Member Info for Dumbly

Custardpot, politics, and life, is all about choices and trade-offs. The stats in this poll can be cut and tortured as needed to support the narrative desired.

Of the 60% who support Net Zero, 56% said they only “tend” to support Net Zero. And of the NZ supporters, a… majority say action on cost of living is a greater priority than cutting carbon emissions.

It’s tough to have “la botte piena e la moglie ubriaca” (the barrel full and the wife drunk).

😆

Doomberg’s view is “you will see the mother of all [oil] gluts when this crisis is over”. AB in negotiating with sellers of UK production will know this is a distinct possibility. He recently said something about the need to be very careful of the downsides of this crisis.

From 18:01 about the UK “Britain used to make steel you know they used to burn coal. Um now they have Ed Milliband and wind turbines and solar panels. The least sunny developed country in the world. I mean you might as well put solar panels in uh in Greenland. Um it's really mind-boggling like so there's a giant theme that we're going to have to really I mean just bring it to the forefront but it weaves its way through the whole narrative that you and I are going to spin today which is um what explains this because they're not dumb people individually. Um, but the collective abandonment of physics and the well-being of your indigenous populations is one of the great mysteries of the modern era.”

“…the Norwegians are producing far more oil from the same North Sea um that the British have split with them. Um, you know, if you if you prohibit the oil and gas industry from exploring, they won't invest to prove reserves. And then you could point to the lack of proved reserves as um as proof that the juice isn't worth the squeeze. It's a circular argument,...”

“They've been swindled by somebody into believing that intermittent sources of renewable energy are a superior form of primary energy for the organization of modern society and that it just fails the entropic test”.

“Look, for all of the greenwashing that appears in a contemporary content creation space around China's headlong rush into wind and solar, um the raw numbers tell a completely different story and basically put a lie to that”

From 1:04:07 an interesting view on how Iran had already planned a “rope a dope” way to counter the US/Israel attack – including employing completely new devices and profiles to get the Twitter/X algorithm to present feeds from the Iranian perspective. The view on how it ends is when Russia/China will pressure and persuade Iran enough is enough.

Should you care to listen to the whole interview: https://youtu.be/yhfHo9oiP3U?si=ofSfSuFj00dPRjZU

I imagine the discussions between EnQuest and potential sellers of UK production revolve around whether this is a “system-failure” shortish term energy spike or are we are entering a structural long term bull market for oil https://www.artberman.com/blog/a-system-failure-is-not-an-oil-bull-market/ . The hope remains that the value gap between seller and buyer can be reconciled and a deal/s be sealed in the immediate future.

Oops, the link I gave was not the video interview I intended. Was still with Judith Curry, and still interesting, but this is the interview I meant to provide the link to: https://youtu.be/iJpaINhGdTk?is=kZ8wFDh3VyduYfGZ

Off the specific board topic, but directly relevant.

Judith Curry, a climate scientist, comes across as well-informed, level-headed and with perfectly rational and date-supported views. She is routinely called a climate denier by those who wish to continue to promote climate alarmism for “religious” and/or self-interest reasons. She is not in “the science is settled” camp or takes the “consensus of scientists” view. For this, she is attacked as a “denier”. If you’re inclined to watch the video, make your own mind up on this. She is not at all overtly pro-hydrocarbons use, but does see that they are still needed, indeed essential for a long while still. She talks the language of less mitigation and more adaptation. The first half or so is about her back story and climate change in general, and the second more about the impact on Africa.

https://youtu.be/8uJYP-sLsOY?si=ExKdQ4fjNIO7Q3Lc

And the "tax relief" of $1b of tax losses, if consumed immediately and considering they can be used to offset 30%CT and 10%ST, would have a NPV of 400K, but considering their use is uncertain and consumption will be over X years, the real NPV is more like... $200k. The main point is the headline amount of the tax asset, the tax losses, is nothing like the actual value to a company.

JPMorgan cuts EnQuest Energy price target to 24 (25) pence - 'overweight'

A cut but still 30% above current price, and others have the target as 28 and 41.

Tigar, agree, emperor’s new clothes, plus it’s convenient for politicians, and not only, to have something to scare us with, something they can help protect us from and give themselves relevance and power. Net Zero has become their tool of choice to save us from the nebulous dangers of climate change. Then, when something really scary and immediately more dangerous comes along, such as war, disease, or the scarcity of an essential for modern life, such as oil and gas or water, they look pretty silly, irrelevant even, trying to argue tackling climate change still takes priority.

And Shore Capital just re-interated as a BUY with a target of 28p.

See: https://x.com/SharePickers/status/2036712403648336306

I was surprised, maybe incorrectly, and disappointed to hear AB say "getting Bressay gas into Kraken [to replace oil use] will be around the end of the decade. I read this to mean no sellable production from B&B could be expected before 2030+. However... the message AB wants to get across may well be as follows:

"This is Amjad Bseisu CEO of EnQuest plc an independent United Kingdom-based petroleum exploration and production company which operates mainly in the United Kingdom Continental Shelf. He says they have 400 million barrels of resources in the North Sea that can’t be produced due to the fiscal conditions" see - pic.x.com/BrUi90Imc5

KO, the debt figure was at 31.12.25, so was the Magnus deal included with in the figures? My reading is that the net debt figure, which had already been communicated in February, was mainly due to the oil price in 2025.

All in all, a good update. Production and dividend increases positive. Hedging a little disappointing. Ambition and outlook, great.

Van, re-submission has been done. A new ministerial decision is the pending next step. A new approval must withstand further court challenges. So, RR saying they will honour court decisions does not say much (of course they have to respect court decisions) and moves attention away from the main thing, being that Miliband first has to make an awkward decision.

The OGPM implemented sooner would be a result, and then maybe remove it after the next GE. (I still have a nagging feeling that for the OGPM how to arrange/calculate post-hedged pricing has not been worked out - I'd imagine the Independents would sacrifice some potential revenue above the thresholds for hedging right up to the thresholds).

From EnQuest's perspective new licences not so important, assuming B&B already covered as tiebacks this will be enough for them to get on with.

Thanks, Mod, after your 11:48 post, I checked Profit's post 20/3 and saw the 41p target.

Victor, is this equally valid for Heavy crude on the border between sour and sweet? My understanding is that it is, and that Heavy sweet/sour border crude is maybe even more valuable as given it's lower sulfur content it is easier/cheaper to refine. TIA.

Thanks, Mod, I missed the 41p target price in Profit's 20/3/26 post. Anyway, now we should all be aware.

Profit, this target price would have been based on the known situation at 19/3/26, so including the Magnus deal, but, I assume, excluding “hope”, such as further UK deal/s and/or, change to the fiscal conditions and more, so your optimism is likely not misplaced.

On 19/3/26 Cavendish posted a Price Target for EnQuest of 41p.

Meoryou, and global emissions would be lower.

Saint Harriet versus the rest of the world and their tired and misplaced arguments.

"On 19 March, MPs held a debate entitled 'Progress in tackling climate change'. This was a Backbench Business debate led by Luke Murphy MP. Minister for Climate Katie White MP responded on behalf of the Government."

Harriet was very much on own against the normal suspects. The issue is straightforward; if the UK will be using oil and gas, and it will be, then emissions would be lower the more oil and gas the UK produces. This, even if oil is exported to be refined elsewhere. Then there are the other benefits of jobs and revenue for the Treasury.

Harriet can be seen in action from 15:08:30 https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/ee3367ce-727d-4337-9915-2333adafa143?in=14:19:33