Member Info for Genghis15

Last year there was an update issued on 8 may, with, crucially, details of cash position at y/e. This was followed by a webcast in June.

So I would expect to see an update very soon on y/e results.

I can say from experience that councils throw away tax money on dumb refusals frequently.

As a former employee, I sw it happen, but you have to understand the dynamics. Councillors turn down quite legit applications, even when professionals see no grounds to do so, in order to curry favour with the voters who put them there, and they hope, will then not turf them out next time. Turnout at local elections being so low, they cannot afford to upset many activist local voters. (Leave aside possible vested interest ; there are safegurds, but in my experience they only get finessed when some one WANTS a development, not in stopping one).

Officers walk a tightrope, I have known them to warn councillors that surcharge by the auditor is a possibility if they vote a frivolous refusal. But there is usually some point they can hang a refusal on which can be used to justify it, at least inasmuch as the auditor feels a challenge not clear cut, so this very rarely happens.

Elected members KNOW they re wasting money, but weight that up against the electoral benefits. That's democracy, I'm afraid, warts and all.

bartle
That's an interesting link, but it reads to me that interim determinations can be made. In the current environment, I imagine we may be one of many to whom the OGA will have to be flexible regarding commitment wells.

Which still doesn't answer the Q, of course, of why they turned it down
n in the first place, and why Whirlwind was surrendered (at the REQUIREMENT of the OGA) at a w/o cost of £Ms.. It makes no sense at all to surrender WW if your gas solution is going to pass over the top of it, with a nice WOSPS T piece already in place.

There is much going on with OGA that I cannot understand.

"Tankers are queuing up off the US coast to act as containers of last resort"

I reckon most are already full of Gulf crude, incoming.

i don't understand those criticising the availability of equipment and personnel.

The pandemic will have likely caused all sorts of issues with both, as closed factories, offices, and service businesses disrupted things. Complex supply chains are easily disrupted in ways that are not at all obvious, and as for personnel, there are clear H&S implications and ambiguities over lockdown regs.

It's frustrating, but I for one will not be blaming the co for it. All those involved are incentivised to get on with it at least as much as investors.

Ah, ok. Sorry, was hoping tweeted article links might save me using up my subscription quota of gift links. This should work, but mb only for the first few who click it.

https://on.ft.com/3aQVSuy

this last week's news ; it did NOT say Rvir was "ineffectual" it said the trial was of limited benefit due to its structure.

this may seem pedantic, but words matter when discussing science.

https://pharmaphorum.com/news/first-study-of-gileads-remdesivir-in-covid-19-reveals-little/

I'm afraid you lost me there, DC?

"only last week another efficacy study (in China, if recalling correctly) pronounced Remdesivir as ineffectual "

Not so. Go back and check that story. As I recall it was inconclusive due to small patient nos/early halt of trial.

Those with opinions on the likely recessionary impacts, and on the effects of money printing, might imho benefit from a little more self doubt, and a little less certainty.
Even with a good dose of MMT thrown in, even central bankers dont quite know either how this will affect the real economy, or how they will unwind it.
I have some tentative opinions on that, but I am not bold enough to assert them here, bcos there is just so much uncertainty.

I am not predicting negative prices, imo some major shut ins (with a bit if a demand recovery, too, with any luck) should avoid that for Brent.

But when the people who run the futures markets are enabling their systems to cope with that possibility, it would be foolish to say it cant happen, albeit briefly Sorry, dont have a link to that story atm.

https://twitter.com/ftenergy/status/1255331304993947650?s=19

Hindsight. Not practiced by everyone. There are reasons to hedge, and reasons not to, and hedges cost money : financial counterparts are taking on risk and need a price. And some of these hedges are blowing up, either they collars, or, potentiallyntially, counterparty failure when markets blow up like now.

It is a perfectly valid financial strategy to assess,the cost/ benefit of hedging and decide not to.
Would you hedge 2021 now, at under $40 , or think no, theres a good chance it will be $50?

@ $30 oil ave April = Dec. You can take off c. $50m if it were $20.

You could argue the Russians were dumb to reject the cut, SA dumb to overreact, and of Course Trump can always be relied on to do the dumb thing.

The lesson of this crisis is the same as in 2008 ; global problems need a global response, "Targeting" and blaming everybody else simply perpetuates the problem.

I don't recall that being quite what he said, I suggest another listen.

However, as for missing the point, I would say you are not missing it, but mb rather labouring the obvious. At $20 oil, there is no oil company that is a good investment.

In HUR's case, it has sufficient reserves to see it thru ; it will still be here next year.

https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1254316113376227329?s=20

Actually its on p265.

No one foresaw current circumstances when drafting, it would appear, tho of course this is just a contract summary. But it is clearly predicated on BP's ability to sell the oil ; id the tanks are full at Rotterdam, ………..

With what has been occurring in WTI recently there is even some doubt over whether all hedging counterparties will be robust enough to fulfil. It seems little can be trusted atm.

Forget what countries "need" to balance their budgets. It's only tangential to the problem,; in the end those countries will have to cut budgets, borrow or raise taxes.

Cost of production is what matters, bcos the lowest cost producers will be the first to restart. OK, there are wrinkles in that around pipes, storage, etc, but at the heart of any commodity, cost is key.

Not sure what the BP contract says, but does anybody think they will be offloading HUR oil if they can't sell their own first? Once N Sea shutdowns become forced by storage issues, we might not be in a very good place.