Member Info for SharkSaber

The big boys are probably reading this thread too about the uncertainty of SQZ moving forward into the future despite the convincing earnings prospects for the next three years. The bod's got to do something more concrete and assuring to secure its long term future earnings in the current wake of Labour's energy policy in their determination to stamp out all fossil fuel consumption by 2030. Crude oil will very likely be the next jilted lover like coal within 20-30 years moving ahead, and even natural gas in the UK might barely hold onto its grip as the main source of power consumption by then when 2050 comes around. Developments of cleaner alternative fuels like hydrogen, even water too have already arrived to potentially overtake oil's place in developed countries, and developing countries are going to play catch up with them within the next ten years or more roughly. But for now, there's still time for fossil fuels to shine for a little while in the medium term.

I felt that SQZ would do best in a slower energy transition environment out of country, and will have more time to switch itself overtime as a cleaner energy player in the future if they play their cards right.

Meg:

This would show a cautious and prudent CFO in response to the current O@G situation at hand. It sounds very much a positive in terms of management sector outlook here as they are not going to blindly assume anything favorable coming out of the matter,but to hope for the best in the outcome while simultaneously prepared for the worst if the next Labour speech given on that matter deteriorates things further beyond no return.

Unfortunately we are only a bunch of small fry shareholders who could only come together to speculate, yap and yelp about the dire O@G situation at hand , but we're nevertheless powerless to effect anything to our favor.

Rather, a collective voice of protest on the streets with banners and placards screaming the perils of unstable energy security and policy as dictated by Labour wacks is the necessary hell needed to raise the issue more pragmatically and loudly into the deaf ears of them green energy fanatics, never mind the potential confrontation between the equally religious and crazy climate extremists as each side competes to shout their cause in the loudest manner possible for their respective desired outcomes to happen in their favor lol.

The only possible conclusion of a concession to the oil industry, if any were given, would be to allocate generous allowances in pursuing renewable investments and decarbonizations. It'd defeat the purpose of championing the cause for a rapid green energy transition in the UK if they keep the same allowances like before to the O@G industry.

Hence if Serica can bulk up it's coffers sufficiently within the window of time it could still make decent profits in order to acquire targets that are well positioned assets wise into the renewables future, then it will be a positive value up for its SP. To revamp itself completely from its current field of operations expertise as an upstream O@G entity into a renewables energy player would take too much time and capex to metamorphosize effectively and efficiently in the business model transitioning process. Better if it plunks down its cash to get a relevant but cost effective foreign energy company in a country that's receptive to all forms of energy usage and consumption while taking it's time to transition over to renewables overtime.

Worst possible case, it avails itself for a buyout by either Mercuria or other interested takeover parties. But I believe that this will be only entertained as the last resort after all other noteworthy options have been exhausted thoroughly by the bod. A wing and a prayer indeed hoping for them to make a decisive wise move here for the benefit of all LTHs.

"UK’s critical gas infrastructure at risk due to EPL tinkering" https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/560141/uks-critical-gas-infrastructure-at-risk-if-investment-allowance-scrapped/

Yep, from all the negative feedback here about Labour's speech and intent on furthering their green energy agenda policy, it's obvious that they are really nailing the O@G industry to the cross of oblivion in a sense. And they still wanted to strangle the golden goose's neck tighter despite ample warning from findings by industry experts about the matter. The intention of establishing Green British Energy corporation says it all and they're fully headed into the renewables trajectory, but at a heavy cost of foolish pride and a potentially severe national deficit awaiting ominously in the near future.

A 78% EPL with no allowances is very much certain to stay as the verdict of the speech outcome, if not already gaveled down by Labour. Even if allowances are given, it wouldn't help in the cause for their maniacal rapid transitioning into renewables if they just maintain it year after year...more likely they would reduce it overtime to zero as time nears towards 2030 at the quickest, if not possibly 2040. But 2030 is their target number for rapid energy transition achievement, and they are barreling down on their dimwit agenda at full speed in the UK like a Category Five hurricane tearing through the Atlantic on the way to coastal destruction in American shores.

SQZ needs to refocus their priority out of the country towards more conducive greener pastures instead of gambling their chips on the UKCS even though it could still work out decent profit magic at current low oil prices. As've been previously mentioned, they have a window of time to do so as the bod takes advantage of that along with the tax losses. Can't see much hope in persuading the green fanatics any further to keep the O@G industry alive here. But they definitely will see the consequences of their energy policy folly in the near future. And it won't be pleasant when the common folk is hurt by rising energy prices, blackouts and job losses.

Well men and women have very different biologies physically to begin with. Not all of us could show the same thing here just saying.

Legache:

Yea I get what you're saying, but it's just an awful pity if such a rare gem of a company's true worth would be taken away from shareholders just like that lol. It's not like there are lots of good stocks to keep and hold for the long term here. I like to be invested in a company for as long as it has great value and well run, while perhaps others just like to flip stocks like burgers.

At even the potential takeover price premiums that you'd listed, I'd still feel kinda 'shortchanged' for lack of a better term to release a good stock into some controlling shareholders' hands.

Investing can be complex in its own way in terms of not just analyzing the numbers and the charts, but it could also involved in some sort of ' a wing and a prayer' element to it especially when you're buying a deeply discounted stock heavily punished by the market for as long as the dark clouds of the night prevails over it, not knowing when you'll see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Then when there's a ray of hope shining in, the stock that you know in your gut is an excellent turnaround candidate gets snatched and taken away by an entity that has more controlling power, if it steps in, and smells the heavy scent of great value as you do. That's what makes me grit my teeth in deep frustration losing a great gem in that manner. It sucks being the small fry average investor in such a scenario.

Lol, maybe I couldn't help it but be too 'married' to a decent performing stock here which has its pros and cons for sure.

Why keep on hoping for a potential takeover when the shareholders can be better served by allowing SQZ to grow bigger further? To be bought out at a low valuation would benefit those that bought close to the bottom, but it's still a loss to those who bought it at much higher levels. I definitely didn't want a takeover to happen no matter what as one would lose the opportunity to hold onto a cash cow so to speak....that is if the cash cow can grow fatter here.

They are adverse to heating oil and natural gas for a warm tub bath. Only hot blowing wind or the sun's rays are accepted to heat it up. Uranium heating rods are an option too lol.

With Serica firmly anchored to the seabed at 110p and rising upward, I bet that he might hold on a little longer till it probably rises to fair valuation before he lets go lol. He's a former company insider if I'm not mistaken, so he definitely knew when to sell it at a decent upward price.

On a side note, yea 290p earliest in 2026 is pretty realistic enough. The part of Brent reaching that critical $80 per barrel level in 2H24 makes me sweat in nervous anticipation. It's a $7 plus more stretch to go from the current $73 pbl level. Hopefully those shorts wouldnt be waiting in the shadows at the $80 level as the bullish oil train continues chugging along with the help of Fed rate cut boosters.

290p? That's quite a high target to achieve in the near term. How soon does it project to get there at that target price? 290p will be a tall order even within 3 -6 months as there will be near term resistance levels to test along the way I'm sure. Let's try a moderate 180p first for starts within 90 days and then move upward from there onwards. I'm happy to be wrong if it could rocket up to that target price much quicker.

At this point most folks here are dismissive of Labour even trying one bit to help out the O@G industry, given how big of a gut punch it had given to them at the onset. It's just more bad anticipations and expectations all across the board for LTHs.

Convincing the green fanatics to give even a sliver of concessions to the oil industry would even make a tyrant howl with evil laughter. The O@G sector is left to fend for its own survival while it's lifeblood continues to be drained away by hmg's leeches.

Investing inherently has its risks yes, but we need not a dimwit or two to make things much more miserable further because they wanted to be in first position of climate change so badly. They've not really thought out thoroughly what are the potential consequences of their gung-ho renewables manifesto if they rush it's development as fast as road runner could run around the world in five hours.

For the love of the country, the leaders in charge of Britain can't afford to make harebrained political and economic decisions as hazardous as what they're currently doing to national energy security, and simultaneously compromising the national budget in the future to the detriment of the British common folk which was left in a bad state thanks to the Tories' actions. From what I could see, Labour doesn't have much room for error especially on the economic side as they pretty much have to undo the budget damage done by the previous party and maneuver their spending decisions based on a budgetary tightrope that they've inherited from the Conservatives.

Other business sectors that Labour is trying to tax on, most probably wealth management and pension funds are definitely not viewed with favor by those who'd be potentially affected by the taxation increases. So very most likely, the O@G industry will have to be the unfortunate fall guy to shoulder the budget deficit problem because of their high earnings returns over most industry sectors of the economy. And if Labour is highly dependent on the O@G industry to shore up it's national coffers, then enact sensible and pragmatic measures to keep the golden goose alive and well while it continues to lay more golden eggs for them. A dead goose never helps in the cause for budget targets to meet renewable energy goals in the future.

Unless if they could get another golden goose in an equally lucrative business sector to milk those golden eggs from, I highly doubt that there'll ever be another one to be found elsewhere.

The energy transition tab is staggering, so I wonder whether the Bank of England would help turn the money spigot looser by lowering interest rates rather than keeping it stable in order to help realize the transition goal once the Fed begin cutting theirs. Energy infrastructure financing needs to be more relaxed than usual to help jumpstart the process I suspect.

I hope your guess is good here on the Autumn Statement. Hopefully some much needed concessions are given to the benefit of the local oil industry at the very least. We'll see whether OEUK's findings have given Labour an about turn here or not.

Lol net zero means " net 'zero' " to Labour's coffers instead. It wants O@G money badly but they've choked off whatever oxygen is left for the industry to keep breathing on. It's like saying " I want your money but I'm not going to keep you alive to make that money for me". How is this logic possible? Please check those brains out Labour, thank you very much.

We need a GameStop revolution here to kick out glg partners big time causing the SP drag geez.

Delta, now we're getting to the bottom of the muck aren't we? The big money trail is never seperated from politics itself as always. But right now the oil prices seems to be holding steady and climbing much higher prior to the Fed interest rate announcement. It'd be most interesting to see how high it'll go and stay. Will Goldman's bold prediction come true that oil prices would go up to $100 per barrel? Possibly if the intensity of the Middle East and Ukraine conflict were to escalate higher, but I wouldn't want WW3 to happen at all even if that helps move oil prices higher. Otherwise against the backdrop of vigorous push towards renewables spearheaded by our valiant Labour party and Europe in shining medieval armor, it'll most probably be suppressed at the crucial $80-$85 per barrel level we'll see.

Glad to know that Serica could still make good profits even at the $70 level and slightly below. (If their cash flow profits could net in half million at that level, what's the estimate then at say $65 per barrel? ) This is the most rock solid comforting news that all SQZ shareholders need to hear to keep the faith in the company.

Because producing gas from your own shores would discredit Labour govt's vows and ambitions to fast forward Britain towards their net zero goals by 2030 at the quickest. And that would certainly draw the ire from Just Stop Oil climate activists condemning the Labour cabinet for ignoring the health of the planet. Labour's hypocrisy comes from the fact that they're discouraging local producers from doing their part in ensuring national energy security, but would go behind their backs to import large quantities of energy from the US and possibly Qatar apart from Norway. As long as Britain is not the one drilling for energy it's okay it seems.

But the problem is, in the meantime the immediate energy demand had to be satisfied here while the energy transition to renewables is ongoing. So let's keep things hush hush, and bring in energy from other countries instead to cover our production decline while we keep on target towards our net zero emissions target within the specified deadline. Everyone here knows that UKCS still has reserves left to tap on and could be utilized for the country's needs, so why does Labour kept chanting about being carbon free but doing the opposite instead by encouraging more energy imports? If they could they wouldn't have approved licenses previously under consideration by the Tories' on their tenure, but they'd stopped future drilling licenses from there on moving forward.

This is a clear case of utter political hypocrisy and betrayal of the local O@G industry by nailing it to the cross of onerous taxation and letting it bleed out painfully to its own death. Their net zero stance only stands true if they would forgo the imports and just rely on the current power output of available renewables at current. But as we all know this is certainly not possible at the moment. And the likely result will be power blackouts nationwide.

A 15% increase in share price means nothing but still a grievance to LTHs who'd bought at much higher SPs than those who'd timed their buy call nicely near the bottom. They knew with deep conviction that SQZ is a fundamentally sound stock, but yet unbelievably for a very long time it still keeps going down lower and lower persistently, notwithstanding taking into consideration the adverse decline in oil and gas prices in the current economic environment.

But the greatest aggravator of SP decline is no doubt caused by the impractical stupidity of Labour's onerous tax burden as they overzealously implemented the push to renewables as quickly as five years down the line, without even giving any consideration as to how their push of policies down the line would affect their ambition to shore up the national coffers for their green energy corporation, and the devastating deficit that it'll sustain if they keep strangling the O@G golden goose tighter near death with greater EPL increases and total cut off of allowances.

No other nation other than UK and Europe running behind a close second is doing a frenzied rush towards renewables transition like a hurricane roaring down the Atlantic Ocean towards the coastal shores of the States.

If the current UK govt could perceive that Russia vs Ukraine war have sparked deep concerning fears about energy security on a geopolitical scale, then they are certainly ignorant and dumb not to assess the situation on the local front and gather constructive feedback from the industry that's relevant to the issue.

That's why many mouths criticize Labour's thinking and mentality about the issue, and not to mention as well the 'treachery' of jilting local oil and gas reserves in favor of imported energy from other countries as someone had pointed out here earlier in the thread, hence putting a bigger dent in the national coffers indeed.

It seems like there are certain people on this thread who don't get the collective frustration of O@G shareholders, company board personnel and workers, where the punitive policies of current people in charge now are terribly crucifying the entire industry sector concerned without formulating anything concession wise that might at least help to maintain a certain level of profitability for them while giving them a practical window of time to realign their businesses towards a greener future.

Planning to take $20 billion plus of oil profits to further your green British energy agenda and not give any allowances to the industry at the very least it's called highway robbery no 1. It's like strangling the golden goose tighter with a noose after taking it's eggs every time it lays some as the breeder wants to have it's meat now and can't wait further.

Furthermore, trying to save the planet as quickly as you can within a span of five years while ignoring the practical consequences of a sharp ramp up of energy transitioning policy aggrieves the common folk further with higher energy bills down the line in the near term, and the entire O@G sector would be very happy to hightail it out of the country and let other business sectors foot the enormous energy transition tab gladly. Would love to see which other business sector would gladly pay the EPL in a tight economic environment at current without any complaining.