Firering Strategic Minerals: From explorer to producer. 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.
Abstract
Climate change is real and its impacts are mostly negative but common portrayals of devastation are unfounded. Scenarios set out under the UN Climate Panel show human welfare will likely increase to 450% of today's welfare over the 21st century. Climate damages will reduce this welfare increase to 434%
Arguments for devastation typically claim that extreme weather (like droughts, floods, wildfires, and hurricanes) is already worsening because of climate change. This is mostly misleading and inconsistent with the IPCC literature. For instance the IPCC finds no trend for global hurricane frequency & has low confidence in attribution of changes to human activity while the US has not seen an increase in landfalling hurricanes since 1900. Global death risk from extreme weather has declined 99% over 100 years and global costs have declined 26% over the last 28 years
Arguments for devastation typically ignore adaptation, which will reduce vulnerability dramatically. While climate research suggests that fewer but stronger future hurricanes will increase damages this effect will be countered by richer and more resilient societies. Global cost of hurricanes will likely decline from .04% of GDP today to .02% in 2100
Climate-economic research shows that the total cost from untreated climate change is negative but moderate, likely equivalent to a 3.6% reduction in total GDP
Climate policies also have costs that often vastly outweigh their climate benefits. The Paris Agreement, if fully implemented, will cost $819–$1,890 billion per year in 2030, yet will reduce emissions by just 1% of what is needed to limit average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Each dollar spent on Paris will likely produce climate benefits worth 11¢
Long-term impacts of climate policy can cost even more. The IPCC two best future scenarios are the “sustainable” SSP1 & the “fossil-fuel driven” SSP5. Current climate-focused attitudes suggest we aim for the “sustainable” world but the higher economic growth in SSP5 actually leads to much greater welfare for humanity. After adjusting for climate damages SSP5 will on average leave grandchildren of today's poor $48,000 better off every year. It will reduce poverty by 26 million each year until 2050, inequality will be lower, and more than 80 million premature deaths will be avoided
Using carbon taxes an optimal realistic climate policy can aggressively reduce emissions & reduce the global temperature increase from 4.1°C in 2100 to 3.75°C. This will cost $18 trillion, but deliver climate benefits worth twice that. The popular 2°C target, in contrast, is unrealistic and would leave the world more than $250 trillion worse off
The most effective climate policy is increasing investment in green R&D to make future decarbonization much cheaper This can deliver $11 of climate benefits for each dollar spent
More effective climate policies can help the world do better
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pi
There is also significant credible evidence that carbon is not the primary cause of climate change & is an effect of climate change rather than a cause.
I am not sure either way but it concerns me that this does not receive any attention & those suggest it are decried as climate deniers & vilified.
The climate debate seems to be a propaganda exercise rather than as investigation based on true scientific principles, the fact that school children like that silly Dutch girl (I forget her name) are given so much attention whilst educated scientists are ignored, derided or both concerns me greatly.
We certainly live in interesting times.
The argument presented in main stream media is more of the same, as we have seend from them for decades. Littered with hyperbole and Hysteria, politics, the odd culture war, with a generous helping of wise celebrities and the odd loud 15 year old expert. Sales are sales.
The climate debate as presented in media is not balanced nor argued on best balanced science. Even a small helping of Geolgical Science, would show some points of interest.
- The Earth[‘s climate always changes, and will continue to do so, and the forces that causes those changes are such matters as the "wobbles of the earth" in its imperfect orbit
– Climate change is in fact normal, and in fact we are living in times of unsual stability. The odds suggested by the 4 billion years of geolgical changes, that we are overdue for a change
– Climate change occurred well before humans were on Earth, in fact we have only been on the earth for a very small part of the earthes life!
– The rate of climate change today is no different from thousands, millions or billions of years ago. There are various powerful forces , like (internal) Volcanoues, changing magnetic fields, (external) sun radiance, chaning distance from the sun, earth wobbles - some regular, some not, etc
– >80% [of the] time, Earth has been generally warmer and wetter than at present, or in the case of the Sahara desert cooler and wetter, in the Atacama desert (no rain for a few 100 years?: About 10,000 years ago, the Atacama was more humid and less hostile to human life than it is now. It attracted nomadic groups who came to hunt and collect food. Fast forward 4,000 years, the land dried up, gradually transforming into the landscape as we know it today
– Ice is ... rare except for the ice age when we had kilometers thick ice packs on the europoean content and UK, not to mention the hige glaciers that scraped and scoured Canada's landscape - leaving lovely tills, which we sample to find gold!
– Just because [climate] change occurs in our lifetime does not mean that we humans are driving the change, change has obviously happened without us, regularly and irregularly.
and so on ....
https://www.desmog.com/ian-plimer/
https://www.quora.com/Do-we-have-conclusive-evidence-that-humans-are-the-root-cause-of-climate-change
As advertised previously best to avoid the main stream hysteria machine for true news and just find the relevant scientists online, go with the times.
ASIDE: We used to have a a great newspaper in Victoria called "THE TRUTH", .... In 1987 one-time Liberal Party leader Sir Billy Snedden died in unusual circumstances. Snedden died of a heart attack in the Rushcutter Travelodge, possibly whilst having sexual communion of sorts with a mystery woman whose identity has never been revealed. Snedden was known for his 'extra-curricular' activities, and in the words of his son, Drew Sneddon, Billy Snedden "got around a lot."...read much more in the TRUTH!...LOL
all good fun, pardon the
Spoonington, the young lady is actually Swedish and certainly far from silly!
You might care to learn about Greta?
Thunberg has received support from climate activists, scientists and public figures.
Broadcaster and naturalist Sir David Attenborough told her she has achieved things many others have failed to do, adding: "You have aroused the world. I'm very grateful to you."
Prince Harry praised Thunberg's campaigning, saying "every country, every community, every school, every friendship group, every family needs their own Greta".
Alok Sharma, the president of the COP26 summit, has said that Thunberg's UN speech in 2019 had made him feel "really uncomfortable" because it held up a "mirror" to his generation.
But not all politicians have been as complimentary.
Donald Trump tweeted that she should "work on her anger management problem" while Russian President Vladimir Putin described her as a "kind but poorly informed teenager".
Greta Thunberg: Who is the climate campaigner and what are her aims?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49918719
Greta Thunberg named Time Person of the Year for 2019
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50740324
Mr T
I think the point Spoonington is trying to make, is that... the where, why, and what of the causation of climate change should be left to an unbiased set of relevant scientists who are very knowledgable about climate and climate change as a function of earth-time, and its main variables, and is NOT a celebrity blowing on the wind and blowing their bags. Prince Harry, Princess Greta, Time magazine, and a passing pre-eminent biologist's views are great, but do need some independent scientific rigour.
Politicians are dimsissed almost out of hand, economists likewise, the main stream hysteria machine without doubt dismissed (lost their social license a few decades ago), as are marching girls and prominent trombone players and a few others. Lets just deal with science instead of all the other passing well meaning lunatics, and those that are not so well meaning.
the gnome
Not sure quoting Prince Harry helps any argument Mr T lol
It just seems a bit risky to continue dumping the amount of carbon we produce every day into the atmosphere and oceans - 100 million barrels of oil consumed daily - when no-one really understands what effect this will have long term?
What vexes me is we haven't made more effort with hydrogen - the most common element in the universe, three-quarters of the surface of our planet is covered in it, it releases the most energy/kg burned (3x that of petrol/gasoline) and converts to pure water when burned. The only drawback is energy density. One kilo of hydrogen takes up a small room (12 cubic meters) as opposed to 1.33 litres for a kg of petrol - I think hydrogen is rubbish for vehicles but would be great for central heating. Especially when you consider that offshore wind in Scotland now is generating so much energy it is overloading the grid in strong weather and has to be disconnected. Why not use that surplus to boil hydrogen out of sea water, store it under pressure and connect it to our boilers? When burned it returns to the sea as pure water - my inner hippy thinks this is so beautiful man.
Gold Gnome. The media contains all sorts of opinions, try the Spectator v New Statesman, the Guardian v the Telegraph or TV docs like Martin Durkin's documentary series Against Nature, “which attacked the environmental movement as being a threat to personal freedom and for crippling economic development” and lambasted climate change. I think he is wrong but defend to the hilt his right to say it and broadcaster to put on those of different opinions just as I love different opinions here, I only take exception to those who **** the other view off, or **** off a single entity “the Media” informed by Steve Bannon and Dominic Cummings, the seemingly successfulespouses of partial propaganda. I am so please d to live in a country of varying views in the press, those who falsely criticise it as one behemoth are only hastening the day that is just what they get imho
Sotol, when people criticise the media (and am speaking for myself and others I know), it's the "no choice media" eg BBC, ITV, FREEVIEW etc which you have to have by paying the mandatory license fee if you are a UK citizen. Without doubt they over hype, it's in their interests to keep people watching, so they get paid. The root out small stories and sensationalise- my mother at 82 was terrified by COVID, simply terrified by watching this mainstream media. I went to see her today and all she went on about was "lawless Britain"- the headline after that awful girl killing yesterday- the small print I found was that we are at the lowest point for 20years for gun dis-charges, and yet from the headlines, you'd had thought there was anarchy on the streets... 2 * 40degrees days and a few field fires and it was Britain is burning, climate change etc etc and again small print found these fires were started nit by the sun. It's like the hyperbole has gone bonkers....
Oops sorry Sotolo for mis-spell of your name - this site needs a post editor :-).
Thanks Sotolo
It might be worth your while to have a deep dive into media ownership.
I exercise my right to chase informed opinions. If its science I need to be informed on I go the scientists most informed and credentitalled in that area. Such is the luxury we have today with the internet. We dont have to put up with an opinion piece from someone who is fed and/or orchestrated by some forces hide. One does have to their homework a bit more rather open the tabloid to page 3. BUt I assure you, it is worth it, as it is so easy to go drivelling down the wrong road.
The drivel and verbal diarreah that is daily emergent is deafening, but on the other hand there are some excellent things being done in the world, and many good people ... they just get buried by BS, as they are too normal, too polite, not titillating (etc)
the gnome
Hi Mr Gnome,
Unfortunately the problem remains that not enough is being done soon enough and as Sir David Attenborough rightly states time is fast running before the damage greed and selfishness of past aberrations have caused to our planet is irreversible!
Sorry spell check error below should "before the damage greed and selfishness of past generations have caused to our planet is irreversible!"
How you can participate in Un**** The World Day
There are many ways for you to make a difference in the world.
We believe global change starts in our communities, and even in our own lives.
UTW Now encourages you to have a positive local impact in any way you can.
No matter how big or small, your action will make a difference.
https://un****theworld.net/
Plant a tree each time you search the web!
Ecosia is a not-for-profit business.
We use the profit we make from your searches to plant trees where they are needed most. Get the free browser extension and plant trees with every search.
We don't pay out dividends and cannot be bought. That way, we're able to use 100% of our profits for the planet.
There’s hardly a place more vulnerable to climate change than northern Burkina Faso and southern Mali.
Planting trees here restores desertified land to its former fertility, curbs violent conflict by creating employment, improves nutrition through agroforestry, and encourages communities to take charge of their future.
https://www.ecosia.org/?tt=9d525bf1
UTW Now encourages you to have a positive local impact in any way you can.
No matter how big or small, your action will make a difference.
Just substitute an f foe the asterisk in your search bar
https://un*ucktheworld.net/
Hi Mr Gnome,
Its older powerful world leaders like Putin, Trump and the big multinational energy companies who ought to have more sense, but instead refuse to accept the substantiated scientific evidence being gathered and presented on a continuous basis that they need to change the way they do things now, but instead continue to poison our planet!
New data from the World Bank reveals that worldwide gas flaring rose marginally to 143 billion cubic metres (bcm) last year. That equates to roughly 93% of Europe’s gas purchases from Russia. Another way to look at it is that those 143bcm could have generated some 1,800 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity, almost two-thirds of the EU’s net domestic power generation, according to the World Bank.
If you add in the flaring of petroleum liquids and the venting and leaking of methane from oil and gas infrastructure, the amount of primary energy wasted by the oil industry comes to a staggering 264bcm of gas-equivalent – roughly 1.7 times Europe’s total Russian gas imports in 2021, or 7% of the entire world’s natural gas consumption.
https://www.energymonitor.ai/tech/decarbonising-gas/opinion-the-insanity-of-flaring-during-a-global-gas-crisis
No problems with knoking out the gas flairing, and I am a long term environmentalist.
I am also a long term scientist, and the level of scientific rigour in the climate change debate is substandard in the main stream mess.
best
the gnome
Gnome you're a scientist - are you not worried about the long term effects of burning/consuming 15 billion litres of oil every day? We're on a unique spaceship gliding through the void with no life raft. It just seems a bit reckless to me?
3bear, like Gnome (I think, don’t want to speak for him) of course there is concern about the long term effect of a lot of impacts the human race has on this planet.
The problem is that the current policy direction seems to be based on popularism rather then rational examination which to me is a problem.
The human race used to burn people at the stake for suggesting that the Earth was not the centre of the universe or was not flat - how are those arguments regarded now with hindsight?
We are faced with numerous problems most of which are the result of our actions as a race, the solution to these problems lies in considered rational thought!
Just my two bobs worth so not overly important, I will no likely be dead before the real doom takes hold, in the interim I will continue to attempt to profit from the irrational behaviour of our race :)
Just wondering how this affects Centamin? Greater drought and Worse harvests in Egypt leads to more unrest, hits miners, or more world unrest leads to higher gold, which will win out and over what time frame, if in our grandchildren’s lifetime won’t Centamin have disappeared by then. So would love to know your views on how stagflation, mad gas prices etc will affect Cey, do you expect commodities and inflation to fall back as after the 70’s, and do you think. These may affect the share price more than long term warming that may or may nor be usual for the planet as you argue about?
Couldnt agree more about the buring of Oil. Simply dont drive a petrol car (etc). Everyone can make this decision or in fact decisions now. If you look at the way people drive cars, it is quite ludicrous. So many cars with only one person in it, at least in Oz. Is this the most responsible driving? To drive 5-15 kms to work? and then go to the gym, for exercise? Why not combine the 2 and ride? So many simple things we could do, and yet we dont?
I think there is far better future in nuclear as a longterm base energy source, and am more optimisitic about being able to dispose any waste very easily in the not too distant future. The technology exists now. If we are concerned we can impliment now.
I recently met an outback station woner, who said he was not going to do any small burn offs, because of the CO2 emissions and impact in the atmosphere. So the plan was to let the dead eucalyptius leaves to lie around to a lightning strike? He was running 8,000 cattle on his property?
One of the issues we dont talk about is human population growth. Is there just too many? Why? What do we do? When? How? to hard?
Another we dont talk about is the cost of energy for developing countries. THe US Empire was developed on cheap energy
and so on and so forth. There are many things thta can be done , now.
I love the concept of AISC ot produce an ounce of gold, why dont we have this to produce a kwatt of energy...? etc
best
the gnome
To answer your question it has a huge impact on Centamin as it will be reflected in the price of gold which is the biggest influence on our share price.
Ignore the remonstrations of the gold bulls (e.g. maguire, schiff, etc), they are fuelled primarily by self interest, instead look at fundamentals.
I have done this & hold 10% of my investment portfolio in bullion, to me it is insurance, don’t like paying the premium in terms of forefone return but when the sh*t hits the fan I will be OK.
As usual just my opinion but having an insurance blacktop has always served me well :)
Spoonington you seem surprisingly wise, with 10% gold insurance. However the question is whether gold miners are insurance or the opposite, risky speculation, as costs seem to rise mid term faster than the price of gold as finding it becomes tougher, unlike base metals where dealing mostly depends on newly mined, so you may be protected by your gold while we lose with our miners, especially in falling sterling where the gold price fall is less while the gold price cost rises are more. Where is your other 90%?
I remain confident that inflation rapid rise will fall back, I've been saying this for ages - many predicted the fed would be less hawkish as recent inflation data markets showed topping in the USA and this remains the case- the markets reacted to the fed stating they would continue to whack inflation hence the drop in markets and gold in general. Had they not done this, markets would have risen but dropped back later and harder out of fear with any negative future data- volatility is key and essential for markets- the trend is indeed the friend which has been one way in history- unless you invest in 1 sector or even 1 share which is total madness. As is total madness is trying to guess drops- the long term is littered with doomsayers, missing out on superb gains- just look at the 30year plus trend and they've all lost- of course, like high risk stuff, crypto, gold miners etc these are fun to trade daily, weekly and monthly as a small % of overall portfolio