Third Energy records loss of £3.8m in 2015


Kirby Misperton fracking site

Third Energy UK Gas Limited – the company behind fracking plans at Kirby Misperton in North Yorkshire – made a loss of £3.854m in 2015.

It owed more than £50m to parent and sister companies and turnover was less than half that of the previous year.

The figures, released yesterday by Companies House, cover the 12 months to December 2015. They were filed on 13 February 2017, more than four months after the due date. In December 2016, Third Energy was warned it risked being struck off the companies’ register if it did not file its accounts by 6 February 2017.


According to the accounts, Third Energy’s loss in 2015 was smaller than in 2014, when the company lost £4.416m.

But turnover in 2015, at £428,000, was less than half that of £2014 (£897,000). From the accounts, this appears to be because of lower sales of gas to a sister company and a fall in recharges to development partners.

Net current liabilities for 2015, totalling £50.019m, were up from £44.2m in 2014. This included payments to parent and sister companies. The directors of these companies confirmed they did not intend to seek repayment within 12 months.

The accounts said:

“The directors have placed their usual reliance on the confirmation of the holding company and fellow subsidiary companies that they will not seek repayment of these amounts totalling £50,871,000 in reaching their opinion that the company can continue as a going concern.

“As with any company placing reliance on another group company for financial support, the directors acknowledge that there can be no certainty that this support will continue although at the date of approval of these financial statements they have no reason to believe that it will not do so.”

Halliburton contract

The accounts confirmed that Third Energy had a contract with the leading US company, Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd. This is described as “for the provision of services to support its onshore development activities”.

The accounts said: “As a result of this agreement, Halliburton may receive additional payments at a future date if these activities are successful.”

Tax asset

The accounts said Third Energy UK Gas Limited had a potential deferred tax asset of £39.5m at 31 December 2015. But they added: “It is not certain the company will have sufficient taxable profits for the losses to be utilised in the foreseeable future”.

Key figures

Loss: £3,854,000 (2014: £4,416,000)

Turnover: £428,000 (2014: £897,000)

Net current liabilities: £50.019m (2014: £44.270m)

Amount owed to Third Energy Holdings Limited: £44.475m (2014: £40.667m)

Amount owed to fellow subsidiary companies: £6.396m (2014: 5.147m)

Sales of gas to fellow subsidiary: £399,000 (2014: £667,000)

Recharges to development partners: £29,000 (2014: £230,000)

Staff costs: £624,000 (2014: £593,000)

Staff numbers: Constant at 18 (4 management/administration and 14 technical/operational)

Current assets: £1.735m (2014: £1.784m)

Operating lease commitments on land and buildings: £330,000 (2014: £368,000)

Company structure

Third Energy UK Gas Ltd is one of five companies in the Third Energy Group.

The immediate parent company is Third Energy Onshore Limited. This company, who’s accounts were also released yesterday, has net current assets of £262,000 in 2015.

The ultimate parent company is Third Energy Holdings Ltd, based in the Cayman Islands.

The accounts stated: “In the opinion of the Directors, the ultimate parent company of Third Energy Holdings Limited is Barclays PLC.”


Companies House information on Third Energy UK Gas Ltd

Third Energy UK Gas Ltd accounts to 31 Dec 2015 (pdf)

Companies House Information on Third Energy Onshore Ltd

Third Energy Onshore Ltd accounts to 31 Dec 2015 (pdf)







19 replies »

  1. It sounds like fracking KM8 would be a great way for the company to start to move to viability. They are sitting on top of a potentially massive resource. I suppose thats why the investors are staying in. Lets facr it, fracked gas is the same as NS gas. Whats the issue?

    • Except that it’s not is it Reverend – Calorific value and probable radon content being the two most obvious differences. Ineos made that schoolboy error in their 8 page insert, which is one thing the ASA will have to pull them up for.

  2. Investor’s nowadays don’t invest into a company that doesn’t have debt. It sounds bizarre but they view debt as management planning for the future.
    These losses are part of that process and will be recouped as tax deductible against future profits.
    The only reason these accounts can be given their own spread on the site are because they think finances are going to run dry before fracking can take off (based on it being viable). I’m afraid that’s just not going to happen.

      • So far so good. Exploration is about to take place it’s only a matter of a short time now. Once that’s happened and viability of extraction proven that’s us off. I’d suggest picking up an investment in the industry to enjoy the rise associated with promise. Use the profits to get some of your ‘pals’ into college to help them get a job. Morally you can then rest easy.

  3. It seems all the promise of shale gas is to suck investors in. All the UK shale gas related companies either go belly up or getting smash even when oil price has recovered.

  4. Looks like AJ Lucas shares are popular as well – down 16% overnight to 29c – of course Mr Collyer will be explaining to us all that that’s GREAT for people needing a loss to balance other profits.

  5. It’s you refracktion who seems to think anyone would invest in AJL to get involved in Cuadrilla. Or perhaps into Centrica, or perhaps into Barclays for Third Energy???
    Where have I been? Checking whether my capital gains need balancing before the end of the year? No-I can read a balance sheet and understand a little about taxation so any profits I am making in oil and gas are not a problem. (If they became so before April there are better options than AJL.) Also reading the latest report that is critical of the UK energy policy in recent times, and suggests we should push into gas-oh, what a shock, it’s numbed me for 24 hours!
    You may be right that some foolish people go and chase a dream, but you are wrong to suggest its a big deal to most. Most will only gamble a certain amount on dreams, and certainly most will then balance it against other more secure returns.
    I recognise your narrative is that it is a big deal to the capitalists amongst us. Maybe you really think that, and that just shows economics are not your area of expertise. Maybe you don’t think that and have a bit more knowledge but you don’t think your audience do. It really makes little difference, because the macro economics will overcome both.

  6. And why are any stocks in oil and gas in US a concern??

    Oh yes, it is because fracking in the US has brought down prices of what is being produced! Shock horror.(I know Queen Nicola thought her actions would prevent it and $110/barrel would result, but it didn’t) That really took a great deal to calculate. It just so happens to have kept the US economy ticking over for the last few years and the rest of the world out of a serious recession, but, hey ho, don’t let facts get in the way.

    So, I suppose it has all been such a disaster they will abandon fracking in US?? Really?? No, they will blame Trump forgetting it was Obama.

    Maybe, heaven forbid, as prices are held down there will be some who are not as efficient at accommodating that? Now, that is another law of economics that you feel we should not understand.

Leave a Reply to GottaBKidding Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s