Member Info for Dumbly

You're right, Darren, dividend received in HL. When I made my comment earlier, I thought today was... Thursday (home alone, family away, and lost track of time a bit this week :) )

The dividend payment date is tomorrow.

“Today, EnQuest appears to have roughly $675 million of immediately accessible liquidity, of which $269 million is cash. A reasonable estimate is that EnQuest could pursue UK production acquisitions in the $500 million–$1 billion+ range, depending on asset quality, financing terms, oil prices, and seller structure.”

EnQuest’s UK tax shield, the $3b or so of tax losses only have real value when consumed, and the faster consumed the higher the value. A “massive” purchase, by EnQuest’s standards of a packet of fairly known/predicable UK production makes sense for EnQuest and could quickly “pay for itself”.

So he [Steeting] is in favour of issuing the licences? “Yes. I think that’s probably where Ed will get to. When he makes a decision, I’d be surprised if that wasn’t the case. We’ve also got to listen to what GMB [union] is saying. Listen to what Unite is saying. Listen to what the workforce is saying. And listen to what the public are saying.”

Wes Streeting lets rip on Starmer, Blair and the economy

https://www.thetimes.com/article/f8d234a5-831e-446f-a2d0-f881e63fecbf?shareToken=63b23f8387d0ee1b47041629fd7ac72a

Thanks, Stevo. We are not so far apart in our politics/economy thinking, maybe the difference is I am expecting a change with the economy narrative taking over. I could also be delusional :)

On the lack of numbers, I accept your conclusion is the most logical. We will have a better idea in due course.

Stevo, as said, using the Major's worldwide profits to influence the public's perception is misinformation. Agree it is politics, but putting politics above the economy is a big part of the reason Labour and the country is in the mess it is in.

Yes, the EnQuest numbers are small in the overall scheme of things, but by not putting numbers, something maybe done in concert with others, reduces the risk of feeding into the politics.

Ultimately "it's about the economy , stupid", and the reports in today's Times supports the view a move in the narrative is possibly afoot.

Meanwhile, in The Times it is reported:

Keir Starmer under pressure from ministers to rethink North Sea drilling

https://www.thetimes.com/article/cc567000-e5d2-4557-9a55-ef63334aa4c6?shareToken=2e0675db277e85a734378826e2cc6396

“The Times understands that senior Labour figures have privately challenged repeated claims that new oil and gas exploration would “not take a penny off bills”. Ministers have consistently said that because oil prices are set internationally, lifting Labour’s ban on new North Sea oil and gas exploration would make no difference to the amount paid by consumers.

Some ministers and industry figures believe, however, that increasing domestic oil and gas production could strengthen the pound and lower costs. across the economy.”

Will Starmer show Miliband who is the boss or continue to allow Miliband to show the world who is the boss?

Another well-programmed Milibot. Energy Minister McCluskey repeating drone-like the Clean Energy 2030 mantra.

Q. What is biggest thing to help the British consumer [on affordability]? A. Getting the SofH re-open and getting traffic through there flowing again. “The quicker that happens the better for the British consumer and the British economy.” So… he wants oil and gas to flow as much as it can through the SofH but not as much as it can from the North Sea.

From 34:35: https://news.sky.com/share/13548555

Stevo, companies don’t breakout profit estimates by region, but those “billions” of profits of Shell and BP are mainly from activities outside the UK. Probably around 5% is from production in the UK. (Probably around 15% of Harbour’s Q1 FCF comes from UK production.) Why would RR/Treasury be interested in the 95% they can’t touch? If their focus is on this 95% it would be distorting the public’s perception. Misinformation.

The IOCs could invest in the UK but say due to the EPL they don’t have the resources or desire. If they report significant FCF increase due to the Iran situation it weakens their argument for an earlier introduction of the OGPM.

Stevo, companies don’t breakout profit estimates by region, but those “billions” of profits of Shell and BP are mainly from activities outside the UK. Probably around 5% is from production in the UK. (Probably around 15% of Harbour’s Q1 FCF comes from UK production.) Why would RR/Treasury be interested in the 95% they can’t touch? If their focus is on this 95% it would be distorting the public’s perception. Misinformation.

As the general atmosphere sounds very positive I am willing to accept the company has its valid reasons not to highlight the figures. Possibly because IOCs continue to lobby hard for an earlier introduction of the OGPM.

Staying on the fiscal conditions, I see uncertainty about these as more of a barrier to closing a UK deal than oil prices. Stevo, contingent agreements covering future oil prices are regularly included in contracts. I consider the most important factors for the company to be, in current order of priority; oil price, UK production acquisition deals, earlier introduction of the OGPM. However, without clarity about the fiscal conditions deals will struggle to get over the line. Therefore, and unless oil should drop back below $80 or so, clarity on fiscal conditions as a near essential deal enabler now becomes the top priority.

I don’t know the significance, if any, but on the day of last year‘s AGM there was an “Operational Update” with associated numbers. This year there is an AGM Statement” with few numbers/details.

Frac, what is proposed is to stop the possibility of using tax losses In overseas subsidiaries to offset trading profits realised in the UK. These tax losses normally result from exploration activities. Presumably tax treaties would not allow these losses to be used by both the foreign subsidiary and the UK holding company. On the surface it does not seem unreasonable to stop the practice of using losses in one geography and activity to offset tax in a a different geography for a substantially different activity. However, there could be unintended consequences. EnQuest should not be impacted directly, but would be good to get that confirmed. A question for those attending today’s AGM.

James Murray, just now on radio four, when asked why they are banning new licenses when we will still need oil, response was we are allowing tiebacks. He, above all, must know, without a change to the fiscal conditions few tiebacks will be taken up. Could this mean something is in the works regarding an earlier introduction of the OGPM?

Rayner just said "Living standards are barely higher than they were a decade and a half ago. People feel hopeless - that the cost of living crisis will never end, and now they see oil and gas companies use global instability to post record profits.”

She’s making oil and gas companies the focus of people’s discontent, when she has little power to touch these “record profits”. Populist grifter. Gawd help us if she becomes PM.

So, in terms of actual realised price it’s in the company’s interests the bigger and longer the market “denial” remains, as if the gap between paper and physical narrows, the more will be “lost” due to the hedging positions? Although, as some compensation, a higher paper price would allow for new hedging at a higher floor price?

Some Friday fun: https://x.com/crewkernegaz/status/2052629576355086379?s=46&t=3icqiBhgmGSnUo8L1GVnng

Well put, Hunbah. Starmer is till saying he will remain to fight the next General Election. Miliband is reported as having recommended to Starmer to set a timetable for his departure. Looks like Miliband is setting Starmer up nicely, with the objective of installing a new leader beholden to him and with more Leftish policies. The PLP wants to move more to the Left, the country wants to move more to the Right. Starmer needs to change things, many things, quickly and radically, or he will continue to get same ratings/results. Which way will he go? Seems inconceivable now it would be to the Left. The first and essential change he needs to make is to remove Miliband to show a serious start to address those multiple squeezes starting to collide. Does Starmer have the stomach to do this?

Meanwhile, Brian Gilvary, chairman of INEOS Energy, added [yesterday or today, as I understand] : “What’s going on right now (in the UK) is almost IDEOLOGICAL POLITICAL VANDALISM of a natural resource.

“We are the only nation in the world with a resource that could be developed for energy, and we’re choosing to close it down.

“That will be short-lived, that will not survive.

“Whether it survives this government – I don’t think it will survive beyond this parliament – because of the importance of that national resource.”

Https://www.agcc.co.uk/news-article/the-damned-transition-ed-miliband-must-win-over-the-dressing-room-or-workers-will-pay-the-price