Member Info for Mirasol

Is it not true that the Tories raised oil & gas taxes?

Osborne’s oil tax

In 2011 Osborne increased the surcharge on North Sea oil and gas producers from 20% to 32% above the normal rate of corporation tax, arguing that “when oil prices are high … UK oil and gas production is more profitable … so it is fair that companies should contribute more”.

It’s a bit of a cheat to include Osborne in the list because his botched scheme wasn’t designed as a one-off windfall tax, but a multi-year increase that would last as long as prices remained high. Instead the 12 percentage points increase, which raised £2bn in its first year, was supposed to underwrite a 1p reduction in the duty on petrol and diesel and scrap a further 5p increase due under plans agreed by the previous Labour government.

It became a windfall tax after the oil and gas industry responded by cutting investment, spooking the Treasury and forcing a U-turn. A year later Osborne, who had promised the industry a stable tax regime and failed to give any advanced warning, offered to shield £500m of investment from tax. Later, and as the oil price plummeted, he cut the headline rate of tax back to previous levels.

The problem predated Lucan - it was the idea they could use second hand US kit for the field - and they were horribly wrong. Had to redesign, re-tender and then the costs wre way higher.

Now who was in charge of technical things at that time?

Over on UJO a newish poster - Bigeyes uses "didumms" as an insult

Points to the fact it's the infamous OneToo Many ("The Worlds Worst Mystic Meg")- who had to flee here last week due to proven idiocy

Bigeyes use of "didumms" as an insult points to the fact it's the infamous OneToo Many ("The Worlds Worst Mystic Meg")- who had to flee the ANGS Board last week due to proven idiocy

"Surely we can push this government to honour the first drilling and allow the updates to continue to end of project"

Thats not the way Govt works. Remember all those tax rises on oil companies under the Tories for example? They totally gutted N Sea exploration

"WG818: not to mention the terms on which the publicly-quoted Angus Energy plc bought out the 49% share of Poundland owned by Mr. Forrest’s private company."

IIRC there was talk of other bidders - UKOG , Egdon, Europa perhaps but they all (wisely) wanted more money to take the albatross away.

"I haven’t even got into the connections with David Leningras!!!"

One thing you can guarantee is that DL will be untouchable - he's always long gone before someone else crashes the company. He starts companies and then moves on quick. Others mis-manage them.

"net profit of $1.5bn"

guess that means that SFNB & ANGS are being dealt with by the post-boy............... or an Intern

"having several of the high ups from Navitas going down to the FI just for the advertised meeting doesn't seem to make much sense, as they could easily have appeared by Teams etc link."

You're expected to turn up in person occasionally I guess. And they're probably happy to talk about FID now Shenandoah is on stream. Plus they probably want to have some direct input into any discussions about Abandonment Security and the Oil Fund.

Agreed - my suggestion is pure speculation

But I know enough to know there'll be no meat left on the bones for PI's - however the big boys decide to strip the carcase.

They'd have to sue to get it for nonpayment

And they haven't the knowledge that some of the others have. Mr Forrest for example

", I can see that Trafigura must be examining all their options. I can’t see any advantage to Aleph or Kemexon in doing a deal such as you suggest. Anyone who takes it over would be on the hook for eventual restoration of the oil/gas sites."

That presumably is part of the negotiation. Unlike a massive corporate meltdown by a large company which might have several hundred interested parties, when you have only 3 or 4 players they can get together easily and hammer out a deal. It's not as if they're unknown to each other - over the years some people on here have suggested they all TOO close TBH.

Deferring abandonment is in everyone's interest, as is avoiding the Receiver. Stretching out production is also worthwhile, the reserves seem to be there - it's the production rate that's the issue. Stop wasting money, cut the office and advisors and you have slow but steady cash stream. A disappointment but not a total write off.

And you never know, the price may shoot up in a year or so.

Oofy - yes ANGS are basket case. The lenders, no doubt, know they aren't going to get the cash flow they expected. They are now trying to avoid receivership. That is expensive and it takes time and any cash is distributed according to strict rules. They may finish up with very little.

If they take over the company they can then run the asset out - sure, they'll may still show a loss on the books but they're in control. And there is the possibility of higher gas prices, or turning it into storage. And the costs will be lower than running a public company.

I'm not an expert in insolvency law Ocelot.

However it could be on the lines that the one or more of the current debtors has a controlling interest in a small US company. Under instructions ANGS buy this company for a large sum. This is financed by issuing a zillion shares to the current ANGS debtors, diluting the PI's to effectively zero. The money that they pay to ANGS for the UK shares is paid back to them by the purchase of the US shell. It hasn't cost them very much (transaction and legal costs) but they now own ANGS totally.

Probably it'll be something totally different but equally devious

That's why its taking time.

An rto to a us shell the money can own directly with a few people employed to run the field and save on all the corporate bs and costs.

You know it makes sense

"ut I think Navitas want this locked in so little old Rock have to show funds in place before FID."

And the FI govt. will want to know that the whole package is underwritten - they'd both look really stupid if for some reason RKH delayed the raise and then couldn't get the cash - everything would be all up in the air again.

At least the sums raised look reasonable - with maybe a bit of wriggle room in case something goes wrong cost-wise.

"I think Navitas and the State of Israel will eventually own the whole basin. "

Neither the UK Govt or the FI Govt will want ANY company to own the whole basin. It's Licensing 1.01 that you have a range of players - otherwise you effectively have no control at all on a vital asset.

The problem as BP has noted, is that you don't get a an enormous uplift on production. You probably get more gas out eventually and extend the field life.

The problem for ANGS is that the field is now operating at rates well under those they forecast, and the ones they arranged financing on. Even if the velocity strings work well they probably can't meet their commitments. I'd suspect that Trafigura and the rest of their lenders are working out a way to takeover running the company (or installing a useful puppet to do so on their behalf) so they maximise their long term return - and maybe keep the field for storage at some point.

It is unlikely that those plans include a continued listing or anything for the PI's.

Who believes anything Malcy writes?

he's a paid hack - just like Ocelot (but suspect he charges more)

Yes I agree with those numbers

Q2 was nearly 15% down on Q1