Member Info for Love_You

Thanks speedymeadie,

Might well join you in another country where the weather is better and the petrol price is far cheaper. Tenerife sounds great to be fair.

Best wishes - hope you're enjoying the weather and the petrol prices in Tenerife!

Thinking in words (through writing ideas down), or aloud, has just increased my happiness (which is a pretty selfish thing to care about admittedly)!

However, that is my eureka moment for today - that has made me very happy right now! Happiness is so simple to achieve sometimes - the realisation of which has made me even more happy.

I am very happy right now indeed. Have a good day everyone!

In others words Wids you are saying people have over-borrowed. That is their problem. Interest rates should be 5% (that is normal and reasonable).

Also Wids what do you mean by saying raising rates would "blow the lot up." All you mean is that the people who have over-borrowed would be made bankrupt and smarter people would move in and buy the assets at a sensible price - they've had to wait ten years for their chance whilst the FED has done everything to deny the true level of bad debts within the system (created by the over-borrowing binge from 2005/06 and made worse by pouring petrol on the fire with emergency low rates from 2009 onwards).

If interest rates were raised all that would happen is the financial system would reset asset prices to more sensible levels.

This has happened throughout history and therefore it seems little to be be scared of (unlike a US vs Iran war which could bring in China/Russia and lead to WWIII).

In fact, judging from history, it is necessary for economy growth and prosperity for there to be crashes in asset prices every so often - so that the people who were smart enough to save can buy the assets without having to over-borrow themselves (like the people who were too eager did believing that house/property prices can only go up - that seems such a stupid belief with hindsight - the price of any asset could always go up or down - that is the lessonf from history - houses which people paid tens of thousands for in the 19th century now lie in ruins in certain parts of the UK - hence you would have to assign zero value to them as a ruin - hence proving that the belief that property could only ever increase in value was a belief disconnected from the lessons of history).

Anyway, the people/businesses who have borrowed sensibly, or who had genuinely good business ideas, will not be affected by any increase in interest rates - as sensible people would always think can I still pay this loan off if interest rates rose by 3% (remember in the 1980s interest rates were 15% in the UK for mortgages - so many people remember when an interest rate of 5% would have seemed to be ludicrously low).

And, unfortunately but probably somewhat inevitably, the borrowers who overpaid will have to give up their assets if they can't pay the loans and start again either from a lower base or with a new business idea.

Harsh for some to stomach but none of us have much influence on the "overall system". In my opinion, it seems to me that it's like animals - populations increase and then decrease - it's beyond the control of any one group or entity.

But, it seems to me also that fluctuations in assets prices are nothing to fear .....possessions should not define us as individuals our social relationships and whether we help our fellow citizens to build a mutually prosperous society are what would define us in a better society.

In others words Wids you are saying people have over-borrowed. That is their problem. Interest rates should be 5% (that is normal and reasonable).

Also Wids what do you mean by saying raising rates would "blow the lot up." All you mean is that the people who have over-borrowed would be made bankrupt and smarter people would move in and buy the assets at a sensible price - they've had to wait ten years for their chance whilst the FED has done everything to deny that their are still many bad debt out there where the lending was ludicrous and the fair or reasonable asset value is actually only half the amount which the borrowers (gone crazy back in 2005/06) managed to originally borrow against.

If interest rates were raised all that would happen is the financial system would reset asset prices to more sensible levels. This has happened throughout history and is nothing to be scared of. In fact judging by history it is necessary for economy growth and prosperity for there to crashes in asset prices every so often. The people who borrowed sensibly or who had a genuinely good business idea will not be affected. The people who overpaid will have to start again. Harsh for some to stomach but none of us have much influence on the "overall system" - it's like animals - populations increase and then decrease - it's beyond the control of any one group or entity. But certainly it is nothing to fear ........whatever level interest rates are set to the financial markets will reflect the new reality in asset prices ...citizens will just have to adapt.

Why say "moan over" when you are right and would have massive support across the UK to reduce the petrol/diesel price to 50p per litre - we are a small country and the demand increase from doing so would probably be less than the additional oil Norway could supply us from their giant Johan Sverdrup field which is going to enter production later this year and produce about 450,000 barrels of oil per day.

When oil was over $100 in 2008 petrol/diesel in the UK was about £1.25 per litre.

Now oil is half the price at $55 and petrol/diesel in the UK is £1.30 per litre.

Petrol price in Texas is currently 55p per litre and back in 2016 it was only 27p per litre.

They just waste fuel in Texas because their petrol price is so low. But we can't make them change - so why doesn't the UK show some respect to its citizens and lower the petrol price to the same as in Texas, i.e. to 55p per litre?

Why say "moan over" when you are right and would have massive support across the UK.

When oil was over $100 in 2008 petrol/diesel in the UK was about £1.25 per litre.

Now oil is half the price at $55 and petrol/diesel in the UK is £1.30 per litre.

If the government isn't careful it will lead to riots. People have been telling them for six or seven years to ensure the financial markets have the right conditions to incentive the development of the SeaLion oilfield and of the Barryoe oilfield offshore Ireland. The public aren't fools and they know the high petrol/diesel prices and the consequent decrease in the average citizen's standard of living is directly related to government policy which doesn't care about the well-being/living standards of the citizens which it expects to vote for it at General Elections.

Petrol price in Texas is currently 55p per litre and back in 2016 it was only 27p per litre.

Rip-off UK, stupid UK government to blame. Never seem to consider that global warming/climate change is not a serious threat when the scientific fact is that global temperatures have only risen 0.8 degrees Celcius on average since the 1920s - this rise is nothing to worry about as it is far less than would seriously disrupt crop growth or which would make previously populated areas due to their temperate climate uninhabitable. If people had chosen to live somewhere where a 0.8 degree rise in temperature would destroy their way of life then you could say they should of chosen somewhere better to live in the first place. Maybe sounds a bit harsh but surely it's best if humanity help each other to make each other's lives easier. It is easier for a small location of the global population to relocate so that the rest of us don't have to give up holidays, fresh fish, and don't have to say that a beautiful car like a Ferrari or an Astin martin is evil - how can something which looks and sounds so great be evil? Anyway as all plants turn carbon dioxide back into oxygen there is your proof that beautiful cars such as Ferraris and Astin martin's (the petrol powered ones which not only look great but also sound great) are not evil. I just can't imagine an electric world - it would be so dangerous - how would you hear vehicles coming? Has no one ever been about to step out into the road, maybe not fully concentrating 100%, and then been saved from stepping out by the engine noise of a vehicle (rather than actually seeing it coming)?

Maybe Iran have figured what many posters on here have also figured. The EIA figures are manipulated and completely untrustworthy. Hence the real amount of oil the US has in their strategic storage could be anything.....nobody knows the true figure. But on a probabilistic basis with Trump trying to constantly manipulate the oil price I would say the probabilities are that the US have less strategic oil reserves than they publicly claim. It takes an awful lot of oil to fight a war - those US military ships (apart from the nuclear ones) drink bunker fuel, and think of all the extra oil needed to mobilise 75,000 extra troops to the Middle East, fly 12,000 air combat sorties per day with many times the planes using afterburners, and you would have to mobilise tanks and artillery otherwise Iran could just launch a ground offensive into Kurdistan protected by their Russian made Sam 300 systems which have a range of 250km. If the worst comes to the worst Iran could use chemical/biological weapons on Riyadh as it is well within range of their medium range surface to surface missiles (but obviously that would only happen in a full blown war and doesn't really bear thinking about).

Shell have bet big on gas but it looks like oil will have a longer future than they previously thought (think 2040 rather than big demand declines starting 2030). Hence, they may want to beef up on oil. They could fund Zama for say 65% and Premier take a free carry on their share of 35% of production. Or they could buy Zama or SeaLion outright for the right price. Or they could take a percentage in SeaLion and we could hand over the heavy lifting to their teams regarding the full field development including phase 2 and eventually phase 3 and the greater North Falkland basin (including the billion barrel oil resources very likely in the Argos acreage).

Or Shell could just put in an offer for the whole of PMO - £2.95 per share sounds about right to me give then huge 3P resources of Premier but to be fair it has to be balanced against the $2 Billion debt also (which is actually not a large figure by comparison to many other oil-and-gas companies which produce in the 60,000-120,000 barrel range). Also production is not the key metric when deciding on the financial value of assets - the tax rates and royalties (basic the profit sharing mechanism with other stakeholders) are far more important in terms of relating to the financial value of producing oilfields or of oilfields which are going to be developed in the coming years.

Anyway - just wonder if anyone else thinks about £2.95 per share is a price that would keep most people happy (both buyer and seller) for a takeover?

Hi HeidHoncho,

have plenty of experience of life - yes, I think what I suggest is possible. Look at how quickly the Russians built their factors in the Urals to mass-produce tanks and aircraft even as their main armed forces were being defeated heavily and forced back to within 15 miles of Moscow. Yet within months fairly unskilled people were manning factories that were producing hundreds of tanks and aircraft per month - why, because the head honcho had the desire to put the few necessary people into the right management positions from whence it could all happen!

Have you ever considered in your electric world fantasies how electric powered tanks would ever defeat the diesel powered ones. You do make me laugh - go electric if you want and lose a future war to China and their diesel powered tanks!

Hi HeidHoncho,

have plenty of experience of life - yes, I think what I suggest is possible. Look at how quickly the Russians built their factors in the Urals to mass-produce tanks and aircraft even as their main armed forces were being defeated heavily and forced back to within 15 miles of Moscow. Yet within months fairly unskilled people were manning factories that were producing hundreds of tanks and aircraft per month - why, because someone had the desire to put the people few right people into the right management positions from when it could be made to happen!

You people are beyond belief.

What's the point in suing the Irish government/APEC when an easier solution is to purchase jack-ups direct from the secondary market and hire unemployed people from Ireland and train them up. All you need to employ to begin with is about 5 competent managers with 5 years experience in the oil industry - after that they can train all the hundreds of other employees and temps that will play a role in this project. And surely it is more ethical to train up local people and provide them with jobs rather than hiring a Chinese company which won't even stump up what it has already owed PVR since December 2018.

You people are unbelievable - talk about no desire to get up and get things done.

In my opinion the Tesla is so ugly it will only ever have a very niche market amongst the absolute die-hard fans of going electric. But there are 1.1 billion people in India and 1.2 billion in China. Ferrari can just sell their cars to China/India and get a better trade deal in return unless PVR buck-up their act and actually make some progress on getting the oil flowing from Barryoe. Millions of people (hundreds of millions) love Ferraris in India and China - yes Tesla will sell some cars - but you'd get a better trade deal if you offered there upper classes Ferraris as most people agree a Ferrari looks and sounds sexy - a Tesla looks and sounds pretty awful.

Look, me and my friends want cheaper fuel for our Ferraris from 2020-2030 - do you no longer want olives from Italy or foreign holidays. Trade ain't gonna happen unless you get this oil flowing within the next couple of years.

Ergo the shares in Providence are worthless if the BoD will not tell the people who request the company to waste time engaging in pointless impact statements to feck off.

Indeed nobody reasonable could expect PVR to try and calculate how their operations 150km away could have even the tiniest impact on the River Shannon estuary.

Anyway shouldn't the government be writing to PVR to explain how the impact of their tactics to slow-down the Irish economy are impact the daily living standards, in a negative manner, of Irish citizens?

Fools are running the economy - time for a change surely. Let's just get the oil out and let's get on with it asap.

Ergo he shares in Providence are worthless if the BoD will not tell the people who request the company to waste time engaging in rubbish to feck off.

Indeed nobody reasonable could expect PVR to try and calculate how their operations 150km away could have even the tiniest impact on the River Shannon estuary.

Anyway shouldn't the government be writing to PVR to explain how the impact of their tactics to slow-down the Irish economy are impact the daily living standards, in a negative manner, of Irish citizens?

Oh well - UK not a bad place to be in life. Just needs a government which is a bit more focused on encouraging people to see each other for what we are, a collection of different genes but with a common purpose - to eat, chat, and enjoy life with each other. If nobody acts aggressively then most security firms (including cybersecurity) wouldn't be needed - hence people could either work a 4-day week or the extra day could be spent in gaining a deeper understanding of your own mind - I would be happy to act as a guide for a reasonably fee - I have a fair amount of experience at looking to find happiness within ourselves rather than thinking we need bigger ships, taller buildings, faster cars as a society - as a society we need none of those things in my opinion.

Are the EU stealing half of this company by saying following a o-deal Brexit they will need to own 50% plus one share unless what? What would they do? They wouldn't stop EZY from flying to Europe from UK as EasyJet could just cease all internal flights within EU until the EU permitted flights from UK again. So are shareholders being stitched-up here as really the EU has no right to expect to get free shares in this company when everyone else has to pay for their shares (which is the normative behaviour within financial markets). Or is the EU slipping into communism? Although they don't have the military might to back up a communist regime in my opinion.

to think deeply.

Calisto, if you truly believe in Democracy then do you believe if there is one person who claims that 1,000 acres of land is theirs for some reason or other (hereditary rights could be one such reason - or because they walk around the perimeter every day at dawn could be another reason), and if 1,000 people live on an adjoining 10 acres, and if those 1,000 people vote 70:30 that everyone who votes in favour is entitled to one acre each of the 1,000 acres. Then would you say 700 individuals are entitled to an acre each of their own - the 300 who voted against must remain on the original 10 acres - and the one person who claimed that the 1,000 acres was theirs must now remain on 300 acres instead and must not interfere with the 700 newly-created one-acre plots?

Would you say the previous distribution of land, or the more recent distribution of land, was more equitable and just?

That CEO is an idiot then. As soon as UK assets were nationalised then all profits would have to come from USA. Do you expect their USA customers would willingly pay far higher prices just to maintain the overall profit level for NG's shareholders?

If UK part of company nationalised it could well spur their US customers to want to negotiate lower prices - hence it would be a double whammy. There would be no more profits from UK. And there would be reduced profits from their USA customers.

It's all about psychology then - you could have someone with $10 Billion in the bank (maybe Bill Gates does if he has sold off enough shares over the years to convert them into bank deposits/bonds/treasuries) and Enquest could be priced at 1p per share. Yet if the person with $10 Billion in the bank prefers to spend their time licking a computer then there would be more chance of them paying $2 million for a classic early 1980s Amstrad than their would be of them spending $2 million on buying Enquest shares.

They wouldn't care Enquest shares were extremely cheap at 1p per share - if they're not interested in shares or in oil companies then they probably wouldn't even know Enquest existed at all.