We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/352b38a7-f298-4b54-adc2-f4cc1b17444b
The world needs a “reality check” on its move from fossil fuels to renewable energy, JPMorgan has warned, saying it may take “generations” to hit net-zero targets. In a global energy strategy report sent to clients this week, the US investment bank said efforts to reduce the use of coal, oil and gas had been set back by higher interest rates, inflation and wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. “While the target to net zero is still some time away, we have to face up to the reality that the variables have changed,” Christyan Malek, JPMorgan’s head of global energy strategy and lead author of the report, told the Financial Times. “Interest rates are much higher. Government debt is significantly greater and the geopolitical landscape is structurally different. The $3tn to $4tn it will cost each year come in a different macro environment. Malek predicted that the levels of investment required would put pressure on governments to step back from more aggressive energy policies. The Scottish government on Thursday scrapped its ambitious plan to cut carbon emissions by 75 per cent by 2030, conceding that the target was unachievable. In its report, JPMorgan said changing the world’s energy system “is a process that should be measured in decades, or generations, not years”. It added that investment in renewable energy “currently offers subpar returns” and that if energy prices rose strongly, there was even a risk of social unrest.
Malek noted that it was not guaranteed that demand for oil and gas would peak in 2030, as predicted by the International Energy Agency, as the populations of developing countries begin to buy more cars and take more flights. JPMorgan forecasts that the world will need 108mn barrels of oil a day in 2030, and that building more wind, solar and electric vehicle capacity could add a further 2mn daily barrels to this total. “We are at a tipping point in terms of demand,” Malek said. “More and more of the world is getting access to energy and a greater proportion want to use that energy to upgrade their living standards. If that growth continues it puts huge pressure on energy systems and governments."
https://www.ft.com/content/352b38a7-f298-4b54-adc2-f4cc1b17444b
In our haste to not be seen as on the wrong side of history, we failed to make conservative arguments for environmental improvement – arguments centred on property rights, individual and family endeavours and the free market. Instead, we empowered our ideological opponents and accepted much of their extremist agenda.
Britain should aim to be energy independent by 2040 using oil and gas as well as nuclear and renewables. We are in an excellent position to become a net energy exporter, given the amount of sea by which we are surrounded where offshore wind farms can be located, as well as our expertise in nuclear power. The use of North Sea oil and gas is crucial, so there needs to be investment in that too. There also should be fracking in the UK. We are in the ludicrous position of importing fracked gas from the US that has been liquefied to -180˚C but refusing to frack ourselves. Meanwhile, Brits are paying twice as much for their energy as Americans.
The number one threat to the environment and our freedom and security is the rise of authoritarian regimes and the decline of democracy. Therefore, we need to cancel failed multilateral structures and work with allies that share our values. We should abolish the Climate Change Act and instead adopt a new Climate Freedom Act that enables rather than dictates technology.
We should protect our environment by protecting property rights and allowing enterprise to develop new green technologies. We should call out the green lobby’s brazen anti-capitalist agenda. They are the extremists in today’s politics and should be labelled as such. They say they want to reduce carbon but oppose nuclear power. They say they want less pesticide use but oppose genetic modification. They organise their protests on iPhones, devices that came into existence through free markets.
“Liz is the Grinch who wants to stop Christmas!”
That was the response in Cabinet from Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary, to my eleventh-hour attempts to ditch COP26, the UN climate change conference that the UK was bidding to host in 2020.
It was late 2018 and I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, charged with keeping a tight grip on public spending. With an estimated price tag of over £200 million, I strongly questioned whether organising this jamboree should be a priority for the Government.
Had I believed the conference was likely to make any difference, I might have been more sympathetic. But I could see no prospect of that. World leaders would fly in on private jets to pontificate about the environment and reaffirm their aspirations to reduce emissions, while the biggest culprits would continue to do nothing. More than anything, bidding for COP26 was about appeasing the green lobby by making a grand gesture aimed at gaining short-term popularity without changing the fundamentals. It was environmental virtue signalling, with the taxpayer picking up the hefty bill.
But the rest of the Cabinet was in the grip of climate fever. When they weren’t posing for selfies with Greta Thunberg, they were busy trying to ban wood-burning stoves and plastic straws. After David Cameron’s ‘hug a husky’ phase, we’d done nothing to reverse Labour’s statist climate change policies. By the end of Prime Minister Theresa May’s government in 2019, we had committed ourselves to binding climate change targets with very little discussion of the consequences.
We have dumped costs on families with no regard for whether they can afford them and we have failed to plan for the long term. Meanwhile, there is little discernible impact on overall environmental outcomes. Many programmes, such as the switch from petrol to diesel in cars or the use of electric vehicles, have either harmed the environment in other ways or empowered our polluting adversaries elsewhere in the world by making us dependent on imported gas and coal and Chinese solar panels.
There are also ludicrous claims that pursuing a net zero agenda will boost the economy and drive growth. This is patently not true and wishful thinking. Additional environmental regulations have already hampered growth. For example, the National Grid estimates a cost of £3 trillion for decarbonising the electricity system.
The zealous drive to net zero is undeniably making business less competitive, hitting taxpayers through the cost of additional subsidies and hiking energy bills for consumers and industry alike, all of which is acting as a drag on economic growth.
The Climate Change Committee was established by the 2008 Climate Change Act passed by the Labour government, legislation that has not been reversed or reformed by the Conservatives.
Warming to Ms Truss as recently she’s been talking a lot of sense, unusual I know but there seems to be a growing number of voices joining this chorus. Interestingly the Chinese EV Mfrs have already realised the West are turning luke warm for their products, with customers more questioning the financial implications . Hence their doing what comes natural to them and selling on price not quality. The flood of far cheaper Chinese EV’s is on the way, helped by huge State subsidies , witness in the US where they’re broken below the $10,000 price barrier, even with a 27.5% import tariff . Add to that the growing uncompetitive nature of UK business
being saddled with Net Zero targets , so its little wonder the Chinese are ones happy to promote the Green agenda but only for others to follow. Wise people selling to the gullible.
The zealous drive to net neutrality is making business less competitive, hitting taxpayers, and acting as a drag on economic growth.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/19/unaccountable-net-zero-elite-has-seized-control-of-britain/
Bought a few more wile there cheap.
The most annoying frustration is we are doing all the right things but nothing seems to help increase our MC or reduce the high volatility.
Will the Buy Backs help - No Idea.
Personally, I think a few people are using and or effectively creating these small swings to trade, I have to say when I saw the price yesterday at 17.46p going in the opposite direction to POO, I was tempted to trade a few, unfortunately, I was about to go into a meeting and the opportunity passed. Having said this, I would not want to out of ENQ when the next big news arrives or for the May update!
Yep it is. Massive profits just dwindled away. But the fact remains the stock is cheap. Will be c80m knocked off the debt again this quarter, maybe more, and the sale of Golden Eagle could truncate the debt to be cleared by year end. Annual FCF in excess of today's market and we see an SQZ 2015 type rise.
Would be good to get an RNS with details of GE. Market should respond well to that.
Buy back likely to start next week. I'm sure they'll want to get started while the SP has dropped off the high a bit. This will turn around soon, but yes should of traded a few. Look at the historical chart, only takes a few sessions to get back into the 20's with the current number of shares in issue. I didn't want to be out of this at 17p plus, Def don't want to be out down here.
I really don't understand this !
its Ridiculous.
On the upside, at a lower SP, we are getting a better return once the buy backs start !
14p looks on the damn cards again ffs.
I suppose the buy backs will take advantage of the drop if and when they start
This now seems to fall when oils down and fall when oils up.
My whole portfolio down by 5% over the last week... Don't think it's enq specific
''Its like playing snakes and ladders holding Enquest shares lol''
More like 'snakes & snakes' and sadly, not just here.
If EnQuest was a city we'd be Gaza. At least the bombing has stopped and the rebuilding can begin.
Its like playing snakes and ladders holding Enquest shares lol
I hope we don't give back all the gains made over the last month, we've already given back 2p of it with only 1.5p to go.
Where are the Buy backs ?
Unreal isn’t it, I nearly sold 50% of my holding at 17.30p earlier in the week 🤦🏽♂️
Trading a portion seems more appealing but the buybacks are nearly here and we are still so so so undervalued. Decisions decisions
Someone has been aggressively selling this week.
Now down 12% from Mid day Monday.
Same old EnQuest.
Important it is absolutely critical.
Ed and the incompetent clowns who govern our country take note quick smart !!
Very quick spike Dumbly, it's back to 87.65 for Brent. Very responsive, but hasn't held. Seems the attacks were almost symbolic rather than intended to cause harm. Maybe that'll be the end of it, pride restored and no damage done? Fingers crossed.
Typo - Dr Helen Webberley (not Hilary)
There are 3 brave women involved in this: Dr. Hilary Cass, JK Rowling and now Janice Turner but of course there are countless others. I even give a shout-out to the Tory party for stopping the SNP’s headlong woke rush into Gender Recognition Reform with the section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998.
I am totally supportive of the children and parents of children with trans issues and wish them nothing but love. What I cannot stand by and watch is using children as guinea-pigs on what according to the Cass Review is either unproven or plain quackery in some cases. Who knows what effect these pre-puberty drugs will have and you only have to look at the manipulation through social-media that influences the young and always has. It is more pronounced (imo) in young women and pre-pubescent girls are even more know-all than boys (we all grew up with them). My reason for posting is not about the trans issue, important as it is, but the appearance of our friend Ed Miliband. Once again he has proven to be on the wrong side of a massive woke shift. The Overton window is another name for “sea-change” and just as the trans issue was driven by wokery so too has the “climate emergency”. To question the mainly young activists is to be immediately called a “climate denier.”
I question Ed Miliband’s judgement. He can’t get out of this one. He gave Dr Hilary Webberley a platform and an air of authenticity. He is irresponsible in his woke ideological crusades.
More importantly the Overton window now covers climate change. The world is changing in our favour. I’m not a climate denier and we have to be careful with the world’s resources but the benefits of oil and gas have transformed our lives for the better. A higher standard of living and longer life could not have been achieved without cheap and abundant fossil fuels.
The moment the Cass report was published the Overton window lurched: everything Tavistock whistleblowers and journalists had been ostracised for saying was suddenly mainstream. It’s tempting to list the cowards, fools, liberal sheep, airhead celebrities, who shilled for Mermaids; atheists, humanists, blow-hard podcasters and “fearless” radio stars, right-on male comics who relished the chance to scream at women and spineless Labour politicians, all now claiming that Cass is what they believed all along.
I’ll allow myself the luxury of two names. First ED MILIBAND, who in November 2017 devoted his ‘Reasons To Be Cheerful’ podcast to trans issues. Not only did he scorn all opponents of self-ID as “bonkers” but he invited on Dr Helen Webberley, the child-hormone-prescribing doctor who ran a private clinic with her husband (who has been struck off the medical register). I wrote to Miliband privately, linking to articles explaining the effect of her drug regime. “Of course I don’t believe in sterilising children!” thundered this condescending know-all. [she then goes on about Baroness Hunt an ex CEO of Stonewall]
*Janice Turner – Notebook – The Times April 18 2024
https://open.spotify.com/episode/5tuqlYzqMLQliAgzM1Xifl
Spotify advert Nov 2017 Transgender Rights are Human Rights