Member Info for mrc_mrc_mrc_mrd

That doesn’t sound too good for holders here.

According to Chris we want buys going through at full ask - this is apparently a predictor of an imminent “tick up” of the SP?

Thanks TTB

Good work ZFG - very good of him to take the time to respond like that.

It’s not true I think what Squif and others say about him from behind their keyboards.

From the prospectus:

EnQuest considers that the WAG project does not contribute significantly to the production performance and that the production is supported mainly by water injection. Gas import contracts run until 2023, and pending the results of further studies, gas injection rates may be reduced or terminated prior to this date. EnQuest’s oil production forecasts are primarily based on decline analysis and do not reflect any potential changes in the gas injection strategy. This may be simplistic and it is possible that the decline rates could change after 2023 for the active WAG-supported wells (B6 (M39Z) and B7 (M43)). EnQuest report implementation of a comprehensive surveillance plan to enable effective monitoring of individual WAG well performance in conjunction with any changes in water injection, including a planned reinstatement of the test separator. This is expected to lead to improvements in waterflood management and increase produced water handling capacity in the facilities, as field water cut increases.

Indy - I don’t really have a problem with speculating that it might have an impact. What you are implying is that ENQ are stupid, incompetent, or deliberately misleading shareholders, which I think is a bit unfair.

The unplanned shutdowns had a big impact last year.

Correlation is not causation. This is what Enquest had to say:

EnQuest's director of infrastructure and new energy, John Penrose, said Magnus was doing well despite its recent difficulties, and the company had decided to discontinue sourcing gas from BP for reinjection into the reservoir as a means of supporting pressure levels.

This gas was derived from BP-operated fields such as Clair and Schiehallion hundreds of miles away in the West of Shetland area, and had to be bought from the UK major once EnQuest took over. EnQuest has now decided pressure levels can be supported using water alone, Penrose said.

"We reviewed the sub-surface and the benefit of that and have just gone back to a traditional water-flood so we're no longer reliant on that West of Shetland gas. In a way you're in control of your own destiny now rather than another source of gas to support you," he told the Offshore Europe industry conference earlier in the week.”

Fair point E

I doubt we will get more detail from them so wait and see for the next update.

It would be great if it’s capped in our favour…

In any case it seems it was in our favour on H121 as revenue increase was higher than cost of sales increase.

You would think the whole point of a long term contract would be to give both parties some guarantee of offtake / price.

Indy - you seem to know zero about Magnus so that is quite a claim you make.

There have been other reasons given for performance issues, so unless you think they are telling lies???

In any case the decision to switch to water will have been a commercial one. No point producing 30% more if it ends up costing more than you get back.

ENQ operate Magnus at a significantly reduced cost than BP managed. The asset is in the right hands, and I expect following some maintenance catch up this year will be producing for a long time to come.

I am guessing long term contract in 2017would have been around 60p per therm. Price is currently 175p per therm and has averaged over 200p since September. So assuming purchase cost is more of less fixed we should do very well for h1 this year.

Wow this is indeed most excellent.

About time ENQ had some luck

What is wrong with you KO?

Sturgeon: Big profit energy firms should pay more https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-60320823

Headline is misleading here…sturgeon hinting at lockdown beneficiaries making a contribution (which seems much fairer - BPs profits are smaller than their 2020 losses)

SNP MPs in Westminster also vocal in opposition to labours plans.

Would love to see the working for the $53 number?

I get $42 based on costs of $670 million opex Capex and abex, and 44kbpd, excluding finance costs.

See ya KO

Kraken - I don’t really care what the SP is because I am not trying to buy or sell currently. I also don’t believe there will be any equity raise any time soon.

I am baffled why you are holding (if in fact you are)

What complete b0llocks KO.

Has your buddy Chilting told you to go short now?

Lol - KO holds this view yet will not sell???

Strange lad…almost like you trade this share???

I should add…you won’t find them on a list of declared shareholders if their holding is below 3%

Allenby - prolific basins have give SCIR £2 million.

They have received £1.2 million worth of shares in return. As you have deduced they must have sold almost all of those shares as they have less than 3% now and the number of shares they have been issued is about 15% of the shares in issue.

SCIR still owe prolific £800k worth of shares. Prolific choose when to receive these shares. The price they are issued at is based on the previous 10 day average I believe.

That is why I am saying it is in prolifics interests to drive the SP down by selling their most recent batch of shares (just under 3% of shares in issue). They can then be issued £800k worth at a knock down SP.

There are clauses to stop them deliberately shorting the share, but nothing to prevent them selling the shares issued last week.

Pelle - with respect, you should have sold if you don’t like the historic hedging (enough to moan about what could have been 4 years after the fact).

I think the future is very rosy now for the next few years, and that is all that really matters.