Member Info for Tamovv

After fees, discount to par, call premium on old notes, etc. the cash raised should be more or less exactly sufficient to redeem the old notes and retire the retail bond (if desired, they´ve chosen the language carefully to maintain flexibility).

So at least the full RBL is availbale for M&A with the option for not retireing the retail bond to use this cash on top for a big one.

Now since this is solved, all eyes back on UK politics. Fingers crossed Reeves > Miliband.

Hopefully after local elections, labor loss and Miliband reshuffle we´ll have something tangible on taxation soon to remove the "M&A blockage" the UKCS is currently in (with so much promising but without decisions...).

Good, actual result much better than yesterdays price talk.

I was too optimistic, agree my costing based on the retail GBP nominated bond was not perfectly correct - as I admitted, not an expert in bonds.

However, solid results.

Stevo, any comments?

I would check the box now for:

[X] solve refinancing risk

Would be interested in Stevo´s thoughts, he seems to a bond guy.

My 2cents are as follows:

4,25%+ USD treasury yield

4,5%+ credit spread requirement for ENQ (given indirectly by its retail bond current yield)

0,25%-0,5% new issue premium

= about 9,0-9,5%

Everyhing below 9,0% would be a huge win, implying bond holders value the altered brent reality post Feb. 28th / SoH (and probably also that positive fiscal rhetoric by UK gov.).

Think we will know within 9 working days from today via RNS.

Yep, Same here. There were some familiar sounding newspaper articles Today, but I opt for choosing this one to post here, because of Davids Quote.

Furthermore, the JOG Stock Functions as my personal Indicator for political climate (hence they have no Production yet, so o&g prices don’t influence them too much). Total of 2x5% buyers on yesterday causing one rns each… Hope this proves some people know the tide has finally turned.

Talks on reform of offshore windfall tax to take place within days - think we finally got it.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/6970204/windfall-tax-reform-replacement/

Hmmm… per se very boring, but Hopefully they have been working on a not so boring project involving shareholder votes, when they noticed this error back then ;)

The Magnus transaction is very positive and the reason for this years sp performance in my opinion (beside the positive brent price development obv.).

60 mUSD should roughly equal two years of variale profit share annual installments. People called ENQs situation "distressed" given the upcoming refinancing mid of this year. I would argue in the opposite direction: Voluntarily investing 60 mUSD into the cancellation of a profit sharing agreement aiming for 100% own exposure of future cashflows shows confidence in the asset and own operations.

Net debt increased by 49 mUSD. Against that, we had some one-offs and adjustment items in my opinion:

- 22,7 mUSD Vietnam

- 20 mUSD RBL refinancing

- approx. 30 mUSD EPL cash outflow (against 2024 with stronger brent pricing)

- 15 mUSD dividend

- 20 mUSD adjustment for missing Q1-25 lease payment savings

So before dividend the business should have generated like 65 mUSD FCF on a normalized basis in my opinion (or approx. 4 USD/boe). Brent was roughly at 69 (we will get to know the actual realised price soon). So FCF breakeven should have been in the mid 60s rather than low 60s, so Stevo wasn´t too off again we have to admit.

Anyways, I hope was hoping for M&A to be the reason for the "delayed" TU. Now it seems like they waited for the succesful restart on yesterday, before immediately releasing today, so M&A remains a blackbox for now.

Nah, it might be just Stevo12, finally rotating from his bonds into Equity again.

If I recall correctly, the discussions mainly failed due to last years oil price collaps after "liberation day" and OPECs reveral of production (ceiling) cuts starting shortly thereafter. From a SQZ shareholder perspective, the agreed merger ratio (presumably close to 55/45 in favor of SQZ) didn´t fit any longer.

Back in Q4-25 I was rather pessimistic about potential continuation of merger talks, given the oil price and "oil glut narrative" for 2026 weighing on ENQ. SQZ managed to come up with some pretty nice M&A moves completely outperforming ENQs sp performance last year. So for them and their shareholders it was the right decision to walk away from that merger back then.

However, from a macro perspective, I am very bullish for oil for the remainder of 2026, whereas gas futures look weakish (especially for Europe with US LNG capacities ramping up). So the heavy-oil overweight of ENQ, which was perceived as a weakness back then, could become a strenght going forward.

ENQ recovered quite nicely from the 10 pence low with >40%. I was a little too optimistic about the autumn budget and increased my position to my absolute limit at about 12 pence already - best regards to Stevo who was right (again) being more pessimistic. But let´s do the equity vs. bond comparison for ENQ at the end of 2026 again (:

Long story short, SQZs extraordinary M&A success probably made a 45/55 not realistic any longer, but maybe both partys can continue discussions this year, so ENQ would gain some more strategic options next to mature UK 2P additions (hope Linda Cook of HBR still wants to dispose some mature UK assets after the disappointing budget, aiming to bring down HBRs debt after their Gulf of America addition...).

Ideally we scope up some mature HBR.UK assets first and sit down with Serica thereafter aiming for closer to 50/50 again.

I don´t see them reducing dividend guidance for 2026+, but rather think we can hope for 600m (14,5% forward yield as of today).

Given "the most anticipated oil glut in history" didn´t materialise (yet) and their 2025 exit production rate, I see them carrying home like 2,3-2,4 bUSD of EBITDAX.

Liquidity is quite ample, high capex phase depends on final Cambo share, so why would they adjust down top end from 15-30% CFFO framework. Of course sudden large scale M&A could change the picture here.

Cash tax was very low in 2025, like 15% effective tax rate. Even with higher cash tax burden in 2026, CFFO (after tax) should result in 1,8 bUSD+ in absence of commodity prices collapses (maybe weaker phase ahead like March to July, but I am very bullish oil starting from H2-26). I recall somewhat optimistic statements regarding dividend, so hoping for a postively surprising guidance next month.

Furhter US/Iran escalation not considered.

I was wondering, how the new 800m RBL with its 400m LC capacity section, does fit to ENQs UKCS M&A plans, so others here might find this reply useful too:

„5. Strategic interpretation

This structure strongly suggests EnQuest is preparing for:

Late-life North Sea acquisitions (20–40 kboe/d packages)

Examples:

• parts of Harbour’s UK portfolio

• aging BP assets

• Repsol Sinopec disposals

• Tailwind-like small packages with high abandonment obligations

Deals where decom obligations are 300m+ and LC capacity is essential

A 400m LC line is perfectly designed for the type of acquisition ENQ wants.

6. Bottom line

Although the cash tranche drops slightly, the new structure massively improves EnQuest’s M&A ability, because:

1. Almost all M&A packages they target require large decommissioning security.

2. Increased LC capacity means they no longer need to tie up cash in security.

3. New structure makes ENQ a credible buyer for large late-life packages.

4. Effective cash available for acquisitions actually increases, not decreases.

This is a very bullish sign for upcoming A&D activity.“

DYOR. (and don’t fully rely on AI, haha)

As much as i would love to agree to Orcadian Energys Assessment, thats not the case as its written. The old mechanisms treshholds, Both, Need to be triggert. Of course there room for the government to manually adjust (i.e. Russia Ukraine Peace), but thats not certain?

Surprised we are Holding up so Well Today, given the disappointing Budget.

New taxation from 2030 looks good, but obv. comes very late.

My question rather is, isnt todays announcement of certificates not a big blow for cambo? Was there really no Value assigned to cambos 100% 2Cs for Ithaca or am I misunderstanding something?

Sad day for the UK, good day to buy HBR UKCS assets.

Don´t agree, too strong of a market reaction to be based on that downgrade only. SQZ is suffering as well.

Hopefully it´s still no leaks (bad news for Wednesday), but rather based on brent spot pricing (Russa/Ukraine) and also that drop in UK gas.

JOG is holding up strongly, which I use as an indicator for politcal climate towards UK oil and gas.

Great Post! I did a very similar 8 weeks ago, was wrong with the Timing (yet).

See HBR Board, Media reports about US Expansion, move to US Stock exchange etc.

PE backed Harbour and LC are done with the UK.

I am sure discussions were halted because of government consultation and industry hopes for the better. I trust the disposal of a meaningful part of Late Life HBR UKCS Assets to ENQ will Happen after the budget (Price Discovery).

Recovery in Brent from H2-26 will be the cherry on our cake. Double from here within 12 Month (I sold beloved ith/SQZ shares to rotate into ENQ even further).

DYOR (:

Thanks! Was worried any negative WFT-budget or god forbid Rosebank decision leaked, given the overly bearish sp reaction this morning compared to UK NS peers.

FYI: auctus advisors just released a solid update for SQZ including a low Brent Price scenario

https://www.serica-energy.com/downloads/research/SQZ%2020.10.2025.pdf

Sekforde, I usually agree to most of your posts, but think you really have a strong anti-ENQ bias here.

First of all, I am a Serica shareholder too and welcomed the Triton news today (still heavilie overweighted in ENQ, so I would ever more appreciate some progress here, haha).

When comparing ENQ against SQZ, which is fine, since they came out of merger discussions and might have these discussion again in the future, we really need to follow like-for-like patterns. What Pro-SQZ people do, often times seems like they compare ENQ-2025 vs. SQZ-2026, which is nonsense.

Comparing 2025 like-for-like, I believe SQZs cash burn because of lost production will be higher at the year end. Just my gut feeling, hopefully I will find the time to update my models soon, but thats not my point for now.

I rather recommend, since stock markets are forward-looking, to do a proper like-for-like comparison for 2026. For SQZ, since they have their payed Auctus advisors, we have a pretty good public model, which I think is a good proxy (be careful!! it works with 70 brent for 2026, haha, thats the first think you should adjust to 61 USD then.).

But for ENQ your "losing XY USD a day" statements fail to incorporate the following points:

- ENQ stated during the recent call that capex (exkl. abex) can be reduced, we don´t have official 2026 guidance yet

- EPL is payed like 50-60% in the current year, remainder in the following year. Thus, this years large ENQ EPL payment is due to much higher commodity prices in the past. If prices stay this low H2-25 and H1-26, both payable in 2026, will result in a much lower EPL cash payment.

- additional 3 months of lease savings (2025 only effective from april)

- c.6 Kboed net to EnQuest from Q1-26 from Malaysia start of production was hardly mentioned by anybody on this board yet (sorry if I missed it)

So no, I don´t see ENQ CF-negative for 2026, at 61 (maybe slightly, but NOT 128 mUSD, which your 350k daily loss implies), but have to admit I was caught on the rather too optimistic side by Stevo in the past. I will share my updated model here soon and am happy if you guys challenge it. Stevo so far focussed on 2025, because he likes to use official management assumptions and we don´t have those for 2026 yet.

But seeing the pro-SQZ camp, whilst SQZ is currently having a horrible 2025 with Triton, to come around the corner with a 2026 model, which was prepared by a payed advisor and to compare it against ENQs 2025 (which also had third party downtimes in H1 on top of the cash outflow tax overlay from H2-24) make me question your seriousness.

HBR also said this morning, that they „are working to Optimise UK decom. liabilities“.

Given those currently run w/o tax losses, generating about Zero CF and enquest as a qualified as decom. Specialist with a juicy bag of those tax losses, it seems Like an obvious move to me.

So partly agree, yes number of potential deals further reduced, but beside Waldorf at least an unloved Part of unloved HBR Late Life Assets should still be on the table for ENQ.

Having BASF onboard and given the Price they payed indirectly for oldco HBR.UK vs current transaction prices (most relevant deals are mergers or distressed as SQZ on yesterday) make them waiting for the release of the „north sea strategy“ to drive up their UK asset values.

SQZ did a Great Job in a challenging year (Triton). Hope ENQ can close the gap with a transaction by end of this year with 1.1.25 effective Date (Stevo, Does this qualify for example for HBRs North See oil turnover to Benefit from tax losses for Full 2025 despite closing in 2026, or is a closing in the Same Fiscal year required?).

Currently a merger with SQZ seems not realistic considering the divergence in market cap Development since the deal was called-Off. However, i see ENQ as the top uk o&g stock with biggest upside potential in Q4-2025. After that, in 2026, I wouldnt be offended by a new merger attempt on nearly equal terms again.