Member Info for Love_You

Maintenance costs for SeaLion would be no different to Catcher.

OiI Service companies are offering better rates all the time (workers are paying the price of austerity sadly).

There is very little maintenance needed for a conventional oilfield using modern technology (unlike fracking in the Permian basin in the USA). Once Premier Oil have the 36 wells drilled (to fully exploit the entire field) and an FPSO set up to process the raw crude then the number of staff needed to maintain safe operations would be less than 200 (possibly level than 100, or even just a handful, as many oilfields around the globe are now unmanned/automated and require no staff for years on end).

By my calculations lets be realistic and assume an average crude price of $80 over the life of the field (the USA is going to have to stop exploiting Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, and to start paying a fir price for crude oil in the future).

Let's assume the field is slightly larger than currently stated (as most good quality oil fields tend to produce more than the initial estimate of their reserves) and will produce (along with its nearest neighbour) 1.25 billion barrels of oil from 2023-2040.

So the revenue from Sea Lion plus its nearest neighbour will be £100 Billion (i.e. $100,000,000,000).

The cost for initial development let's assume to be the same as for the Catcher oilfield in the North Sea. So $1.6 Billion.

Let's assume 100 maintenance staff/engineers are needed as full time employees across the 17 year operating life of the field. Let's assume their average employment costs are $90,000 per annum. That equals $153 million.

Let's assume sundry costs and materials needed for well maintenance/ FPSO maintenance over the 17 years are a further $150 million per year. Which equals $2.55 Billion.

So from 2023-2040 the potential revenues from Sea Lion and its nearest neighbour are $100 Billion. The total costs are less than $6 Billion.

Hence there is $94 Billion in value to be extracted for the benefit of PMO's and RKH's shareholders by going ahead with oil production from the Falkland Islands. What "dark forces" are holding up this project when generally in life most people like to make money - and there is a shed load of money to be made from turning the sea around the Falkland Islands into a safe-and-effective producers of hydrocarbons (to help alleviate poverty and contribute positive to the health and well-being of citizens around the globe - especially the investors/shareholders and the Falkland Island citizens).

So

John46,

I still think natural resources are a blessing. It is very easy to create cheap transport, and electricity to every home, if one has an abundant supply of oil and natural gas underneath one's country.

It is the mismanagement of these resources which leads to civil wars and the economics of chaos (such as seems to be what has happened in Nigeria).

Wouldn't we prefer to buy a house identical to an alternative (including in price), except for the first house having 20 tonnes of coal, 10 tonnes of seasoned logs, 50,000 litres of petrol, and 40,000 litres of LPG all stored just 2 metres underneath the back lawn?

I think we both know the real problem is security - perhaps once our neighbours realised what was under our back lawn they would attempt to distract us at the front door whilst looting our energy resources from under our back lawn.

Poor Nigerians have suffered from a lack of security ...not sure this is really the same as Dutch syndrome ... although I thank you for drawing my attention to Dutch syndrome, and I can see that it is partially related to the problem of security (as an appreciating currency makes it easy for the stronger to leave for a country with a long history of the rule of law (such as the UK) whilst the weaker have no choice but to remain and act as a drag on that economy's potential).

John46,

I still think natural resources are a blessing. It is very easy to create cheap transport, and electricity to every home, if one has and abundant supply of oil and natural gas underneath one's country.

It is the mismanagement of these resources which leads to civil wars and the economics of chaos (such as seems to be what has happened in Nigeria).

Wouldn't we prefer to buy a house identical to an alternative (including in price), except for the first house having 20 tonnes of coal, 10 tonnes of seasoned logs, 50,000 litres of petrol, and 40,000 litres of LPG all stored just 2 metres underneath the back lawn?

I think we both know the real problem is security - perhaps once our neighbours realised what was under our back lawn they would attempt to distract us at the front door whilst looting our energy resources from under our back lawn.

Poor Nigerians have suffered from a lack of security ...not sure this is really the same as Dutch syndrome ... although I thank you for drawing my attention to Dutch syndrome, and I can see that it is partially related to the problem of security (as an appreciating currency makes it easy for the stronger to leave for a country with a long history of the rule of law (such as the UK) whilst the weaker have no choice but to remain and act as a drag on that economy's potential).

Hi Taskmaster,

How is the battery recharged when an electric car brakes?

Could you explain the process in detail please.

And rather than spending thousands of man hours developing this technology - wouldn't it have been more fun to just take more holidays and leisure time by continuing to use the technology we already had?

I view people who are always wanting to work as weirdoes. We can all have a flipping good time if we just stick at the current level of technology society has reached. Computers don't seem to be making people happier. University degrees don't seem to be making people happier. In fact I reckon society needs more mechanics and more people resurfacing our roads.

Society has chosen a bad direction if you ask me. We already reached an optimum level of technology about a decade ago. Best idea for the government back in 2005 would of been just to get more people to go into practical trades such as mechanics, plumbers, electricians, builders, brewers, farmers etc.

Funding more and more youngsters to go to uni has only increased prices and massively distorted the day-to-day economy of maintaining a warm and well-furnished home, a working and safe car, and plenty of leisure time for fun with family and friends. The aim of life is not to be constantly working or stressed - it is to be having fun and we already had enough technology for that as a society once we had good quality cars (late 1990s onwards) and efficient extractive industries (oil extraction, natural gas extraction, and quarrying).

Why people are working hard to build Teslas for peanuts (in the grand scheme of thing their wages are peanuts compared to what people at GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc were being paid before they got shafted in 2008 and all the promises to them were broken and all their benefits, salaries, and pensions were forcibly renegotiated - almost at gunpoint with the government stepping in and telling private companies what they 'had to do' because the FED wanted to make people unhappier on the whole -- a stupid aim really when I can't think of a better reason for being alive than to be happy and to be having fun with friends and family).

It is very fortunate for the climate change protesters that the majority of Nigerians and Venezuelans are extremely poor despite Nigeria producing 2,200,000 barrels of crude oil every single day (mostly for export) and Venezuela, over the past decade, producing over 3,650,000,000 barrels of crude oil. And these are only small producers compared to the USA, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.

It is a choice between either keep people poor and their economies largely undeveloped or we need to invest more into increasing oil production at a global level (including from around the Falkland Islands). The Rockhopper share price is ludicrously undervalued currently - get yourself some shares and you may do very well if the bankers act rationally (i.e. it is better to exploit the oil and use it to pay for alleviating poverty and past wrongs rather than to run out of oil and thus continue keeping more than half the world's population farming using donkeys and horses.

Currently the US government chooses to keep people poor by supporting crackpot governments in Nigeria and Venezuela whereby they fund the military with the sole aim of making sure less than 01% of the population becomes rich and the rest still have to use donkeys/camels to plough their fields. The productivity in Nigeria and Venezuela is atrocious because they simply aren't operating as fully mechanised economies. They are equivalent to how the United States was back in about 1905. And the United States is very happy with this because it has been importing Nigerian oil for the past five decades at an average oil price always manipulated to the downside, and generally ripping off investors and ripping off anyone trying to make a modest living from investing in Nigerian oil production on a fairer basis (with more of the benefits going towards the Nigerian economy).

Afren was an example of a company that sought to employ mostly Nigerian staff and to channel the tax revenues back into the Nigerian economy. Went bankrupt due to fraud but it had quite large oil fields (a low cost of production) and there was no reason for it to have gone bankrupt except that the oil price was manipulated artificially low by the Trump administration.

How can anyone make sense of what has gone one? Anyone would think money had no use in the "real world" because the amount of fraud that has gone on in financial markets there ought to have been a lot more wars/protests as a result of the huge amount of financial fraud plaguing the global economy since 2007 and the beginning of Quantitative Easing (free money for some and not for others - biggest unfairness in human history).

Climate change protesters really annoy me. They are really being manipulated by the media because Western governments (especially the USA) want to keep people poor - they don't want Nigerians to have the benefits of a mechanised economy. They don't want Brazil to have a self-sufficient farming industry that can compete with farmers in the mi

Re Longtimeinvestor:

It is very fortunate for the climate change protesters that the majority of Nigerians and Venezuela are extremely poor despite Nigeria producing 2,200,000 barrels of crude oil every single day (mostly for export) and Venezuela, over the past decade, producing over 3,650,000,000 barrels of crude oil. And these are only small producers compared to the United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.

It is a choice between either keep people poor and their economies largely undeveloped or we need to invest more into increasing oil production at a global level (and on a micro level that means UK banks funding Sea Lion and making sure we extract the oil from around the Falkland Islands, both to the North as well as the condensate and prospective oil resources to the South).

Currently the US government chooses to keep people poor by supporting crackpot governments in Nigeria and Venezuela whereby they fund the military with the sole aim of making sure less than 1% of the population becomes rich and the rest still have to use donkeys/camels to plough their fields. The productivity in Nigeria and Venezuela is atrocious because they simply aren't operating as fully mechanised economies. They are equivalent to how the United States was back in about 1905. And the United States is very happy with this because it has been importing Nigerian oil for the past five decades at an average oil price always manipulated to the downside, and generally ripping off investors and ripping off anyone trying to make a modest living from investing in Nigerian oil production on a fairer basis (with more of the benefits going towards the Nigerian economy).

Afren was an example of a company that sought to employ mostly Nigerian staff and to channel the tax revenues back into the Nigerian economy. Went bankrupt due to fraud but it had quite large, shallow water, oil fields and there was no reason for it to have gone bankrupt except that the oil price was manipulated artificially low in order to further benefit/increase the oil consumption of US citizens (when the USA already consumes four times as much oil per capita as any other country on planet Earth!).

How can anyone make sense of what has gone one? Anyone would think money had no use in the "real world" because the amount of fraud that has gone on in financial markets there ought to have been a lot more wars/protests as a result of the huge amount of financial fraud plaguing the global economy since 2007 and the beginning of Quantitative Easing (free money for some and not for others - biggest unfairness in human history).

The thing about XOM is they have opened up a new oil basin offshore Guyana. This is worth about $900 Billion in future revenues if we assume an oil price of $60 per barrel as they have discovered recoverable resources of about 15 billion barrels of crude oil.

Production will start in 2022 and gradually increase to 750,000 barrels of oil per day by 2025. This will increase Exxon Mobil's oil production by about 15% compared to current levels assuming their share of the 750,000 barrels of oil per day is 40%.

Who wouldn't want to invest in a growing company like Exxon Mobil whilst their shares are cheap due to oil being politically out of favour and yet still essential to billions of people's daily lives around the globe?

I feel Lloyds shareholders should demand compensation from the US government for economic losses due to flooding/crop failures related to increased rainfall caused by the tripling in American oil production since 2007.

The United States of America is now the world's largest oil producer and therefore the world's largest contributor to climate change.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/u-oil-producers-churn-unprecedented-144502004.html

Also the world is continuing to ramp up oil production according to the International Energy Agency.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/iea-sees-calm-global-oil-090000171.html
What happened to people acting on their climate change beliefs which they spout on the media in a New York office (before boarding a private jet to their weekend home in Mauritius)?

Defo Lloyds shareholders deserve compensation. Being stitched up by Gordon Brown was bad enough. However, being stitched up by not benefitting from TARP (Troubled Assests Free Money Programme in the United States), and then being stitched up by the US government fining BP $50 Billion+ before allowing their own companies to pump/frack at will (and to treble their oil production), especially from the Permian basin.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/15/food-prices-set-to-rise-in-uk-as-floods-ruin-crops

Compensation claim should be submitted within the next few days from the Lloyds Board of Directors direct to the US Treasury.

Everything is connected and yet somehow the politicians think they can interfere within just one market (such as housing) without distorting the whole financial system. All markets are interconnected - didn't the politicians learn anything from 2008.

Why don't we just price cap whatever we don't like paying for. Is there any rhyme or reason to Corbyn's plans?

Personally I want fuel prices to be 40p per litre (or less) so that I can afford to travel around the country and enjoy friendship, food, music, comedy, sport, and banter, (in short - life as it should be lived!). I would prefer Labour to promise a 70% reduction in the price of petrol rather than to promise free broadband at the expense of investors in BT (hardworking people are going to end up losing a large percentage of their pensions due to Corbyn's barmy ideas - how is that in keeping with the Labour ethos of a fairer society?).

Below are some thoughts about the likely impact of the distribution function of salaries (wages) on the economy.

If Bill Gates took 0.5% of his wealth to the Sainsburys in Ealing (on Melbourne Avenue) and randomly purchased items until he ran out of money how many items would be left in the supermarket for other people?

If Ma Huateng or Jack Ma spent 0.1% of their instantly available money (cash, cheque, or card) on purchasing £1 bars of chocolate how many could they purchase?

If Wayne Rooney went down to his local supermarket how many Cauliflowers would he be able to pay for and take home with him for a week's wages? How many transit vans would be needed to transport the cauliflowers if each van was only used once. Assuming the distance the cauliflowers were to be transported was 22 miles - how many litres of petrol would be needed?

Why has there been a supposed large increase in the number of dollar billionaires globally since the turn of the 21st century? What happened to government promises of financial stability?

If Jeff Bezos decided to spend 1% of his total wealth on call girls - hiring as many as he could in one week - what is the maximum a call girl could earn if she knew Jeff Bezos' plans, and if she knew that there were only 250 other call girls within a 500 mile radius (251 in total including herself); and also, that Jeff Bezos would only use call girls within 500 miles of his main residence. Also, if she knew that the other call girls would initially charge $250 per hour but would increase their prices quadratically as a function of their number of confirmed bookings (all bookings being one hour long) multiplied by the inverse of the free hours left in their working week (i.e., 1 / the free hours left in their working week ).

Personally I want fuel prices to be 40p per litre (or less) so that I can afford to travel around the country and enjoy friendship, food, music, comedy, sport, and banter, (in short - life as it should be lived!). I would prefer Labour to promise a 70% reduction in the price of petrol rather than to promise free broadband at the expense of investors in BT (hardworking people are going to end up losing a large percentage of their pensions due to Corbyn's barmy ideas - how is that in keeping with the Labour ethos of a fairer society?).

Below are some thoughts about the likely impact of the distribution function of salaries (wages) on the economy.

If Bill Gates took 0.5% of his wealth to the Sainsburys in Ealing (on Melbourne Avenue) and randomly purchased items until he ran out of money how many items would be left in the supermarket for other people?

If Ma Huateng or Jack Ma spent 0.1% of their instantly available money (cash, cheque, or card) on purchasing £1 bars of chocolate how many could they purchase?

If Wayne Rooney went down to his local supermarket how many Cauliflowers would he be able to pay for and take home with him for a week's wages? How many transit vans would be needed to transport the cauliflowers if each van was only used once. Assuming the distance the cauliflowers were to be transported was 22 miles - how many litres of petrol would be needed?

Why has there been a supposed large increase in the number of dollar billionaires globally since the turn of the 21st century? What happened to government promises of financial stability?

If Jeff Bezos decided to spend 1% of his total wealth on call girls - hiring as many as he could in one week - what is the maximum a call girl could earn if she knew Jeff Bezos plans, and if she knew that there were only 250 others call girls within a 500 mile radius of Jeff Bezos and that the other call girls would initially charge $250 per hour but would increase their prices quadratically as a function of their number of confirmed bookings (all bookings being one hour) multiplied by the inverse of the number of unbooked hours left in their working week (i.e., 1 / the number of unbooked hours left in their working week ).

Personally I want fuel prices to be 40p per litre (or less) so that I can afford to travel around the country and enjoy friendship, food, music, comedy, sport, and banter, (in short - life as it should be lived!). I would prefer Labour to promise a 70% reduction in the price of petrol rather than to promise free broadband at the expense of investors in BT (hardworking people are going to end up losing a large percentage of their pensions due to Corbyn's barmy ideas - how is that in keeping with the Labour ethos of a fairer society?).

Below are some thoughts about the potential impact of the distribution function of salaries (wages) on the economy.

If Bill Gates took 0.5% of his wealth to the Sainsburys in Ealing (on Melbourne Avenue) and randomly purchased items until he ran out of money how many items would be left in the supermarket for other people?

If Ma Huateng or Jack Ma spent 0.1% of their instantly available money (cash, cheque, or card) on purchasing £1 bars of chocolate how many could they purchase?

If Wayne Rooney went down to his local supermarket how many Cauliflowers would he be able to pay for and take home with him for a week's wages? How many transit vans would be needed to transport the cauliflowers if each van was only used once. Assuming the distance the cauliflowers were to be transported was 22 miles - how many litres of petrol would be needed?

Why has there been a supposed large increase in the number of dollar billionaires globally since the turn of the 21st century? What happened to government promises of financial stability?

If Bill Gates took 0.5% of his wealth to the Sainsburys in Ealing (on Melbourne Avenue) and randomly purchased items until he ran out of money how many items would be left in the supermarket for other people?

If Ma Huateng or Jack Ma spent 0.1% of their instantly available money (cash, cheque, or card) on purchasing £1 bars of chocolate how many could they purchase?

Also, personally, I don't want free broadband all that much.

I want fuel prices to be 40p per litre (or less) so that I can afford to travel around the country and enjoy friendship, food, music, comedy, sport, and banter, (in short - life as it should be lived!)

If Wayne Rooney went down to his local supermarket how many Cauliflowers would he be able to pay for and take home with him for a week's wages? How many transit vans would be needed to transport the cauliflowers if each van was only used once. Assuming the distance the cauliflowers were to be transported was 22 miles - how many litres of petrol would be needed?

Why has there been a supposed large increase in the number of dollar billionaires globally since the turn of the 21st century? What happened to government promises of financial stability?

If Bill Gates took 0.5% of his wealth to the Sainsburys in Ealing (on Melbourne Avenue) and randomly purchased items until he ran out of money how many items would be left in the supermarket for other people?

If Ma Huateng or Jack Ma spent 0.1% of their instantly available money (cash, cheque, or card) on purchasing £1 bars of chocolate how many could they purchase?

Also, personally, I don't want free broadband all that much.

I want fuel prices to be 40p per litre (or less) so that I can afford to travel around the country and enjoy friendship, food, music, comedy, sport, and banter, (in short - life as it should be lived!)

If Wayne Rooney went down to his local supermarket how many Cauliflowers would he be able to pay for and take home with him for a week's wages? How many transit vans would be needed to transport the cauliflowers if each van was only used once. Assuming the distance the cauliflowers were to be transported was 22 miles - how many litres of petrol would be needed?

Why has there been a supposed large increase in the number of dollar billionaires globally since the turn of the 21st century? What happened to government promises of financial stability?

Many people don't even want free broadband.

We want petrol/diesel to be 45 pence per litre and for subsidised electricity prices to be removed for owners of electric cars (poor people should be able to afford lighting and storage heaters before we subsidise the electricity prices of those with electric cars).

If Wayne Rooney went down to his local supermarket how many Cauliflowers would he be able to pay for and take home with him for a week's wages? How many transit vans would be needed to transport the cauliflowers if each van was only used once. Assuming the distance the cauliflowers were to be transported was 22 miles - how many litres of petrol would be needed?

Why has there been a supposed large increase in the number of dollar billionaires globally since the turn of the 21st century? What happened to government promises of financial stability?

If Bill Gates took 0.5% of his wealth to his local supermarket and randomly purchased items unless he ran out of money how many items would be left in the supermarket for other people?

If Ma Huateng or Jack Ma went down to their local supermarket how many £1 bars of chocolate would they be able to pay for and take home with them if they spent 0.1% of their net worths on buying the maximum number of £1 bars of chocolate?

If Bill Gates took 0.05% of his wealth to his local supermarket and randomly purchased items unless he ran out of money how many items would be left in the supermarket for other people?

if PMO was a serious company then we would have 20,000 young men from the council estates/ex-council estates besieging the UK Parliament right now. A company is nothing if it can not mobilise people to protest when it is being put out of business by other stakeholders being overly greedy (such as drilling contractors) or overly mean (such as the banks willingness to lend to PMO).

All I see on this board is a handful of familiar names. In truth it has made me realise I may as well give up on PMO. If this was a serious company there should be hoards of angry posts on this board saying that the government has increased the price of fuel since 2009 at the same time as promising a growing economy (shows just how thick they must think the citizens are - well we aren't anywhere near that thick actually). This is a message to oil companies saying that UK citizens want fuel prices cut by 50% to 65p per litre.

Unless we can actually promise the citizens a reduction in the price of fuel of 50% and get a political party organised with this aim we will just continue to see the quality of lives of our countrymen continue to be eroded.

I think I might pop down and see my Member of Parliament later. I think they should know how painful the high fuel prices are and how badly the economy needs new oil fields (such as Sea Lion) to be given the financing to proceed.

If you could all speak to your MPs about the damage that high fuel prices have done to the economy since the fuel price escalator began in 2001 under Labour (pure price gouging and profiteering made legal by the government), then perhaps this company can still serve a useful purpose and still contribute in a valuable manner to the UK economy in the future.

Mandrill, your observations about the market and your own trading are interesting. But do you think the salaries of footballers distort the economy. How many Cauliflowers could Wayne Rooney buy with a week's wages?

Also, why has there been a supposed large increase in the number of dollar billionaires since the turn of the 21st century? What happened to government promises of financial stability?

If Bill Gates took 0.05% of his wealth to his local supermarket and randomly purchased items unless he ran out of money how many items would be left in the supermarket for other people?

Thanks for those interesting posts, it was a pleasure to hear about Nikolai Lugansky Manyana.

However, if PVR was a serious company then we would have 20,000 young men from the council estates/ex-council estates besieging the Irish Parliament right now. A company is nothing if it can not mobilise people to protest when it is being put out of business by other stakeholders being overly greedy (such as drilling contractors) or overly mean (such as the banks willingness to lend to PVR).

All I see on this board is a handful of familiar names. In truth it has made me realise I may as well give up on PVR. If this was a serious company there should be hoards of angry posts on this board saying that the government is increasing the price of fuel and that the citizens want fuel prices cut by 50%.

Unless we can actually promise the citizens a reduction in the price of fuel of 30% and get a political party organised with this aim we will just continue to see the quality of lives of our countrymen continue to be eroded.

I think I might pop down and see my Member of Parliament later. I think they should know how painful the high fuel prices are and how badly the economy needs Barryoe to be given the financing to proceed.

If you could all speak to your MPs about the damage that high fuel prices have done to the economy then perhaps this company can still serve a useful purpose and still contribute in a valuable manner to the Irish economy in the future.

jptop7

If you take a rational view of human nature I think it is the oil companies own fault. People need to survive and protesters are just people. If the oil industry created more well-paying jobs then I think you'll find there'd be far less protests aimed at them. Protests are a sign that people have too much free time and not enough money to keep themselves entertained. This is a sign to the oil industry that salaries can be slightly lowered and more jobs created - because there is excess unemployment in the economy which is resulting in economically damaging protests.

jptop7

Glad to hear someone talking sense.

America could probably grow more fruit and veg than it does. However, due to the climate, it is a necessity for countries like Canada, (US states such as Alaska), Norway, Russia, Japan, Chad, Mauritania, Algeria, to import large amounts of fruit and vegetables. Except Mauritania/Chad (and to some extent Algeria) is sadly too poor to import enough to have a decent standard of living.

What Mohamed Salah should do is probably to ask Liverpool to donate half his wages (and 90% of his future transport fee) to importing food into Egypt. If the population were well fed would they really produce as much terrorism? I'm not sure Egypt is particularly bad for terrorism - but there does seem a lot of poverty and senseless violence compared to Switzerland for example.

Falklands would be a great place to work. I would jump at the opportunity if I was an oil worker. Bit of peace and quiet. 6 weeks on/ 4 weeks off. More time away from the wife and then more time at home. Much better lifestyle. Project could be quite cheap - just needs a forward thinking person such as myself to manage the logistics and the psychology of all interested parties.

All we need is the finance for Sea Lion and Zama, as we know humans are going to keep drilling for oil in the USA, Russia, South China Sea, and Saudi Arabia well into the mid 2030s. So if the banks are going to support another 15-20 years of drilling for oil I should think The Falklands would be one of the low cost and attractive projects that will be given the go ahead.

Why are the banks funding extremely complex projects, with a high level of technical risk, such as drilling 20,000 ft+ below the seabed offshore Brazil, and yet they haven't yet funded Sea Lion?

Have the financial decision makers completely lost their ability to correctly assess risk (i.e., to choose the lowest cost and easiest projects)?