Member Info for CUPHALFULL

I should add - for balance - In the 60s,

..the Labour government destroyed the UK's huge aero-industry by always buying American and cancelling UK projects .

As much as the Leftie Labour governments loathed the yanks they even more loathed the very idea that Britain might produce outstanding technological products - for them it reeked of ' Imperialism' - the very idea the UK might be the best at something.

Does that sound familiar ?

Well lets see how the up to date situation goes - RAF has to have 26 new jet fighters.

- either American F35s of which UK has tiny joint participation in huge multi- nation programme guaranteeing 2,000 UK jobs for 6 months

or - BAC Typhoons - a UK joint programme with Germany, Spain & Italy - guaranteeing 25,000 UK jobs for 3 years.

The latter would preserve a UK aircraft industry industrial capacity which would take us into the next generation of jet fighter planes of the 30's - of which Japan, the US, Russia, and China have already initiated studies.

Thatcher would have gone for the American plane as it would get the UK government out from under ensuring a Tory UK government had the responsibility to manage the programme well, the classic Labour government would go far the American aircraft as they would believe a successful UK aircraft ( and industry) smacks of Imperialism, even though there are 3 EU partners in the programme.

Which way will Starmer flop ?

@ Jodonne _ " I suspect Simon, Destitute and some others here were fans of Thatcher, if they're old enough.

Note the diametrically opposite way that her Tories and Norway's socialist prime minister(s) developed their oil resources. "

Alas you are absolutelty right Jodonne - flogging off everything covered up for the Tories inability to successfully manage anything - the very idea - as the French attempt to do - to cherish and develop strategic industries over a 25 year time period would be beyond their limited abilities .

But we musn't confuse a sensible Norwegian government with any of the socialist politicians the UK is perpetually stuck with,

In addition she sold off state assets and public housing to her mates and distributed what's left to the already well of

Hello Dick,

Thank you for all the efforts in bringing your expertise to this board.

You say,

" Were JOG to retain its 20% in the GBA and decide just to sit back and receive its 20% share of production, it would generate (net of tax) earnings of something like $70m per annum (c.£56m) per my DCF projections. "

So at that stage, dividing net earnings by the number of shares, could holders reasonably expect around £1.50 per share annual dividend ?

If at some stage there are superb dividends then the SP will surely sort itself out ?

"The interesting question is: will Miliband go before Reeves?"

Well Reeves is not impressive ( British understatement), but Milliband has always seemed to me to be thick - although he manages to afford the very best and impressive male tailoring of all UK politicians - his father left him serious money.

"The interesting question is: will Miliband go before Reeves?"

Well Reeves is not impressive ( British understatement), but Milliband has always seemed to me to be thick - although he manages to afford the very best and impressive male tailoring of all UK politicians - his father left him serious money.

@DonkeyOatey - " Let us hope that Trump being in office and Musk in the DOGE we will see greater freedom of speech in all aspects of life."

Well its already turning for the better, Facebook and Google are withdrawing from censoring views they dont politically agree with and a repeal of the Stalinist " Diversity" agenda is already rolling thru US commerce.

The trend will take a while to reach the UK and will hit embedded Left Wing Establishment views, so for a while people will continue to lose their jobs through expressing views that the vast majority of the public agree with ( e.g. there are 2 sexes, and biological sex at birth cannot change ) or as we learn today be sacked from their job as an officer at a Housing Association for being an organiser in the Reform Party, even though the association employs 6 staff who are organisers in the Labour Party.

But the times they are a' changing due to the Trump win - and that is the reason for the extreme bile from the Left.

Extract from Zeus - " The worst case of these numbers implies that investors can currently pay an EV of £10m for a project that could be worth £47m net to JOG, or an uplift of nearly 5x. "

Doesn't sound like the £43 ( or was it £34) I'd promised myself.

@Frazerjohn - " I see Greempewce are saying they don't want the drilling rigs removed, they just want them to stop drilling and bringing petroleum to the surface!!

OK- that'll work.

Sounds like a good business plan! "

No oil , but no de-commissioning costs - its an attempt to overcome the obvious objection that investors will not just have no money for their investment, but will be left with no funds for decommissioning which is usually financed from profit

@99icecream - " So the Black Hole in Energy Security goes much further back than you imply."

I dont doubt it 99IC, particularly as the Left have always had an irrational anti-nuke energy hang-up.

But I expected better from a Tory government but all we got was more Blair type government Tory administrations on so many policies of which Energy Security was but one - the only exception being the Johnson administration and Brexit.

But other than that there is little difference between the two main parties e.g Hunt's attack on the NS industry, now Reeves

The Tories really did leave us with a ' Black Hole' on Energy Security, just as they have with appropriate Prison Capacity.

The French are able to supply us electricity because of all the nuclear power stations they built while Cameron and Osborne decided we not invest in such things because they take to long to build - if they started them we could have had 3 or 4 new nuclear power stations coming to fruition about now.

Thanks for your efforts Dick.

@ NewKOTB Budget 2.59. 2.60., 2.61

What to make of that - can even a professional project a figure to that lot of word quagmire ?

Re- DU - "

Nobody warned me that share prices can go up as well as down. The Happy Eater in Buckfastleigh might be back in the reckoning................"

Would that be the " Healthy Budget Happy Eater Special " or their " Mega Special" Dick ?

Re: Greener 101

Sounded to me like changing Capital Allowances of 29% for 100% FOR 1 YEAR ONLY - but I could be wrong

MonnieTox where are you ?

AMPO818 - " Sir Kier Starmer said on Thursday that anyone who owns shares and rental property is not a "working person"

But a 'Downing Strett spokesman' has qualified this.

Totally unaltered quote from today's TCW :-

" The trouble is that Starmer and his crew of second-raters, spongers, thickos and chancers are firmly ensconced for five years, giving them more than enough time to do irreversible damage to our energy infrastructure. "

Come on Dick - it has been a bit warm for September - what more proof would one need to justify UK

' taking the moral lead' and smashing the UK economy to give a ' moral lead' to the Rest of the World - i.e .China, India, and the US .

China will be influenced by our example, of course.

China produces 29 X greenhouse gases than UK, India 16 X , US 16 X

China still forging ahead building new coal-fired power stations and OFFICIALLY UNCOMMITTED TO NET ZERO 2050.

Lefties never protest outside the Chinese and Indian Embassies in London, although they usually like to do so outside the US Embassy - but that,s a bit hard to reach nowadays

@Cyril2 - " As it stands, being able to say 'yes we have thought about future emissions' seems a trivial hurdle and of no consequence."

Lets hope the JR doesn't get a leftie 'Activist' judge whose out to make a name for themselves making 'new law' by

creating the 'objective thresholds' you mention - with numbers that wipe out the business models of all NS operators

... from today's Spectator - " Keir Starmer’s government appears to have softened its stance on oil and gas. Back in June 2023, the Labour leader told an audience in Edinburgh that there would be no new licences for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. Instead, a Labour government would pursue green energy all the way, slashing our bills (it promised) and taking us ever faster to the nirvana of net zero. But how the responsibilities of government come to bear. A release from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) this morning indicates some notable shuffling of ground.

Far from cheering a recent Supreme Court ruling which quashed planning permission for a small oil well development in Surrey on the grounds that the Environmental Impact Assessment hadn’t considered the carbon emissions which would be released when the oil was burned, the government says it will step in to help the oil and gas industry to obtain the relevant consents for developing new fields. It will consult on new planning guidance to ensure that projects can go ahead. While the government says it will not challenge a judicial review brought by Greenpeace on the development of the Jackdaw and Rosebank oil fields in the North Sea – which are similar to the challenge against the Surrey oil field – the licenses for those fields will not be withdrawn. They may still go ahead if they can satisfy the new guidelines.