Member Info for dickupham

Mommur - I was interested in your thought on Dana's FPSOs. The WI seemed to be a good solution for BH. Dana anounced the deal was off . It implied to me there might be another buyer lined up. SQZ hasn't commented on the matter and JOG's people seem relaxed about what I think they regard as a delay rather than a "back to the drawing board" type event.

I have doubts about NEO's ongoing commitment to the UKCS. Its owner is HitecVision - a Norwegian fund investing in the European energy industry, with a focus on "clean energy for the future". It calls itself: "The New Nordic Renewable Company") and has 9 different funds, of which only one (NEO Energy) has operations in the UKCS.

https://hitecvision.com/investments/

One imagines it was attracted to Buchan Horst by its very low projected carbon output. JOG has focused all along on bringing the oil (and a limited amount of gas) to the surface with a carbon footprint of around 1kg/boe vs the UKCS avge of 22kg/boe. It's always been intended the FPSO would be made ‘electrification-ready’ prior to redeployment to the field, for eventual connection to one of the anticipated third-party floating wind power developments supposedly to be located in close proximity to the GBA "following the Innovation and Targeted Oil & Gas (INTOG) licence awards made by Crown Estate Scotland in 2023". As it's the public sector involved you can forget about that in the lifetime of anyone interested in the field. But that's not really the point - Ed has said it's going to happen and that's good enough. Time doesn't matter to politicians and the public sector except when it comes to destroying nasty UK oil and gas - and the UK economy with it.

All this is relevant to SQZ, as it has a 30% WI in the GBA, estd to produce 10-12kboe/d from 40mmboe of 2P reserves (SQZ's share).

Back to HitecVision/NEO, Hitec will no doubt be looking to provide above-average returns for its HNW investors. Its UK "arm" NEO will be a big disappointment and spoiling those returns. It became widely known in late June last year that Repsol and NEO were in talks about combining their respective UKCS ops. Nothing was seen to have come out of those talks:

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/repsol-talks-merge-uk-north-sea-operations-with-neo-sources-say-2024-06-28/

Then NEO said it had materially slowed down activities (inc Buchan Horst) pending clarity around the UK regulatory and fiscal framework. It has radically cut its senior management team, which to me makes it more likely Hitec will sell NEO, not merge it with Repsol (or anyone else). When the Buchan rig failed on H&S grounds in 2017, the owners (Repsol Sinopec) couldn't agree on how to proceed. Repsol liked Buchan and supported extensive repairs. The Chinese didn't. The licence was handed back. JOG was awarded it in 2019.

Things could happen fast if DESNZ ever gets its act together and provide guidance. Will Repsol enter proceedings?

All just speculation.

d

Lots of speculation about how the combination of ENQ & SQZ could be structured.

Just for discussion, if the aim was to have ownership of the combined operation evenly split between ENQ and SQZ holders, a deal structured as set out below might be a possibility

1. Present market caps:

ENQ £240m

SQZ £499m

2. Equalising these would mean returning £259m to SQZ holders - 66.4p per share (259m/390m)

3. ENQ has 1.85bn shares in issue and SQZ has 390m.

4. ENQ issues 1.85bn new shares and offers these to SQZ holders at the rate of 4.74 new ENQ shares (1.85bn/390m) for each SQZ share held

5. Assuming a consistent share price of 13p (ENQ) and 128p (SQZ), ENQ holders (who would need to do nothing) would still own 1.85bn shares, but these would now represent 50% of a company with twice its pre-deal market cap (all things being equal), with twice the number of shares in issue.

6. SQZ holders would end up owning 4.74 x 390m = 1.85bn shares in ENQ @13p. Each "old" SQZ would be worth 4.74 x 13p = 61.6p.

7. Total value to SQZ s/hs = 61.6p + 66.4p - or 128p per share.

It would, however, be a gross dereliction of duty if SQZ's directors were to pursue a business combination with anyone while its shares are so undervalued. SQZ is in the middle of a period of punishment by the market for f***ing up an otherwise more than promising future when SQZ's former directors threw shareholders under a bus by acquiring Tailwind, leaving them badly exposed to a Swiss hedge fund. The effects of what now appears to have been poorly executed (at best) engineering due diligence have most recently been punished even more by a market that needs little encouragement to smash the SP of companies that fall short of expectations. What should turn out to be only a temporary drop in production from the Triton hub, which in reality could be to SQZ's ultimate advantage as the oil is still there and it's difficult to see it coming to the surface when oil prices and tax payable are worse than they are today.

It would also surprise me if ENQ was willing to proceed before the FPSO problems are resolved.

As for heavy oil trading at a premium to light crude, pull the other one. And Bentley being the "great white hope", ditto.

Courtesy of "romaron" on the ENG blog earlier:

https://www.solicitorsjournal.com/sjarticle/serica-energy-executive-citizens-arrested

It would be funny if it wasn't symptomatic of the utter stupidity of too many people, including politicians hell-bent on shutting down the UKNS

https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Grok-3-Review-V5-1.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

dyor

Many thanks for your eloquent and considered response to my questions, Mommur. Sorry to have committed you to the task - the constant uncertainty I you and countless other investors in the UKCS O&G industry have had to endure these last 3 years (in particular) is shameful. Government is responsible for most of it. Politicians neither know nor care about anything other than votes. In their eyes money buys those and the companies they raise (steal) it from can go hang as far as they're concerned. Reminds me fo the old one that used to apply to solicitors. What do you call 650 politicians loaded onto a boat, towed 6 miles out to sea and scuttled in 2000 feet of water? Ans? "A good start".

I sincerely hope the problems with Triton soon resolve. Looking back at forecast production numbers when the Tailwind deal was imposed on us, then adjusting for natural decline and adding production from the new wells, surely 50kboe/d+ should be achievable? The availability of b/fwd losses should lead to considerable cash generation - and therefore the maintenance of (even increase in) dividend.

Wearing my JOG hat, the thought of going back to the drawing board on the GBA development concepts is a huge concern. I was pleased to learn you think it unlikely for the reasons stated. That's not to say Dana won't find another way to maximise returns from the (temporarily at least) redundant Western Isles FPSO.

The NSTA (ie the Labour Gov't) is supposed to be issuing guidance on future submissions of EIAs "in the spring". I have news for the lazy, incompetent clowns: spring has arrived (in Devon at least). Thereafter (the consultation periods end on 28 May and 31 May - expect guidance next year sometime?) we're supposed to learn that the UKCS industry as a whole backs Miliband's insane plans and (assuming it does) James Murray MP FSC (I won't say what the letters stand for) might then tell us what rates of tax the industry will be saddled with from 1 July 2030 onwards (not that Labour will be in office then unless the UK electorate which will possibly be 50% made up of 14,15, 16 & 17 year olds - ok I'm exaggerating but I'd bet a lot on 16 year old joining the list of those eligible to vote.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/building-the-north-seas-energy-future

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67c8426e75d7505462fc65a0/Oil_and_Gas_Price_Mechanism_Consultation_Final_PDF__1_.pdf

Despite all the above I remain hopeful that stability will soon return. But the last thing I'm keen to see is combining ops with ENQ. SQZ needs to resume normal operations (by June) then get on with the business of generating substantial cash. Cash is king and bring choice. SQZ needs to control its own destiny - not jump into the arms of a lesser force to benefit from "synergies", which in my experience seldom manifest as intended.

Thanks, again Mommur. Like you my interest is driven by dividends. Long may they continue

dyor

Thanks for your thoughts, Mommur. What I was really getting at (re Neo/JOG/Buchan Horst) is that Dana Petroleum is a kind of "common denominator" by virtue of its 77% ownership of the Western Isles FPSO vessel that was originally built and brought into service (at a cost of $2bn) in the Harris & Barra fields. Production was disappointing and it was taken out of service in May last year. https://www.dana-petroleum.com/what-we-do/united-kingdom/western-isles-fpso/

The Buchan Horst JV partners (JOG is fully carried) reached agreement to buy the WI (which has been in wet storage in Scapa Flow for the last 6 months or so, but I see is now on its way somewhere: https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/details/9736171

There was a long stop deadline of 28 Feb 2025 for the sale of the vessel to the Buchan Horst JV partners, following which work would commence to adapt the vessel for use on the Buchan development. Neo (operator) announced a while back that in view of all the uncertainty caused by the UK's destructive Government, it was "slowing everything down" until a clearer picture emerged on the future of the UKCS. The general expectation was that the agreement re sale and purchase of the WI from Dana would be rolled over when 28 Feb 2025 arrived, but Dana announced shortly afterwards that it had cancelled the agreement. The assumption seems to be made that this is just a timing issue. Maybe it is, but the Western Isles is critical to the GBA project - the whole concept is built around its adaptation for use on it.

I know very little about the technical side of the industry and therefore whether using an adapted WI to replace Triton is a viable option. What I do get a very strong sense of is that we're not being told what's really going on. Serica has an interest in both the GBA (Greater Buchan Area) development (30%) and the Tailwind fields relying on Triton (48%).

The question is whether Triton has a viable economic future, given its age, the fact it has undergone considerable "refurbishment" to extend its life to 2030 and beyond. Much was said by the firm that carried out all the work about how successful everything had been but it doesn't look that way to me.

So for me, the $64,000 question ( a lot more actually) is: is replacing Triton with the WI a viable option - from a commercial and engineering perspective? And - if it is - how much would it all cost and for how long would dependent operations be offline.

Sorry if you regard all this as silly/ignorant. I was only an 'umble bookkeeper when I was young enought to work and I hung my boots up earlier than most so I don't know or understand very much. If I did, I wouldn't have bought the shares I did in the volumes I did. How was I to know the UK Govt would steal every last penny of profit of UKCS-focused O&G companies, all part of the process destroying the UK economy.

What more can one say?

........a couple of typos in my 21.13 hrs post:

1. The debt taken on in the deal was £277m, not 227m

2. The link I provided was dud: try this one - it's to SQZ's RNS of 20 Dec 2022, announcing the deal:

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SQZ/proposed-acquisition-of-tailwind-energy-5a6sz68ryw52irb.html

3. The characters who didn't show up for the party were Steve Edwards and Jacques Tohme.

In light of what's happened since the Tailwind deal, it might be worth considering something in the nature of a "shareholder action group" retrospective examination of what MF and ACW actually ended up buying from Mercuria. I wrote to ACW at the time, asking a number of questions he largely ignored, his response being: " I am also a very significant shareholder and would not be supporting this transaction if I felt that it was value-destructive or impacting the Company’s independence. I am not sure why you think the Board would put forward a proposal if it felt otherwise.

In my own case, both my last two companies (Charterhouse and Monument) each had a very material shareholder. Both were very successful and the existence of those large shareholders contributed significantly to their success.

The Board fully believes that, in the complex world in which we have to operate, the Company will be much stronger and resilient and able to maintain its growth objectives as a result of the transaction than on a stand-alone basis and stands by its recommendation". We would need someone in the nature of Jeremy Raper of Raper Capital (remember his open letter to SQZ's Board which was stusiously ignored?) to do the necessary digging.

I wonder who did the engineering due diligence on Triton?

Select comments re Tailwind producing assets:

20/02/2023: The Gannet GE-04 well was drilled late in 2022 and completed in January 2023.

The well results were above the pre-drill expectation and initial production rates have exceeded 10,000 barrels of oil per day.

Mitch Flegg, Chief Executive of Serica Energy, commented:

"Including the Tailwind Acquisition assets, we have an exciting investment programme of value-adding activities throughout 2023 and 2024 which has started with the Gannet GE-04 well being brought onto production. We are delighted with the strong initial results".

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SQZ/corporate-presentations-for-agm-4tecwswa6jdj7fr.html

"Net production for the combined Serica and Tailwind portfolios has averaged over 49,000 boe/d YTD (to 24 June 2023)"

Note that in June 2023 it was running at 56,582 boe/d".

Since then the B6 well in Bittern and the GE-05 well have moved to production.

The production numbers don't stack up to me. What am I missing in refusing to accept we've been told everything when I read of target overall production from both hubs of 40kboe/d?

Combining ops with ENQ would provide a great opportunity to further muddy the waters - turn the attention elsewhere.

I don't like it one bit

dyor

...clearer

dyor

Well said, DTP, NQM & Megla. It would be madness to enter into serious M&A talks with so much hanging in the air.

The (soon to be more precisely quantified) mess SQZ currently finds itself in is in large part down to Flegg's/ACW's desperate attempts (at any cost) to prevent Andrew Austin of KIST injecting life and energy into SQZ, which had failed to add to BP's exceptional generosity in gifting it the BKR assets.

Goodness knows why ACW brought MF back on board after he'd so expertly steered Circle into the knacker's yard.

The 27% of shareholders (inc me) who voted against the Tailwind "acquisition", which cost shareholders control, £58m in cash, as well as increased debt of £227m. For what? Oil production that has failed to materialised, thanks to Tailwind's crappy FPSO that in the year to 31/12/24 produced a great deal less than we were promised.

Re-read what Flegg told us at the time: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SQZ/proposed-acquisition-of-tailwind-energy-5a6sz68ryw52irb.html..............how much of that turned out to be true?

Edwards and Twomey never arrived. Flegg, ACW and "jobs for the boys" Andy Bell, the geriatric 17 year financial controller promoted to the Board as CFO on too big a package, were gone inside a year, bank accounts overflowing from countless exercised 'in the money' options and in Flegg's case a salary increased to well over £1m pa following the "acquisition"/act of self destruction.

Net production of 40-47kbpd was forecast when SQZ s/hs were sold down the river by ACW and Flegg. The combined SQZ and Tailwind were producing 27kbpd in total by Feb 25 (with Triton off-stream). SQZ alone produced an avge of 26,182kbpd in 2022. This fell to 23,727bpd in 2023.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SQZ/operations-update-0pmdwz109eonutd.html

There is so much uncertainty here it's difficult to see how any combination of SQZ with ENQ can sensibly proceed in the timescale outlined - or at all. Mommur can hopefully put my mind at rest re my holding in JOG (and in SQZ). Dana Petroleum's failure to extend the date of the agreement with NEO (23% owner of the Western Isles 8 year old FPSO vessel - Dana owns the other 77%) concerns me. Could the WI be adapted for used in place of Triton ? Terms had been agreed between Dana and the Buchan JV, but delays caused by politicians scuppered these just as it emerged extensive work could be needed to extend Triton's useful life. Might Triton be beyond its useful life?

I've been badly financially scarred by incompetent and dishonest politicians and what I regard as disingenuous former execs in SQZ. Who needs Miliband when you've got so many others who are no less harmful to one's wealth.

On a brighter note, perhaps the news we get in May will be positive and the proposed deal with ENQ just a bad memory. A period of serious cash generation could then be ahead as the situation stabilises. Expansion imv should be shelved until Labour's stance on scope 3 emissions and tax is

Https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=alliance+for+responsible+citizens+-+net+zero&newwindow=1&rlz=1C2CHBF_en-GBGB985GB1009&sca_esv=248c1a1232d6ce85&sxsrf=AHTn8zowZh_yjwo2uAttm42JPpFXKB1HDg%3A1741534034544&ei=UrPNZ5v9IJW0hbIPuef28AM&oq=alliance+for+responsible+citizens++net+zero&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiK2FsbGlhbmNlIGZvciByZXNwb25zaWJsZSBjaXRpemVucyAgbmV0IHplcm8qAggAMggQIRigARjDBDIIECEYoAEYwwRIqtACUJgKWMytAnABeAGQAQCYAYkFoAG_OaoBDDcuMTguNi4zLjAuM7gBAcgBAPgBAZgCI6ACqy3CAgoQABiwAxjWBBhHwgIGEAAYBxgewgILEAAYgAQYhgMYigXCAggQABgHGAoYHsICCBAAGAUYBxgewgIGEAAYDRgewgIHEAAYgAQYDcICBBAAGB7CAgYQABgFGB7CAgUQABiABMICCBAAGAcYCBgewgIGEAAYCBgewgIKECEYoAEYwwQYCpgDAIgGAZAGCJIHCDcuMTcuNy40oAez2gE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:707e57c5,vid:7j7jU3cwDQw,st:0

This proposed deal is even worse imv than the Tailwind - good for everyone except shareholders. Haven't read the small print yet but you can bet your bottom dollar the directors of both companies stand to make a lot or it wouldn't be being proposed. If I was asked to summarise Enquest, I'd say it was a company up to its ears in debt, producing heavy oil that no doubt is sold at a hefty discount to Brent Crude.

"Amjad Bseisu (owns 12.25%)

Chief Executive

Key strengths and experience

• Extensive energy industry and leadership experience

Amjad worked for the Atlantic Richfield Company (‘ARCO’) from

1984 to 1998, eventually becoming president of ARCO Petroleum

Ventures. In 1998, he founded and was the chief executive of Petrofac

Resources International Limited which merged into Petrofac PLC

in 2003. In 2010, Amjad formed EnQuest PLC, having previously

been a founding non-executive chairman of Serica Energy PLC

and a founding partner of Stratic Energy Corporation. Amjad was

chairman of Enviromena Power Systems Ltd., the largest solar power

engineering company in the MENA region, until its sale in 2017 and

was British Business Ambassador for Energy from 2013 to 2015".

I note the absence of an experienced qualified accountant at executive level. Maybe that's why the Company's gearing is shot to pieces?

The one thing I was content with about my holding in Serica, despite the price collapse, having sold 350k of the 450k shares I'd bought at an average of 22p per share in 2016/17 (at prices from 220p to 440p) was the commitment to the payment of dividends that provides yield based on today's price of close to 20%.

The cash needed to pay for this will just be subsumed into the huge debt Enquest apparently thinks is ok.

An unmitigated disaster to go with the other news today that JOG (in which I have a much bigger holding) now officially has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana skin. The naivety of people who think anything fair is going to come out of the present timeless public sector deliberations is bewildering. Why would anyone trust anything these incompetent, unprincipled, fundamentally dishonest clowns say after all that's happened since May 2022, when Sunak and Hunt decided near enough 100% tax was a fair rate for UKCS O&G companies to pay for the next 10 years, based on about 12 months actual bumper profits? Forgetting the politicians for a minute (Labour is even more incompetent and dishonest that the Conservatives were/are) the ones who'll be making the decisions about Finch and future tax are lazy, incompetent civil servants working from home. They'll have been briefed by DESNZ about sounding very positive about the UKCS, before disallowing every project. B.ugger off - it doesn't have enough wind turbines, solar panels etc included.

It's a battle that can't be won. Greedy, self-serving directors and misguided, dishonest and incompetent public sector types. I'm off to check out nearby cliffs/bridge

There's a third major problem we're still living with the effects of. It goes by the name Mitch Flegg.

He did very well out of the inexplicable acquisition of a white elephant which our money was used to acquire for an insane price.

We didn't

imo/dyor

.........SQZ is yielding just short of 19% assuming the dividend of 23p holds. Good time for the brave (or perhaps reckless) to invest.

Hopefully positive news is in the offing. Heaven knows we deserve some:

"We currently expect that these safety critical repairs will result in the recommencement of production in mid-to-late March"

dyor

.........."What will be the future oil price if this comes about ?"

$0 per barrel. JOG (and others) will have to rework all the numbers to reflect this, causing the share price to move into negative territory. I intend to increase my holding nevertheless because I like losing money on the stock market. In this regard, both JOG and SQZ have been excellent investments for me these past 3 or 4 years. Fingers crossed the price falls further quite quickly.

I refer investors to the comments made by Orcadian Energy's (ORCA) Chairman & CEO. Is there any reason to suppose their assessment is wrong? They seem to have approached the situation practically and intelligently. What struck me when I read it, assuming their calculations are broadly correct, was the incredibly small effect ANY proposed development will have on CO2 levels and projected temperatures. How can the NSTA turn down any application on these grounds? It's all "finger in the air" guff. I'm in the camp that refers people to historical data if you want to guage the level of accuracy in a load of brain-dead claptrap spouted by "the earth is on fire" cretins we all know about, who are now diminishing in number as it increasingly becomes clear only the UK is destroying its economy by slavishly accepting what is palpably untrue.

ORCA:

"the Finch ruling does not raise concerns for us......the impact of Scope 3 emissions is expected to be negligible. EG: the Rosebank field will produce about 300 MMbbl of oil that, when combusted, will produce about 134 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, which will increase the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere by just under 0.02 parts per million, assuming nature absorbs nothing - a very unlikely assumption given about half of the carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuels since the industrial revolution has been so absorbed. Using the IPCC central estimate for the impact on global temperatures of a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (3ºC) ...... could increase global temperature by less than two ten thousandths of a degree, far below the level that any creature could perceive.

.....Constraining supply can only impact demand by increasing the price of energy. Increasing the price of energy will undermine support for any climate action. So politicians and engineers alike need to focus on delivering low-carbon energy for the lowest cost possible.

There is no harm in quantifying the impact of Scope 3 emissions, as their effect is expected to be negligible. As to emissions in the production process we are confident that the right approach is to minimise those and to eliminate the bulk of the transportation emissions by producing oil and gas in our own backyard.

We will have to wait and see how govt intends to tax the industry in the longer term. We hope for a balance between ensuring a fair return for investors and maximising govt revenues........ the current fiscal regime is demonstrating exactly how the Laffer curve works in practice, we are on the wrong side of it. Govt revenues will rise with a more attractive fiscal regime. We are confident that sense will prevail, and the industry will have a bright future in the UK............taxes have gone too high and the hurdles development projects have to clear have become too many. Things will change.. ."

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/ORCA/results-for-the-year-ended-30-june-2024-4rkfjsdo6szjqhh.html

jfi - dyor

Contd

Ref the Finch appeal, the Supreme Court has punted the problem back to the Regulator (NSTA) which henceforth must also consider every submission on its “scope 3” emissions. Gone are all references to the NSTA "maximising economic returns" (MER). In its place is a load of woke guff about how wonderful everything will be in la la land (as brought to our attention by Einbert recently).

The GBA joint venture (JV), comprising Neo Energy, Serica Energy and a fully carried JOG has detailed plans in place, but is denied the opportunity to submit a FDP for approval because the NSTA is closed for business until someone tells them what to do next.

I wasn’t expecting the NSTA to become the enemy. It now comprises about 200 inept and bone-idle civil servants mostly “working from home”, on salaries most private sector workers can only dream of, as they await the opportunity to retire early, hopefully for them as a result of voluntary redundancy packages paying 6 figures+, followed by defined, RPI-linked final salary pension payments impossible to secure in the private sector, but for them, payable from the age of 50 onwards - all funded by us as we struggle to stay solvent.

Somewhat strangely, it seems to me most likely the NSTA will get its next steer from Govt – hopefully a Govt that no longer includes the clownish eco-zealot (Milibunt). The fact is: the Govt needs the money (in taxes); the country needs the energy (which won’t come from wind and solar); the industry needs certainty, or it will continue to vote with its feet. Mrs Miggins’s cat and its human rights will have to take a back seat when it tries to stop multi-billion projects vital for the Nation.

So where does all this leave JOG, which at Friday’s close had a market cap of £17m? It presently has cash of about £11- 12m and no debt. It will receive a further £16m from NEO and Serica when the FDP is approved. It also owns a 20% fully carried interest in fields containing a minimum (to JOG) of 20m barrels of 33°API oil (and some gas). Using realistic assumptions about oil prices, Opex & Capex etc, when Buchan gets to production JOG will make profits of something in the order of £50-60m per annum after tax (assumed 40%). That’s 3x today’s market cap every year. It will be taken out long before it gets to this, however.

Fwiw I have been adding in small volumes recently. To me, the present super-low price is most likely the result of a single holder (who might recently have slipped below the 3% threshold?) either losing his nerve completely, or deciding something else is a better bet.

“Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful”. So said the Sage of Omaha anyway……………..

DYOR

licences p2498 (buchan & j2) and p2170 (verbier), together referred to as the gba, are existing licences. the nsta will therefore consider a field development plan (fdp) when it is submitted and it seems likely to me that consent will be given for drilling future production wells. if these two licences, which are “world-leaders” in minimising co2 output, do not find fdp approval, then every other fdp application will similarly fail and the north sea’s demise will be complete. the uk economy will crash. the uk govt would do well to set aside billions to pay its share (or more if ukcs cos end up going bust) of accelerated decommissioning costs. and it should also prepare itself to be sued on a scale that’s frightening to contemplate for leading a merry dance to companies (who have followed all the rules over many years, spending billions moving towards production on licences issued by govt – only now to be told they’ve had the plug pulled).

it seems probable to me that sense will prevail when the outcome of the present deliberations on eias/scope 3 emissions and future tax rates are made known (within the next 2-3 months?). the gba project would then proceed to fdp approval, a final investment decision (fid) could be made and work aimed at lifting the oil (and a lesser amount of gas) begin in earnest. first oil in 2028/29 might well be a realistic target.

this totally inept and misguided government (the conservatives were/are just as bad) has no idea of the damage it is causing by *****-footing about what to do next. you can’t just say: “we’ve decided to suspend all applications until further notice” and then expect a whole industry to carry on spending as if everything was ok and the way forward was clear. but that’s what has happened.

established ukcs producers continue to quit the ns in their droves as miliband, reeves et al cluelessly dither. the one thing markets won’t take is uncertainty and labour does this in spades. who knows when the nsta will resume its role as regulator, which is to fairly consider applications submitted for future ns production. and reeves needs to understand that ukcs-focused cos won’t produce oil and gas if they’re taxed at as close to 100% as makes no difference.

by 2030, the ukcs o&g industry will have been dishonestly taxed at rates considerably in excess of 75% for 8 years, all on the back of only one short period of exceptional profits. this is thanks to the inescapable “non release mechanism” scheme dishonestly dreamed up by hunt, which showed an abject failure to understand either business or this industry. needless to say, the clueless and even more dishonest reeves took all that was disgraceful and dishonest about what the conservatives introduced and made it worse.

tbc

Prof Plimer i/v: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9NX9a2vyQE

Page 22

"Domestic gas production equated to around half of UK demand in 2024. UK to be a net importer of oil and gas out to 2050. Carbon intensity of producing gas domestically is on average almost four times lower compared with importing LNG".

Reference saving the planet, in 1841Charles Mackay wrote: "Extraordinary Polular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds", the purpose of which: "Aim(ed) to demonstrate historical parallels for almost every neurosis of our times".

I invested £3.99 in a copy. It seems incredible that almost entire populations should have embraced ANY of the popular delusions of which he wrote. I am only part way through the tome, but money appears to have been at the root of those delusions about which I have so far read (some of which I was already aware of, but not in the detail set out by Mackay). Man made climate change is a delusion of the present era.

History will record that leaders of whole nations embraced the popular delusion that a small increase over 3 or 4 decades (against a backdrop of 4,500 million years of the earth's history) of a small trace gas in the atmosphere called Carbon Dioxide, or CO2 was an existential threat to mankind when, were it to be allowed to be called so, might fairly be described as the "giver of life". Carbon based energy - abundant and affordable, leading to the enrichment of nations for the previous 175 years - was proposed to be banned by the very nations that had benefited so richly in the past. Proposals were put in place to subject the residents of one nation in particular to much reduced wealth and comfort, as wind and solar was embraced with gusto by "leaders" afflicted by Dunning Kruger syndrome.

Ref the CO2 increase, forget anything to do with natural events way beyond human influence: eg cycles involving the "the Sun; natural cycles arising as a result of the earth's irregular axis - aka the Milankovitch cycles, already widely known about but, to fit the delusion, now conveniently dismissed thus: "although Milankovitch cycles have been driving climate change for millions of years, they are not the cause of current climate change. Human activities like burning fossil fuels have had a much greater impact on climate change"; then there are volcanos, mostly deep in the oceans with effects lasting centuries. I could go on.

The linked video in the next post (there's no room here) is to an interview with Professor Ian Plimer.

He is in the same camp as, inter alia: Profs/Drs Richard Lindzen; Judith Curry; William Happer; Patrick Moore; Steven Koonin and many others not dependent of research funding (all research leading to the same conclusion) - and all of whom have been subject to "cancellation" by the deluded for opposing the Crowds.

Like Jim333, I am expecting more clarity on "where next from here for the UKCS" in the near future. Simple choice for Reeves et al to make: follow Milband and go bust, or wake up and smell the coffee.

dyor

John Masefield reincarnate?

In my experience, Poets Laureate have a chequered history in assessing the fair value of shares in listed companies. I haven't time, to write a rhyme, but I don't disagree with the consensus NAV of JOG (which, in the circumstances, imv provides a more reliable measure of value than NPV) put forward by the 4 brokers I know of who are coverung this stock. They suggest a fair value of somewhere in the range 550p-750p per share.

I guess £6 would please most, who live near the south coast. It might sound a lot, but would only just buy a yacht. I'm after a pile, in the holiday isle.

Just off to check the bus...............

dyor

...........and no doubt Jim assumes you're still sitting tight too, Surety.

I don't know if you ever look at JOG's website? https://www.jerseyoilandgas.com/investors/share-structure/

If you did, you would see that Jim's holding at 31 December 2024 amounted to 6.39%. I didn't record the 30 Sept 2024 significant holdings but Jim's holding on 30 June 2024 was 5.50%. "Under DTR 5.1.2R, a person must notify the issuer of the percentage of its voting rights they hold as a shareholder or are deemed to hold through their direct or indirect holding of financial instruments falling within DTR 5.3.1R (1) or a combination of such holdings, if the percentage of those voting rights: reaches, exceeds or falls below 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10% and each 1% threshold thereafter up to 100% (or in the case of a non-UK issuer on the basis of thresholds at 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 50% and 75%) as a result of an acquisition or disposal of shares or financial instruments falling within DTR 5.3.1 R; or

reaches, exceeds or falls below an applicable threshold in (1) as a result of events changing the breakdown of voting rights and on the basis of information disclosed by the issuer in accordance with DTR 5.6.1 R and DTR 5.6.1A R.

https://www.govcompmag.com/2024/08/22/brief-guide-major-shareholding-notifications

...........................so...... it is safe to assume there hasn't been a change in significant holdings otherwise the Company would have been informed and it would then have been obliged to issue a RNS telling us the same.

All interesting stuff. Hopefully Jim will not now feel under pressure to divulge information about his personal financial position to people he doesn't know, whose holdings are not disclosed.

I have decided not to tell anyone whether I still "sitting tight". This is just to add a bit of mystery to an otherwise dull situation you - oops; sorry "we" - find ourselves in, where all we can do is wait for news about the NSTA's attitude to EIA and scope 3 emissions and Reeves's decision on whether or not to increase the rate of tax on UKCS companies to 100% or 110% of profits when the EPL ends in June 2030. I think 200% would be fairer and Ed Miliband agrees.

DYOR

I wonder who unloaded 250k shares (@60p) at 08.00hrs yesterday? The transaction didn't show up until after the close:

19-Feb-25 08:00:43 60.00 250,000 Unknown* 61.00 63.00 150.00k O