Member Info for Dumbly

Never, but even for this “bone” in 29, by which time Labour could well be out of power so unable to deliver on “Reeves was seeking assurances from energy companies that such a move would spur new investment, jobs and future tax revenues.” Companies treading water won’t deliver the assurances Reeves is seeking. Maybe better to up anchor and instead exploit available and better opportunities in more amenable jurisdictions?

“Reeves was seeking assurances from energy companies that such a move would spur new investment, jobs and future tax revenues.”

The industry must give an immediate and clear response that such tinkering would not spur significant new investment.

This is a joke and largely meaningless. Change from March 29 (and to what?) would only reduce the risk of Labour retaining power after the next GE latest Aug 29 and extending the EPL or doing something similar. It is not big enough to change now the dial significantly on investment. It’s tinkering. This is what AB meant as the conditions proposed/agreed being palatable but everything depending on the timing. What it will do is further spur companies with dwindling UK production and options elsewhere to sell up. Why tread water in the UK and then slowly invest to bring new production on from 2029 when there are better and easier to extract opportunities in less politically and fiscally unreliable places with less complicated/uncertain regulatory conditions? This would increase the opportunities for EnQuest to purchase production and crystallize deals to accelerate the release

of value in their tax assets. And in parallel they could, slowly slowly invest to bring on production in new pre-licenced fields from 2029. A sort of possible silver-lining but removal now of the EPL would be far better for the company, the industry, and the country. As said, this is tinkering from Labour and it will backfire on them big time.

Https://youtu.be/3s9-PDGPk_s?si=0_RA7R1GrmVch_Nw

verbal handbags today in parliament between ***** n shanks

https://youtu.be/3s9-pdgpk_s?si=1jp29ugh6pttpbhb

A very clear, concise and coherent explanation of the situation and the solution.

Https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz0x19rx0x2o.amp

“A report from the Scottish Affairs Committee says Scotland's energy sector is at a "critical juncture", and that more action is needed at both Holyrood and Westminster to protect communities from the impact of the transition away from fossil fuels.

MPs warned that the current tax regime for the oil and gas sector, which sees profits taxed at a rate of 78%, would "accelerate the decline of the North Sea oil and gas industry and its supply chain".

The report backed industry calls for the windfall tax to be reformed "as soon as possible".”

Based on the recommendations (on page 55 onwards) and especially recommendation 7, it is difficult to see how the government can ignore the recommendation to replace the EPL “as such as possible” i.e. in 2026. The government’s response to this report by 24 December 25. By then plans to implement many of the report’s recommendations may have been already announced.

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/49897/documents/267981/default/

Stevo, Serica’s tax losses can be used immediately to offset CT/ST on all the profits of this acquisition?

Harp. yes. The ESIM was introduced under pressure to make the EPL "fairer". Instead it was a sleight of hand because by requiring the 2 commodities to both be below the ESIM meant there was next to no chance of the ESIM triggering before 2030. The government has indicated the successor fiscal regime could (sounds more like "will") separate out oil and gas. You're correct that producers with mainly oil (such as EnQuest with an approximate 85/15 oil/gas split) have been harder hit by this government trickery AKA thievery.

Harp, the current ESIM (Energy Security Investment Mechanism) threshold for the financial year to March 31, 2026, is USD $76.12 per barrel for oil and GBP £0.59 per therm for gas.

Sekforde, if your assumption is correct that “There is no chance that the budget will offer anything significant to help”, and this means likely EPL will stay in place as-is until 2030, and at current conditions Serica’s revenue is projected to be 100% from UK in that period whilst by 2030 EnQuest’s revenue is projected to be around 50/50 UK/outside, would nothing “significant to help” at the budget, together with the UK tax assets position of each company, not disadvantage Serica more than EnQuest?

Trouble, or is co-ordinated to allow Miliband to get in early with attacking-defense to save-face and counter the changes in the pipeline to revitalise confidence to invest in oil and gas?

GoldenB, or sell some NS assets and still get as good a return as if they retained them and use their resources more gainfully in more fiscally secure jurisdictions elsewhere? It's not as if Harbour don't have suitable options elsewhere. Linda Cook, after the way she's been treated by the UK government for sure won't have a warm and trusting feeling towards the UK.

Stevo, re the recent NED share purchase at EnQuest, their IR has confirmed they are not in a closed period (due to results, for example) and that the NED is not on any insider list relating to M&A activity which would preclude him from dealing in EnQuest shares. My understanding is this means it cannot be assumed from that purchase that they are not close to a deal.

Could this bring things to a head between Starmer and Miliband/Left of the Labour party?

https://www.thetimes.com/article/ad1c901d-03d2-4ae1-978b-72d1eef5a6fe?shareToken=44d2e52672c1653130311702a254e662

Stevo, nit-picking, but the £133m bond matures Oct 27 and the $465m bond matures Nov 27. Again, I take your points, but the difference I see is that M&A will happen fairly soon at EnQuest. Neither view is wrong; yours is more conservative, sensible, mine more based on hope (rarely a good strategy, I admit) and something of a gamble. Along similar lines, other things could happen. Imagine, for example if at the budget for the EPL oil and gas was separated. After 2 quarters latest if (when…) Brent is below the ESIM, the EPL would fall away for oil. My point is that in the “meantime” other things can happen and, in my view, they will.

I meant M&A activity at EnQuest.

Stevo, valid reasoning although omits to consider the likelihood of some M&A activity in the meantime. (Enq’s high yield $ bond matures in Nov 27.)

Hi to you too, Zippy. My understanding is there are exceptions for NEDs to buy shares when M&A discussions are underway but very limited, and typically require pre/approval from the company and assurance that the PDMR is not in possession of inside information. This applies even if the purchase was part of a pre-agreed arrangement.