Member Info for romaron

Rubber stamping - Gareth Penny said there was a quorum for the AGM and (to me) it follows that the quorum was enough to pass other business. The board were hustled out of the meeting pretty quickly imo and this was possibly to transact other business which is definitely happening. AB did say a deal within 6 months. There have been failed deals which we know little about but he did comment that those deals would not have reached EnQuest’s standards/markers. We looked at the recent

Viaro deal and it was interesting to hear that they [Viaro] are nice people with access to funds from the Middle East. Personally I think it just as helpful that they’re a few minutes walk away from our H.O. The Swedish investors that usually attend were not there. The overall attendance was less than usual and it is hard sometimes to know who the different people are. I believe there was someone from Merilll Lynch there. Definitely less PI’s than other years.

One tidbit that I liked. Some of the HYN holders are sticking their toes into the water and buying equity. This is confirmation that in debt terms we have definitely turned the corner. There is also a small benefit from ESG. US investors cannot believe the hoops we have to go through but it does help to sell EnQuest in California. We are small beer in US terms but still encouraging.

Back to rubber stamping. The outgoing NED’s are part of this process and are basically a requirement nowadays. I’m not sure what value they bring.

I spoke to Gareth Penny as he left (early). The money his parents spent on Charm School was wasted. I'm sure he's competent but doesn't warm to us little people. He's a Jim Buckee without the humour or warmth.

I doubt we'll see any deals before the election. Apparently there is a ramp of deals coming through once the current election and manifesto effects are announced. Both sides, buyers and sellers, are unsure of whether to deal now or wait.

I'll post things as I remember them and there was much to be pleased with. I asked the Dumbly question regarding the Indonesian gas discovery. I didn’t expect clarity and phrased it with “was there anything in it or was it just to add spice to the Davos interview?” – I then (to use an AB word) “segued” into a rant about the wasted breath on the EnQuest share price as though AB can do much about it. Our future is at the mercy of politicians and it is their gift if we get relief. The other factor weighing heavily on the sector is the new religion of ESG and the fear of funds to invest in the sector. I of course brought up my obsession with the 9X cheaper quotes by Miliband and Starmer.

AB replied with a far more eloquent “rant” (his words) and I’d say the people there listened intently. We are moving towards the end game of this stage of the industry’s transition. We were on the same page. I discovered later that EnQuest are now part of a kinda council with NSTA and others and that is quite a big deal. There are seven companies selected for this council (I’ll try and find out more) and we have moved up the ranking in importance in the UKCS. I am confident that behind closed doors AB pushes our case energetically.

*the answer to Indonesian question gas was positive but pretty corporate.

I'm more interested in the buyer - Viaro - who through RockRose bought into Bressay and EP. They have been busy and there is murky funding from the Middle East. Unless mentioned this could be part of a question to the company tomorrow.

Good spot Dumbly. You can listen from 06:53. He says that the "presumption against new exploration for oil and gas" is part of a 'draft energy strategy'; not the final strategy. The SNP, or at least Stephen F lynn, are FOR investment. It is dressed up with Net Zero aspirations but a clear intention. They are pragmatic and having beliefs don't get you votes. Jobs and revenue do. Labour are in a corner.

A point some are missing is that although Ed is compromised by his 9X cheaper quote it was later endorsed by Keir Starmer in major speeches. That means publicly Rachel Reeves cannot attack Ed because it would also be an attack on the leader. Do Labour double down and risk internal division? I still have no idea why the 9X quote isn't used to illuminate the idiocy of Ed's ideology.

"Investments in oil and gas extraction and pipeline transportation for 2024 are now estimated at $23.6 billion (247 billion Norwegian crowns), “which is historically the highest nominal estimate given since this statistic was created,” Norway’s statistics office said, commenting on a second-quarter survey of investment estimates."

Any idea how much the UK are "investing"?

Stuff going on there. Tumbleweed on their message board. Whatever Is going on in the UKCS is hidden from retail investors. They are an important NS player.

However, to date there have been no new wells drilled this year.” - I think we're missing the bleedin' obvious here. There is no O&G CEO Union as such and the parties are clearly ignoring the independents in Brindex. In turn Brindex are ignoring climate change if their website is anything to go by. OEUK call themselves the "Proud champions of the UK offshore energies sector" and are also in the sin bin judging by results. I'm suggesting that the political parties are better organised and effective than the O&G industry. They always hold the trump cards – sovereignty and taxation.

In that case why is the industry united in no new drilling? They have shown Labour exactly what will happen if they attack the investment allowance. O&G is a risky business and the wafer thin margins that apply to power and water companies cannot be imposed upon this industry. Do that and there will be NO investment. Norway by comparison are quite pragmatic and generous in that respect.

Labour have a choice. Back Ed and end the O&G UK industry in double quick time – or, encourage investment and increased revenues by working WITH rather than AGAINST this essential industry. I was listening to the election waffle and it appears there are 3 Labour big beasts. Starmer, Reeves and Rayner. Ed is being side-lined imo.

*I realise that there are other reasons why the large fields like Cambo and B&B haven’t started and Rosebank could still be shelved. Labour cannot prevaricate forever. They hold the trump cards but the pot is very small. It is a very risky strategy and that is not Starmer’s forte. Are Labour bluffing? Because the industry isn’t!

The £969m Profit shown in the video relates to British Gas by the looks of it. Labour have "cherry picked" here and Centrica has done well and did actually make a windfall profit. They then pretend that the whole NS O&G industry did the same. It's beyond me but I really need to see a table of comparative profits to be able to argue our case. I don't know if there is anything out there that might help. It's more Stevo and L7 territory.

Because it's politics M. Labour will say "we have the highest energy bills in Europe" and the interviewer or panel seldom knows enough to challenge the claim. In fact we don't have the highest bills in Europe.

Our bills are higher because of the Green subsidies; that's a fact. Debunking the nonsense is an uphill climb. This video repeats the erroneous statement of "paid for by a windfall tax on oil giants". There is NO windfall and the companies are not GIANTS. On Energy prices we are NOT anywhere near being the most expensive in Europe. This helps: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001jkq0

Which relates to a viral tweet saying our energy prices were 4X higher. They used ONE hour when the wholesale price of gas was exceptionally high and extrapolated it. They didn’t mention that it was also exacerbated/caused by NO wind. In fact we are in the middle for energy. Slightly higher on electricity and lower on gas.

* The random £969M profits at 0:32 interests me. Can anybody find the source?

“Handing Ed Miliband control of our energy system risks decimating proud oil and gas communities, risking our energy security, leaving us importing fuels with higher emissions and making the UK uninvestable.”

Labour was approached for comment.

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

The above was the end of a Telegraph article on Saturday titled:

Election spells end of North Sea as Labour policies doom oil industry

subtitle: Starmer victory would prompt operators to give up on British waters, warn analysts

It quoted David Latin of Serica, Kistos, James Reid at Wood Mackenzie etc.. and was basically a collection of what we've been discussing for months. EnQuest got a mention:

"Labour’s plans will cause similar problems for many other companies, with analysts pointing to EnQuest’s proposals to drill the Bressay and Bentley fields 80 miles east of Shetland.

EnQuest is another top 10 company, producing about 44,000 barrels of oil a day. Bressay alone could yield 200-300 million barrels, putting it on a par with Cambo and Equinor’s giant Rosebank field.

---------

It is putting pressure back on the politicians with reference to Westwood Global Energy Group saying - “At the start of the year, Westwood forecast that there could be up to eight exploration and three appraisal wells drilled in 2024. However, to date there have been no new wells drilled this year.”

Thanks gimla - I can't record a Tory politician ever making the 9X claim but it makes me wonder why they don't bring it up whilst they're accusing Labour of incompetence. I wonder if it's because you open the floodgates for a counter. It remains unsaid as in ‘we know you have a mistress or a penchant for wearing your wife’s underwear’ because we have plenty of peccadillos in our team too. I can’t really think of another reason because the cost of cleaning up our water systems is dwarfed by the cost of renewables.

It started with this I believe: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-record-low-price-for-uk-offshore-wind-is-four-times-cheaper-than-gas/

The politicians and activists twisted a temporary surge to become a new base. I’m sure a plumber who charged 9X the going rate on a Christmas Eve emergency would like to charge that in the New Year. The quote has been refuted many times (even by BBC) since by commentators but the public are by and large unaware. In fact with intermittency still nowhere close to being solved renewables are dearer than fossil fuels and have a fundamental INSECURITY built in. We aren’t under the same restraints as politicians or people in the industry so can say what we like. I don’t have a strong filter.

*tip – I heard it from a friend. If you wear ladies knickers get a size larger as they really cut-in.

Is it the same in Belgium M? Telling people what they want to hear is politics today. I was listening to the radio this morning about water and pollution. They say the Water Companies haven’t invested enough but want cheap clean water delivery and services as well. Investor dividends and paying CEO’s more than the minimum wage is now considered oppression and borderline illegal. My water bills are £440 p.a. That’s £1.21 a day – a pittance for an essential. Maybe there is a case for nationalisation but I read that things aren’t perfect elsewhere in Europe. Combined rain and waste systems were used in Europe too. The UK governments struggle to impose their will on foreign companies. Apple and Amazon are probably safe so they attack UK companies instead. They can only attack Shell and BP’s UK assets and profits so take their spite out on the backbone of the UK O&G industry instead.

*I did telephone in and spun the chat to the next ‘crisis’ by mentioning that Ed has told us that renewables are 9X cheaper than fossil fuels.

And Sharon asked if one of the green jobs created is a Deliveroo rider on an electric bike?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001zdtb @12:10 Name one job.

Hi VoR - AB wouldn't have known the date of the GE but he will have some idea of what Labour's plans are for the O&G industry. Labour have, until now, publicly stated that they are abandoning the North Sea. They are happy with the natural decline and the loss of jobs that will follow after their 'proper wft'. Their draconian fiscal attacks will stop investment in its tracks. They have been dishonest with the costings or (even worse) don't understand and have been misled by the evangelists. On the 6th of November 2022 Ed Miliband said on the Laura Kuennsberg show “solar and wind power is 9X cheaper than fossil fuels”. This was repeated on January 5th 2023 by Keir Starmer in his New Year speech at Stratford and at Davos later on January 19 2023. They need reminding. I think Ed still believes it.

I'm expecting little from the AGM for these reasons.

We are solvent and an important chip in the NS machinations. The Labour rep on BBC QT yesterday said on tax increases to compensate for the overtaxed - "we also need to make sure that the UK is competitive to business to invest as well". That clearly doesn't apply to O&G. On the same show the Lib Dem rep said on the "cost of living crisis" affecting 'ordinary folk' (is crisis a permanent noun in politics now?) said that the big banks had been given a £3bn tax cut by this Conservative govt. which they would reverse and the windfall tax on the big O&G companies wasn't enough and that there is such an enormous loophole in it that there are billions of pounds more they could be paying. By this I assume she meant the investment allowance. That would HALT any further development in the NS.

She is clearly out of touch but then so too are the other parties. I'm hanging on in with EnQuest because I don't think that economic suicide will be tolerated by the public. Sadly the pain is likely to continue.

There is also an outside chance that we are nearing completion of a deal or deals. I doubt the AGM will affect their plans here but Government action trumps everything. Modern populism politics is out of step with reality.

Correction - they still have plenty of coal in Europe which they already use; especially Poland and Germany. We will slide down the economic tables to reach the bucolic nirvana that Ed has promised

Objectively, Europe is a political powder keg.

How did it come to this? While it might be comforting to propagate the interpretation with tiresome “left/right” name-calling, we believe there is a deeper, underreported tension that puts the European Union (EU) at risk of disintegrating: the so-called green energy agenda is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. There is no denying that a shift away from fossil fuels and nuclear energy necessitates deep cuts in standards of living, lower standards of living are unpopular, and democratic elections are popularity contests. Unable to achieve popular support for proactive energy martyrdom, the ruling class turns to force, which only drives down their popularity further.

Arising from this set of circumstances is populism—it’s right there in the name, after all—and no amount of data massaging, propagandizing, and mud-slinging can break the link between physics and economics. The sooner Europe gets its energy policy right, the quicker it can stabilize its various political crises.

Given the choice between democracy and the green energy agenda, which will Brussels choose? How far will European politics disintegrate before the reckoning is made? Will the EU survive, or will it splinter into states that listen to their people and those that do not? Let’s look at the most recent bursts of pressure...

Unfortunately we can't as you have to pay Doomberg to read more.

Uniquely we (along with Norway) have what the rest of Europe would give their eye-teeth for - oil and gas. We are destroying it for the love of dogma and "sketchy" science. Bit like Italy giving up on sunshine and tomatoes.

Ofgem - It announced on Friday morning that the average household energy bill will drop by 7% from July 1, when the latest change to the regulator’s price cap takes effect.

The typical household’s energy bill is set to fall from the current £1,690 a year to £1,568.

This will be £500 less than the cap in July last year, when it was £2,074, but Labour pointed out it is still £400 more than in 2021.

Sir Keir will say that “after 14 years of Tory chaos” people “are desperate for change”.

“Families are picking up the tab of 14 years of Tory energy failure and are expected to remain a staggering £400 a year worse off under the new price cap.”

He will add: “Labour will stop families paying over the odds for energy. Great British Energy, our new publicly-owned energy company, will invest in homegrown clean energy to boost energy independence and cut bills for good.”

Ms Coutinho said Labour’s drive to decarbonise the electricity system by 2030 would “take us back to square one by making voters pay more for net zero”.

She said shifting away from North Sea oil and gas would put 200,000 jobs at risk.

Hi M - we don't know. It was a surprise announcement and the last I heard was that Sunak threw down the challenge of one debate a week with Starmer. It looks like there will be two at the most. I can understand Starmer's stance. As long as he and Labour do nothing the polls say they are the next government. He is avoiding trouble and the whole shadow cabinet are being evasive and not putting meat on any of the questions they get asked.

Last night on BBC Question Time, Bridget Phillipson the shadow Education Secretary got torn apart by a Labour supporter (51.00) who told her she hasn't answered any questions and just repeated Labour dogma. "Tonight you've said nothing, just given a lot of vague answers, just answer the question."

In response she prevaricated and quickly moved to safer ground for her, education - not a good performance.

At 18:00 when asked where the money is coming from repeated non-dom cancellation and "closing loopholes". I immediately thought of investment allowances for O&G so glad I listened again. She didn't mention O&G so that is a plus. Having said that energy wasn't really mentioned.

Https://x.com/aDissentient/status/1793207668774965445

I haven't checked my maths but then neither do the politicians.

Sorry. I forgot the parts of England that investors like monkey live in. Not everybody likes us Londoners thinking we know best and make choices that suit us but maybe not them.