Member Info for romaron

Using that much abused term "models" I imagine that Jefferies project forward the implications of many things including the EPL. It is here until at least 2028. That is FOUR years. It will stop any NEW fields being drilled because of electricity demands and EPL. Smaller companies with the restrictions that EPL has on capital raising and their lower credit ratings means they are frozen out of the "transition". The larger companies are, by and large, not interested in the UKCS.

I think Jefferies are just saying it "as it is" and not sugar-coating the situation.; They have been more supportive than other analysts in the past and do look after AB & family's EnQuest share-holding (not that it should make a difference).

Latest from McDaniel: https://mcdan.com/price-forecasts/

Thanks Stevo - so, unless we get a government concerned with energy security they will struggle to get the industry and companies onside and bringing new fields to production unless they are of a scale and profitability that have been exiting the UKCS at a rate of knots for several years now. They don't have to just stop oil by directive - the EPL has saved them the trouble.

The eco-zealots have won. Renewables and imports will protect us.

Hi Stevo - are you saying that because we have tax losses to offset we cannot maximise the tax saving of 91p that the likes of Harbour could (if they decided to invest in the UKCS)?

Putin is winning. US shale is on a treadmill and taking advantage of the Western shift from Russian O&G to US O&G. The US is depleting fast so Russia wins that strategic move.

We are currently facing the wrong oil price. We'd be better off if over $100 or below $71.40 (and gas at 0.54 therm). At the lower end we'd be paying close to zero tax. This level stops the whole industry progressing. Well done Jeremy.

Europe could soon be paddle less.

Https://twitter.com/aDissentient/status/1742145254906577335/photo/1

I hadn't seen that before Profitaker. Brilliant and so prescient.

It is to do with potholes. A group of navvies from North Doncaster dug a series of potholes and due to inexperience did not puddle or tamp down the refill. The resulting mounds became a traffic hazard upsetting Keir from head office. The foreman, an up and coming lad, keen as mustard but no real experience of work at the coal face was asked what he was gonna do about it. He blamed the previous firm as he was working from one of their specs. He said the answer was pretty simple and he was writing a new spec to replace the old one. "Stop messing about and explain yourself Ed, I'm busy" - "it is so simple I'm amazed that nobody thought of it before" replied Ed. Getting increasingly angry Keir said I want an answer NOW!" - "We're gonna dig the holes deeper" said Ed.

To paraphrase Dirsken "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."

"There will be huge waste, with the taxpayer footing the bill: when the Government asked the economist Dieter Helm to look into what it was doing to meet the net zero target, he concluded that up to £100bn had been squandered, largely from investment in technologies which hadn’t matured to the point where they were cheaper than the alternative."

Now why don't the BBC or Sky get him on? Professor Sir Peter Helm CBE is a real economic academic.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/12/29/net-zero-is-about-to-get-even-more-painful/#more-70138

For balance - I don't read the Telegraph or Mail either. I'm a left wing Tory and a right wing Labour man. Whichever party offers the policies that offer me and my family the best future will get my vote. Lower electric bills would be a good policy. Extracting this commitment from Labour shouldn't be a struggle - its backed by science apparently.

*Seriously - he photo-bombs every snap. Note the straw sandals and Rafia wrist bands: https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/national/23612001.ed-miliband-defends-world-leading-labour-climate-policy-glastonbury/

I'm a Dinosaur and I have proof. I buy the Saturday and Sunday newspaper & sometimes a daily. I was shocked by this discovery regarding The Guardian and thought it was a misprint:

"Since then, it has emerged that BMGF made grants of more than $12 million to The Guardian – equivalent to $116 per reader of the print version of the newspaper, according to the more recent published figures (The Guardian no longer shares its circulation data) [41]" It is manipulation of stats. and the authors (#together) can't have it both ways. They can't accuse the eco-zealots of misrepresentation and do the same themselves.

They didn't say over what period the $12mio covers but you could make the statement according to the data collected here and an extraction of data under 'The last ABC figures we have for these titles are as follows' I looked for The Guardian and they had the number at 105,134 (July 2021). https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/most-popular-newspapers-uk-abc-monthly-circulation-figures-2/

Now, I don't know if they projected the decline forward for reduced newsprint buyers or included other 'philanthropic' donations but it has unmasked for me the influence of The Guardian.

They push their begging bowl towards you at every opportunity and ask you to "Fund independent journalism with £5 per month". I'd suggest with the huge donations from 'philanthropic' organisations that they're hardly independent (or poor). Bloomberg got elected Mayor of New York 3 times winning with 585,466 votes - his campaign spend was $109.2mio outspending rivals by 1,100%; each vote costing him $186.50. Carefully placed money usually produces the right result.

I don't know if Bloomberg (another eco-warrior) contributed to The Guardian but BMGF, ECF, Rockefeller Family Fund and the ECF did.

Most of us access the Guardian for FREE online so its reach is considerably higher than newsprint buyers. If it wasn't for its click-baiting climate articles I wouldn't enter the site and I find most of their output too 'woke' for me. The old saying that what costs F*all is worth F*all but they have carefully cultured a plucky underdog image representing those not polluted by profit. Where do those readers think those donations come from.

I think The Guardian could teach bitcoin a trick or two. Personally I'm left less bothered by them as now I can understand how and why they exist. They shouldn't be underestimated but they'll never reach mainstream in the way that other newspapers can.

*my temperature is still normal - looks like you can stop worrying now.

Temperature normal this morning but bit of a cough, thanks for asking. Still under house arrest so I thought of how to waste some idle time - talk about politics. This from yesterday seems to have excited some comment. I have a different take on it than most.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/27/zero-onshore-wind-plans-submitted-in-england-since-de-facto-ban-was-lifted

I think it a space filler that indicates the next election isn't done and dusted and is largely renewable propaganda. They use carbon Brief analysis which for some is 9X more accurate than other analysis. It is cobbled together resulting in a weak article that is quite easy to pull apart if you make the effort. Most Guardian readers are not known for their real life experiences but prepared to walk slowly at a push.

So NO new onshore wind projects since early September. Don't they realise how long it takes to launch these projects at scale. I live in Enfield where the Council are having a fight over a proposed 18 storey Tower block which includes 110 affordable homes (I support it) which is nowhere near the leafy enclave I live in. The height is appx. 165 ft/50M high. The (community) windmill at Lawrence Weston is 150M tall with a tower of 92M with 4.2MW capacity and drowned in subsidies. Going smaller is an option but wind turbulence, clearance and a loss of efficiency means you need a lot more.

My point here is that it will be next to impossible to get them built in Cities where they are most needed. Building in National Parks and Scotland seems most likely and grid costs will increase and locals may well object.

But the interesting bit (for me) is this in the article - "Ed Miliband, the shadow energy secretary, said a Labour government would end the effective ban on onshore wind." and “Every household in Britain is paying higher energy bills because of Rishi Sunak’s staggering failure to end the onshore wind ban,” he said. “The Conservatives have artificially inflated energy bills, and make the UK’s energy system dependent on fossil fuel dictators, because they ludicrously oppose cheap, clean power for our country."

Firstly the ban no longer exists but does require local support. Are Labour going to enforce the building?

and on the follow up comments by Ed Miliband they don't put a date on them. They are regurgitated propaganda going back at least to April. Whoever looks after EM's 'X' account has posted the Guardian piece thereby endorsing it. Ed needs to splutter his way out of this and instead somebody at base doubles down on his ludicrous posturing.

It is not necessarily a bleak mid-winter. labour are too committed to 'GB Energy' and their wriggle room is limited. If I can see it then some clever political minds at Conservative HO will have spotted it too. I think the 'climate crisis' is boring most people (voters) and many don't see why we need to wear the hair shirt for China, US and India.

I could blame the meds. My wife went down with Covid last Friday and I tested positive on Tuesday. You have a temperature and sneeze a lot. It does mean I'm bored out of my skull and spent more time on here than is healthy. You have to isolate.

Mansardman - I can remember in my mind's eye AB saying it and it was at Duval Square so I'm pretty sure it was 2022 (we've only had 2 AGMs there) so not so long ago. He also mentioned gas but wasn't addressing me. Even if he changed his mind events are suggesting otherwise. I don't know about you but I'm not seeing a Labour landslide. If they ditch Ed I might consider them. Labour can be ruthlessly pragmatic when it suits and they need to divest of liabilities because they are unelectable if they don't produce policies soon. The trade unions will support fossil fuels imo because they're cheaper. For all we know Hunt is a closet eco-zealot. His loyalties were made clear.

Presently I am confused because I think they're trying to distract us. Another investor says they can't actually lie to you but are past masters at anodyne responses that say almost nothing. I think we may be due a slew of RNs' if they pull off what they're working on. '3/4 projects in the works' so Veri and Viaro count as 2 leaving 1.50 I guess.

Labour doesn't represent the working man any longer and I'd trust a plumber more than a politician discussing ASHPs. As for EVs they look lovely but I can't make an economic case for me getting one. I bought a Bang & Olufsen TV when I was in the money and I'm sure I made my friends envious. I kept it for 15 years because it was so expensive (1 replacement tube: Philips) whilst Samsung etc. were producing better pictures with more gimmicks at a fraction of the cost. Never again.

A few of us are working behind the scenes to see what we can dig up - a bit Bellingcat. They have to act and post RNS's at stages and they can be interpreted differently (why release on 22 Dec?) Lawyers arguing over clauses etc. Time lines get stretched.

This is clickbait but accurate: Does Labour still despise the working class?

New data shows that the party's election candidates are wholly unrepresentative of the British workforce

https://www.paulembery.com/p/does-labour-still-despise-the-working

*plenty going on with attacks on renewable fear-mongering and lies. They'll be nailed on costs which is what the public really care about.

"his cost of capital is higher than anyone else in the industry" - dunno about that but if you tried to raise now it would cost a lot more. I only follow Tullow because they are quoted here https://www.luxse.com/ YTM on $15 May 26 c.15.64% and the $Mar1 2025 c.13.48% EnQuest 1 Nov 27 c. $13.39% and £RB 11.13%

We're covered for almost 4 years - "bird in the hand" and all that. Happy to argue further but many smaller UK O&G companies would like to be in our position.

"the market will never give him credit for building enterprise value." - oh yes they will.

I agree with you that political miracles aren't something to base your investment decisions on but I follow the gyrations of the politics fairly closely and fundamentals are at long last getting an audience. We don't need a miracle - we need realism and pragmatism.

*p.s. I asked AB your question at an AGM. He isn't running the company into the ground. I hope this helps.

KO - that's our stumbling block. Get past it and we soar. Bressay is a game changer if it ever happens. We have a lot of potential but (to paraphrase) "potential doth butter no parsnips".

Reasons - they're based in Norway where the O&G industry is respected for the benefits it brought and continues to bring to the country.

EnQuest is self-quoted a vulture company that made its name in squeezing more oil out of end-of-life fields. Because of this connection and the hostile narrative and actions of both political parties we have become, in the mind of investors, an end-of-life company.

The good news is that sentiment and awareness of true costs are moving away from renewables and back to fossil.

Makes sense KO but what about electricity? I doubt any large project will get the green light if they don't have electricity as part of the FDP. I'm guessing here but could they be working on a plan for electricity to the EP above Bressay (and potentially Kraken). It would be available for the later development of Bentley and I'm fairly sure any surplus electricity in the interim will have some value. A lot to play for.

You made me reread the RNS himmatsj - maybe the EP is destined for another field. AB likes the 15% share as it helps but doesn't give extra control to partners. The last para. mentions Kraken. Perhaps that idea for Bressay is still on the table.

Why did EnQuest release the RNS on the last working day before Christmas? It's a box tick; they clearly didn't want publicity or distraction.

Hi Frac - yes, you need to go backwards as well as forwards. I don't have all the answers and my my projections may well be wrong. I think we'll all agree that negotiations between the industry - NSTA - and the government will override most other considerations. It wasn't long ago that Ed Miliband met with OEUK for the first time (March). Contempt by Labour or shortsightedness by OEUK? How can Miliband pontificate when he wasn't even talking to the bleedin' industry lobby.

I post stuff because I have these blanks. A few here have better skills than me in certain area whether computers, accounts or industry (Therapist's analysis for instance) but some are shy. I'm not easily embarrassed and it does concern my money so I will engage or ask questions.

This one is really bugging me - who is backing Viaro?

From this: https://energycouncil.com/articles/executive-interview-francesco-mazzagatti-viaro-energy-north-sea-focus/

"Despite the obstacles I have mentioned, I am pleased to say that Viaro is still a debt-free company today and our stakeholders evaluate the company’s balance sheet as a single “A” equivalent as per the S&P Global Rating. We have a strong finance team and our CFO Mr Dixit has implemented a strict cash control on a weekly basis, as well as an annual forecast that is updated quarterly."

I doubt the 'A' rating is for Viaro. I get the feeling it is a Chrysaor type backer. We resisted private equity in the past - perhaps something has changed?

Overall I am most cheered by the failure of renewables to reach 9X cheaper. Even cheaper might be useful but I suppose selective graphs of solar and land based windmills have the odd good day until intermittency kicks in. Maybe Labour will build on golf courses? I follow JSO and I think they've collapsed and Dale Vince is looking to take his money (well Thames Water's) and run. They're dour and humourless and there is a common theme with their leaders - Chris Packham, Greta and Dale Vince (all on the spectrum and vegetarians). Where's Tessa Khan and Caroline Lucas? Labour knows when a policy has stopped working. Let the Conservatives take the flak. They won't rescind fields.

First the FPSO - we bought it in 2012, then named Uisge Gorm, from Bluewater for £42.4mio. It began its life in 1995. First oil was expected Q1 2014 (from Q3) mainly due to the increase in scope of refurbishment of the existing FPSO marine and process systems.

This from various sources: Rosebank

130km NW of Shetland water depth 1100m

The FPSO will be electrification-ready from day one, to allow it to be powered from shore when technology is qualified and matured, viability is confirmed and necessary regulatory consents are in place. This has the potential to reduce production emissions from Rosebank by over 70%. Before electrification, Rosebank will produce oil at around 12 kg CO2 a barrel, which will reduce to less than 3 kg CO2 after electrification. The North Sea average is currently approx. 20 kg CO2 per barrel.

Equinor says the field will be developed with a redeployed, refurbished Floating Production Storage and Offloading vessel (FPSO) tied to a subsea production system.

I mention the above only to show the scale of the challenges for Bressay.

I found this helps: https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2023/07/04/no-decisions-yet-on-rosebank-electrification/

It means we'll almost certainly have to solve the electrical problem but it looks like we're close enough to the Shetlands (SVT) and whilst I don't know the difference I'm guessing shallower water is better than deep. it's not that much further to Norway either where hydro-electric is available.

At first I was discouraged by the electrification demands and the bigger pockets of Equinor. I'd say we're in with a fighting chance and need to get Bressay moving before Labour get in. It looks also (to me) that the electrification deal is ready and any delay may be political and I don't mean that in a negative sense. We have a Tory government floundering and they'll want to maximise the benefits and divide Labour.

Any electrification cost can be offset by development of Bentley [I think Cambo & Rosebank are similar]

I'm pretty sure the environmental assessments are done and no doubt earlier costings and tests may still be relevant. We aren't starting at the beginning. We'll need capital and I think AB knows where to find it. I imagine Gareth knows a few people too.