Member Info for Dumbly

Imagine a scenario where a UK Energy and Climate Control Minister was, in one way or another, getting paid, or more likely building future “credits”, to take certain positions, and the source of the money/credits was in fact “Russia” with the aim was to further promote/accelerate the move towards renewables and away from the NS. Seems far-fetched?
The Barker Plan: How a former UK Energy Minister used sustainability to transform a sanctioned Russian aluminium firm (edie.net)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/27/conservative-peer-lord-barker-urged-quit-board-russian-firm-en-oligarch-oleg-deripaska

In the model I use fundamentals drive sentiment and not vice-versa. Sentiment cannot drive fundamentals but sentiment can act act alone as an untethered driver. I cannot measure this tho. Therefore, yes, 75p could be a scenario, but the sensitivity analysis based on the fundamentals does not suggest this.
Be lucky!

I’ve made an analysis of selected Enquest’s KPIs and plugged in reasonable assumptions to come up with a SP projection. I cannot share the model as it is proprietary, but I can confirm, in the absence of Black Swan events, the SP projection is, believe it or not, exactly… 60p. The likely timescale is within the next 6 months.
Be lucky!

An extract from Saxo's Quarterly Outlook published today: "We see 2022 as the year that will see the energy crisis changing the definition of green, bringing back fossil energy again from the cold until we can innovate our way to better energy sources. EVs charged from expensive windmills and CO2-spewing coal are a dead end for addressing climate change. The big revolution in 2022 will be to begin building our energy future on a foundation of realism, not fantasy."

I assumed EnQuest is a combo of the words Energy and Quest. If this is the case the name already encapsulates nicely the search for and development of all forms of energy and it would be a case of highlighting this in comms and actions.

Either A123 has contact with someone connected with EnQuest in someway who knows there are further issues at Magnus or he is Deramping Windup-Merchant Troll. We will find out which one before long.

L7, thanks for taking the time and the clear explanation.

Was my question (repeated below) unclear, the situation too complex for a simple answer, nobody on the board knows, or something else? TIA.

What does “an average floor price of c.$61/bbl and an average ceiling price of c.$76/bbl” mean in reality? That if POO is above $76 then only $76 is received, and if POO below $61, that $61 is received anyway? And if POO is anywhere between the floor and ceiling prices then the price received is the actual price agreed at the time?
So, in the case of the details in the last OU, “For 2022, EnQuest has hedged a total of c.7 MMbbls predominantly with costless collars…”, does this mean that Enquest can choose, at the time, when in 2022 to apply these conditions? Is Enquest obliged at some point in 2022 to have “used” the hedges for all the production amount hedged as per the OU?

What does “an average floor price of c.$61/bbl and an average ceiling price of c.$76/bbl” mean in reality? That if POO is above $76 then only $76 is received, and if POO below $61, that $61 is received anyway? And if POO is anywhere between the floor and ceiling prices then the price received is the actual price agreed at the time?
So, in the case of the details in the last OU, “For 2022, EnQuest has hedged a total of c.7 MMbbls predominantly with costless collars…”, does this mean that Enquest can choose, at the time, when in 2022 to apply these conditions? Is Enquest obliged at some point in 2022 to have “used” the hedges for all the production amount hedged as per the OU?

Agreed M_10. 50M barrels is around 65 hours of USA's oil consumption. 36% of this 50M had already been authorised for release so should have been factored in, so that reduces the "new" release to cover just 41 hours. And this "new" release" will be over "several months" - let's assume over 4 months, so the "new" release is about 10 hours of USA oil consumption over a month.

The way the SP is going is more like info is coming out of a horses arse!

Reporting says a tanker collided with a lorry... so must have been a truck oil tanker not a ship oil tanker.

…….well, it leads to the place we are right now – facing a global energy crisis with no clear practical solutions – and a lot of likely chilly homes.

Instead of hearing politicians trying to dole out a lot of blame for the crisis, maybe it might be a good time to devote some work into practical ways both the energy world and the environmental world might come together to try and fix it.

PS And there ARE ways to begin fixing it, ask me how I know………...
Dan Dicker - (from a publicly shared email)

The Arabs are unlikely to come to Biden’s aid (and it’s unclear whether they even could): Six years of impossibly low oil prices (marked by NEGATIVE prices for a day) were not caused by an undisciplined OPEC cartel, but by undisciplined and overproducing US shale oil companies, and both OPEC and Russia are very much looking forward to recapturing some of the losses they’ve had to bear in the last half decade.

Remember, we’re talking about countries that count almost exclusively on oil revenues to feed their people, and who have been suffering under crushing US market competition and in many cases, US sanctions – they’re not likely to feel much sympathy right now for US workers driving the freeway.

So, despite the misdirected blame Biden and others have pushed forwards for the current state of energy and fossil fuel prices, there needs to be a far more nuanced, fundamental understanding about the future of energy; and this latest COP26 conference brought it all into super clear focus:

Biden and other world leaders came together to discuss the future of renewables and climate change, and were forced instead to talk almost exclusively about coal and fossil fuels. There were two separate conversations going on, and at a renewables conference it was the shortage of fossil fuels that dominated.

But here’s the obvious point: There never can be – nor should there be – a conversation about the future of energy that excludes fossil fuels as part of that future. THE POINT is that Biden and others shouldn’t be having two separate and unconnected conversations. They need to be having ONE CONVERSATION.

The US oil industry destroyed themselves for 10 years with greed and a lack of discipline, while Wall Street threw literally endless capital down a never ending black hole of shale drilling. When those dollars ran out, oil companies sought government bailouts and other interventions with OPEC to save what should have been a natural goldmine of a business – that is, a new, domestic, and independent source of energy that was cheaply and efficiently extracted. Instead of minting themselves and their investors a fortune, they were the worst performing sector for a decade, burning tens of billions of dollars of investor funds up without any return.

On the other side, environmentalists have tried to move this country, and the world, towards a new energy future that ignores fossil fuels, that literally looks to punish oil companies and somehow exclude them from what they hope will be a completely sustainable future of energy. This is not only childishly vindictive, it just won’t work. Fossil fuels are simply everywhere, and despite having been taken historically for granted will necessarily be not just a part, but likely the dominant part of our energy portfolio for the next 40 to 50 years at least. Trying to turn a corner without the support, help and expertise of big oil leads to………

From Dan Dicker's email newsletter today:
COP26 was a joke - but not why you think.
Never have I had an easier newsletter to write – or perhaps a more important one. This week marked a certain culmination of all I have been working on in energy for the past 6 years. It also marks a certain come-uppance for those energy ‘experts’ who have otherwise predicted that fossil fuels would either die on the cross of ‘unstoppable’ ESG renewable alternatives or those convinced that a ‘new normal’ of low prices would prove to be a losing investment forever more – and would die on the vine of market inferiority.

Well, guess what? They were both wrong.

I have viewed energy as a comedy, although often a sad one – and the backdrop this week of the COP26 climate change summit in Glasgow couldn’t serve this show any better. I have tried to outline the foolish and myopic views on energy – all types of energy - but the obvious contradictions this week have done a far better job than I ever could.

Let’s take a look:

With a new American President who wants to be a leader in Climate Change action, there were high hopes for new initiatives in Glasgow from the global renewables crowd. They have been sorely disappointed. First, China and Russia refused to attend – but this hardly mattered. The main purpose of the summit, focusing on practical global initiatives to drive an answer to Climate Change, was completely overshadowed by the current global energy crisis, most strongly felt in Europe, but also clearly motivating much of the anti-climate activity back towards coal in China and the hoarding of natural gas by the Russians.

You can say that China and Russia were more honest than everyone else at the summit by not even bothering to fake an interest in climate initiatives right now – No country has much incentive in discussing sustainable targets while their people back home are facing a winter of freezing in their homes.

Even in the US, where Americans face little danger of an energy shortage, Joe Biden has spent most of his time at the conference talking instead about high gas prices here at home. Both he and Energy Secretary Granholm blamed OPEC+ for the quick rise, with this from Biden: “I do think that the idea that Russia and Saudi Arabia and other major producers are not going to pump more oil so people can have gasoline to get to and from work, for example, is not, is not, right”.


Whether he can or can’t pass whatever spending bill he has in mind, Biden has an even more pressing political demand. He knows that five (or six or seven!) dollar gas will annihilate him and the Democrats in the midterms, if the energy supply crisis continues into next year. (And it almost certainly will). The Arabs are unlikely ... to be continued

“I’m sure I'll take you with pleasure!" the Queen said. "Two pence a week, and jam every other day."
Alice couldn't help laughing, as she said, "I don't want you to hire me – and I don't care for jam."
"It's very good jam," said the Queen.
"Well, I don't want any to-day, at any rate."
"You couldn't have it if you did want it," the Queen said. "The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day."
"It must come sometimes to 'jam to-day'," Alice objected.
"No, it can't," said the Queen. "It's jam every other day: to-day isn't any other day, you know."
"I don't understand you," said Alice. "It's dreadfully confusing!"

mrc, looks like your view has turned out to be the more accurate. Well done. Your prediction of a 40p SP in September also looks very possible now.

Pelle,
"EnQuest upgraded to Overweight from Equal Weight at Barclays Barclays analyst James Hosie upgraded EnQuest to Overweight from Equal Weight with a price target of 33 GBp, up from 19 GBp. EnQuest shares are a U.K.-small cap proxy for oil price momentum and the recent $50M equity placing, bank debt refinancing and planned Golden Eagle Area asset acquisition "improves the resilience of the balance sheet," Hosie tells investors in a research note. The analyst thinks the "simple investment case generating substantial free cash flow should attract attention."
Read more at: https://thefly.com/n.php?id=3333963"

Excluded Overseas Shareholders
subject to certain exceptions, Swedish Shareholders and Shareholders who are resident or located in, have a registered address in or may otherwise be considered domiciled in the United States or an Excluded Territory;
Excluded Territory Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of South Africa and Sweden and any other jurisdiction where the extension or availability of the Capital Raising (and any other transaction contemplated thereby) would breach applicable law;

Is it really the country/platform from which shares were purchased which excludes or not from the OO, or the exchange from which the shares were purchased i.e. from London or Stockholm?