Member Info for dgdg1

Does anyone know what the potential realistic demand is in Panama and nearby power stations eg Honduras? I have a note from Shore Capital in 12.2024 saying this power station is 50MW and consumes 100k tpa at full load, and that there are other suppliers in the "region" with power stations totalling 200MW, so another 400k tpa. I believe that this excludes Honduras but am not sure. I would be happy if someone has more precise figures please.

By that logic the fact we were not mentioned in MSC's 2023 and 2024 reports was a bad sign, yet the fact is they signed the tripartite agreement after that. So clearly it can't be an indication that they aren't interested.

Https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/07/30/keir-starmer-waking-up-to-reality-labour-north-sea-retreat/

I’m not party to Ed Miliband’s latest thinking on these issues; the man’s got religion, and won’t easily be persuaded that he’s barking up the wrong tree.

Yet closer to the heart of government, in Downing Street and in the Treasury, the negative consequences of the current policy stance are better understood, and even Miliband, now that he’s in government, is said to be more cognisant of what’s at stake.

Already, the Government is under intense pressure to change tack. Politically, any such climbdown would be difficult to manage, but beyond environmental activists, it’s hard to see who of any importance might complain.

Certainly, it would be difficult in terms of public relations. Inevitably, it would be spun as the UK giving up on climate change, even though, if other aspects of the energy transition are maintained, it would not in practical terms make a blind bit of difference. What’s being asked is merely a bit of import substitution.

If he has in increased shareholding then he has an increased exposure.

MPO818, I see, but I think it's strange as we were at 160p a couple of weeks ago after the enviromental guidance came out, so not sure what changed here.

So do we know of any clear reason for the share price slide? Is it because of worries that the left wing of Labour are in the ascent with potential ramifications for the windfall tax? Or is it some other reason?

From the Telegraph article:

However the new rules could lead to approval for many other such developments, potentially including the giant Cambo oil field controlled by Ithaca, which is also involved in Rosebank.

This is because the legal rulings that led to Rosebank and Jackdaw being blocked also froze development of many other UK fields whose licences had been issued under the same flawed assessment system.

These are thought to include the next phase of BP’s giant Clair oil field and Serica Energy’s Buchan Horst field.

Martin Copeland, of Serica Energy, said he would welcome any such move by the Government.

“These legal rulings have caused a hiatus across the North Sea,” he said.

“It goes far wider than Rosebank and Jackdaw. There are many other smaller developments that have been held up, impacting the supply chain companies and all their workers.”

"Badenoch: Scrap net zero windfall tax on oil companies" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/06/12/badenoch-scrap-net-zero-windfall-tax-on-oil-companies/

"....The retention of first year investment allowances in the Autumn Budget indicated that there are receptive ears in some parts of government, and that people are looking at the facts and not being swayed by an increasingly irrational debate. This is encouraging. Less so is the absence of a government response to the consultation about environmental guidance which closed in early January. When such lack of clarity is added to the uncertainties about licensing and the future tax price mechanism, the result is stalled investment and erosion our world class supply chain capability."

Serica statement "Of course, committing to invest in such growth opportunities will only be possible with an appropriate regulatory and fiscal environment. It is absolutely vital for the future of the UK North Sea that the outcome of the current government consultations is resolved quickly and in a manner that supports a homegrown industry with the potential to deliver significant benefits to the UK for many years to come.

The impact of the inappropriate fiscal environment, and the years of uncertainty, is already taking a heavy toll. Production across the basin fell 5% in 2024, drilling activity is at a record low, 10,000 jobs have been lost, and companies continue to exit the UK North Sea. All of this will reduce tax receipts going forward and, given demand which will not go away any time soon, lost production will have to be imported - imports which are worse for the environment since they involve significantly increased emissions.

Current commodity prices very clearly do not represent windfall conditions, and the tax rate of 78% is entirely inappropriate at a time when the government should be doing everything in its power to boost vital energy security and to support economic growth.

It is so very frustrating to see the UK North Sea industry becoming embroiled in a wrongly polarised discussion about Net Zero. The reality is the UK needs oil and gas and renewables, it is not either/or, and we should be investing at pace in all forms of energy. However quickly the UK proceeds with its transition to an increased share of renewables in the mix, we will require oil and gas for decades to come. North Sea production does not just provide vital domestic energy, it also is the lifeblood for a world class domestic supply chain which includes the very same companies needed to deliver energy transition projects.

The Climate Change Committee's energy transition pathway to net zero in 2050 estimates that the UK will need between 13 and 15 billion barrels of oil equivalent between now and then. Our homegrown oil and gas industry could deliver roughly half of this amount - which is materially more than the estimates which accompany the recent consultation document from the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero ('DESNZ'). Delivering on this potential would also bring an economic benefit of £350 billion. The demand is not going to go away, and making the fiscal and regulatory environment impossible for homegrown oil and gas simply increases the amount that we will need to import. This has a triple bottom line of being bad for jobs, bad for communities, and bad for the economy. It is also very clearly worse for the environment, given that the UK North Sea emissions are an average of one quarter those of high emission imports - with new fields one fifteenth the emissions of LNG imports. All of the facts suggest that our industry should be supported by the government....."

Thanks to dickupham for posting that article.

Would someone please be kind enough to post this article for the benefit of those who can't access it? Thanks very much.

Yes, that's what I'm hoping too - i.e. it's just profit taking, I was just worried that there had been some negative news from somewhere which I hadn't spotted, but it seems no-one else has either.

Does anyone know the reason for today's price fall please?

After the attempted fundraising didn't raise the minimum needed, it was already announced and public knowledge that the share would be delisted - so I don't follow why the price has suddenly fallen today so much. Does anyone know what was new in the announcement that people didn't know before, that caused people to suddenly sell?

According to the announcement on 24th January "Results of the Retail Offer announced by 6.30pm on 30 January" - has anyone seen any such announcement?

The retail offer is at 3p. This is clear because the first paragraph defines the "Issue Price" as 3p, and the second paragraph talks about " a retail offer to raise additional gross proceeds of up to £1 million at the Issue Price". Also, the number of shares stated to be issued in the retail offer is 33,333,333 and it raises £1m.

I do have a question though: The first paragraph says that the ABB will "raise gross proceeds of a minimum of £3 million." - i.e. it could be more if they choose. Whereas the second paragraph says the retail offer will be for "up to £1 million" - which sounds like that is a maximum and not a minimum. But later on under "Details" it says "Under the Retail Offer, up to 33,333,333 new Ordinary Shares (the "Retail Offer Shares") will be made available at the Issue Price, although, in the event the Retail Offer is oversubscribed, the amount to be raised pursuant to the Retail Offer may be increased depending on the additional demand." So clearly it could also be more. So I'm not sure why at the beginning they imply that only the ABB can be increased but not the retail offer.

Market cap is now over £120m

DON and Vince, you may be right that it's all not very relevant. I still think Quadrise should explain this point though, so I have emailed them asking and we will see what they say.

As an aside, I think the mostly likely good news in the short term is the bilateral agreements re MSC, and confirmation that the OCP trial has at least started. That should hopefully help the share price even if it takes a bit longer to get positive news from Utah, as I suspect it might (though hopefully I am wrong on this).

Absolutely clear.