Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video 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.
Continuing the discussion about new technologies - the future may be closer than we think - also there is no reason why oil companies cannot diversify into hydrogen production and transportation.
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/ITM/14426775.html
HaHa you're wasting your breath NH - The earth is flat remember
Although if Jeremy Clarkson can change his mind who knows......
Stressed or naive decisions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/opinion/nuclear-power-germany.html
Imagine spending fortunes and still end up with higher energybill and it was no change to the climateprotecting.
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-climate-change-green-energy-shift-is-more-fizzle-than-sizzle/
"Man made climate change has scientific consensus. Scientists are not perfect but most of them are interested in truth (it attracts that sort of person). They don't en masse defraud governments and the public for a few bucks of funding money."
IMHO you are a little naive. After all they are human beings. They are desperate for funding and 'climate change' is an area that presses a few buttons. Also peer review can be no more than a cosy group who review each other's papers. Some physical scientists are a little alarmed by the standard of some of the climate science: limited reproducibility, poor/optimistic use of statistics, almost wishful thinking at times. Climate science is a subject in its infancy.
One for the climies, on the news last night the terrible flooding was covered substantially, I counted 3 statements for 3 different areas that said this is the worst flooding since 1990 something 2000 and something etc, so it has all happened before but today its global warming(social engineering). Just sayin lol.
Hi Weny, interesting article; it's almost an unwinnable argument from either side. There's always something popping up that adjusts your view. This from the Sunday Times yesterday: "Blackrock, the fund management giant, has said it will sell its stake in companies that derive more than 25% of their sales from coal. Glencore falls below this hurdle: it makes 6% of its revenue from coal but about a quarter of its profits." I'm somewhere in the middle and I think the argument has some of the partisanship that you find when discussing Brexit or Trump. One thing I do know is that forcing voters to follow policies that make them considerably poorer is not sustainable. Germany's strength is its manufacturing and it is heavily energy dependent. There are plenty of poorer countries that are prepared to ignore the environmental costs to replace them. Does anybody really think that any country would put itself on the road towards impoverishment to satisfy noisy activists promoting a theory that some say is not proven?
I think EnQuest's role is to follow Glencore and stay onside with the Blackrocks of this world whilst giving token attention to the activists who are an annoyance but don't seem to understand that life is always about compromise in one form or another. What other parts of the world wouldn't give to have our life style and pollution problems?
I read somewhere that Leeds (a UK City) does more business than all of the UK does with Africa. The gap is enormous. There are plenty of countries prepared to step in and take advantage of cheap energy if the West prices itself out of being competitive. Coal will be around for decades and that is dirtier than gas and oil.
*of course there is a third way. Go private or move offshore. You can avoid a lot of the "noise" that way. Many people are prepared to hold their noses and take the money.
This is interesting Romaron.
https://srsroccoreport.com/germany-death-of-renewable-energy-bring-on-the-dirty-coal-monsters/
We need a good energymix just to handle the next decades of demand, green, conventional, shale. And maby its not enough anyway, some regions are clearly better suited for ie solarpanels, we in the north dont have so much use of it. But the region around the equator should go for that.
I truly belive Anas has a good view about the future:
http://l2capital.com.br/pt/podcast-pt/
How many trees do you have to burn to charge a Tesla ???
I hear that some new Evs have a rapid dissipation problem .... oooww er!
Hope the charging point was earthed
Major fire in Glasgow's Hydepark Street as blaze breaks out in car park. EV????
Hi WEny, the EROI article you linked to (14.12) sums up the dilemna facing Governments and investors going forward. As the activists achieve their aim (I'm not saying it isn't a noble one) there are hard decisions to make. The graph simplifies it. Not everybody can have Hydro and Nuclear is enormously expensive and has its detractors. What they both have as well as gas and oil is a high storage capability. The remaining sources fail on the storage but do massively better on the pollution argument. This argument will continue for our lifetime but fossil fuels will still play their part. With this going on is it surprising that investors are shying away from oil & gas?
That is why I'm sticking with the numbers argument. With our short timescales and no heavy capex for new fields we are highly profitable and the negative of debt continues to drop. With the present bias against fossil fuels the lack of new competition will keep prices relatively high. Our expertise will be in much demand.
A couple of points missed. The demand for energy will grow in whatever form it comes. It has happened in every other walk of life and unlikely to change. The portability of oil and gas is hard to replicate and the infra structure is already in place. I'm not the world's greatest traveller but in Beirut they have apartments selling for millions of dollars and a Ferrari garage. Every house also has a generator for the regular power cuts. They don't have a railway either and this is one of the most sophisticated and talented countries in the Middle East.
There are still plenty of bargains in oil and gas but not so much in exploration I feel. The infrastucture for other parts of the world to copy us just isn't there at present and many parts of the world will not stop using fossil fuels to please the countries that colonised and extracted wealth from them in the Industrial Revolution. It's now out turn to pay.
*I wonder if we'll have any activists turn up at the AGM. They did at our 2017 one.
I dont hope its a electrical bicycle you have NH. :p
If it doesent ignite while charging it , it absolutly will do in an case of an accident, scary.
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-tesla-cars-catch-on-fire-2019-4?r=US&IR=T
I guess that is almost as dangerous as to die in an chemical fire. ;)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/11/eroi-a-tool-to-predict-the-best-energy-mix/
Ohh, you dont care about safety NH? :)
I don't think I have the room with my Bentley and Rolls in the Garage.
Always an agenda, the company that makes nuclear powerplants for submarines approached the government prior to Hinkley Point being approved, they offered a far cheaper resolution that could be easily added to in the future as demand rises, unfortunately palms already greased, six figure salaries already offered, promises to your buddies organisations already made.
I dont know what to belive, it feels like in Sweden, the government pays for studys that the suits their agendas, or the scientist give the government a study suitable for their needs, and completly ignore other views, If you are a scientists and your studies dont suit their agenda, then you have to look for founding elsewere.
There is no longterm in 15-20 years.
Nuclear and hydro.
Might have known you'd be an expert Neil lol. you win.