focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar 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.
Redbuffet what gives you the right to demand we stay on topic? I'd rather see some rubbish than miss information that might form part of my decision making . The general background is important and several posters aren't from or based in the UK. They might find this interesting so I suggest you look away now.
This morning the Laura Kuenssberg programme on BBC was devoted to climate and Net Zero. It was biased (imo) against the O&G industry with Chris Packham and the head of CCC Chris Stark although LK did mention this https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/09/climate-change-committee-chris-stark-net-zero/
What I found most interesting though was that Claire Coutinho turned up to argue for the Tories but Labour sent Shabana Mahmood the shadow Justice Secretary. Where is Ed?
The movement against Net Zero has run its course and repeating slogans just makes the likes of Packham and Stark look silly and out of touch. I mentioned this in my Overton window post (19 April 06:55) and I don't think it strange that both Packham and Greta are on the spectrum.
*If you find any of this O/T Redbuffet there is a Filter facility that I find useful for posters that irritate me.
There is some good discussion about ENQ on here but lots of noise. Can we please try and stick on topic?
Speculation about politics and oil price not that helpful. If there is anything tangible by all means but posting that we think the EPL is stupid etc or that oil is due to go up or down isn't really helping anyone make better investment decisions.
Interesting article and I particularly liked this paragraph, I had not realised that the figures quoted for gas powered electricity had such a large proportion of tax included as a opposed to the subsidies in renewables.
"The offered price for large scale solar at £84/MWh is more than twice that quoted by Newkey-Burden in the National Grid sponsored article. In fact, the prices offered to all renewable technologies are more than twice those in the Generation Cost report. Third, the £114/MWh price quoted for gas includes an assumed £60/MWh in carbon taxes, meaning the real cost of gas fired electricity is only around £54/MWh. Finally, these levelised costs of energy estimates do not include any allowance for the cost of backing up intermittent renewables, nor the extra costs to expand the grid to bring power from remote offshore locations to the source of demand. Moreover, the costs for existing renewables are even higher than those offered in AR6. Contract for Difference (CfD) strike prices for the year ending March 2024 were £173/MWh for offshore wind, £109/MWh for onshore and £106/MWh for solar, as per the LCCC.
The first “myth” is confirmed shown to be true". Clean energy is too expensive!
Whose paying them to brainwash the social media junkies… you do wonder : https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/wood-burning-stoves-greener-heat-32628775.amp
The US House passed new sanctions on Iran’s oil sector set to become part of a foreign-aid package, putting the measure on track to pass the Senate within days.
The legislation would broaden sanctions against Iran to include foreign ports, vessels, and refineries that knowingly process or ship Iranian crude in violation of existing US sanctions. It would also would expand so-called secondary sanctions to cover all transactions between Chinese financial institutions and sanctioned Iranian banks used to purchase petroleum and oil-derived products.
The legislation, which is set to be included in a $95 billion package providing funding for aiding Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, passed by a vote of 360-58 on Saturday. It was pre-negotiated with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and the White House said it supports it.
About 80% of Iran’s roughly 1.5 million barrels of daily oil exports are shipped to independent refineries in China known as “teapots,” according to a summary of similar legislation.
While the sanctions could impact Iranian petroleum exports — and add as much as $8.40 to the price of a barrel of crude — they also include presidential waiver authorities, according to ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington-based consulting firm.
“President Joe Biden might opt to invoke these authorities, vitiating the sanctions’ price impact; a second Trump Administration might not,” ClearView wrote in a note to clients.
US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen in October rejected a widely-held notion that the US had gradually relaxed some sanctions enforcement on Iranian oil sales as part of efforts for a diplomatic rapprochement.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-20/new-iran-oil-sanctions-passed-by-us-house-in-foreign-aid-package
Ergy.
Second, US inflation would prove even more stubborn at a time when progress in reducing price pressures has already disappointed this year, thereby acting as a bigger counter to early rate cuts by the Federal Reserve.
Third, the strong dollar would get a further appreciation boost, undermining trade and financial intermediation.
And finally, with worsening economic and geopolitical situations, risk premia would increase. This would lead to higher borrowing costs than might have prevailed otherwise.
Such considerations assume greater urgency when factoring in what did not happen in the most recent tit-for-tat between Iran and Israel.
Whether by design or otherwise, neither party has inflicted considerable human and physical damage on the other. Also, Iran did not materially deploy its regional proxies in what could easily have been a more comprehensive attack on Israel. Meanwhile, Israel did not go after Iranian nuclear sites in its response. It also did not succumb to pressure from its closest allies, most notably the US and UK, for a greater degree of restraint and de-escalation.
All this points to a significant shift in the dynamic between these two countries, Most importantly, this has changed from a relatively stable disequilibrium, in which each party refrained from direct attacks, to a more unpredictable and unstable disequilibrium in which dangerous precedents have been set and each side has more reasons to escalate tensions further.
When comparing the reaction of markets to the views of most national security experts, I am reminded of the story of the frog in boiling water.
There is no doubt that the latest round of Iran-Israel hostilities has crossed many lines and durably raised the geopolitical temperature in the region. Yet markets seem keen to brush this aside, comforted by the fact that we are yet to reach the boiling point of significant human casualties and physical damage in these retaliation rounds — a point that would cause significant economic and financial dislocations. Given that this is a region that is vulnerable to errors of judgment, insufficient understanding of adversaries, and implementation accidents, that could well prove too complacent a reaction.
National security experts and financial market traders seem to disagree on what will follow the recent escalation of tensions between Iran and Israel. The question of who turns out to be correct will have significant consequences not only for an already unstable Middle East but also for the wellbeing of the global economy and the stability of its financial system.
The notion of a “new Middle East” has often come up in the national security camp’s characterisation of what has transpired following Israel’s attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria at the start of this month.
Specifically, multiple lines have been crossed by both parties. For the first time in history, the two countries have attacked each other directly rather than through the use of proxies and targets in third countries. Iran has directed a once-unthinkably large number of missiles and drones at Israel, responding to the Israeli attack in Damascus that killed a number of Iranian senior officials. Friday’s Israeli retaliation came on the heels of an explicit warning from Iran’s foreign minister that it would immediately respond should it be attacked directly.
Despite all this, the markets’ reaction has been relatively tame and contained. Rather than price the market implications of a durable escalation in geopolitical threats and a fatter tail risk of substantially higher oil prices for long, traders have been quick to fade the initial moves in many asset prices.
This includes oil, by far the most sensitive international price, which is today well below where it closed before Iran first retaliated for Israel’s consulate attack. These prices have also failed to maintain their initial move up on the latest news of Israel’s response.
This contrast in market vs expert views could have consequences well beyond regional stability. It relates directly to four themes that the IMF identified this week as important for global economic wellbeing and financial stability: insufficient growth, sticky inflation, the lack of policy flexibility and the pressures associated with greater international divergence in economic outcomes and policy setting.
While the global economy is able to handle a transitory bump, it is already too fragile to handle a large new economic shock. Specifically, a further round of military escalation between Iran and Israel would undermine already low and fragile global growth, push up goods inflation at a time when services inflation is still too high, and impose demands on fiscal and monetary authorities that have already used up much of their policy flexibility and have limited operating space.
Meanwhile, the distribution of this stagflationary shock would amplify the economic and financial divergences that are already imposing some stress on the global order.
First, two of the potential engines of global growth — the already-stressed Chinese and European economies — would be hit relatively hard given their high dependence on imported ene
Any chance you can copy and paste some of it here? I don't have FT subs. TY
Https://www.ft.com/content/53f64b6b-3151-46b3-ad83-3a4732c35d41
"JPMorgan said changing the world’s energy system “is a process that should be measured in decades, or generations, not years”.
But Ed knows better.
"Only Labour has a plan to get bills down and make sure we are never again left so exposed, with a sprint for cheap, clean power by 2030, insulating 19 million cold, drafty homes, and establishing GB Energy, our publicly-owned energy company." May 2023 'X'.
"It's hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong". Thomas Sowell.
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.