The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
A new ice age and worldwide starvation: In the 1960s and ’70s, top mainstream media outlets, such as Newsweek above, hyped the imminent global-cooling apocalypse. Even as late as the early 1980s, prominent voices still warned of potential doomsday scenarios owing to man-made cooling, ranging from mass starvation caused by cooling-induced crop failures to another “Ice Age” that would kill most of mankind.
Among the top global-cooling theorists were Obama’s current “science czar” John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, the author of Population Bomb, which predicted mass starvation worldwide. In the 1971 textbook Global Ecology, the duo warned that overpopulation and pollution would produce a new ice age, claiming that human activities are “said to be responsible for the present world cooling trend.” The pair fingered “jet exhausts” and “man-made changes in the reflectivity of the earth’s surface through urbanization, deforestation, and the enlargement of deserts” as potential triggers for his new ice age. They worried that the man-made cooling might produce an “outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap” and “generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.”
Holdren predicted that a billion people would die in “carbon-dioxide induced famines” as part of a new “Ice Age” by the year 2020.
Ehrlich, a professor at Stanford University, similarly claimed in a 1971 speech at the British Institute for Biology, “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people.” He added, “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today.”
Well England does exist but he was probably right about the lower quality of life lol
So believe the same types of scientists at your peril, and ask what is in it for them ?
Here is an extract from an article written about the experience of a UN scientist who quit because of what he found happening in the UN.
“This essential gas, required by plants and exhaled by people, makes up a fraction of onepercent of all so-called greenhouse gases present naturally in the atmosphere. “Absolutely not,”Mörner said about the CO2 argument, noting there was “something basically sick” in the blame-CO2 hypothesis. “CO2, if it has any effect, it is minute — it does not matter. What has a bigeffect is the sun.”Obviously, while he was serving on the UN IPCC, Mörner tried to warn his colleagues on the UNbody that the politically backed hypothesis about CO2 driving temperature changes, and thesubsequent claims regarding dangerous sea-level rise, were totally incorrect. “They just ignoredwhat I was saying,” he recounted. “If they were clever — if they had facts on their hands — theycould show that, 'no, you're wrong.' But that is not the case. They just will not discuss it. I will tryto discuss it. I will show with their own data that they are wrong. Because in science, we discuss.We don't forbid or neglect.”When asked about the frequently repeated (and easily debunked) claims of an alleged 97-percent consensus supporting the man-made global-warming hypothesis, Mörner said it wassimply not true — and even if it were, it would be irrelevant. “Why does anybody say somethingwhen it is not correct?” he asked. “They say it because they have applied excellent lobbyists.They are working with lobbyists in their hand; 'say this, do that.' We don't do that.” In the field ofphysics, Mörner estimated that 80 to 90 percent of physicists know the hypothesis is wrong. Andamong geologists and astronomers, he said probably 80 percent know it is wrong.“
Oh and as for the IPCC, the same body who deliberately used a portion of a graph showing an increase in global temperatures to support their story, when the extended graph was shown, no global increase was shown over the period.
So I tend not to trust such organisations which usually have good intentions but political and business sponsors.
All imho, dyor, no polar bears where hurt during the making of this message
So called “green energy”, I’m a conspiracy theorist. Yes one of those people mainstream (which is run by money and politicians) call a complete nut job.
I remember back in the 70s when the scientists said we are heading for an ice age within the next decades. 30 years later and we going to be a fire ball and polar bears gone…(they seem to tug on heart strings for sme reasons…I blame the foxes glacier mint).
Around the year 2,000 less than 50% of scientists believed in global warming, now carefully rebranded as “climate change”. How dumb is that title …the climate is always changing? Now with political and media influence it’s about 90%. Remember these scientists have to be believe it’s either heating up or cooling down or they have nothing to do.
The big earners from green energy are the businesses and governments who gave subsidies to these new technologies and I can’t believe the materials and costs and maintenance and the sheer ugliness of an off shore windmill is less costly on the planet that fossil fuels.
Batteries use very rare and difficult to extract minerals and guess what they need energy from somewhere to store. I feel we all being misled. The Sun has much greater impact on the Earth than man, even though we are doing a good job of making a mess of it. 10% of the richest people are responsible for 45% of the consumption, address that and you have your answer.
Fossil fuels will be needed and price of oil will remain high for the foreseeable all in my crazy opinion.
The heads of terms or letter of intent is agreed. This is the principle of the transactions, but heads of terms agreement isn’t legally binding but a kind of a record of what they have commercially negotiated and agree on. They then have to convert this into legally binding document(s), that’s the delay.
During the conversion sometimes smaller points are raised to protect each other’s positions as they start to think more about any risks, but the commercial agreement is already done, it’s just process and we know how those legal people work ??
You know we all been there, kids are playing up, wife is nagging, you are late for work and then you remember that important document that was due for signing yesterday. You scramble around the inside pocket of your jacket pull out your trusty biro and guess what… the damn thing is out of ink.
You look in all the usual places but can’t find a pen anywhere, not even down back of sofa. You consider using your wife’s lipstick, but decide it will be too messy.
Good job your keyboard is still working so you make your excuses using your phone text on the way to work and order a box of 10 pens from Amazon, hoping they arrive in a month.
Oh if Carlsberg did RNS's the above would be the result!!!!!!!
Classic, ……well it is April fools day as well…..the stars are aligning!!!
Oh expect the usual jesters to appear tomorrow saying no RNS, I told ya so.
I’ll just keep sipping on my carlsberg and keep the dream alive in my head, because what else would the most interesting men in the world do…oh yeah…Dos Equis…that’s another drink I’ll be needing
“Sealion, In normal times this would be a no, but in todays world it is possible”
sorry “normal times”, what does this mean?
Sea lion is commercially viable under certain conditions the cost of extraction and potential risks is less than the revenue that can be achieved for the oil. That’s it basically, “normal times” is not a definitive statement.
The price of oil has fluctuated so much, all oil produced anywhere in the world has been affected for its commercial viability.
The main thing is the trend line, the mainly political one world, one government movement getting us all to green energy for me is dystopian. Batteries and solar panels are green right? I have worked in electronics and power supplies most of my adult life, those constituent parts are anything but green. The move is politically driven in my opinion. This means the narrative can always flip a little. The reality is without oil, industry will fail. Supply versus demand says oil price will not fall below what is commercially viable for Sealion in my opinion.
Therefore in “normal times” I see Sealion as always highly commercial, it’s just political will required.
Good luck all
Finalisation of definitive documentation expected in Q1 2022 with completion subject to satisfaction of certain conditions including regulatory approval
The above was in the presentation on RKH site. What may snag the “finalisation” or “extended provisions” to already signed heads of terms may be some regulatory stuff. I think RKH and Navitas have a smart plan the timing is looking great considering price of oil forecasts and over expectations on so called green energy.
To me the document looks done deal, they already told us the main points, which they agreed on, so it will be fine print and regulation, like the cursed OM.
RKH need Navitas and vice versa, it’s win-win , so I’m sure it will happen and FIG need it to. So why won’t it be finalised?
I’ve waited over 35 years, I may have another 20 years on planet if I’m lucky, I can wait a few more weeks / months I’m not going to be scoring points off posters like a kids playground if an RNS doesn’t appear this week.
Good luck all, whatever your position
You still continue with your mindless drivel. It’s enough to put a glass eye to sleep.
I’m hoping one day I log in and it doesn’t have your inane messages spamming the RKH chat
No offence meant, I think you need help
Your posts are endless deramping, if you don’t like this stock go elsewhere. It’s become so tedious and your credibility has sunk below zero.
I don’t normally write such a post, but you seem obsessed with this stock. Take up golf, fishing, jigsaw puzzles or something that may give you a healthy alternative
Space Hoppa I 100% agree with your percentages.
One thing I think is that the award will be 50% of the total claim, as courts tend to determine both parties have some liability to reduce the exposure.
So if it was for say, $250M, I’m hoping we get 50% so $125M, obviously deductions for lawyers etc.
I read an interesting case study about this claim and similar and I think the precedent is set and that’s why I am going with the 50%.
Good luck everyone and of course you can never know how this will all end
My guess before and looking at previous case law on similar is that there will be a settlement around 50% of the total claim. I will let the mathematicians work that out.
No need for dilution and Navitas replacing the dead wood premier, Sam for all his critics may have just played a blinder.
All in my honest opinion, share price can go up and down, but this is starting to look tasty.
All the naysayers must be eating their words.
This is great move by Sam and co. Stop the constant bashing I know it’s frustrating. At the end of the day it’s a gamble, you either believe in it or you don’t. I still think it will make me a lot of money after 30+ years invested in Falklands oil dream
Good luck
So much pessimism.
Remember we have a world class asset. Oil demand is growing not declining. Yes, things could have gone much better, but we are actually free of PMO and HBR soon. OM award looks promising in my opinion and Navitas could be ideal partner as they have less hang ups about Argentina.
Cup is also half full as well as half empty ;)