Member Info for Dumbly

Australia has announced it will ramp up its extraction and use of gas until "2050 and beyond", despite global calls to phase out fossil fuels.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjq5gky4e5no

Claire Coutinho is proving skilled in getting her message across.

“From Norway to the US, advanced economies are pursuing a two-pronged approach to climate goals. We will do the same.“

https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/sustainability/energy/2024/05/new-oil-gas-licences-compatible-net-zero-claire-coutinho-energy-climate-change

Yes, Jezza, Windfall Tax may not have a direct impact on oil and gas prices. It would/is having an indirect impact on the country’s/people’s finances as it will reduce investment, production, jobs, and associated tax revenue, and increase imports (and carbon emissions). The political parties play on people not understanding the Windfall Tax does cause a net negative outcome for the country.

If there is the desire, a progressive tax regime could be designed to support investment in the UKCS. Labour has wiggle-room to backtrack on their no new licences and “proper Windfall Tax” on the “oil giants” policies.

Not saying they should, but if they really want to hit the “giants”, the UK public knows (BP, Shell) then a regime could be designed e.g. increase tax on forecourt sales profits (although, this the public would understand, as it would likely push up prices at the pumps).

I have to be in the UK from the previous Thursday and it’s unlikely i can stay a whole week, but if this changes I’ll be in contact to meet up.

Try in “Private mode”. If that does not work I can C&P it.

Worth a read: https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/552506/is-uk-energy-policy-becoming-a-political-football/

The former union boss (RMT Regional Organiser) and member of the Just Transition Commission (??) quoted extensively talks sense and must have the ear, directly or indirectly, of Labour’s Bigwigs.

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).

This situation is a reason why the “Programme” (of $15 of buybacks) could have more than just this first phase with ML until end June.

£11.9m, Skel.

Maybe ML think they can get a better price than available yesterday 🫤

At least today there should not be the buying constraint Sek referred to - buybacks not allowed at more than 5% above the average share price over the previous past 5 trading day 😂

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?

Profit, perhaps it means simply that in the instance ML does not buy shares up to the maximum for which they have authorisation then there would one or more subsequent phases of the same Programme?

Mrc, if it is like that, that to meet the liabilities of the EBT the standard procedure is to issue new shares, thereby causing a dilution, then, agreed, there appears to be no issue.

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😊

Let’s wait to understand fully, Krack, but that’s the way I understand it now. If it is like this it is completely unacceptable not stating this up-front.