for companies when market conditions are favorable.

* Revenue-Based Model Concerns: If a revenue-based model is adopted without sufficient consideration for operating costs and investment, it could still disincentivize production from higher-cost fields or marginal projects, even if prices are above the trigger threshold.

* Threshold Levels: The level at which the price trigger is set will be crucial. If the thresholds are too low, the mechanism could be activated frequently, effectively acting as a persistent higher tax rate.

* Tax Rates: The tax rates applied under the new mechanism will also significantly impact profitability. If these rates are too high, they could still deter investment.

* Uncertainty Until Final Legislation: Until the final legislation is enacted, uncertainty will persist, potentially delaying investment decisions.

The consultation on the Energy Profits Levy (EPL) and the future fiscal regime for the North Sea, which closes on May 28, 2025, is aimed at establishing a long-term mechanism to tax oil and gas profits during periods of unusually high prices, after the EPL is set to expire in 2030 (or earlier if the Energy Security Investment Mechanism is triggered).

Given the stated objectives of the consultation and the current sentiment surrounding the EPL, here are some potential conclusions:

* A New Price-Based Mechanism is Likely: The government has clearly stated its intention to implement a new mechanism to capture windfall profits when oil and gas prices are high. Therefore, a continuation of the status quo beyond 2030 seems unlikely.

* Focus on "Unusually High" Prices: The core principle of the new mechanism will likely be to only activate when prices exceed a certain threshold, aiming to balance revenue generation for the government with the need for continued investment in the sector. Defining what constitutes "unusually high" will be a critical outcome of the consultation.

* Revenue-Based Model (RBM) Favored: The consultation documents suggest a preference from the government for a revenue-based model over a profit-based model due to its simplicity and ease of administration. If adopted, this would mean taxing revenue above a certain price threshold, without deductions for costs.

* Separate Thresholds for Oil and Gas: To reflect the distinct market dynamics of oil and gas, the new mechanism might incorporate separate price thresholds for each commodity.

* Consideration of Investment: While the EPL has been criticized for disincentivizing investment, the consultation aims to design a new mechanism that allows for continued investment, particularly in the context of the energy transition. The thresholds and tax rates will need to be set at levels that don't completely deter investment.

* Long-Term Certainty: A key goal of the consultation is to provide the oil and gas industry with greater certainty about the long-term fiscal landscape to aid investment decisions. The outcome will likely aim for a predictable and transparent mechanism.

* Interaction with Net Zero Targets: The consultation also takes into account the UK's net-zero targets. The new mechanism will need to be framed within the context of a declining oil and gas sector and the transition to cleaner energy sources.

* Continued Dialogue: Regardless of the specific mechanism chosen, the consultation process itself indicates a willingness by the government to engage with the industry and other stakeholders to find a workable solution.

In conclusion, the consultation is likely to result in a new, permanent mechanism for taxing oil and gas profits in the UK, triggered by unusually high prices. While the exact form and thresholds remain to be seen, the emphasis on a revenue-based model and the need to balance revenue generation with investment and the energy transition are likely

Maybe OPEC simply want to keep oil off Trump's agenda.

https://www.macrovoices.com/podcasts-collection/macrovoices-podcasts

There maybe a reason for Goldman downgrade other than value of HBR. To keep the price low perhaps?

BASF - Nothing asked or mentioned.

Two BASF affiliated directors were present. Tempted to ask but felt it may be imprudent and put Linda on the spot.

With regards to the buy out - breath on it. Very delicate discussions will be in progress me thinks.

AGM has just finished. It’s a quick affair with voting and a few questions. Since there were no takers I jumped in with a question on the impact of Trump and the dollar strength.

Linda mentioned that the company doesn’t cross the trade border with the US in any significant way, so Trump tariffs don’t impact Harbour; unless Trumps policies lead to a recession and reduced demand for energy. Concerning FX, the CFO mentioned that again, through diversification of the portfolio, the company deals with many currencies which, through diversity, has a flattening effect on currency exchange (should the Dollar weaken for example). The board were upbeat and Linda made an effort to engage with the few PIs that attended to her credit.

She didn’t shake my hand though; but then I was dressed in denims (rather than a stuffed shirt); she may have thought I was there to tidy up ;-)

No presentation (it’s online), and no coffee :-/

Also no Stop Oil protest - though there were 4 police vans parked near the venue.

200p final offer would be rejected by the board before even being presented to shareholders. Harbour isn’t in any distress, it’s just mis-priced by the market.

Consider this; if someone offered to buy your house at half of its value and you weren’t desperate to sell would you accept it?

Harbour have just made a valuable company making acquisition; we’re only beginning to exploit. Consolidation will take a couple of years (which is nothing in big business) and we’ll arrive in a much better FCF position. Once we’re there, Mister market will have to triple the current price before I even consider selling.

Saudi can ride out cheap prices. US shale companies can’t. It’s a tactic they’ve used before, drive shale out of business and you reduce the competition.

HBR are aggressively paying down debt over the next couple of years and are clearly in a better place following the WD acquisition with far less focus on the UK.

Imagine where FCF will be in a few years.

I think peeps are forgetting that the EPL only relates to profits from the NS and UKCS. Harbour now has production from many sites worldwide, many with far less punishing tax regimes; unlike most of last year.

I agree, Harbour need to step away from the NS and let the mushrooms in the Labour Party sink.

Which reminds me that I need to vote today. A good Reform polling should give Labour the biggest kick.

Well my reinvested divi ought to get a good swatch of these.