Member Info for romaron

I also picked up the point in the article that inflated tax credits are very valuable in the US renewable world. It got me thinking that maybe creating Veri is also another way of utilising ours. I don't think it is possible but the US influence in hedge funds, M&A and creative financing is massive and our situation would not have gone unnoticed. Their highly paid lawyers and tax advisors will have been all over us like a rash. Both political parties quote the transition mantra so what better way to encourage it than by letting us use our tax credit fire-power in renewables? Currently we're holding some very interesting cards.

Hi piper - an excellent aide-memoire. I have a question and I'm hoping somebody reading this has an answer. In the article it has at the bottom "When wind power is only supplying 10% of its capacity, there will clearly be a massive shortage of power, in the order of 70 GW. (Bear in mind that solar power only supplies 3% of its capacity in winter)."

I want to be accurate and the 3% solar claim seems very low. However it does herald what I see as an imported disaster to the solar industry in the UK heading our way. Much of this goes over my head but I have a long memory regarding the chequered history of solar in the UK (more in another post). Wind is difficult for many to get their head around and I have taken some facts that resonate with me and I think we may well catch from the US (or Europe even). I managed to get past paywall to read this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/solar/comments/18c6g2n/why_the_residential_solar_industry_is_in_danger/?rdt=42978

I was particularly drawn to these comments:

“You can’t scale labor” - Ed Miliband says you can. I think the Americans are right and this:

"According to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, about 16% of American households were behind on their electric bill as of March. By contrast, only 1.7% of homeowners are behind on their mortgage." The whole article shows (to me) how flimsy the renewable industry is and its reliance on subsidy is both sides of the Atlantic. It also shows that the cost of energy has grown to unsupportable levels mainly because of the move towards expensive renewables and their subsidies and inefficiencies in power and cost compared to fossil fuels. It has taken a long time but the tide is moving back in our direction. I had to chuckle when I read that Azerbaijan is favorite for COP29. The West still lives in an age of colonialism (although they deny it) and our missionary zeal has been transferred to forcing Climate Evangelism on those worse off than us. If you stop fossil fuels too quickly billions will die.

KO - she did say cheaper than gas and "up to". There's wriggle room there. I checked it again (49:50).

This is similar and refers to a viral tweet that was demolished by the BBC but never got the publicity that QT gets.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001jkq0 Listen from 30 seconds in. It is a short clip.

I doubt it AOK. It would only really apply if Fiona Bruce said it. Peter Hitchens and Johnny Mercer could have called Dodds out. I think it is a "gotcha" quote but will be lost in the immigration debate which is sucking up all the air at present. It has been going on now for over a year and has become dogma within the Labour Party.

Hi Dumbly, I've sent a few emails too. I wish I was one of her constituents and could challenge her directly. What is sad is that nobody on the panel challenged her outrageous LIE/MISREPRESENTATION. What is even more worrying is that she might actually believe it.

Unbelievable. Tonight on BBC Question Time a few minutes ago Anneliese Dodds the Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities in the UK had the gall to say "renewable energy in our country is up to 9X cheaper than gas." She followed up this gross misrepresentation and boasted that she originates from Aberdeenshire and has many friends in the O&G industry.

I think even Trump may have hesitated with a LIE this BIG

Update:

https://twitter.com/LoftusSteve/status/1732489147309285861

That is some memory Modestus. The link didn't help (Tesla?) but interesting that EnQuest were actively moving in the direction 6 months ago - about the same time we lost our General Counsel and Company Secretary Stefan Ricketts. They don't RNS stuff like that though it is probably more important than NED turnover. Whilst browsing I note that Chris Sawyer was our Company Secretary on 25 April RNS.

It's a warren down there.

*Gary - I'd pay attention to what Modestus writes. He is probably the least pretentious poster on here. He has a slightly more nuanced approach than you - that's all. Why stress - you'll be gone soon.

You're asking the wrong person KO. I thought it was an 40% and you're telling me 45%. I'd say they're worth more or less the same but you'd want a discount for the years you have to wait but it wouldn't be that much if you could use them up in 3 years. Get your mate Stevo to answer.

Couple of things. Using the Alan Turing method at Bletchley in the film The Imitation Game he recruited crossword fans as decoders. We must have a few here good at word games. Why the name "Veri" Energy? Does the E stand for EnQuest? Is it cloned from the word Veritas? Or is it a costly agency creation? No prizes.

Whilst here. I spoke to Craig Baxter at the beginning of October. He told me that we have $2.3bn tax credits available immediately and $1.3-1.4 in 2025. That is a lot more than gets bandied about on here. Can the number guys give it a value if in the hands of someone who can use it faster than us (say in 3 years)? I'm not looking for precision and happy with best guesses. In my simple way I think it is something like 40% of $3.6bn and that is HUGE. Probably lower but not as low as some here think.

KO - I'm convinced we're being subsumed by someone who can use the tax credits quicker than us. There has been buying that others have missed. Not the amounts to trigger a takeover but that isn't how they work anyway but in amounts that a hedge fund might trade to build a stake, quietly. The Swedish delisting helped. Also think the block listing RNS on 24 November were slipped past us and indicate something occurring. I don't think they're teasing us it is just that governance and rules mean they have to tell us stuff when they'd rather not. I imagine they're very busy at the moment and don't need our intrusion.

The new CFO wrote a tome for Deutsche bank called "Oil & Gas for Beginners". Might just be me but the recent appointments have a temporary air about them. The current 'Senior Management' page on the EnQuest website looks like a beta page. The previous team have all gone and I don't recognise any of these. Only one has experience of over a year with EnQuest [Ali Talpur] and his new role is only 3 months old. This was the hidden in plain sight (I can't take the credit; it was pointed out to me). Subject to diligence I expect an announcement sooner rather than later. JC takes the reins officially on Feb 1st. Could a name change be part of the plan?

Plenty of movement but only one remains sphinx-like about his own plans?

*can you get locums in O&G?

Today's RNS tells us it ain't rinse & repeat next year. The old EnQuest is going imo. Too many signals. I'm staying for the ride. We're gonna turn those juicy tax credits into cash.

Not sure I agree garcy. The Tories have gutted the industry. Being in power is different to opposition. Hyperbole and rhetoric have to be backed up when in power. Expect some handbrake turns if Labour win. They can always claim that they never realised how bad the situation was and have to take "uncomfortable" emergency actions. They can't raid the O&G industry again.

from the annual world nuclear industry status report as reported by reuters: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuclears-share-world-power-output-multi-decade-low-report-2023-12-06/

"nuclear is also continuing to fall behind renewables in terms of cost, as reactors are seen as more expensive and taking longer to build.

the adjusted cost of nuclear energy - which compares the total lifetime cost of building and running a plant to lifetime output - is nearly four times that of onshore wind, the report said."

not like for like as a start. a lift that only goes 14 floors in a 28 floor skyscraper will always be cheaper. the comparison should be lcoe and we have a few problems with onshore. mind you i think we could adopt more onshore wind in the uk. plenty of cricket pitches and golf-courses to spare. ah, to live in this green and pleasant land. it makes one proud to be british. **** every other country and industry by promoting fantasy solutions. we must be the biggest hypocrites in europe (are we in europe?).

*not wishing to be controversial but fracking is the cheapest of all.

Odds on a Spring Election have soared. Robert Jenrick the Immigration Minister has resigned. Sunak cannot govern it seems. Time to throw in the towel.

I know Labour are desperate to be elected but this really is a "be careful what you wish for".

Https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/signpost-gm454932333-30491308

If you think that's confusing wait until you get to the car park. This would dissuade the most intrepid investor so why bother? Lenders have mostly left the fossil fuels sector making capital scarce and expensive. Western governments are hostile towards the industry and sending out mixed messages whilst at the same time punishing the companies with penal rates of taxation. With this going on is it any surprise that there are less and less investors prepared to invest in oil & gas? You have ignorant and childish eco-zealot activists not only being tolerated but actually encouraged. Then look at the performance of the shares of those remaining - BP and Shell did a runner years ago.

But - the companies themselves against all these head winds can still make a profit because renewables only partly work and if cost is a concern then they fail dismally against fossil fuels. They are multiples more expensive when intermittency and capital costs are brought into the equation. Subsidies are ignored if they are for renewables. So it is no surprise that many investors just PASS when O&G companies are suggested. Then there is the overriding fact that the industry is either flatlining or in decline (the NS is unarguably in decline). This means that one of the biggest drivers of stocks is MISSING and that is GROWTH. It is what makes Tesla a Buy and VW a Sell.

I asked AB why we don't run the company into the ground. He said "it doesn't work that way" and I'm sure people take more notice of him. But you cannot avoid that if present hostility continues there isn't really an option to do anything that treat the company as a sunset industry. We would still be investible but losing political leverage yearly and what would happen if Red Ed became PM?

The result of all this is to make owning O&G shares only slightly better than having leprosy or the biggest potential investment with one of the highest multiples for future profit around. Make no mistake, the transition will take us way beyond 2050.

What has been missed is that our EV was once mainly debt. We are becoming a Tesla if things continue in this respect (more equity, less debt). Debt could be reduced at a stroke if the right deal (M&A) is struck. If a deal is going on in the background (and I think one is) then our MC is irrelevant. Oil companies don't value another company on its share price. They start talks when it is one price and conclude them when it will unlikely be the same. Only on message boards can you analyse, calculate and purchase a company overnight.

I'm not sure that is completely accurate Papegoja. Years ago I spoke to Ian Wood about shareholders. I even approached the Registrars to see if I could see them expecting a rebuff but on the basis "don't ask, don't get" - I didn't get. Ian said they trawled the records from time to time but it didn't sound a priority. What would they find? Nominee accounts and big holdings have to be declared (unless you're based in Hongkong it seems - ARCM). I'm not even sure you can find out who the lenders of stock are. You'd find out certain stuff but I doubt they'd find me - I'm with AJ Bell.

I'm not really bothered about the delisting because I don't think the executive are. I'm not being disrespectful to the Swedish shareholders but it isn't the biggest financial disturbance they'll experience but we all get annoyed at being forced to do things. I won't cry if traders lose a toy. I'll go further and suggest that the bots may well have got this one wrong from a longer perspective but that's not what they're used for. As for the company - they will do what is best for the company and majority shareholders.

I'll go further and say that the share price is irrelevant at present but I'll do another post explaining.

Welcome to the Saudi Arabia of Wind.....

"People should stock up on battery-powered radios and torches, as well as candles and first aid kits in order to prepare for power cuts or digital communications going down, the deputy prime minister reportedly said."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/05/britons-should-stock-up-on-torches-and-candles-in-case-of-power-cuts-says-oliver-dowden

Hi Dumbly - thanks, that makes sense. You wouldn't want to have to make a decision in the limbo period. A clear run up to April then for tax purposes. I'm expecting something to be revealed before April and the delisting must make the rules a lot simpler without having compliance and shareholder prospectus/legal/voting etc.. potential burdens.

So far two people haven't a clue.