Member Info for Tigar

jan24
You have hit nail on head I have a feeling that is what the ESP lobby also want , oil even after the heavy taxes imposed on it from production through to the consumer is too cheap for renewables to get the foothold needed so lets get $200 oil and give renewables the boost they need?

All the renewable jobs? will the Royal Navy be recruiting thousands of oarsmen for the aircraft carriers, planes of course being replaced by the latest catapults firing bags of orange paint.

Stevo12 I do like your posts but
" and the further $900m forecast to be paid to BP for Magnus"
I don't know were you get that from it was a max of $1Bn but $600m with 40% Tax when we started and if we ever pay that total we will have cleared $2bn profit from Magnus ourselves.

Don't know about covid jab but Wetherspoons steak night has infected some with mad cow disease and their brains have gone mushy.

AquaeSulis01
That is unbelievable China is showing us the way with all their cars and lorries switched over to batteries it is no wonder they are building record numbers of coal fired power stations.

Steve12 hopefully we can claim the capex against that but you highlight the shear madness of of the EPL it was supposed to be an Exceptional profit tax but is looking more like a punishment Tax. It reminds me of the Idea that was banded about of Taxing people for parking their cars on works carparks,

HI Stevo12
Are you really saying we could get $65.25 and only break even but still be liable for Tax. I know they have gone mad but I thought you broke even then started to pay Tax? in your contingency estimate presumably you mean the BP profit share is that before or after the 40% we can reclaim from our Tax losses.

Am wondering if our obligations to hedge production are reduced if the RBL facility is reduced because of EPL2
It seems to me as the balance of the advantage of hedging to the advantage of a high oil price are very much effected by the Tax in practice we do the hedging, curtail the advantage of a high oil price but it would be curtailed by the Tax man anyway so why risk not being able to get the benefit of a possible high oil price?

A floor at any reasonable level solves our RBL problem but to be in any way a fair windfall tax it must only be levelled on the earnings above the floor! otherwise we will have the madness of being worse off at higher prices than lower ones.

With misleading parliament being in the forefront perhaps some MP's should be reminded the 9x claim is misleading and they too could be charged!

I find it hard, but still believe common sense usually prevails, it should have been a tax on realised prices above $75 oil meaning if we realised a windfall income of $100 oil then tax would be on $25 it is a windfall tax for goodness sake and Tax credits should apply to all Tax. You must be able to repay your debts hopefully we can defer the Tax liability and pay the $50m to Suncor and the $134m retail bonds.

That is the crux of the issue public opinion is that we should be taxing the huge overseas profits that are not Taxable we can shoot ourselves in the foot and wipe out all UK profits, so that is what Hunt has started.
The US gas made a fortune from Europe Gas shortage, impossible to Tax that but HBR did very well from Tolmount coming online but the hedgeing companies made much more Governments had no public opinion to Tax them so attack HBR who will invest in overseas Gas next time, as we should invest in Malaysia as soon as possible.

A reply from Craig at Enquest. Not sure if we are swimming with sharks or Parana's Obviously EPL was not thought through and discussed with accountants.
"The recent Moody’s analysis and related downgrade is primarily a result of the impact of EPL 2.0 on the Group’s borrowing base and the consequential deferral of Kraken drilling.

The original EPL, announced in May 2022, suggested that the levy would only apply during periods of elevated commodity prices with Rishi Sunak, at the time Chancellor of the Exchequer, noting verbally that $65-70/bbl represented “normal” pricing. Given that lender banks implement a cautious view of future oil price, the impact of the EPL was therefore fairly minimal on future years, given that prices were expected to be below the EPL ‘threshold’.

The introduction of EPL 2.0 in November, while increasing the tax rate to 35%, also explicitly ruled out a price floor at which the levy would be withdrawn. This amendment has caused lender banks to revisit facilities across the sector, with the result that the EPL tax charge is applied at all prices. Media reports suggest that borrowing bases for oil and gas companies across the board have reduced by 40-60% and EnQuest is not immune to that impact. Following extensive engagements with the government, there remains the potential for a price trigger to be considered in the upcoming spring announcement.

When EnQuest entered the RBL facility in Q4 2022, the Group’s borrowing base was in excess of $600m and, while the RBL facility is $500m, we only drew down $400m of that commitment. Since then, we have worked through the first scheduled re-determination of the RBL with the lender banks and EnQuest remains compliant with the revised amortisation schedule. The next re-determination will be run during June 2023.

In terms of liquidity, Moody’s model incorporates $70-65/bbl and applies a cautious view on production levels. At these rates, EnQuest’s cash flow generation potential is impacted and thus our pace of deleveraging would slow. Moody’s have factored this into their decision to downgrade."

Thanks Stevo12
Yes I spotted I said $380m and It is $280m My question on Moody's assumptions are that we arranged $500m RBL in October this was with EPL at 25% already known about, so how can the RBL be reduced to this level with an increase of 10% in EPL from the already known about EPL when $500m was agreed. Do you think Moody's calculations are correct.

Steve12
If Moody's are correct that the RBL facility will be effected by 40% because of the EPL and think we will have to repay another $40m by end of 2023 meaning the $500m facility would become about $380m facility. As we will repay the retail Bonds in Sept wouldn't that be considered a reduction in our debt position in the calculations used in coming to Moody's conclusions. The same with the reduction in our Lease liabilities from our payments, they seem to come to the conclusion the less we owe the more risk we have in not being able to repay the rest?

I can never understand my credit rating I buy everything on my credit card to get cash back I settle every month so pay no interest but get warnings that my rating has dropped because I have exceeded 25% of my cards limit but the money sitting in my current account pays 2.2% interest and I get up to 56 days credit and 1% cashback and pay no interest why has my rating changed?
Moody's have never liked AB why!

Why would you sell a stake in Kraken, we have just taken on 60% more of Bressay (could be why debt was a bit higher than expectations) nth sea assets are going for a song my slight worry is that AB would be tempted to pick up more with the inevitable equity raise. And that could be why we now have shorts? I dare say a fantastic bargain could be had but my pockets are not deap enough to go down that road again.

About time ESG was taken to court for not acting in investors interests, they are using clients money to push political agenda, what about the risk of carbon capture working and allowing the use of fossil fuels environmentally friendly ESG has pulled all of its clients money out of the companies that would boom from that technology, UK may burn coal to produce its own steel without pollution but ESG will have made us a country that imports all its steel or perhaps we will manage without it.

Short taken out on info on our slide rule being used? Keep it in your pocket AB Enquest buy backs better than him buying 4-5 million himself we don't want to go private we are all shareholders and deserve our return on investment.

Reaction to update was almost as though market thinks we are about to have market activity rather than buy backs they think we may issue more? We have purchased or acquired the rest of Bressay we have multiple organic opportunities but I am suspicious of AB desire to bargain hunt, we need shareholder returns very soon and he needs to understand that!