Member Info for romaron

Thanks for that Hunbah. I wasn't picking a fight with Stevo and value his contributions. I just rail against people who pick up a narrative and simplify repeat it even when it's nonsense. It is accepted by Stevo and he's not alone. It isn't black and white and you can take both sides depending on what your agenda is. Stevo is an accountant whilst I'm an amateur lobbyist trying to protect my investment. If the politicians are saying it then it must be true is all too easily adopted. Whatif the politician doesn't really understand it either (Starmer)? Complaints are made about MPs seldom having worked in business - well hedges and options should be included. I worked in FX for 27 years so know more than most in that area BUT I never worked with balance sheets or P&L . It was also 26 years ago so I am not up-to-date yet I doubt much has changed. More algos but deals like the Cobas one still go on and there is a hidden wall of interest that is intermittent but EnQuest isn't under the radar - professionals follow it and it is getting interesting. I'm sure Stevo welcomes the challenge because it helps all of us to stay fresh and adapt as we go along. The biggest for me was the Serica OU. I thought EnQuest had been fooled by James Murray as I'd heard he was "listening". The Serica guy confirmed it was true but it changed 2 weeks before the budget. He said "it went from technical to political." - That can be reversed. It also means JM needs to reclaim credibility and trust. I do worry that Reeves may be an eco-zealot. The OGPM reeks of political interference that came via a committee where token technocrats were bystanders. The industry were crowbarred into accepting it as it was the best we've seen so far. They should say all bets are off after this debacle.

BTW - I hear you're Swedish but your English is the best on this message board. I enjoy your take too. It isn't predictable.

He added he has “never seen trading this bad, even in the downturn of 2008”.

“Chemicals, a one trillion Euro industry, cannot survive without tariff protection immediately alongside action on crippling and absurd carbon taxation. Energy prices are four times higher in Europe than in the US and that is totally unsustainable.

“The net result of this disastrous European policy is a tsunami of closures of major chemical facilities across the continent of Europe. In the five-year period from 2022 to 2027, a total of 90 facilities have either closed or have announced closure with a loss of almost 25 million tonnes of capacity.

“These plants would all cost €1billion to replace so a loss of almost €1 trillion from Europe’s asset base.

“This data is clear evidence of decline that can no longer be ignored by the politicians. Someone needs to wake up before the entire industry is gone, leaving Europe dependent on China for the core materials that support defence, healthcare, food and manufacturing. We need action now.”

--------------

He also states that no Chinese company is making a profit in chemicals and that they were driven out of the US and now dump on Europe because of their vastly over built capacity.

Perhaps our friends from the Green movement have a plan for how we can exist without chemicals?

That is meaningless drivel Stevo. Any recorded profit (or loss) is on realised prices. That's what we've been doing since I've been invested here. Forecasts will use "market prices" because we don't know what they'll be. They can be accurate or miles out. It suits the government narrative to cloud the issue so for once I agree with you. It really isn't that complex but this government is intent on making it so. So complex in fact that the Prime Minister doesn't understand it.

So the government create a scapegoat by hinting that some evil billionaire oil magnate or petrostate will attempt to manipulate the OGPM against the freezing widow. In truth you never over hedge because you might have production shortfalls and then be in a position of having to buy oil to settle contracts. Even if you could read the crystal ball correctly and match correctly you could end up in a position whereby you have capped the selling price and if the price was (say) $150 you'd be missing out on $60 worth of 22% profit. Would you want to match exactly to avoid paying the OGPM by selling at $90 in a $150 market? It gets crazier by the minute but it keeps tax accountants in work.

Hedging is normal market practise and OGPM does nothing novel in recognising hedged realised prices.

What it does do is cloud the issue and a much simpler way is to remove the windfall tax rather than try to find an excuse for it and the country still has the sovereign right to impose another WFT if needed. It gets even deeper when you have the likes of Tessa Khan flitting in and out when it suits to say that the UK gets NO benefit because oil price is set globally. She ignores transport costs and that other favorite of Trump; Tariffs plus sanctions and taxes. The minute you mention the word "hedges" you get the NZ Zealots immediately see anybody involved in O&G as a shady hedge fund billionaire oppressing the world's poor rather than a rig worker or the landlord of a pub in Aberdeen.

They continually create strawmen to hide their intent and the OGPM reads exactly what it says on the tin. A creation to reinforce the idea that the O&G industry is a threat to civilisation and will stop at nothing to maximise their profits. In short - it is the enemy. What a load of codswallop. That's my opinion and I don't want to bore readers any longer so won't be responding.

And the Unions fall for it every time. Persecute an industry that is the backbone of our energy utilities.

You're going into PSC Seligi type arguments now. Most prudent O&G companies hedge. Companies choose what percentage of production they wish to hedge and then I suppose they need a Chinese wall to keep their trading departments from cross contamination or claims of collusion and avoidance when calculating OGPM if it happens in the future. Wish I'd never commented. A whole industry of accountants created to demolish and fight over any profits that might survive the destruction of the UK O&G industry. Good luck to any future administrators sorting this out. Simplicity and predictability which they have in spades elsewhere - not this creation. I'm sure someone at Goldmans already has a derivative to sell involving OGPM.

My point is that companies are in O&G which is cyclical and hard enough without these added "solutions" from Treasury spads. Tax advisors will always attempt to minimise taxation so maybe AB is the wrong person to run EnQuest. It needs someone good with numbers. I still prefer what they used to call an oil-man rather than be run by taxation specialists.

I don't know if you're talking about the OGPM but if you are it has been designed specifically to prevent doing exactly what Stevo suggests - avoiding the tax by capturing any realised value companies receive, including gains or losses from hedging. I don't agree with the last sentence either. The OGPM is due to come into effect in 2030 so as it stands will see the "light of day". A forced earlier introduction would mean a collapse of the gas price and a government standing in the ashes of a once important industry. The ineffectual Unions might be lifted from their apathy if that happened and the Jocks might send more than an angry letter to the Treasury copying in the DESNZ. The other impact could be that it indicates a recession and the government then has the challenge of looking for growth with possibly the highest renewable prices in the world. I don't see it happening but then I'm not short of EnQuest.

EnQuest has connections with almost every company left operating in the NS. Occam's razor or the bleedin' obvious often gets missed. For all our effort spent on the message board over the years has led us LTH's to each have an outsider's opinion of AB. I hope he is stubborn otherwise the years have been wasted imo. Valuation is for Stevo who isn't invested and I'll accept I have elements of confirmation bias which isn't really scientific or even follows investor fundamentals. I am not alone though. I am joined by other LTHs which include Aberforth, Cobas, Bailley Gifford, Helikon and Schroders who make a living out of their investment choices and whilst not always successful pickers I'd hardly call them dopes either. They certainly know more than me.

Labour can only avoid the real world for so long and ideology might sit OK within the environs of cities but that won't get them reelected. By now the public know that renewables aren't free or even cheap. I'm not happy to wait but I am prepared to wait for the EPL to be effectively removed with the OGPM. Scotland is in an even worse situation but they seem happy to have the SNP turn back the centuries and won't be happy until the Highlands are returned and Gaelic and Scots spoken again (Glasgow might not agree). Self-interest usually triumphs so eventually the self-defeating energy tax will be removed.

I think we may see EnQuest split. Shell still exist but not so much in the UK. Most of their UKCS production is now in the JV with Equinor. What if Harbour reverse engineer as they did with Premier into EnQuest for their NS interests? I would be more for a deal that keeps us in the NS until sanity returns. We'll still have SEA. I don't particularly want a 3 legged company deal with Serica.

I've mentioned before Lord Peter Palumbo. He would not see 4 years as long term and I don't expect it to take 4 years for the EPL to be removed. I realise AB will have ambitions that may well be private but having come this far I don't want us being sold off cheaply to short-term operators or investment banks. I'd rather be obstinately independent because I believe that better deals lie ahead. Companies go through phases and the current JV/Merger mania isn't obligatory and we still have control of our monetisation and future value of EnQuest.

The 1,000 job losses was rejected by a government spokesperson before Rachel Reeves went to Scotland. I was told a week ago that the government challenged the figures because they don't show up in unemployment claims. I have written to Unite but expect little back. They [Unite] are in a position to poll members as being the largest TU and could work with OEUK and other Unions to put this to bed once and for all. Are the SNP interested?

Frac - I hadn't seen that article before. It was very prescient and is almost a year old.

I was told that the reason the unemployment numbers are not showing is that O&G workers move overseas but that could be anecdotal and I think what Dumbly says is what interests the government. Votes aren't weighed by salary.

Looks like it was them yesterday that bought 20mio +.

Listening to the Serica update. Made me think. A lot of the Spirit deal is gas. I don't have the figures but I'd suggest that EnQuest is Oil in the NS and Gas in SEA. The CEO of Serica was an ex CEO of Spirit which gave him contacts and insight. If deals are around gas presently then it isn't our time. He also mentioned that there is plenty of growth in old fields. “New growth comes from old fields.” “The biggest discoveries left are in fields we already know.”

“The next barrel is in an old field.” It augurs well for B&B which are almost one huge field. Problem is - when?

Good point Ken. The NS won't go away but Labour look likely to. Potter on and come back when reality returns. There had to be more than meets the eye with the new RBL freedom.

Never as simple as that unfortunately MSM. What if we're (for example) looking at Harbour assets. This might have to wait until the Administration deal with Waldorf is finalised. I wouldn't say incompetence but there may be stubbornness. All these deals rely on at least two parties and you'll never really get to the bottom publicly.

I was even thinking about Starmer and Miliband. Surely some wise heads are pointing out the flaws in their apparent going all out for the NZ finishing line. They also play cards close to their chest ans U turns can be very sudden if there are votes in it. I can't imagine the Unions are all-in on the renewables bet either. The officials are further left than their workers and eventually have to listen to them, especially when votes are needed. Sharon Graham is up for reelection at Unite the biggest next year.

Background movement. Serica has bought Spirit assets. Neil McCulloch would have been involved. He worked for EnQuest 2014-2017 and then joined Spirit only leaving them in November. We would have been aware. I think we're up to something KO.

This afternoon in Westminster

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EybOttn4rI

watch from 1:20 where Harbour gets a mention about 300 job losses. Harbour says "one reason is the UK's tax regime" - Starmer's response "ultimately a commercial decision". So nothing to do with tax then and Labour are in the clear.

AI view - what you saw today fits perfectly with:

A fund saying: “This sector is uninvestable for me under current UK policy”

Not: “Something specific is about to happen at EnQuest”

That distinction matters.

"If Harbour starts trimming tail assets, ENQ is the logical counterparty." I got there in the end Hunbah. Harbour will trim assets as LC follows the Oil Major's manual. We could be their favoured counterparty. Price is only one element to consider. Delivery, confidentiality and trust are necessary too. I think EnQuest ticks all those boxes.

Hi KO - I asked AI and that can't happen:

"What Harbour’s announcement doesn’t say (yet)

Completion is unconditional — it’s expressly conditional.

All creditor claims have been resolved — they are still subject to settlement.

Regulators have already signed off — no, that is still pending."

Reading through stuff the administrators aren't anything like bailiffs this is the AI short version:

"Liquidator = collect and close

Administrator = stabilise, decide, and transfer responsibly"

Those factors mean there's still work for administrators through Q1 2026 and until that's done no announcements can be made and nothing can be sold on. However it seems that these are highly competent people involved and nothing to stop Harbour talking to people including EnQuest in advance, subject to official agreements with Waldorf assets. Like you I thought this cleared the way. However, it looks like the deal will go through and nothing to stop Harbour selling off assets they already hold so this may well be a nudge to dispose of them shortly.

Interesting exercise though and I asked what keeps administrators fed during boom times and they are advisors who prepare companies for the down times too. They're highly thought of with a wealth of contacts. There aren't many in the NS.

We were the drivers of the Waldorf deal? I’m confident that if we wanted to be difficult to any buyer we could have been obstructive. I’m saying we must have been involved and had input. It seemed at first glance an odd move by Harbour but as with all distressed sales of companies in administration there are discounts to be found and unmissable bargains.

If I sound clever in the next lines, I have had AI assistance.

Harbour is one of the most active portfolio churners. They constantly sell tail-end production and rebalance JV positions with attention to reducing future abandonment risk. Waldorf reinforces this logic. This buying and selling is classic consolidation behaviour.

We are retail investors NOT insiders. Analysts are and hear stuff said in confidence. I’ve heard several times that it is widely known that Harbour is a seller of fields which fits in nicely with the MSM drivel we are all fed but they’ll add small tidbits that cannot be traced. It leaves out that they might also be buyers of fields, and I’ll admit to being blindsided by the announcement. I doubt anyone at EnQuest were.

The term “widely known” is only for us. Professionals would say “quietly marketed” and it is more than their job’s worth to leak data room info. Privately though it is OK to say something along the lines of “yeah, we looked at it but passed”. Analysts and companies need to keep the media onside and information is unofficially fed just as happens in Westminster. Not much different to house-viewings really. If you’re a seller you try not to be seen in a rush and as a buyer you haggle and point out deficiencies. Estate agents can make Janus look an amateur. EnQuest would have insight here. It also raises the interesting question: “are there ‘Estate Agents’ for oilfields?” I suppose they call themselves ‘advisors’ or ‘investment banker’ instead but it’s the same role.

I wouldn’t be surprised if LC and AB have empathy – I mean they could have been sharing cells if CAN had their way. I imagine that LC is much, much tougher than her public persona and I have no doubts about AB in this area. Both are very polite but neither reached this level without a core of steel.

I wonder if there is another deal to be announced whereby, we get the “widely known” properties that Harbour have had on this slow-moving and difficult market for some time? One step at a time.

Harbour Energy

2017- UKCS started with backing Chrysaor buying Shell assets.

2019 – buys ConocoPhilips assets

2021 -went public via reverse take over of Premier

2023-2024 Buys Wintershall DEA

2025 Buys Waldorf

Linda Cook 29 years at Shell – Joined Harbour in 2014

Phil Kirk President & CEO Europe of Harbour – stepped down 2022 – died 2025 aged 59

Random but important imo.

Linda Cook, Jonathan Copus and Serica executive attempted Citizens Arrest by CAN 24 March 2025, followed by attempt on Amjad Bseisu 2 days later.

Premier was poorly run and would take some time to change corporate mentality. They had regular champagne fuelled Friday afternoons at Santini’s and Roy Franklin ended the rooftop barbecue parties.

Linda Cook was verbally eviscerated at the July 2022 Environmental Audit Committee by Tessa Khan, Barry Gardiner, Caroline Lucas and Clive Lewis

I am as confused as many here but there are some inescapable facts:

The budget and warm noises /hints from government meant it was prudent to wait until after. This was behind the delayed announcement of the Neo/Total deal imo.

The company has hinted that more information will be forthcoming in the OU. And Frac's post below might suggest that there is a protocol move and that we may announce some speeded up work on Bressay. At this level whose to say that Government has behind the scenes made promises? And don't forget that Harbour once owned 18% of Bressay.

It is a vote of approval on EnQuest as a partner imo from Harbour.

Harbour has entered into a corporate deal. It doesn't necessarily follow that it will keep the assets it purchased in the form that they obtained them or dispose of them at a later date.

EnQuest could not have answered questions about Waldorf due to NDA's.

The market is bottoming out it seems and has had little Institutional support but that is changing. We once had 2 analysts covering us it is now 7. The Russian threat will focus on the need for oil in any conflict.

The main thing is I now accept and understand the reasons for the delay in the OU.

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CaVvglG8MA

Simply explained. That's important.