Member Info for mrc_mrc_mrc_mrd

More dilution. I am quite sure there is an end game here. This can’t just be incompetence, and there is still £2m worth of juice to squeeze.

Best hope I would have is that TR can somehow put together a huge AD deal with all debt finance. I fear that he is well out of his depth though.

I would expect that to be mentioned in the RNS. By all means contact Tom and ask him to clarify. Generally you can’t just go pulling out of deals because you have sellers remorse. Even if such a clause existed it would be very bad form and no doubt **** off TPDC and ARA.

In any case the BOD would have no reason to pull out. They think the terms are fantastic.

If they can pull out, what then? Somehow get a placing away for minimum 2x current market cap to fund through drill? Ain’t going to happen IMHO. You would be looking at breaking the JV agreement and losing the asset anyway.

You are all clutching at straws.

And yes they could bid for SCIR… But SCIR shareholders have already approved the sale. I think the chain of events is in motion now…even if SCIR or WEN try to pull out the partners can still exercise their option. Just my opinion.

Again if TPDC want it and SCIR or WEN try to stop them with shenanigans then both companies could find it difficult to continue operating in Tanzania IMHO.

WEN made their offer in the knowledge that partners had pre emption rights.

The deal is done IMHO and the terms are locked in. WEN gambled with a low ball offer.

If TPDC really do want this then they will take it. I doubt WEN would want to upset the government, even if there is a Weasley way to cut them out.

I’m not sure what you are asking AA?

I know that ARA and TPDC have pre emption rights because I have read the company statements and the Tanz petroleum regs.

Maverick - do you not understand pre emption rights?

TPDC and ARA have the right to pay SCIR on the same terms that WEN have offered.

There is no way out of the WEN terms now unless the conditions of the deal are not met (E.g. if it doesn’t complete by the long stop, or one of the other conditions is not met such as government approval.)

It is quite outrageous in my opinion that this money has been spent on shiny new strategy when it was known that there were obligations to meet on Ruvuma.

Another huge gamble that has not paid off.

This company is really not sustainable IMHO. The directors should return all monies to shareholders and shut down the company if / when the sale goes through. Future income from milestone payments due can be sold on to a third party. In the meantime the directors should cut all non essential costs and immediately sell the HE1 shares to return a special dividend.

Shareholders will at least get something back if they do this.

Banana - The green crowd hate blue hydrogen, DAC, Nuclear. I suspect our positions are actually quite close.

I am not against investment in technology, but ESG has driven money from dirty industry to frivolous rubbish that really adds no value. The money has largely not gone into technologies to tackle climate change. Oil companies are so beaten down that even they have stopped investing in oil developments, yet it is still not enough for the ESG lobby. ESG in relation to oil and gas producers is not based on any real goal to positively impact the climate.

I actually have no problem with ESG if it is based on facts. By all means demand that oil producers improve efficiency and reduce scope 1 and 2 carbon emissions. Holding them responsible for the demand side is ridiculous.

Banana - why are you on here bashing an oil supplier (that you are supposedly invested in??). We produce something that is in high demand.

Go convince the world to stop flying, driving, buying shiny things if you want to realise your utopia. Better yet lead by example - internet users have a high carbon footprint.

I believe technology is required. Generally the things you are probably against, in your pursuit of perfection. Nuclear, CCUS, DAC, blue hydrogen, electrification. Those are the big hitters and buy time. Efficiency improvements (including home insulation) also help. Oil demand is likely to keep going up for the next 10 years so the focus should move to mitigating the emissions where we can. Meantime it is foolish to interfere in the market to discourage investment (which is what the ESG lobby has been very good at).

Sensible oil prices are just fine.

So like most save the planet types you are not bothered about human suffering that will come with high energy prices? An acceptable cost to support the cause?

Banana - easy to wish for high prices when you are not struggling to feed your family. There are real consequences to targeting suppliers without adequately addressing demand.

I think BP and shell are now committed to their net zero journey. It would take a big change in investor sentiment and a friendlier political environment to change that.smaller operators don’t have the cash or finance to take up the slack. Yes some people are investing but o doubt it is enough to avoid sustained high prices.

There is next to no exploration drilling in the North Sea this year. You can see even Enquest, with quite a big capex budget compared to recent years is probably only going to cover natural declines.

I think attitudes are changing towards ESG. There is still massive ignorance about how our civilisation functions (on energy).

Basically I think people need to get real and make a grown up decision about what cost we are willing to accept for the transition.

In terms of impact on the U.K. specifically, we have the stop Cambo brigade which has succeeeded in delaying a massive new field and made all future developments less likely.

You also need to look at the finance side of things - next to impossible to get finance. It looks like all future developments will need to be developed from cash flow rather than debt.

And yes - fields will close early due to ESG (perhaps rightly so) for example increasingly onerous emissions regulations will increase costs and make fields uneconomic earlier than otherwise.

All of these things have consequences. I am not saying they are the wrong policies, but politicians need a real plan and not populist pandering to the green militants.

Banana

Shell plan out to 2030 - “ An expected gradual reduction in oil production of around 1-2% each year, including divestments and natural decline.”

BP “ Expects investment in transition growth businesses to?be over 40% of bp capex by 2025.”

And “ oil and gas production is expected to decline 40% from 2019 levels by 2030.”

Are you saying ESG has no impact on investment decisions by these companies????

Less investment = less oil

It really is very straightforward.

Christ, we have banana man back.

Shale caused low oil prices, and price wars caused low oil prices.

ESG comes into play when you look at longer cycle investments. It is a FACT that ESG investors are forcing oil companies to wind down their oil business. Just look at Shell and BP. Even the US producers are under pressure.

Why would any one invest in a major offshore project when we are told that no new oil fields can be brought online unless we want the world to burn. It won’t even start producing for 3-5 years (or longer) then payback period x years after that.

I don’t follow HUR too closely…very high risk IMHO. They are producing from a single well so if anything goes wrong there then they are back in trouble. If POO does crash then I suspect their break even may not be great. Also not sure what their decomm liabilities are and impact of EPL given that they don’t really have any assets to invest in. They will be looking for assets now I guess, but not a great time to be buying with Brent $100+.

We got really lucky with the GE purchase I think. And lots of investment options across the portfolio with infill drilling, BBK etc.

ENQ debt is still seen by the market as a problem (E.g. Barclays). Moneyweek article last week said avoid due to high debt (then went on in the next sentence to recommend TLW…). I think a lot of ignorance TBH. Net debt figure announced in September might be a game changer.

I’ve always found LNER to be great and it is nationalised. The private operating model is pretty stupid IMHO. Arms length nationalised works for train operations.

Ah so Chilting sold out at the 52 week low and missed the trade up to 37p. Bad luck Chilts.