Member Info for romaron

Looks like the ban on gas boilers isn't gonna happen in 2025 because of a shortage of installers, limited domestic manufacturing capacity and a lack of consumer awareness. I count that as three so do I get the match ball for predicting they weren't gonna deliver?
The fact that they typically cost between £6,500 and £8,600 MORE than a new energy efficient gas boiler may have something to do with it but as usual price is treated as an irrelevance when you're saving the planet: source Today's Times.
They also mentioned that plans by UK companies to deliver a hydrogen network could mean that new homes built to the future homes standard would not be able to take advantage of hydrogen or other low-carbon fuels. (EY report)

It isn't all bad news for campaigners though. Humberside police have made considerable savings by converting their police cars to LPG. Naturally there have to be adjustments and catching criminals has suffered to some extent. Uphill car chases tend not to be so successful and the cars, as well as being covered for fire and theft, have additionally required cover for light drizzle. Still, their motto is "it is more important to be green than catch criminals."

Non problema Monkey. They also suffer from that other character failing. A total lack of humour. Not the case with you.

Be lucky

Hi Modestus - I doubt KO is even a shareholder. He promised to attend an AGM and then used the flimsiest of excuses to cry off with days to go a few years ago. Even if he is a shareholder he is far to erratic and excitable to offer anything of value. I've placed him with that other weirdo chilting. Neither are that bright or have ever offered any original thoughts. They changed views on a daily basis.
Why if you're not invested hang around. They may be timid day traders but have nothing to offer me.

Covid has created a false sense that renewables are winning. They aren't but have increased their overall share but then the world economy has been idling for best part of a year. In the fossil world you had to cut your coat according to your cloth which meant closing uneconomic fields whilst subsidised renewables basically had almost zero competition. The test will be now that the world economy is growing. I expect the limitations of renewables to put back the timetable as pragmatists take over and people find out the magic money tree doesn't exist. There are plenty of things that activists want to ban and products that are bad for humanity and they're not all fossil. Take booze. In Islamic countries it is mostly banned but available in some hotels or illegally for instance. To save livers and prevent drunkedness it is also highly taxed. Then there is the fact that all renewables aren't equal. None match fossil for price and density it is the pesky emissions that cause the problem.
Some countries have an abundance of sun or hydroelectric. But that's not much use if you live on the west coast of Ireland or Amsterdam. Hydrogen is brilliant on emissions but lets not mention cost or the challenges of creating a national grid. Nuclear - expensive and some countries just won't have it. Ground and air source heating? Fine but only really works with new builds or extremely costly refurbs. EVs? Let's see. I don't really need two cars but if I go down to one it will not be an EV.
Talk is cheap but in this country we cannot find the cash for care or the NHS but for some reason the environmentalists think they are more important. It is nimbyism at its worst with people expecting somebody else to foot the bill. The majors have been demonised and expected to pay for the executioner's bullet. I do expect common sense to return at some stage.
Renewables have been with us for decades and EV's are over a 100 years old.
I agree the percentage fossil fuels against total energy used may reduce but there is a fair chance as the world pulls out of Covid that overall energy use increases and fossil demand will be at pre Covid levels. The percentage will be lower but with its advantages over renewables it will attract a premium.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it Greta!

Pack it in E. You could see the frustration with Linda Cook at Harbour. They were prevented saying certain things because of the unpublished prospectus. We're in the same boat. At least give credit to EnQuest for giving us this much info.
just been speaking to K and he reminded me of the lack of liquidity in EnQuest. Volume still miserable but if somebody wanted to buy a lump they'd struggle and it would put dynamite under the price.

Hi E - yes it is moot if we were closing shop but it sounds like FDP's are intended and there's always another deal at the right price. I'm reading nothing into the lack of an interest rate because it wouldn't mean much to most here (me included) and may be at the request of the lenders. I'm sure there are other oil companies that are even more interested in the rate. the rate in some ways is irrelevant. Look at Hurricane. It wasn't the interest rate that did for them. There wasn't any credit available.

There is commercial sensitivity and often the board want to say more but have restrictions imposed. It happened at Harbour when Linda Cook and Phil Kirk were walking on eggshells and policed by a financial/legal guy. They cannot leak the prospectus. We always want more information but sometimes the company cannot legally provide it. It comes under Governance and we are a responsible company.

I think the $50 mio is a condition and it does give added protection to the lenders. Some things are just unavoidable. I just hope the discount for LTH's is worth having. I'm happy either way but assuming it's baked into the deal.

Hi Mriggy - I think it will still be necessary "Further details on the new facility will be included in the forthcoming prospectus associated with the Group's proposed acquisition of the Golden Eagle assets."

Hi HM - EnQuest run a tight ship and that was the tiniest of leakage. The bond market is closer to those engaged in refinancing and would have heard something or seen the appointments. As usual the equity traders were staring at the price of Brent or IEA figures and looking for signs. They missed the one staring them in the face.

"Upon refinancing of the Group's existing high yield bonds" am I right in my reading of this? They intend to issue new bonds at some future date. This means that the BBK hub may well be in the pipeline plus of course other opportunities as they arrive. Our ambition is not dimmed. Debt is your friend (as long as you don't have too much: Jim Buckee)

I make no claims here as I am not an expert but I am an observer. I was going to make the subject here "Risk Off" because I think it is what the current bond pricing of EnQuest suggests. My reason is that I follow Tullow bonds purely because they're the only other one quoted on the Luxembourg Bourse and although far from perfect you do need some yardstick even if it is rough and ready. Remember, this is an area ignored by most pundits; partly because they know even less than me. I'm happyfor my claims/suggestions being ripped apart.

Tullow have 2 bonds maturing 01/03/2025 @7% and the latest one maturing 14/05/2026 @10.25% which is a new one isssued only on 17/05/2021
The pricing of them give a level of YTM c. 11.4% for the 2025 and 9.25% for the 2026 I believe the disparity is more to do with the more favourable terms (to the lenders) of the latest bond. Tullow were not in a strong negotiating position before it was issued.
An observation I have made is that in this situation the bond with the nearest maturity is often higher and is a result of the uncertainty around renegotiation if there is a risk they will not be repaid in full. Tullow did in fact have 2 bonds maturing 15/04/22 that attracted very high YTM before they were settled with the new bond and other financing arrangements.

The 2 EnQuest bonds maturity 15/10/2023 at 7% are currently on a YTM c. 10% although the RB LSE quote has 9.539% and I'd tend to trust them more. In fact the YTM on the 2025 Tullow is suggested at 12.0575% here:
https://markets.businessinsider.com/bonds/tullow_oil_plcdl-notes_202121-26_regs-bond-2026-usg91237ab60

My conclusion is that there is very little downward pressure on either of our bonds and whose to say what the right level is?
The fact that they are heading to par suggests that there is little out there concerning the risk averse bond market for EnQuest.

signed: Pollyanna

Hi Squif - I had at the back of my mind that he'd bought some but I wouldn't call him a big debt holder. Earlier I looked at the message boards of HBR and CNE and they aren't really any different to this board. Posters are coming up with reasons to explain why the sp isn't following Brent. BP board as well to an extent.
I don't think we are under any debt pressure. A lot of the original holders have probably exited as the price went to 33 in 2016 and 28 in 2020 which would have been the time the vulture funds would have taken a punt. More likely in 2016 as in 2020 they were spoilt for choice. The traditional punt is buy the bonds and short the equity (ARCM and PMO) but I don't see any signs of that with us. Somewhere along the line the original holders would have been forced to sell by mandates and credit downgrades. The holders of our notes have cleaned up to an extentand it hasn't stopped yet by the looks of it.
My point is that really nobody wants oil stocks at present. If I wasn't already a holder I'd be loathe to buy them too as why go looking for trouble with the political football that is climate change. However, from a cash flow perspective I see them as a raging buy.
I also disagree that AB is disingenuous or not up to the job. The "G" in ESG is forgotten by some but this is a company that treats Governance with the importance it deserves and has a higher percentage of women on the board than many other companies. It is not tokenism to them imo. I am an unabashedf admirerof AB and he doesn't have to explain himself to me. His actions speak louder. This isn't an AIM stock and frankly any tub-thumping promoting EnQuest would have been a waste of energy. He knows this though I do think we need to change our presentations. They are looking increasingly dated but then so do many others.
In Q3 we should remove a lot of the uncertainty surrounding the refinancing etc. and give people a reason to run the slide rule over the company again. We are going to be throwing off a lot of cash.
Another reason I think we are not inplay is that AB would be a formidable opponent with his strategic holdings. I also fancy he has other ambitions in his life and isn't getting any younger. Not long to go now imo. The financial case will be irresistible to those looking for yield in the next couple of years. I don't like waiting either but I'm a lot happier than I have been since my first investment in the stock and we still have the tail-end of Covid to clear up.

Be lucky

I doubt lifting sanctions on Iran will make much difference if and when it happens. It'll only rubber stamp what they've been doing anyway. When Saudi Arabia increased production oil went higher. The market decided to read it as confirmation that supply was growing faster.

E - I don't care what is lifting the bonds but bearing in mind they are usually more cautious it is always a good sign. They'll hear tidbits about how our refinancing is going before the equity. It doesn't explainthe poor equity performance but I doubt there is much PI activity and the funds won't return unless the numbers are nailed down and the uncertainty removed.

How much debt does AB hold Squif?

before the page changes:
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/stock/ENQ1/enquest-plc/company-page
Looks like trades going through at 94.25 and a biggie on the 7th of 403,650
The bonds (HYN today 92.616) seem to be irrationally exuberant if viewed through the equity. Do they know something we don't?

won't be returning anytime soon. Regards the UT it has been discussedto death over the years and is there to enable people to close the books and go home. It is useful to all the funds and people who need a daily rate. People do die and there are forced sales. It goes on and on and on and on and on.
I was interested in the XTX markets involvement and texted a pal at InTouch Capital Markets about them. i asked if they were a broker. He replied "No - it's an electronic market maker - really shaken it up."
He called me back because he's nosey. He explained that they do the smaller amounts and no amount is seemingly too small. He explained that in our day it might cost $50 to process a ticket. Today it's more like 5 cents. I asked where the likes of Brevan Howard would go for size. He said the banks. He also added that it has ruined markets to an extent and we all want cheap and this is a careful what you wish for. He moaned that prices movements although small are more jerky than before. Gapping for no reason it seems unless you're an algo.
It does though explain to me the multitude of tiny amounts that go through if you can be bothered to check the daily trades. Why not let XTX split them up for you? There is a lot of money to be made if you can charge (say) $5 a trade and then get it through at a price between (say) 5 cents and zero. If you're Hargreaves Lansdowne it will be close to zero because of volume. XTX appear to have the best moustrap. I wouldn't read any more than that into it.
Regards AB and his Machiavellian scheming. It is just so much bllks and I feel sorry for those who fall for it but maybe that's just me. Perhaps we need to call in Cyber Ninja to check for voting irregularities? It is human nature to push the blame on somebody else or look for scapegoats. I blame myself but then I'm suffering from confirmation bias; or am I?

Hi Pelle - Slide 12 is better imo. Problem is it's over 5 years. I did my rudimentary figures and got $1.5 bn on the LHS and $2.75 bn @ 55 and $3.835 @ 65 on the RHS. It is a wet finger in the air calculation using 60K production and then there are declines and reserve top ups that would need financing but you have to start somewhere.
I've stopped worrying about EnQuest suddenly being on a brokers BUY list because I think that won't happen any time soon. i don't see much wrong with Harbour but there is a lack of buyers there too (I'm not invested).
I was gonna try and model EnQuest on a 7 year bond and it's probably beyond my ability. It obviously depends on the priceof oil but the asset decimation and majors departing could easily mean it would take a long time to get back to a few years ago. Longer than 7 years anyway in my estimation. If oilholds at this level it will be raining cash in EnQuest land.
My point is that this sector will only attract certain investors. Many in the ESG camp have turned their backs on oil anyway whilst the likes of Moody's have weighted the risk on oil companies far too high because they've never really seen anything like this before. AI, renewables and an almost religious movement against the anti-Christ that is fossil fuels led by a modern day Joan of Arc.
As always it'll be the numbers that do the talking and they are getting better by the day. EnQuest is a multi-bagger but it willbe by the returns that slide 12 lead on to. Put in 7 years and it gets even better. 10 years will do me fine. They'll still be talking about renewables are the holy grail in 10 years and I doubt we'll ever see a hydrogen grid of City size.

Be Lucky

Keeping the same subject heading becausethis guy thinks along similar lines but has far more experience and explains it more eloquently:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Is-This-The-Beginning-Of-The-End-For-Oil-Super-Majors.html

What I do like is how he explains the difference between the giant majors and smaller oil companies. Companies like EnQuest don't have the historical responsibility toclimate damage; if it exists at all? The transition is throwing up all kind of opportunities and much is happening in plain sight. To the market the majors are the oil industry. It cannot really see beyond them.

Comments I like and agree with:
"Consider this point. U.S. oil and gas operators retooled to be profitable on $30 oil. At $65 or $70, they are going to rain cash. The dichotomy here is that as assets come on the block from companies wishing to distance themselves from petroleum, other companies will find them irresistible and accretive to their bottom lines almost immediately."

"All of the forms of alternative energy have problems that are only just beginning to crop up. Wind and solar power require metal mining on a vast scale that may be unsustainable. Solar farms take up thousands of hectares of space in often fragile environments. Hydrogen requires essentially free electricity to split the H molecule from water or natural gas streams and is very corrosive. Biofuels, like ethanol, produce a lower density form of energy than petroleum products, requiring more of it to accomplish the same amount of work. There is no free lunch in the energy business, and the current shift to renewables will ensure that petroleum becomes scarcer and more expensive."

Read and enjoy! thanks to investor 1 on Placera for finding.

ooops-forgot to add "Strong Buy". For those who get fidgety because all of us are having their patience tested remember what the Afghans said and this is a small country that has seen off 3 empires. "You have the watches - we have the time."