Member Info for Love_You

PMO should charge a Premium for Catcher crude due to it's consistent properties and quality. Maybe we should start shipping it to South Korea as sounds like they might be getting fed up of inferior quality sludge mixed with condensate from the USA/Canada.

Take it from someone in the industry, this is real problem. Pipeline capacity is so constrained midstream companies have been mixing oil from different fields in their pipelines and adding friction reducers that allow them to pump more crude through the same lines.

This is not some scheme to raise prices. (Although I'll take whatever I can get.) We manufacture a wide range of hydrocarbon products and need a wide range of crudes to do it. Most shale oils are light crudes, and we're exporting them because we have more than we can use, while we're still importing heavier oils because we have less than we need.

That's why Keystone was so important for US refiners; it was meant to bring Canadian heavy oil south, where it's needed. Unfortunately, the Greens have obstructed it, so the same heavy oil is now being transported by much more dangerous and expensive and carbon-intensive trains.

To better understand the issue I suggest you watch several of EPD's annual shareholder presentations, wherein they say one of their greatest advantages is being able to transport crude oil in lots rather than blends, with consistent quality per lot, so buyers are guaranteed the properties they want and sellers are guaranteed satisfied customers.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/infected-u-shale-oil-being-014257003.html

If he grants full waivers on Iran oil then he will have to spend more on arming Israel and Saudi Arabia - hence extra military spending will drive up the oil price - hence I hope Trump does give waivers to all Iranian and Venezuelan oil.

Government spending is over £720,000,000,000 per year (from their official figures)!!

If just a small proportion of this went towards people who wanted to create relatively small-scale agri-businesses then the quality of UK-sourced food could be improved massively....

Also UK supermarkets have become very boring ... it's almost worth flying to France just to have a long weekend and spending a day going around one of their hyper-markets before sitting out all afternoon sampling all of the varied produce (often lots of local produce) with a nice glass of something to drink.

Thanks for sharing that illuminating and insightful article by Catherine Shuttleworth.

It seems to me the retail grocery market has never been anywhere near as competitive as it has been since 2011 in the UK.

Consumers have done very well and even if Sainsbury's-Asda merge will continue to do very well.

I think other areas of the economy should be the focus of those trying to manage the UK economy....there is too little small business creation and to few opportunities for people to borrow to create/grow their business idea even when they have thousands/tens of thousands of potential customers who would all like to see the service being proposed by the entrepreneur/new business.

I think Facebook/Google have been bad for the nation's mental health ...it just solidified the status quo and meant the larger you were the easier it was to access funding to grow/expand ...the last ten years have been devastating for the young and for anyone without significant family resources to back them. Surely there has to come a time when the banks start to make it a little easier for people to borrow to create their business dreams in life - after all not everyone wants to be a meglomaniac like a Bank CEO - but small businesses can really help to improve the UK's mental health. It seems that there is significant money being spent by governments....just from the government spending figures..over £720,000,000,000 per year the government spends!! If just a small proportion of this went towards people who wanted to create relatively small-scale agri-businesses then the quality of UK-sourced food could be improved massively....

I mean UK supermarkets have become very boring ... it's almost worth flying to France just to have a long weekend and spending a day going around one of their hyper-markets before sitting out all afternoon sampling all of the wonderful, and varied, produce (often lots of local produce) with a nice glass of something to drink .

I've always said if this was a US shale company with exactly the same production, 2P reserves, and resources, and with net $2.4 Billion of debt the Equity would be valued by the market at about $5 Billion.

This equates to a share price of about £3.75.

So no 94p is nowhere near a reasonable valuation in my opinion .... why is there one rule for US shale companies and another rule for us in terms of our relative valuations by the market?

I think it was a social disaster not to have increased funding for:

(1) Libraries
(2) Rural development
(3) New gas-fired power stations (as it's not always sunny and the wind doesn't always blow)
(4) Railway lines out to the coasts
(5) More coastal development so you don't have to go abroad for a decent short-break if you have a few sunny days off work.

There are winners and losers I guess ... and I know I am not winning from this "half-decent" economy you say that exists ...for millions of people like me the economy is not half decent at all....rather there is no protection anymore....I've been the victim of business fraud four times in the past ten years and not once have the banks applied logic to the situation....can't see the economy being "half decent" much longer in the UK now that the UK political class has in effect condoned a system of legalised financial theft so that their mates can get even richer at the expense of people who were taking perfectly middle of the road business projects.

There are winners and losers I guess ... and I know I am not winning from this "half-decent" economy you say that exists ...for millions of people like me the economy is not half decent at all....rather there is no protection anymore....I've been the victim of business fraud four times in the past ten years and not once have the banks applied logic to the situation....can't see the economy being "half decent" much longer in the UK now that the UK political class has in effect condoned a system of legalised financial theft so that their mates can get even richer at the expense of people who were taking perfectly middle of the road business projects.

I think it was a social disaster not to have increased funding for:

(1) Libraries
(2) Rural development
(3) New gas-fired power stations (as it's not always sunny and the wind doesn't always blow)
(4) Railway lines out to the coasts
(5) More coastal development so you don't have to go abroad for a decent short-break if you have a few sunny days off work.

There are winners and losers I guess ... and I know I am not winning from this "half-decent" economy you say that exists ...for millions of people like me the economy is not half decent at all....rather there is no protection anymore....I've been the victim of business fraud four times in the past ten years and not once have the banks applied logic to the situation....can't see the economy being "half decent" much longer in the UK now that the UK political class has in effect condoned a system of legalised financial theft so that their mates can get even richer at the expense of people who were taking perfectly middle of the road business projects.

You don't need to develop PVR if all that's left running on petrol is aeroplanes and ships ..this demand can easily be satisfied by ethanol production from fermenting crops ...or from diesel made from algae in a "lab-process" (BP are already producing diesel from algae/plants and a bit of clever chemistry).

You need a "buzzing" economy to create the demand for oil that PVR need in order to see the Barryoe field being valued at $Billions.

Think of the UK back in 1942 - we had no oil production from the North Sea. Also oil imports in America were being blow up by German submarines ...hence supply chains were extremely dodgy.

Yet the UK still had enough oil to run an army, put hundreds of aircraft into the skies everyday, the rich still had cars and landrovers ....the massive US airbases and bomber fleets needed refuelling everyday...and there wasn't madd starvation or a huge decrease in the UK population as one might have expected. So how did the UK get enough oil during World War II to run a functioning economy, military and air force as we had zero domestic production.

Hence it doesn't take as much oil as you think to run ships and planes ...probably Mexico alone could supply enough oil to run all the world's ships and planes for the next 300 years (according to my calculations and I have achieved very high grades in maths related subjects throughout my life and at various universities).

So planes and ships will not be enough to require the development of Barryoe...what you need to focus on is getting the government to funnel more money to the poor ...this is your best hope of economies requiring Barryoe oil in the future in my opinion.

Mamms I believe that you are correct.

Every delay increases the risk that the oil will end up being left in the ground.

Imagine oil is $150 per barrel by summer 2020 - how much demand destruction will that create?

And despite the Greens being the cause of ruined economies who will get the flack from politicians for high oil prices - the citizens will be told it is their fault for wanting to drive cars and for wanting holidays. Many citizens will believe this and become depressed - there were over 70 million prescriptions issues for antidepressants in the UK in 2018.

Hence the next oil price shock will probably cause huge demand destruction and many parts of the economy will never recover as the government will just go on another austerity drive and then stick there fingers in their ears and ignore everyone who says that the economy is not in good shape....in fact there would be real danger of never recovering from the next oil price shock as the rich may find it in their interest to buy up bankrupt businesses/land owners/housing developers and just leave it all idle/fallow (due to concerns over "climate change").

Hence PVR need to really get on with this project asap ...waiting around achieving nothing for the last 8 years hasn't exactly increased the value of the oil here has it ....perhaps the value of oil won't ever reach what the people who founded this company had in their heads for a selling price back in 2012.

They need to readjust to reality and get on with producing the oil before we enter a world where it has no value at all....I disagree we will need oil for the next 50 years ....if I was Prime Ministers I could cut down oil use by 80% within the next ten years .....although government is inefficient don't count that something drastic couldn't happen ....just a warning that if you hold onto your oil for too long you may find you are holding something completely worthless in 5-10 years time....time to get it developed in my opinion ...

http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=PMO&ArticleCode=05wr5h4t&ArticleHeadline=Completion_of_sale_of_Pakistan_business

I've been waiting for PMO to finalise the sale of the Pakistan assets for the last 18 months.

I'm so glad that we're out of that country as there wasn't much wealth to be created there...the distraction of time from management just wan't worth the few million to be gained there. Also the political risk was high as Pakistan is being funded by the USA to right terrorism...and yet seems to want to fight India as well...doesn't sound very stable to me so I'm very glad to be out....although I hope that the new owners (if they have local knowledge) are able to grow the value from their new Pakistan assets.

Like I've always said the oil and gas was given to humanity for free...all that needs to be done is the drilling....hence I'm very happy for everyone to be getting wealthier over time ....only thing I'm against is people who want to control others....if a group of people come together and want to drill on what is effect land of no significant value to anyone else then I'm all in favour that they should be able to develop the Oil-and-Gas. At the end of the day economic growth benefits everyone as long as people don't try to control other people .... but economies based on a self-interested desire for growth by all individuals will create lovely places to live as long as nobody tries to control nobody else and people are left to be free to join whichever economic projects most align with their own personalities/visions for the future.

Ethically M&S has got this all wrong - it should look at a way to grow the business that doesn't rob the poor to feed the rich.

What concerns me is that people who live miles from any supermarket are being subsidised by online food delivery. If someone lives in rural Wales/Scotland and the nearest supermarket is 50 miles away then shouldn't they have to pay more to have their food delivered.

herwise the shareholders are paying to subsidise the food being ordered by these "rural" dwellers. It just seems daft to offer a service that is definitely loss-making in terms of a certain section of the population.

No wonder nobody is investing - it's not good to know that shareholders are subsidising the food deliveries to people who can afford to live in the middle of nowhere - generally gentleman farmers who are amongst the rich (and yet the ordinary low-paid employee or shareholder is now being asked to subsidise the food purchases of these rich people).

Best thing that could happen for consumers is if the CMA approve the Sainsbury's-Asda merger. By creating economies of scale it would lower prices for consumers. The CMA must be pretending not to understand this deal because they have vested interests telling them not to let it happen. I can't believe the CMA could lack the intelligence to see that neither Sainsbury (16.5% of market) nor Asda (16% of market) have the scale of Tesco (28.5% of the market before they bought Booker).

Hence the merger will create genuine economies of scale, ending up being similar to those which Tesco has (but not greater than Tesco's).

If the CMA is meant to be looking out for the interests of consumers then I can't see why they would block this merger - after all they have been told that due to better economy's of scale (economic efficiency) that prices after the merger will fall by 10% on average compared to the prices before the merger.

But what is the CMA seeing that I'm not. They must be seeing that the deal will lower prices for consumers as this has been promised by the new company (and is based on sound economic logic). So I can only imagine that they are weighing up this benefit to consumers against a possible loss of pricing power for suppliers once Asda and Sainsbury's merge (if they do). However farmers have never had pricing power anyone - just see how many farmers went out of business the last time the milk price dipped - supermarkets seem to have had the ability to drive the milk price down despite the supposed competition between the variety of different supermarkets operating in the UK (something doesn't add up here as in a free-market one would not expect milk prices to have fallen so far below the cost of production for many farmers - given that the UK population has now grown to 65 million - so more milk should be being consumed, which offsets the fact farms are also getting larger). Although I'm not sure that's any comfort to the smaller farmers who didn't want to "industrialise" milk production with herds as large as 2,000 and basically losing the essence of traditional family farming (often done with herds of between 200 to 500 but not 2,000!)

The share price is down here because RBS are not making money. It's like any business - if the business is selling things at a loss (rather than a profit) then the share price will fall. Trouble with business these days is that they are so corrupt that they often sell things at a loss on purpose because they have their mates buying stuff on the cheap (and doing their mates a favour is far more important to them than worrying about the damage being done to shareholders).

Also the average CEO earns about £2.1 million per year and the average MP earns £0.071 million per year. Thus business people are paid an order of magnitude more than MPs and as earnings indicate relative status, then I doubt MPs will ever be listened to by financiers - money is not interested in politics it would seem and money (bribes) can be a lot more effective than whatever some stupid MP may be able to achieve (generally they achieve nothing except talking a lot to other MPs without having the data to hand to know if what they're saying would make the population's lives better or worse).

30% is nothing. Asos has gone up by 6,000% in a decade or less.

Oil prices need to rise for sure - the worst performing shares are all oil shares and the other sectors of the economy (such as housebuilders for example) have seen astronomic share price rises. Taylor Wimpey going from an average of about 30p in 2009 to about 180p as of today.

Oil is blatantly being used to subsidise other sectors of the economy - it's time for oil companies to reduce staff and stop drilling until oil prices are about $100 per barrel.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47740396 - Over 70 million prescriptions for antidepressants in 2018 in UK.

This shows just how ill and fucked-up the UK is as a society. There are only 65 million people in the UK - and over 70 million prescriptions for antidepressant in 2018 alone.

I think something has gone very wrong …. does anyone find this rather interesting??

Re JollyJapesJonty,

Come on, don't kid youself, politicians are completely ignored by business. The average CEO earns about £2.1 million per year and the average MP earns £0.071 million per year. You can see that business people are paid an order of magnitude more than MPs and as earnings indicate relative status, then I doubt CEOs even wipe their asses with any comments that MPs make.

The share price is down here because Barclays are not making money. It's like any business - if the business is selling things at a loss (rather than a profit) then the share price will fall. Trouble with business these days is that they are so corrupt that they often sell things at a loss on purpose because they have their mates buying them on the cheap (which is far more important them them, to do their mates a favour, than to worry about the damage being done to shareholders).

True Mickey - however it's annoying that you couldn't trust the City of London to run a straight shop (just a bunch of fraudsters using the market to raise money - can't see The City having a long-term future myself).

Ah yes Asperger1 - I will be putting the Hotel California on next and Kranking the volume right up!!

http://ir.eia.gov/wpsr/wpsrsummary.pdf

For instance crude oil stockpiles rose by 2.8 million barrels and propane/propylene by 0.5 million barrels = increase of 3.3 million barrels.

However, gasoline stocks fell by 2.9 million barrels, and distillate stocks by 2.1 million barrels = decrease of 5 million barrels.

Hence, overall change = 3.3 million barrels (minus) 5.0 million barrels = an overall decrease of 1.7 million barrels.

Yet the EIA report officially states that the overall change was an increase of 0.1 million barrels.

Hence why the discrepancy between the numbers in the official figures by the EIA (which is only one page long)?

http://ir.eia.gov/wpsr/wpsrsummary.pdf

For instance crude oil stockpiles rose by 2.8 million barrels and propane/propylene by 0.5 million barrels = increase of 3.3 million barrels.

However, gasoline stocks fell by 2.9 million barrels, and distillate stocks by 2.1 million barrels = decrease of 5 million barrels.

Hence, overall change = 3.3 million barrels (minus) 5.0 million barrels = an overall decrease of 1.7 million barrels.

Yet the EIA report officially states that the overall change was an increase of 0.1 million barrels.

Hence why the discrepancy between the numbers in the official figures by the EIA (which is only one page long)?