Member Info for Dumbly

From Harbour’s Annual Report & Accounts 2023 I understand it’s unlikely they still have any UK Tax losses available: Page 23, “On a standalone basis and before any contribution from the acquisition [of Wintershall Dea] and assuming a Brent oil price of $85/bbl and a reduced UK gas price of 70 pence/therm, we expect to be marginally free cash flow positive for 2024. This is after a higher capital investment programme to support future production and c.$1.0 billion of cash tax payments, reflecting the full utilisation of our available UK corporate tax losses in the first half of 2024 and phasing of the UK EPL payments.”

Therefore, assuming EnQuest’s tax losses could be used be used against profit from some or all of Harbour’s c.180kboepd UK production, a deal to benefit both companies seems a logical possibility. Is it 50% of the profit from purchased production which can be offset using the tax losses of the acquiring company? Stevo?

Oops, Malu, I got my odds and chances mixed up. I agree the Vietnam deal probably makes a deal between the companies concerning UK assets more likely. Sorry for the confusion.

Mod, following on from your "gaslighting the public" comment, nothing new, we all know this, but what the UK is doing is just so mind-bogglingly irrational and against its own interests that one has to keep questioning if it can really be true. The UK needs a resource it has. but to virtue-signal and display pseudo-leadership it prefers not to touch that resource and instead encourages capital and jobs and tax revenue to flow from the UK to outside where the same capital will be used to “produce” the same resource which the UK then imports to use in the UK. And in doing this more emissions are created than producing the resource in the UK, the people of the UK are made poorer, and energy availability and security will be reduced just when more energy will be needed. No, I can’t be understanding correctly. This is a bad dream. Who would do such a thing? Only an irrational person/organisation more interested in their own objectives than of the wider population. And surely, at a certain point said wider population would get out the pitch forks and torches (electric ones, naturally). Reform it could well be. The further craziness is that Labour are more likely to change this situation for personal survival than economic and social sense. It must be circulating in Starmer's mind that as Corbyn had to go, Ed has to go.

Malu, or.... did the odds of EnQuest as buyer for Harbour’s UK portfolio up for sale in the North Sea just increase significantly?

Aim, that should read, the RNS states: "EnQuest WILL OPERATE the Chim Sáo and Dua fields ('Block 12W') from completion, deploying its proven late life and FPSO asset management expertise to maximise value and progress discovered resources into reserves."

Aim, the RNS states "EnQuest the Chim Sáo and Dua fields ('Block 12W') from completion, deploying its proven late life and FPSO asset management expertise to maximise value and progress discovered resources into reserves.

Thanks, Kamrat. So, EnQuest's share of the 2025 production estimate is the full c. 5.3 kboepd? (meaning, the 2025 for total estimate for the fields is c. 10 kboepd).

5.3 kboepd, when 73% is oil trading at around a $10 premium to Brent, is around 15% of the company's current production, so whilst not transformational it is certainly a significant increase. And outside the UK Treasury's clutches (not that I know the Vietnam tax conditions).

Romaron’s chiding yesterday clearly forced the company to divulge some information to keep the punters from revolting. Roll on the transformational deal.

The Vietnam deal’s net production forecast in 2025 of an average c. 5.3 kboepd is all EnQuest’s from their 53.225% equity stake or 53.125% of the 5.3 is for EnQuest?

Thanks, NewKOTB. They need to be tied together somehow, otherwise... what's the point?

(The Finch related consultation will need the outcome of the challenge to Rosebank and Jackdaw. The relevant decision should be imminent)

As reported today by Energy Voice: “ In the coming months, the UK government will consult on future oil and gas licencing, the future oil and gas fiscal regime and guidance on environmental impact assessments in light of the Finch Supreme Court judgment.”

We need to know if this is one or several consultations and the Terms of Reference to be used. And, if change to stimulate investment/growth is desired, then the consultations need to be accelerated/fast-tracked.

As reported today by Energy Voice: “ In the coming months, the UK government will consult on future oil and gas licencing, the future oil and gas fiscal regime and guidance on environmental impact assessments in light of the Finch Supreme Court judgment.”

We need to know if this is one or several consultations and the Terms of Reference to be used. And, if change to stimulate investment/growth then the consultations need to be accelerated/fast-tracked.

What is the point of new licences if the fiscal conditions are not changed?

Trump wants to drop WTI to $40. For multiple reasons, cost-of-living, encourage industry back, AI needs, to “bankrupt”/create leverage with Russia, Iran (Saudi would not be so happy about that). “Events” mean things often don’t play out as predicted, but with Trump a dropping oil price is certainly more likely.

The UK O&G industry could preempt Miliband’s recently announced new licenses consultation by saying it’s irrelevant, a moot point. State that with the current outlook, UK fiscal conditions, and the way the industry has been treated, no company would be interested in new licenses anyway. Highlight to all; government, politicians, unions, workers, the public, that the ultimate power, the final decision to invest or not, sits not with them but with the investors. If part of this consultation, its terms of reference, does not include a discussion on the fiscal policy, then Miliband and co should be told right now that there is no point wasting resources by holding the consultation. The industry needs to go from a politics of whinging to realpolitik. Donald told me.

Oct23, thanks for pointing to the Sid Smith video. Nothing new in it, but… he puts in very clear and convincing way. I also consider Matheus was right but just got his timing wrong. He did not foresee the impact of the use of millions of years of stored solar energy in a couple hundred years. In this sense, oil and gas is responsible for where we are, but moving to renewables in the way currently planned is not the solution. Of course, 100B or so “humans”, and 8B alive right now consuming like 50B, will have affected the climate. More so, as SS explains, the wider environment. I view climate change, whether driven mainly by CO2 or otherwise, as a side-show to ecological overshoot. Worse, in fact, I view it as a dangerous diversion. It also gives our leaders the ability to give us the illusion they are doing something to protect us. Then there are the Green Grifters. As SS says, switching from fossil fuels to renewables does nothing to resolve this overshoot problem. Electricity can’t be used to fertilise fields or reanimate “dead” soil or refill depleted ancient aquifers. I don’t think we can do much except adapt and accept at some point some sort of collapse will start. Maybe that’s good. Do we really need 10B of us to ensure the continuation of the species? And CO2 levels will have little to nothing to do with this collapse. In the meantime, we live our lives well and try to preserve as many species as possible. Our specialness is our intelligence, maybe now augmented by AI is what could/should save us, but certainly not long term 8 or 10 or more billions of us. I can’t see us, tho, voting for change, rather it will be forced on us.

Https://www.artberman.com/blog/climate-fatigue-why-the-story-of-saving-the-planet-isnt-selling/

Thanks, Mod, I could not access the article. Many people, including many I consider reasonable and rational, as soon as anything is said questioning the way and speed of the energy transition, launch into personal attacks. Effectively, they attempt to discredit and cancel any opposers. When told that even if everything they want to believe in is correct, that, given the consumption projections for oil and gas, the changes they want won’t change much anyway, they really go ‘nanas. If I were Miliband, on this issue I too would to prefer work on the emotions not the facts. Just yesterday he chose to politicise the fires in LA, saying “The climate crisis is not just some theoretical prospect but something we see playing out around us not least in the devastating scenes in Los Angeles.”

(Take a look here for a different view why LA is burning https://www.americaunwon.com/p/why-los-angeles-burned)

Mod, Miliband says the public does not want to turn the net zero debate into a “culture war issue”, but this exactly what he may resort to. He knows he risks to lose a debate on hard facts (9Xs cheaper, anyone, maybe another serving of subsidies?) and economic sense. Therefore, he starts to prepare the ground to , if necessary, fall back on making it appear as a culture war so to cloud the issues by appealing more to emotions.

(Continued from previous post)

“Secondly, the biggest threat to the countryside is the climate crisis. It is not some pylons. It is not solar farms.

“Thirdly, we do need a bargain with people where they will see benefit to their communities.

“Of course people worry about these things and of course people need to have a say, but I think we can bring people with us.” [but, maybe, he thinks... wrong]

This feels very significant. Why launch a consultation? Doing so acknowledges the resistance to Miliband’s plans, and it could give him a way out to modify his plans.

Below an extract from https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/565575/labour-to-consult-on-north-sea-oil-and-gas-licensing-miliband-says/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Energy%20Voice%20Daily%20Newsletter%202025-01-16&utm_term=Energy%20Voice%20-%20Newsletter

UK energy secretary Ed Miliband says the government will soon launch a consultation with industry on Labour’s North Sea oil and gas licensing policy.

Miliband told the committee that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) will soon consult with the industry, trade unions and workers on licensing.

“Our manifesto was clear about this, which is, we will keep existing oil and gas fields open for their lifetime, decades to come, we will not issue new licenses to explore new fields,” Miliband said.

“And the truth is that new licenses to explore new fields are a relatively marginal part of the future prospects for the North Sea.

“BUT [why the but? It indicates the possibility of a change of direction] we are led by the science… we can both achieve the just transition that we seek and maintain confidence and indeed tax receipts in the north seat from the North Sea, and at the same time build the future.

“And that’s what we are determined to do.”

© Shutterstock

During the committee hearing, Miliband was also asked about US president-elect Donald Trump urging the UK to “open up the North Sea” and “get rid of windmills”.

“I think it’s really important for our country, whoever the President is, to work with them and find common ground, and no doubt there will be areas of disagreement with incoming President Trump,” Miliband said.

“He will pursue his national interest, we will pursue our national interest.”

Miliband said the British public doesn’t want to see a “culture war” around climate policy.

“It is right to say that there are people who oppose our mission – siren voices who would defend the status quo despite the disastrous effect it’s had on the British public, who say we’d be better off gambling on fossil fuel markets,” Miliband said.

“I have to say I believe that would be a betrayal of working people and leave our country exposed.”

Miliband said he believes [this indicates doubt is creeping in] Labour can maintain public support for net zero policies amid concerns from communities set to host new infrastructure.

“The case we’re making to people are threefold. Firstly, if we do not build this infrastructure, we are deeply vulnerable as a country to a repeat of the cost-of-living crisis we have seen… and which still stalks peoples’ lives today,” he said.

“Secondly, the biggest threat to the countryside is the climate crisis. It is not some pylons. It is not solar farms.

“Thirdly, we do need a barga

Norway Awards 53 Offshore Oil & Gas Drilling Permits In Arctic Push

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Norway-Awards-53-Offshore-Oil-Gas-Drilling-Permits-In-Arctic-Push.html