Serica Energy Share Discussion Threads

[loganair] 27/8/2024 09:42

Net Zero is all about a massive transfer of wealth from the 85% to the top 0.1% and that's it as the world actually requires more CO2 in the atmosphere, at least 50% more then there is currently today.

1000 years ago, how do you think the Vikings made it all the way to New Foundland? - Over the past 2000 years, the world has been hotter for 800 of those years then it is today, as much a 2 1/2C hotter then today.

[skyship] 27/8/2024 09:29

Net Zero is a total lunacy; a route for Europe to impoverish itself for the benefit of the RoW, esp. China, India, Russia and Latin America.

Finally some politicians waking up to this fact; but not so the UK's new government and the brain-dead Ed Miliband.

[brucie5] 27/8/2024 08:37

Mount Teide26 Aug '24 - 18:09 - 6916 of 6917

MT, this is a SQZ thread, so I'll restrict myself to this single response to your post above, which seems remarkably complacent about the unfolding, devastating effects of climate change. But is the paper you quote by the same Exxon which suppressed research by its own scientists back in the 70s?



I'm not sure I'd trust them with my shopping, let alone the future of the planet.

But on another theme: "our clueless Socialist government" is clearly at variance with your own wishes for UK PLC, which as I remember were most emphatically identified with the genius of Brexit, as executed by the genius of Boris Johnson - though I suspect you will say that Brexit red in tooth and claw, as you earnestly wished it, was somehow 'betrayed', and you therefore take no responsibility for it. Will you produce the same get-out-of-free card when the effects of the climate change are fully realised, I wonder? That it wasn't 'your' kind of climate change?

And one further thing: if you consider the present Labour government to be 'socialist' you really haven't been paying attention. And the choices they now need to make are very largely shaped by the mess that the last government left us with - including the disastrous effects of austerity on all our public infrastructure - prisons a case in point; and of course the extraordinary disappearance of 4% of our GDP wealth - roughly the same cost as COVID- through the lunacy of your pet project.

On other, largely investing matters, including your encyclopedic knowledge of shipping via SBLK, I have great respect for you. And I look forward to learning much more about prospects for SQZ , in which I have a stake. Your knowledge of the industry per se is clearly greater than most.

But on certain others, I rather beg to differ.

;)

[weemonkey] 27/8/2024 08:21

That and currently trading under net tangible asset value as well. The patient will be rewarded

[undervaluedassets] 27/8/2024 08:16

Before we all get too down this is still 2nd most profitable company on aim.

(POI Jet2 is the most profitable)

[bountyhunter] 22/8/2024 16:58

..and Brent was up, but gas was down by about the same %. A day to forget.

[brucie5] 22/8/2024 16:47

DEC -5.8%.
And ticks were also down x4, I notice.
;)

[kernelthread] 22/8/2024 16:40

This will have been hit today because ITH just announced an interim dividend 25% lower than last year's.

[spectoacc] 22/8/2024 15:57

@Brucie5 - I made the stop burning oil point.

Yes re plastic use, but good luck having a fossil fuel civilisation without fossil fuels. Whether we're heading into a black hole is another debate - possibly - but society can't function without oil. Food production, travel, electricity (whether direct or indirect, ie making eg the nuclear power stations).

So oil is for the very long term, and yes, makes a lot of sense to not actually burn it & waste it.

Milliband - absolutely, the JC/Boris point one I agree with & often make. Trouble with these "very bright" people, Reeves being another example, is they give every impression of being, for want of a better word, thick. Stupid is perhaps a better word. Elon Musk another.

[brucie5] 22/8/2024 15:27

SpectoAcc22 Aug '24 - 15:45 - 6908 of 6909
0 1 0
Oil has a role to play in the very long term.

Solar panels, wind turbines, concrete - none of it lasts indefinitely, all of it needs replacement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specto, it's probably needless to enter into debate about my/your definition of short/medium/long term; but I'll just make two further points:

1. We cannot go on burning oil as we currently do. If you disagree, fine; but the science is clear on the risks. So we must reduce as quickly as possible, which means developing alternatives. It won't be easy, or risk free in itself, as the law of unintended consequences frequently illustrates, such as Germany's increased use of coal consequent on the shutting down of their nuclear programme.

2. Materials Science is an area that is constantly developing and innovating. Plastics via oil has been very recent technology and carries with it a very high price not just in obvious environmental terms, but also on human health, as we are constantly discovering, such as the microplastics now embedded in the average human brain. So there is an additional reason to be rid of it: it has served its purpose well, but now threatens to overwhelm the planet in invisible as well as clearly visible ways.

I understand the frustration with UK gov NS policy via our shared interest in SQZ; but in the market you take your chances and sometimes shares are cheap for a reason. This too carries a risk. At the end of the day the government was recently voted in to carry out its programme, which also requires the raising of taxes to finance essential public services, for which no-one seems willing to pay, particularly the Tories, who ironically raised them to the highest level in 70 years.

Therefore, like it or not, continued windfall taxes on O&G appear to be a path of least resistance.

PS. you don't need to be a "Total fool" to be badly wrong. Milliband Junior actually very bright; but foolishly destructive in his most significant political mistakes, which were no doubt highly principled: like standing against his brother for leadership of the Labour Party. The rest was Jeremy Corbyn leading to Boris Johnson. Proving again the law of unintended consequences and the need for pragmatism if you wish to make real change.

AIMO, obviously.

[spectoacc] 22/8/2024 14:45

Oil has a role to play in the very long term.

Solar panels, wind turbines, concrete - none of it lasts indefinitely, all of it needs replacement.

But in particular for oil - the stent in your heart the material in your phone, the plastic that makes the modern world. Coal is a dirty form of oil, but oil itself will be here indefinitely, even if the burning of it is what needs phasing out.

Ed Milliband is a total fool, you only need to hear him talk. Little of his rationale for ending North Sea Oil makes sense.

Beware any politician claiming the need to spend money to "create jobs".

[brucie5] 22/8/2024 14:36

slicethepie22 Aug '24 - 14:11 - 6905 of 6906
0 2 1
...the champagne lifestyle enjoyed by his brother who earns £1.2m from a charity. Our political system is broken .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For an ex-government high flyer Dave Milliband could earn a lot more than a charity life style. Try the rewards recently available to an ex- PM from Greenshill Capital. On NS oil I happen believe Milliband Junior has got it wrong; in a similar way that Maggie was wrong to take an axe to coal in the 80s, when so many jobs and communities depended on it. But recall the way that coal used to supply the bulk of our domestic needs and was gradually, then rapidly phased away. First gradually, then all at once. Oil in due course will go the same way and the quicker we develop, commercialise and deploy the tech to provide alternatives, the better. This too should also lead to well paid jobs and one hopes, expertise which can then be used and exported by UK PLC.

Neverthless, my hunch is that SQZ is undervalued and oil has an important role to play in the short/medium term. Hence my interest. But it's on its way out and in the end there will be a lot of stranded assets. There have to be for the survival of humanity - we cannot afford to go on burning carbon as we are.

[nemesis6] 22/8/2024 14:19

same as the spoilt george osborne...trust fund...650k a year from blackrock for 1 day a week. (put the kettle on george then you can go) but Austerity for everyone else...115k a year for life for truss for 49 days of SHYTE

[slicethepie] 22/8/2024 13:11

It is terrifying that an individual that has never worked in a commercial organisation, Ed Miliband is allowed to spend hard earned tax payers money on unproven green ideas and simultaneously destroy our oil and gas industry. His whim will end in him being sacked and walking off into the champagne lifestyle enjoyed by his brother who earns £1.2m from a charity. Our political system is broken .

[creditcrunchies] 22/8/2024 08:50

200,000 jobs on the line with it

[spawny100] 22/8/2024 07:12

Plan to hike windfall tax sparks energy jobs warning

[mount teide] 21/8/2024 14:15

Action of the last and present Government towards the UK's World leading O&G Industry is not just recklessly naive from an energy security perspective but, downright vindictive to its workforce and investors.

North Sea Oil Producers Warn of Mass Exodus - Oilprice.com 20th August 2024

'The UK’s oil industry has had a tough few years. The future does not promise a change in a positive direction, either. It seems all hope for this has been lost, and some oil drillers are looking at other jurisdictions for their future survival.

This is certainly the case for Serica Energy, one of the biggest suppliers of oil and gas to the UK, operating fields in the North Sea. Once upon a time, the North Sea was one of the biggest oil- and gas-producing regions in the world.

Serica Energy chairman David Latin recently dropped what should have been a giant bomb for any government concerned with energy security. “The UK is now fiscally more unstable than almost anywhere else on the planet,” he said, as quoted by the Telegraph. “That means we are looking for new places to invest our money. And Norway is a place where potentially we could recreate our business model.”

The statement by Latin is nothing but a confirmation that a Labour government fixated on boosting the amount of wind and solar capacity in the country and funding this boost with oil and gas tax money is driving the industry away. Plans to further increase windfall profit taxes on the industry and the removal of a tax incentive that kept producers at home until the Keir Starmer government took over might prove the last nudge out the door.

There is also uncertainty about future energy policies that make North Sea oil and gas operators reluctant to invest in local production.

“Policy uncertainty reduces our willingness to spend money to do things quickly because if we spend and the policy changes, then we have to start all over again,” the chairman of one relatively small producer, Ping Petroleum, told the Financial Times this week. “People are walking away from fields with significant reserves,” Robert Fisher said.

As Serica’s chairman suggests, those who are walking away from the British North Sea will probably find other places to invest their money. The British government, however, would be hard-placed to find another industry it could fleece that deeply and get away with it. And this is a big problem because Labour has promised a fast and ambitious transition to wind, solar, and hydrogen. And fast and ambitious costs more money than just one or the other.

The Financial Times reported that tax income from the oil and gas industry had reached close to 10 billion pounds last year, but the amount is set to drop off a cliff over the next five years to just above 2 billion pounds in 2028. This will not be enough to fund what the Labour government calls Great British Energy—the state-owned transition vehicle for financing the transition.

“If the government implements the kind of windfall taxes they are talking about, then you end up with a cliff edge in UK energy production because the industry will be taxed into uncompetitiveness,” Stifel analyst Chris Wheaton told the Financial Times. “That is going to cause a very dramatic decline in investment and therefore production and jobs, and a big hit to energy security.”

In other words, if oil and gas producers currently operating in the British section of the North Sea want to ensure their long-term survival, they’d better look for opportunities abroad. For Serica, Norway is the no-brainer destination. If it doesn’t work there, the company will look elsewhere, per its chairman. The important bit is that it will no longer supply oil and gas to the UK. And if others follow, there will be thousands of jobs lost, and the UK will, rather ironically, become even more dependent on energy imports.'

[dcarn] 20/8/2024 17:04

Our largest shareholder will want their pound of flesh come divi time, hopefully.

[farmscan] 20/8/2024 13:58

So increase the divi in September to show the market it is sustainable.

[spawny100] 20/8/2024 13:46

The flip side is that often when the dividend is as large as it is here that the market thinks it's unsustainable and likely to be cut - otherwise the share price would be higher so dividend return lower.

[brucie5] 20/8/2024 09:34

Hence your sobriquet!
It can take an age for value to out; but the great advantage of an extremely large dividend is that it also pays to wait.