Member Info for ZYX098

But...but... he's just said he doesn't drink alcohol ;)

But Adrian, they aren't.

UKOG aren't making enough from HH and Horndean to keep the lights on, hence the need for issuing more confetti.

First reason given in the RNS announcing their last placing;
"The placing has been undertaken to provide the Company with a source of general working capital"

I showed why they need to do that in my breakdown of receipts and expenses.

But if you think any of my figures are wrong, you are welcome to point out exactly where, why and what you think the correct figure should be.

Oh, of course you won't, because you can't.

So I predict more deflection, name calling and avoiding answering any question.

Not only that, it's in a completely different basin..

Penguins,

You know that Adrian / Els / JH / whatever name he has today doesn't like facts being explained for all to see.

He'd rather try and spam with board with mindless ramping and equally mindless insults.

He has made a concerted effort over the last few days.

Maybe he's trying to spam the board so much that the genuine posters get fed up and leave, so he can continue his ramping efforts to try and get the share price up enough so he can recoup at least some of his losses.

Bwahahahahaha!

Thanks, I needed a laugh this morning, and you just gave it.

What was it Jack Nicholson said?

"You can't handle the truth!"

"Then why do you choose to troll this board 24/7 with the same useless garbage?"

Yes Adrian, why do you?

Penguins,

Don't forget UKOG have NEVER stated what their water disposal cost / bbl is.

Adrian,

No, they aren't.

It's all there in black and white in the Company reports.

Do try and keep up please.

Adrian,

"The share price shows.".
A 900% increase in the share price in the last 15 years certainly shows.....

"Passenger numbers mean nothing".
It's a very simple equation - more passengers means more flights means more engine hours means more revenue.
It really is that simple, even though that logic flies clean over your head.

"Raise after raise" - only been one raise in recent years, the one I mentioned in November 2020.

"There’s always “something” that halts the aerospace industry from growth."
And yet the steady increase in passenger numbers by 221% since 2005 belies your claim.

"And that could just be an EU carbon credit scheme."
I doubt it, especially since the EU Carbon Credit scheme has been operating since 2005 - during which period RR's share price went up 900% and passenger numbers went up 221%......

I know that you really hate facts, but the problem for you is that facts don't go away because you don't like them.

And trying to link claims about gas flaring to the airline industry would stretch anyone's credibility to breaking point - if they had any in the first place.

But as usual, you only try and change the subject to attempt to deflect from how hopelessly wrong your other pronouncements are, because (also as usual) you cannot back them up with facts when challenged.

Adrian,
"The aerospace sector is failing. Think logically. Think capitalism. Think future pandemics. Think border control. Think EU carbon credit. Think it’s a dying sector."

Just because you think it, doesn't make it a fact.

In fact, you have ignored all the factual information I have posted.

In fact, you have also failed to point out where you claim I lied.

In fact, you have also failed to provide any back up for your claims.

In fact, all you are succeeding in showing is that your understanding of the aerospace industry is as poor as your understanding of the oil industry.

I'm very relaxed, lying on the couch in front of the TV, thanks.

Exactly where am I lying Arian?

Can you point to the exact place?

No?

Thought not.

And your assertion about the aerospace sector failing is flat out wrong.

For example, you are ignoring (as you normally do with facts that you don't like) the almost doubling of passenger numbers in the decade prior to the pandemic, or RR's share price going up by 900% in the previous 15 years (which did my portfolio no end of good, BTW..).

Doesn't sound like an industry that's dying, does it?

Or both Boeing and Airbus forecasting that commercial aeroplane sales will average 2,000 per year for the next 20 years?

Does that sound like an industry in it's death throes?

Perhaps you'd lie - sorry - like to provide some actual facts to support your assertion?

You can't - but I'd like to see you try.

Seriously Adrian?

You take a share price from just before the pandemic and compare it to a 2022 pandemic share price in the industry that got hit the worst?

How about the fact that the RR share price rose by 900% over the previous 15 years?

Ohhhh, I forgot - you hate facts.

So you really won't like the fact that this mornings RR share price is 92.59p, not 65p - a rise of 42% since the middle of October from which you cherry picked your comparison.

Oh, and presumably you haven't taken into account the RR 10 for 3 rights issue in November 2020?

No?

Thought not....

No wonder your UKOG pronouncements are so frequently wrong.

I won't say always wrong, as I can't be bothered to go back and check - but your UKOG hit rate must be pretty close to zero....

https://worldoil.com/news/2022/12/29/uk-s-windfall-tax-may-cut-billions-of-dollars-from-oil-and-gas-production-financing-in-uk-s-north-sea/

Again,

Essentially no Chinese were flying before.

Now they can.

Even if 90% are denied boarding, that's still an INCREASE in passenger numbers.

And I note that you didn't respond to my point about passenger numbers over the last 10 years.

Because you cannot.

Another of your assertions shot down by those pesky things called facts, which you casually ignore.

"lifted", not "listed"..

Bloody Autocarrot....

Did you not read your own reply before posting?

The logic of you arguing against yourself is mind boggling, but not a surprise given your posting history under multiple ID's.....

But just so it's clear;

China (and HK) had severe restrictions on the numbers of people flying due to Covid.

Those restrictions have been listed, ergo leading to a massive increase in passenger numbers.

Yes, some will no doubt be stopped by testing positive before they fly - but that will be a small number compared to overall numbers - none of whom were able to fly before - therefore leading to an increase in flying hours.

As for your statement that the air travel sector has collapsed over the last 10 years - this is so wrong I don't even know where to begin.

But I'll leave you with one statistic;

In 2009, there were 2.48 Billion passenger trips made by plane. In 2019, there were 4.54 Billion.

IATA expects passenger numbers to get back to 2019 levels by the end of 2024.

RR in a bear cycle?

RR flying hours are dropping due to Covid border closures?

When the most populated Country in the World has just opened it's borders?

That's as dumb a prediction as his "0.2p before Xmas" nonsense.

Part 4 (last part!)

8. It threatens public services.
Good public services require proper funding. That comes from private sector companies investing in the UK and providing well-paid jobs. Pushing-up private sector taxation, both on industries and personal taxes means a hole in public finances is fixed in the short term, but at a huge cost in the longer term. High taxation will drive away investment in the UK and ultimately reduce the amount of money available for public services. The UK oil & gas sector supports hundreds of thousands of well-paid jobs, the EPL will accelerate the demise of this sector and significantly reduce those benefits domestic oil & gas will deliver to the Treasury.

9. Our energy security is compromised.
The EPL will accelerate the decline in UK domestic oil & gas production, making our energy security situation even more perilous.

10. It is bad for the environment.
As we import more and more gas and oil, our carbon footprint will enlarge. LNG imports have much higher emissions compared to Southern North Sea gas for example.

In actual fact, this is not the first time that a "Windfall Profits Tax" has been applied to the UKCS - HM Govt did so in the early 1980's and the effect was catastrophic. Investment plummeted and it very nearly killed the North Sea (look at the significant downwards effect on production in the 1980's) - and this was a period when the North Sea was in a much more robust position than it is now.

When Gordon Brown applied a "Windfall Profits Tax" to some industries in his ruinous 1997 budget, even he saw the sense in not applying it to the UK North Sea.

There have been several economic studies that showed that both these attempts at a "Windfall Profits Tax" did long lasting damage to the industries concerned and ultimately resulted in less Tax revenue to HM Govt.

Is it any wonder that since this announcement, BP, Shell, Equinor (ex-Statoil) and EnQuest have all announced that they will be diverting investment funds Overseas, and that Shell are now considering selling off some 10% of their North Sea assets?

After all, which is the more attractive investment? $1 Billion for 25,000 BOPD production for 5-10 years in the North Sea, or $1 Billion for 200,000 BOPD for 10 - 20 years offshore West Africa?

Part 3;
7. It removes debt capacity - a lot!
So far, I have covered the reasons why the EPL monster is seriously harmful, but it does not actually kill the sector, but this one potentially does. As mentioned, the UKCS is old and mature. This means that many big and expensive fields are falling within the requirements to post security under Decommissioning Security Agreement’s (DSA). The Government requires that decommissioning costs are covered by ensuring E&P companies have the funds to decommission fields. As the future value of a field falls below the cost of decommissioning it, funds must be posted to cover the difference. If the field value drops suddenly then the amount of security required jumps. The EPL has vastly reduced the value of every field in the UKCS, and therefore many companies will need to suddenly find debt capacity to post more security. In the past a ‘surety bond’ was often used, which rather than being a debt instrument is more like an insurance policy, but these are drying-up and that coupled with the EPL means many E&P players will need to put in place a Letter of Credit (LoC) from a bank, and this is a debt instrument. Companies with regular debt structures that have to suddenly find large LoC’s will likely need to restructure. E&P companies with RBL’s will be especially worried, because they, just like DSA’s, are regularly redetermined based on asset NPV. RBL's are rapidly going out of fashion as they can quickly become short-term debt, such as when the EPL monster jumps out of a bush. The lack of a price floor just makes a terrible situation even worse as banks will now use low oil price scenarios to calculate debt capacity. Add to that the inability to finance new projects with debt and the whole thing quickly descends into a huge mess.

Part 2
4. High tax rates lead to inefficiency and waste.
As taxes approach 100%, the cost of doing things goes down because one can either spend profits to do something or give that money to the Treasury. Some UK E&P companies will begin to sanction projects that offer poor returns. This vastly reduces the tax-take to the treasury in the near-term but does little to boost future tax revenue as these projects will pay very little during their lifetime. The EPL allows 92% of capex to be sheltered from tax, meaning many risky or poor projects are almost completely sheltered from the downside risks associated with things like the subsurface, so many will be sanctioned knowing full-well that it is likely to be a poor project, but there is still exposure to possible upside once the EPL expires and if it doesn't perform, so what?

5. The UKCS has few projects that can shelter the EPL.
Leading on from the last point, it is only very large pre-sanction projects, which are vastly expensive and take years to build, that can benefit from the investment allowance to any degree, and only partially at that, as spending typically takes a couple of years to ramp-up. There are only a very few of these that fit, and most of them were discovered many years ago, indicating that they are not that good anyway, otherwise they would have been developed much earlier. That recently completed and onstream projects have none of the tax shelters afforded under the EPL is also a real kick in the teeth for those who have recently invested in the UKCS. Given everything the government has done, those that don't subscribe to reason 4 will never sanction a large project in the UK given how awful the sector now is fiscally.

6. It kills infill drilling.
Stop infill drilling and field decline accelerates, bringing forward decommissioning and reducing reserves. Infill drilling can be quickly sanctioned, and wells delivered within just a few months. But that means the lion’s share of their revenue falls inside the EPL window. A company’s capital allocation usually involves something which tests the efficiency of an investment, such as the Discounted Profitability Index (DPI). This involves dividing a projects NPV by its Capex. The EPL chops NPV down, meaning companies with assets and projects overseas will now easily beat the UK for any investment.