Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
The Energy Policy battle-lines are becoming clearer. Will Labour judge it expedient to further modify their policy to close the policy gap?
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/exploration-production/552821/breaking-nsta-reveals-winners-of-latest-north-sea-licensing-round/?utm_campaign=EV%20Saturday%20Personalised%20Round%20Up%202024-05-04&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_term=Energy%20Voice%20-%20Newsletter
“According to OEUK, the large gas-focused licences have the potential to come on stream within the next five years.
OEUK argued the licences will make the UK less reliant on imported gas with greater carbon intensity.
The organisation’s chief executive David Whitehouse said the licences will help to “protect jobs” and power and heat UK homes and businesses.
Mr Whitehouse also said the country faces a choice in the upcoming general election to either build a “homegrown energy transition” or to import more energy and limit the growth of new wind, hydrogen and carbon capture industries.
The UK’s Conservative government has introduced legislation to mandate annual North Sea licensing rounds.
Meanwhile, the opposition Labour party has pledged to increase the windfall tax and block new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea.
“Our energy security, economic growth, and thousands of jobs in almost every parliamentary constituency up and down the UK are at stake,” Mr Whitehouse said.
“We all recognise that our energy mix must change, and our sector is ramping up renewables and accelerating the drive to net zero. But this journey will take time
Miliband in his X posts starts to refer to “the anti-net zero zealots”.
Net Zero looks more and more like a religion, with Miliband as one of its Fundamentalist High Priests. This religion now has its heretics, infidels, and non-believers and they are called “anti-net zero zealots”.
For now Miliband is given space with the judgement his net impact on attracting/keeping voters is positive, plus he and his supporters in the party have to be kept sweet. The 2 tests, tho, will be what is in Labour’s Manifesto, and how Starmer and Reeves behave when the reality of Office sets in.
This comes across to me as a good and well-balanced article. I want to send something similar to my local GE candidates, especially Labour’s , altho, no candidate announced yet.
https://www.energyvoice.com/opinion/552681/gb-energy-should-put-security-at-its-core/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Energy%20Voice%20Daily%20Newsletter%20B%202024-05-02&utm_term=Energy%20Voice%20-%20Newsletter%20%28B%20Test%29
(It is possible to view without subscribing by accessing via “private” mode).
I imagine the intention is to buy $15m of shares by end June, but I am less sure on the expectation. For sure, though, it is better not to be obliged to buy all by end June as that would gives away a lot of ML's negotiating position. Imagine they get to 28th June and it is known ML is obliged to still buy $10m.
Sek, the RNS does not say $15m WILL be spent before 30/6/24. It says:
“EnQuest PLC (the "Company") announces that it will commence the share repurchase programme of its ordinary shares of 5 pence each (the "Ordinary Shares") of UP TO $15 million (the "Programme"), as first announced at its full year 2023 results on 28 March 2024”, and
“ While the Company has launched the Programme, there is NO CERTAINTY on the volume of ordinary shares that may be purchased OR ANY CERTAINTY on the pace and quantum of purchases”
I see no evidence in the RNS that there will be a further and new Programme (although, it’s a good bet there will be, just we don’t know from when).
Steel, there is no evidence in the RNS that the shares to be allocated to the Treasury represent the first phase of the Programme. ML will buy the shares they decide to buy and the first 25m will be allocated to the Treasury – ML has no say in this internal allocation.
It is more likely that there may or may not be more than one phase of the Programme depending on whether ML manages to buy the full $15m worth by the end of their mandate.
More interestingly, what are the conditions that could exist for ML not to be able to buy the full $15m during their mandate? To note “ Merrill Lynch will make its trading decisions in relation to the Ordinary Shares independently of, and uninfluenced by, the Company”. So, again, why would ML not be able to buy $15m of shares in the next 2 months? Either unavailability of shares or the price is wrong. Effectively the same thing, no? And if the price is considered too high at any point in the next 2 months, does that mean ML expect it could be lower later? Thoughts?
Mrc, not arguing against you regarding the efficiency aspect and there may be something I am missing, but this comes across as using part of the buyback announcement to cover something, as you say, they would have had to do anyway in the future. It's like when politicians re-package something and announce it as new when they had already announced it previously. Therefore, it seems the true "new" value of the announced buybacks is the $15m minus the purchases for the EBT.
Roma, executive directors also benefit from the EBT :
It is intended that the first 25 million Ordinary Shares purchased under the Programme will be held in Treasury for issue in due course to the Company's Employee Benefit Trust to satisfy the anticipated future exercise of options and awards made to employees and Executive Directors of EnQuest PLC pursuant to certain of the Company's existing share plans.
Romaron, chiro, my point is not about an employee benefit/incentive plan, something I am of course in favour of, but that this was a pre-existing liability, so something they had to do anyway. The buybacks announcement did not specify that the first 25m of shares (a third or so of the buyback amount, so significant) were actually already baked in. They could argue the EBT liability is only a potential future liability, based on company results, but that would still not wash, as in that case as the potential liability becomes an actual liability, they should purchase company shares to replace the ones they are purchasing now, and that would defeat the objective of what they have announced. By all means, if the numbers work, buy shares now and put them in the EBT to cover their liability, but that should be separate and in addition to the announced buybacks.
Maybe this could be viewed as all part of the game, smart/clever behaviour – I view it as crafty, and I would not feel comfortable buying a used car from someone who plays with information in this way.
I will wait to fully understand but if I remain unsatisfied, I will indeed raise the matter. I’ve put it in the same file as saying 2023 was a good year based on the big gas discovery in Indonesia😊
Surely, the shares to be held for Employee Benefit Trust should be in addition to the $15m shareback. Otherwise, there has been slight of hand. The 25m shares at current SP represent about a third of the $15m. This liability of the ENT is separate and pre-existing to the Buy-backs announced? So is the Buyback $15 minus or plus the liability of the EBT?
BT, as far as I recall there is only 1 analyst note (Cannacord) currently at 33p or more. When the majority of the analysts have 33p+ it will be closer to unbelievable.
Does anyone know if there is available a consolidated list of the targets if the 5 analysts covering EnQuest?
https://www.enquest.com/investors/analyst-coverage
(James Hosie left BC over 6 months ago)
You said it right, Modestus, hypocrites.
How do people think these armaments are made and what do they run on.
It is but a small step from this to declare investments in UK oil and gas also an ethical investment.
Worth reading again what Sunky said:
He [Sunak] said: “There is nothing more ethical than defending our way of life from those who threaten it.”
At the same time, a joint statement was released by the Treasury and Investment Association on Tuesday which added that the defence [and oil and gas] industry “contributes to our national security, defends the civil liberties we all enjoy, while delivering long-term returns for pensions funds and retail investors”.
It added: “Investing in good, high-quality, well-run defence [and oil and gas] companies is compatible with ESG considerations as long-term sustainable investment is about helping all sectors and all companies in the economy succeed.”
Thanks, Therapist, I’d missed that when Mod posted it. It is reassuring to know EnQuest has direct and high quality input into OEUK, and now mainly from the smaller companies operating in the UKCS. ( Brindex seems to have become fairly non-consequential.)