Member Info for Rollo_Tomazzi

I don't think MunnieTorx was referring in any way to the wording. More a question of motivation and timing.

Not specific to PANR but none the less interesting:

https://www.pemedianetwork.com/petroleum-economist/articles/geopolitics/2025/the-tug-of-war-over-alaska-s-energy-economy/

I couldn't access my accounts earlier but seems fine now.

I do not doubt that Brad is an excellent Geologist but his track record as a CEO is far from convincing. Hopefully he has learnt from his mistakes. If not ........

Brombarb, yes it wasn't a RNS. It was more a Press Release which LSE categorised as a REACH notice.

Rick123 - I think it's you that's being a twa t. Any serious investor would be fully aware of what is or may be happening and would have seen/been aware of the discussion on the move down to 1% some time previously. It had already been raised more than once earlier today. If you have something sensible to say then by all means raise it. It might be a surprise to you but this site is for grown ups.

Rick123 - (12:16) that short update was available for all to see Friday p.m. so why are you trying to tell us news 72hrs later? Try to keep up!

Siggins - If you go into the research-tree website you can set up a free basic account and get the Zeus updates sent directly to you.

In The Times today:

https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/energy/article/labours-tax-plans-whip-up-a-storm-in-the-north-sea-q6pjkv2m3

Personally, I was hoping not to hear anything today so I see no news as being along the lines of good news.

Onthe6 - Your link is nearly two years old and is covered in the Labour Manifesto and the Zeus Capital note which Surety included as an extract earlier.

We need to remember that in a sense the manifesto is a 5 year plan not something to be achieved in 5 weeks or 5 months. Thus there is a lot of room for manoeuvre in terms of timing as well as interpretation. Given that Labour have stated that they will not revoke existing licences their approach may be to phase the implementation or even delay removing the "unjustifiably generous investment allowances". Depending on how this might work Labour could effectively introduce a "cut off" point for progressing existing licences in, say, 2028 which might suit their objectives. Of course, the alternative could be to make wholesale immediate changes which would have the effect of revoking the licences in all but name, but other phrases in the manifesto suggest that this is less likely.

The wording in the manifesto is certainly sufficiently open to interpretation.

RR (assuming she becomes chancellor) has stated that she would get forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility before any fiscal event, which requires ten weeks’ notice. Thus barring any leaks the Budget will not be happening before very late September/early October, which could feel a lot longer for some of us.

Also gets reported in the business section of The Times:

https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/economics/article/north-sea-oil-project-delayed-amid-windfall-tax-uncertainty-before-election-rmp7xxk69

CHF - The allowances that we are all concerned about are not a tax so when we get a clue is anyone’s guess. However RR is making plans on 78% WFT revenue to support GBE and surely is aware that any significant changes to allowances will seriously impact on WFT income expectations. Given the statement that there will be no budget for 10 weeks (or whatever) post election then I presume we’ll have to wait a bit longer.

I’m sure I read or heard the other day that RR was keeping the additional 3% wft on the basis that they had already announced it but that there would be no further additional taxes. Must admit, possibly being optimistic that I’m thinking in terms of the allowances not being changed.

DU - James Murray is currently Shadow Financial Secretary (Treasury) so presumably carries a little more weight than you suggest.

Almost certainly a buy. A sale of that magnitude would not have gone through at the share price. An 8k sell earlier in the day went through at 147.5p so no logical reason for a higher price on this one. This order has probably been floating around for a few days and MMs held the price down to generate sell trades.

Based upon this mornings activity and price movement the 400k trade was clearly a buy and it looks as though MM's depressed the price earlier in the week to accommodate those purchases.

A lot of recent trades shown as sales have been buys going through below the share price. I suspect these were also buys.

For 3 consecutive days now there has been a 25k buy going through in the latter half of the day. Assuming the buyer is the same person each day, someone seems to be taking an interest in JOG.