Member Info for Love_You

Boyobach. Oil can be stored very easily. They pump it down into huge caverns under the Gulf of Mexico.

Also, China stores oil in artificial lakes.

All countries have systems to store oil (because it is so economically vital) and they are probably right now building bigger oil storage facilities (which in itself will increase oil demand).

Boyobach. There has been shortages of almost everything the world over since the bankers f*cked the global economy from 1998-2006 leading to the huge financial crisis in 2008 from which there was no real recovery for most people (just media spin).

I think there is a larger problem for the economy. I have worked hard since graduating from university in 2007 and most of the experiences I have wanted (such as driving a Ferrari from Paris to Moscow via Romania) I have not been able to afford. This suggests to me that prices have been artificially manipulated to deter people from getting what they want out of LIFE. Seems a bit harsh as what is wrong with wanting to drive a V10 Ferrari from Paris to Moscow.

Hence, I don't think anyone knows the true extent of the true shortages of refined petrochemicals in the USA. The bankers pulled the plug on 80% of the population in the USA in 2008 and they have been committing suicide in their tens of thousands from opiate overdoses in the USA. There probably has been massive shortages of refined petrochemicals but the media has been biased since 2008 and doesn't report the true level of economic distress/hardship.

That is my two pence worth Boyobach!

Also, I can't see how there will be any long-term demand destruction for oil going forwards to 2030 and beyond.

Given the choice of a Ferrari or Aston Martin, or a Renault, I would take the Ferrari/Aston every time. You would be mad not to want the experience of cruising some of the best driving roads in Eastern Europe in a V10 Ferrari.

Hence, I can't see how the demand for oil can drop when a V10 engine sounds more desirable than any hot hatch.

I can't see how there will be any long-term demand destruction for oil.

Given the choice of a Ferrari or Aston Martin, or a Renault, I would take the Ferrari/Aston every time. You would be mad not to want the experience of cruising some of the best driving roads in Eastern Europe in a V10 Ferrari.

Hence, I can't see how the demand for oil can drop when a V10 engine sounds more desirable than any hot hatch.

Hi OWLS,

What do you intend spending your trading profits on? What product areas would you like to see more choice within in the UK?

In my opinion the mess is enormous to sort out. Some people now own ten homes and they can't tell you why they own them because what they actually need is a psychotherapist to sort out their ego complex. However, she can't accord to live in that area anymore because these idiot property speculators would prefer to keep their properties empty, and lie to the banks, rather than reduce the rents to what is actually affordable. In part because reducing the rents to realistic levels would result in the banks writing down the entire asset value of the property portfolio of these speculators. Then the banks would realise they need to repossess the entire portfolio asap to minimise their losses. Ergo it is in both the banks (and the property speculators) interest to lie to the government about the true rental values that can be achieved. Ergo why the politicians are going to have to dig below the surface to even begin to sort out this mess (a lot of which is hanging over from 2008 as it was never sorted out back then but merely disguised, propped up, and swept into the backroom for another day).

RE: house prices collapse

JohnnyBoy67.

The government's Help To Buy scheme back in 2010 was extremely silly. The housing market needed a price correction at that time. The government policy did the opposite - it gave more steroids to an addict and expected the addict not to continue to use and abuse? The trouble is that housing got so expensive it has corrupted the banking system and the financial mess now is way bigger than in 2007/08 (which is why nobody will admit we are in a massive mess as a country - because for years they have been denying it and then suddenly they are forced to face reality and can now see why other people were saying they needed to let the housing correction happen back in 2010).

Anyway, the Help To Buy scheme happened and helped enriched the people doing the most damage to the fabric of society (those obsessed by owning multiple homes whether or not they would have been better off being owned by doctors/nurses/train drivers/binmen etc.)

In my opinion the mess is enormous to sort out. Some people now own ten homes and they can't tell you why they own them when what they actually need is a psychotherapist to sort out their ego complex - but she can't accord to live in that area anymore because these idiot property speculators would prefer to keep their properties empty, and lie to the banks, rather than reduce the rents to what is actually affordable (as that would result in the banks writing down the asset value of their entire portfolio and then realising they need to repossess all the properties asap to minimise their losses on their "bad" loans).

JohnnyBoy67,

So easy to fix all the market's problems with one policy - build a lot more homes in the UK. This will increase oil demand thus raising the price (benefitting investors in oil companies who will then have the money to buy the new homes). Thus all problems solved - citizens have enough homes to live in and oil companies would be kept financially solvent by a higher oil price due to great oil demand).

But the economy in the US ought to have built more oil refineries ...instead it has let its citizens become poorer. Massive rise in narcotic related deaths. Government of USA needs to be ashamed that the recovery since 2007 was only intended to benefit the top 10%, then the next 20% remain about the same standard of living, and everyone else was to get poorer. Awful policy and planning .... then again the decline in population increase probably started in the 1970s. So really the USA economy has been losing steam ever since. They probably needed a few new refineries to be built 2010-2020 just to replaced the aged ones from the 1950s. No growth in refining capacity if just replacing old with more modern. However, approach actually adopted was worse - accept decline in refining capacity as don't build any new and allow the oldest plants to close. Don't worry the jobs lost and people's standard of living ... just reinforce the police and make narcotics widely available... control the narrative....inflict a massive decline in average living standards upon the majority of society...these of the policies of the FED since 2007 which they now gloat over and praise themselves for - bunch of idiots.

I mean as an investor I am here for the oil. As an employee you are there for the money. So I am not disagreeing with you Adoubleuk. Hopefully we can agree that it is in fact the oil that allows people to travel about playing gigs and attending gigs. Which songs did you enjoy playing the most?

Broomfielder I agree.

With the current government I fear the entire economy could collapse before they approve the funds needed to keep every business open (because we need more small businesses not less in order to raise people's living standards in the UK).

But what exactly has been delivered over the past ten years? What we are faced with are not banking/financial problems but deeply rooted societal issues. They require solutions that no recent government has been prepared to take (such as land ownership reform and making it easier for people with little capital to start up agribusinesses in the UK). It is time to tell the landowners the truth. Your country needs you. Make use of you land productively, or if not then give 20% away to someone who will use it to produce food or build a nice eco-friendly Spa amidst a newly planted orchard. And stop building out of concrete. I'm talking something that would really blend into the landscape. Built out of only stone, glass and wood. Either built 70% underground and/or 70% amongst the branches of trees. All covered in turf/moss so it would be almost completely hidden from a distance. If fact build it 100% out of glass, cover most of it in turf/moss and who could complain about that? It is like completely see-through except for the people nice and warm enjoying the pleasant experiences inside. Maybe the guests could even spend half an hour picking fruit from the orchard so that the fruit doesn't go to waste?

Exactly Snige, the last ten years has been all about enriching the richest 3% of UK society. We are probably not far off civil unrest as the unfairness is made all the worse by the fact people were told they would be better off if they worked for another ten years to enrich the richest 3% (a bit gullible on their part but fair enough they did what they were told ... now where are the nice houses, cars, foreign holidays, and places to enjoy on AirB'n'B?)

To be fair Snige we are definitely worse off than ten years ago. There is such a long time between bin collections that it is like living in a third world country. Where are all the nice cake shops like they have in France? Where are the hypermarkets full of great-looking (often locally sourced, artisan made) food products that dot the French landscape? Where are the home improvements that the more deprived urban areas were promised?

In fact what exactly has been delivered over the past ten years. Labour achieved not a lot and the Tories have continued in that vein as it is a societal problem and it needs drastic solutions that no recent government has been prepared to take (such as land reform and making it easier for people with little capital to start up agribusinesses in the UK).

Exactly Snige, the last ten years has been all about enriching the richest 3% of UK society. We are probably not far off civil unrest as the unfairness is made all the worse by the fact people were told they would be better off if they worked for another ten years to enrich the richest 3% (a bit gullible on their part but fair enough they did what they were told ... now where are the nice houses, cars, foreign holidays, and places to enjoy on AirB'n'B?)

Why would we care what you think of their presentational skills?

We are here because we want the oil. I don't care if Dr. Trice has 4 heads and 8 feet. It honestly wouldn't bother me. All that bothers me is that he understands how to drill into fracture basements. Also, how to flow the oil to the surface at 20,000 bopd per well (and give me 100 wells please West of Shetland in Hurricane's licenses. Then we will see a mighty fine economic return when we are producing 2 million barrels a day from West of Shetland. I bet BP would offer us £50 per share as we would be cheap at that price if Dr. Trice can achieve those flow rates. It ought to be possible as I estimate there are 15 Billion barrels of recoverable oil in Hurricane's licenses. Unfortunately, Dr. Trice always errs on the conservative side but that does nothing to bring in the investment which is needed to prove that there are 15 Billion recoverable barrels in Hurrican's licenses).

I am very glad he is not a Lenigas snake oil seller. That man was a charlatan, destroyed huge amounts of shareholders money, and I'm pretty sure on his way to Hell because he destroyed the quality of life for millions of people who invested in his projects. He was on over 40 boards (including as a non-exec) and he added no value anywhere. It is people like him that do no deliver the oil in return for the money invested that give capitalism a bad name and in fact why capitalism no longer functions as it was intended to make the majority better off within free-market Democracies.

All I ask of people who want to be Directors is that if people invest £100,000 with you then give them a decent return in terms of either the product you produce (oil in the gas of Lenigas) or in terms of dividends or a higher share price.

Anyone who on multiple occasions does not deliver back to shareholders, either through the product they claimed they could produce, or financially, has either serious mental health problems or they have deliberately decided to be an ******** and to reserve a place in hell for themselves by shafting a goodly number of fellow citizens.

Beacon, also of course cheap money was going to shaft the shareholders. The idiots had borrowed so much in 2005-2007 that most of them had no chance of ever paying it back even at an interest rate of minus 3% (because their intention was to borrow to infinity which even negative interest rates can't contain).

Ergo the policy of rolling these unaffordable loans over (aka the massive bailout in 2008) was pure economic lunacy. What ought to have happened was a huge financial reset - start over again with sensible people writing new loans that were affordable and based on sensible ratios.

Beacon you have observed reality and made the obvious conclusion. The economy was never intended to have interest rates of 2% - it cripples productivity as people have to sell so little to make an economic return.

So cheap money policies were used in a very malign and intentional way - policymakers used them because they knew they would drastically reduce economic growth at the macro level. Where do that leave the ordinary citizen - worse off in terms of their everyday standard of living.

The simplest way to be popular in a democracy is to make everyone richer. That means to get as many people as possible contributing more to the economy than they consume. To have a thriving economy means cheap energy and clean water are essential. The most flexible, storable, cheapest, and highest energy content per Kg/litre, are fossil fuels. How can the last 5 governments in a Parliamentary Democracy (as we have here in the UK) all been against making business easier for fossil fuel companies (lower taxation would be a start)? It is beyond belief that the tried-and-test way to be popular (which has worked for over 2,000 years) seems to have suddenly stopped working? Or is it more likely that Democracy has stopped working in the UK?

I completely agree with you Snige that houses and their gardens are far too small (and have been getting smaller). I think this has played a role in contributing to the rise in mental health issues society has seen. Also, it has been a negative factor on the stagnation/decrease in living standards felt by at least 30% of the population since the mid 1990s. This is an issue I would very much like to cooperate with you on Snige. I would really like to see houses that are large enough for families to live in without tripping over each other. Plus a good sized garden is great for both children and adults alike. I think it takes a lot of stress/worry away from the parents to know that their children (+ friends) are happily entertained playing outside in a large garden. The size of new-build homes is ridiculous these days. How can anyone live in rooms that are so small without going mad? Not to mention a few extra rooms would be useful (as well as being larger in general).

We were supposedly a poorer economy back in the 1970s. Hence we should at least revert to homes the size that we were building back then. I suppose I would argue that as a richer economy we should be building them 30% larger and to a higher specification (and with decent sized gardens for everyone who wants one - looking after living things (vegetables, plants, flowers, pets) is really good for people's mental health)!