Member Info for adoubleuk

Missdosh,

I certainly hadn't seen that before. And what an odd article. Who is Bob Holdsworth? Hadn't heard his name before, but it's directly linked to what Hurricane's doing, without the other Bob, Dr Trice, getting a mention. Very strange.

extrader,

The quote you extracted from a different IC article proves my point. A pair of politicos trying to influence market decisions, in a transparent attempt to give credence to their own rather wobbly idealogical platforms. And everyone knows that doesn't work.

As I mentioned in an ealier post, I'm not against short-haul electric transport, both public and individual. It's years since I've driven in London, and if some day I absolutely have to, I won't mind paying the congestion charge. But London already has a very good electric underground railway system, and unfortunately some idiots decided about seventy years ago to get rid of the trams and it's only recently an equivalent is being reinstalled. Paris? You'd have to PAY ME to drive in the centre of that city. Last time I went there I took the train. But try turning Banckok electric! It's almost-permanent gridlock there already, but make all the Tuk-Tuk's electric and it would come to a complete standstill. Because it takes two minutes to fill a Tuk Tuk's tank with petrol, whereas the charging time would be...?

Almost all of the Climate Change / Green thing is being politically driven, and politicians have their own agenda, usually frightening ones. Sure, waste plastic pollution is horrid and scary, but the answer to that is to stop throwing the stuff in the sea, not to stop making plastics. (Which requires oil.)

I mentioned Paris. Look what's been happening there for the last five Saturdays. A direct result of political interference in hydrocarbon fuel pricing and 'climate change' nonsense.

Etc., etc.. Tomorrow marks the start of the last trading week before Christmas, so no doubt we'll have some more pressing and 'real' things to discuss!

*...so I suppose he should be thanked for that.*

Wellwell,

"Ignore the IC article at your peril long term, that’s all NW is saying and it should be absorbed for future decision making. Some might be grateful to have this brought to their attention.

Others are simply too pig headed to listen or incapable of understanding."

You're forgetting something. There are other categories of people around who are neither pig headed not incapable of understanding. People who may read that article and disagree with its conclusions, and other people who like making decisions based on their own thinking, rather than nebulous articles published in the investor's Chronicle.

When I sell my Hurricane shares (which I will some day as I have no dependents I might want to will them to), that decision will be made largely based on the SP and where I reckon it's headed, not on the state of the Arctic ice-cap, which seems to have taken the place of the more traditional tealeaves in the bottom of a cup for many people, it seems.

And reverting to your first phrase, Wellwell. "Is anyone suggesting to sell"? Yes, the Investor's Chronicle. And so, by posting the link, and by inference, Nigwit. Although he instantly qualifies his position by saying he's keeping his holding for now. But nevertheless trying to sow seeds of doubt.

He's provoked some interesting O/T weekend chat here, though, so I suppose he should be th

Nigwit has me filtered, so won't read this. But I have re-read the IC article, the link to which he's re-posted under this thread header, just to confirm a thought I had. Which was confirmed.

Nowhere in that article does the author cite one single example (by name) of an investment house which is pulling back from oil or other fossil fuel stocks. Nowhere (for instance) does he quote a spokesperson from Morgan Stanley saying "we're reducing our holdings in oil because of the Paris and Kyoto Agreements, and because we want to fight global warming".

ie, there's no evidence at all that II's are doing this.

It also occurs to me that it's highly unlikely that big investment houses read the Investor's Chronicle to get tips as to where to put their money.

Ricfle,

"Is this really the best way to spend their time in Rotterdam, as you have assured us all works are complete?"

Now you're reverting to telling lies. I have assured nobody of anything of the sort. We have seen that the upper section of the flare stack has been bolted in place. I have utterly no idea if further work / certification is needed for that. Wessexmario has intuited that the turret plate has been removed. But it's just an intuition from 'shipwatching.

HUR in RNS has said there are other things in the scope of work. I don't know what they are, but that's doubtless what's being done.

HTL,

"Another repost of a link posted by "Flossoffa" on the iii board. many thanks to him.

Very informative and compelling answer to the believe that global warming is man made. Certainly agrees with "SIPPn00b" that the sun is to blame."

Errr. Yesss. But as somebody else mentioned in another post, there's a slight (and grating) downside to the entire presentation. Being that the speaker is (despite his erudition) slighty politically biased in favour of the Carrot. Or rather, he is making a defense for the Carrot's decicions, which within the particular context I thoroughly agree with, but that runs the danger of being branded as being in agreement with everything else the idiot says, which is not the case, personally.

But I do like the obvious stuff demonstrated in that lecture, which are absolutely obvious (and have been for ages) to anyone with an IQ bigger than their hat size. Because I'm interested in Antarctica (though have never been there), and am aware of what's happening there, particularly regarding Lake Vostok. But yet the tree-huggers are perpetually banging on about the Arctic, instead.

The trouble being, the tree-huggers don't drink whisky. And seem to be quite unaware that as a couple of icecubes melt in the glass, the level (assuming one hasn't been tempted to take a sip out of it during the process) doesn't increase.

In fact (something the speaker didn't mention, and was thus scientifically not doing his due diligence), as ice melts in a glass of water (or whisky, or whatever), the level will go slightly down, if measured with very delicate instruments. So Global warming's tough shit for the polar bears, but good for the penguins.

Unfortunately, (or rather, fortunately for them) penguin-meat is rather tough and tasteless, Whereas polar bear meat though tough is seemingly tasty. If cooked long enough, with a lot of seasoning. And you can also make clothes from their pelt, or an impressive rug if you're into that sort of thing. Whereas a 'penguin rug' would look rather silly in one's living-room. And they're far funnier to see in a zoo, where the bears spend most of their time sleeping or looking pissed-off, because they can't get out of the enclosure and eat the visitors.

"Time for bed" said Zebedee.

Sorry. *... that Lancaster is a FB reservoir * etc.

"(I) suspect climate change will be one of the less prominent factors affecting the SP. " (quoth Lady Sonia)

Me too.

There's a huge temptation at the moment to say 'wise up suckers', but that would be insulting to a lot of people.

There exists a cabal on this BB (and others, notably O&G - related) who perpetually seek potential 'downsides' and exagerate them. We don't know the exact motive, but 'downramping' is maybe an obvious one, to instill Unease and Fear..

In the Hurricane context, it's simply based on the fact that Hurricane is a Fractured Basement reservoir. "Untried in the UK"! Big deal, it works elsewhere in the world. "Water Cut"! "Premature depletion"! Now it's 'delayed in Rotterdam'!

Or even worse, now it's Climate Change, and II's pulling out of oil. Odd, that last one, given that Hurricane pulled off a record-breaking fundraise last year to keep the train firmly on the tracks and on time...

And as for Climate Change? Maybe it's a good thing. People in the UK might stop jumping on those horrible polluting planes to spend their holidays in Malaga because they'll soon be able to get just as good a suntan in Inverness. (Assuming Inverness hasn't been submerged by rising sea levels, of course.)

I don't subscribe to Investors Chronical for the simple reason that I can read the Boyzee's Own Paper here for free. But even he seems to have become 'serious' of late. No more mentions of chicken entrails and suchlike. And come to think of it, others haven't been talking about owls, the turtle's head, and so on. Which is a shame.

I think I know why the FPSO is still in Rotterdam. They're doing final installation of the gigavolt stun-gun to ward off the Giant Female Squid which is currently trying to mate with the mooring system and the buoy, mistaking it for one of its own kind, but seems remarkably passive right now. And the Giant Squid is liable to get annoyed when the the Aoka Mizu turns up and starts hoisting the buoy into its own welcoming orifice. With terrible consequences. Hell hath no fury like a Giant Squid spurned.

And of course, Hurricane and Bluewater being a bunch of incompetents forgot to take this into account in their risk assessments until just now.

Ricfle, Maybe they're having a smoke and a pancake.

Divecentre,

"The Chinese are planning to build 216 new airports over the next 15 years. More airports means more planes for more flights using more fuel and causing more pollution. What are their priorities?"

More planes, and more flights! They're still playing catch-up in many ways.

I know that Nigwit has filtered me so he won't read this. But nevertheless I'll continue in this (slightly) O/T debate, especially as JayKay was surprised at my earlier comment.

NW wrote: " The only ways to avoid being hypocritical are to deny climate change or live off-grid."

I don't believe that to be true. And also I think JK misunderstood me.

Anyone who denies that climate is changing is off their trolley. But I firmly believe that the significance of anthropogenic (man-made) effects is wildly over-estimated, often by people who either have an axe to grind, or stand to make a quick buck from it. I'm also not naïve enough to think that 'climate scientists' of either camp are necessarily unbiased: a lot of 'science' is subsidised by industry.

What I do believe is that a lot of the drive for 'renewables' is powered by money, politics, or both. And that equally much of it is no less laughable than King Knut setting his throne up on the shores of The Wash and hoping the tide wouldn't come in.

I'm all in favour of small electric vehicles for use in towns and cities, because of course lots of IC exhaust in relatively confined spaces can lead to health-impairing air pollution. But that's nothing to do with climate change. In fact I live in a very avant-guard town, where not only are the buses free (leading to an increase in their use and less cars in the centre), but now the bus company is also leasing out electric-assisted bicycles, and (just started a few months ago) electric scooters. (Which can be used in public thoroughfares in France). They're proving very popular.

I'm not against things like congestion charges in big cities, either. Usually one can get about far quicker using public transport, or even on foot, than using a car in somewhere like London. 40 years ago, driving in London was FUN: I used to think of the Marylebone Road as a sort of public drag-strip. But it's no fun any more.

But again, don't link traffic congestion with climate change. And anyway, nothing brought into law in Europe will change traffic conditions in New Delhi or Bangkok where they REALLY know about congestion.

Plus despite being a hard-nosed oilman, I still have a certain sense of aesthetics. And find windfarms to be an objectionable blot on the landscape.

Wulbert,

"Still "K.B.O." as old Winston would say. "

I have a favorite Winston Churchill quote. In fact on my toilet wall I have a picture of him, cigar in mouth, and a speech bubble containing his aphorism. It is "Remember: when you're going through Hell, keep going!".

Longwait,

"You point out, Wulpert, that overseas investors must take into consideration the fact that HUR shares are denominated in sterling. I would have thought that is to their advantage."

No, it was myself who pointed this out.

It is not advantageous. Take my own position. I first bought in here 'pre-referendum'. Since then sterling has dropped against the euro by 15%. Which means that even if the SP hadn't moved at all, their worth at selling has dropped by 15% when converted into my 'local' currency, the euro.

I don't wish to enter into the politics of Brexit. But it appears that there is a very good possibility that sterling will slide against the euro yet more come March. This translates into my shares held in London becoming of less worth in cash terms.

It may be argued that the strength of the euros means that I can buy more shares, because I pay in euros, which is then converted into pounds.. But nobody makes money through buying shares, only by selling them!

*anchoring*

Wellwell,

"No surprise therefore the AM is staying put in my opinion but the departure on the 16th would work."

There is no reason to believe the AM's continued presence in Rotterdam has anything to do with the weather. We've already been indirectly informed via EnergyVoice that if the FPSO ends up waiting on a weather window, it will be off Lerwick. The berthing charge in Rotterdam will be costing Bluewater some serious money by the day: anchering off the Shetlands won't.

haggis_trap,

"However HUR is basically politics-proof as all bets on EPS."

Not true (I know this from ongoing experience).HUR is traded in London, and thus pounds sterling. With the shameful and embarrassing Brexit ineptitude and confusion, and its effect on the currency since the 'referendum that should never have happened', overseas investors in Hurricane (or any London stock) have been hit hard, and it could get worse. 'Overseas' includes USA, which is obviously bad news.

Wellwell,

'Genghis I’m sorry to report but most of the NS industry, aside from employees or companies involved already in some way, are ignorant of Hurricane Energy "

This unfortunately I've myself found to be true, at least amongst the numerous oil industry contacts I have. I first heard of Hurricane from one of those contacts, who happens to be a geologist! But somehow, not least due (I think) to their low approach to publicity-pushing, Hurricane still remains below most peoples' radar, despite the size of their finds.

HTL,

Thanks for the link. For what it's worth, I am personally hugely sceptical about anthropogenic climate change, and consider wind-turbines to be a blot on the landscape, and nothing other than a money-spinner for their manufacturers. And living in France, let's not mention fuel taxes, imposed as a result of an indirect attempt to 'reduce carbon emissions' (and thus slow climate change!).

But that presentation includes some nice statistics, some of which I was unaware of, but can now quote when getting into a pub argument on the subject.

(As an aside, it should be noted that the contributor here who flagged up the link to the IC article was also the last person to post on the LEAF Clean Energy BB here on LSE, 5 months ago. By pure coincidence one of Hurricane's major shareholder companies, a fund management outfit, also has a significant holding in LEAF.)

Ricfle,

"Sorry for the delay in replying, do not spend much time reading this board any more."

I can believe that. Too busy raising peoples' blood pressure with negativity and endless rhetorical questions over on the RBD board, eh?

" Any ideas just what they are doing with the FPSO, apart from the two days work that we have been informed of?"

Who, exactly 'informed of' two days' work? I seem to remember Wellwell reckoning three or four days, but that can't exactly be called official. Personally I was told by an impeccable source (which I won't name) that tha FPSO would be in Rotterdam for 'at least a week', and posted that here a while ago.

What are they doing? Fitting the upper section of the flare stack (done), removing the turret plate (Wessex mario intuits that's now done) probably taking on a shitload of stores, spare parts, and so on, etc.. ie the 'scope of work' the company informed us about, though without going into the last nut-and-bolt details.

If it's really that interesting, why not phone Bluewater and ask 'em what's taking so long? Though I doubt that the conversation would be of great duration....