Member Info for Ovets

Regarding EVs, renewables, etc., Harbour have already said everything we need to know: that fossil fuels are going to be needed for decades, however unpalatable that may sound to environmentalists and the rest of us who don't want to fry, or drown.

So while the oil majors make much noise about moving on (remember "Beyond Petroleum") while still supplying the World, the likes of Harbour are completely unapologetic about supply World demand for as long as they can and as profitably as they can.

Agreed Arfur and I'd add that the Harbour presentation made it very clear that they believe oil and gas will be around for decades and while fossil fuels get ever more unpopular (but still essential to human existence), they intend supplying these for as long as they can at the best possible margin, so:
- They're going to need a lot more in their portfolio than oil majors' old cast-offs to meet their objectives;
- They're looking for areas with considerable expansion potential, with gas eventually taking over from oil;
- Where they can be in charge;
- They're going to screw everyone involved as far as they can, without putting them out of business and/or making enemies in the process.

I think NAVITAS would fit very well into that mix, although Harbour can afford to do without them and UKEF, if needs be.
Despite the cost to RKH of NAVITAS, I think I'd like them around as the sort of Rottweiler to see-off any Argentinian sabre rattling, which is likely to come around every 4 years or so.

After that presentation, there's absolutely no point in wasting any more time discussing, with the likes of Godfrey and Ralph, things like the future of EVs, renewables, etc.

One other point I forgot is that, with new projects, they very much prefer to implement already proven off-shore technology, such as used in the NS.

I listened to it all - some of it twice.
Deliberately non-committal on many points (tax in particular).
During Q&A, some questioners said they found the answers given as very helpful/informative/etc., which I took to mean that, if you know your stuff, their answers provided more detail than the rest of us might have understood.
That's why I listened to some bits again.

Putting the whole thing together, they were very clear that they don't want to get involved in a region where the politics are a possible issue, or where they're going to be subordinate to a dominant partner, calling the shots (e.g. Mexico?).
For their existing portfolio, this appears to confirm Zama "monetisation", which we pretty much guessed.

They were adamant that they're not going to depart from their proven, successful strategy of only exploiting guaranteed profitable regions/fields, with very long-term development opportunities.

There were a couple of specific references to SL and I took Linda's comments/answers to confirm that UKEF involvement would be a very welcome bonus, but not necessarily a deal maker/breaker.
What was important was that, while they don't want to screw support service providers and other partners, they would be looking to negotiate/re-negotiate the best possible deals before making any decision and then SL would be assessed on its merits, compared with all the other candidates.
All candidates should meet their criteria:
- Harbour Energy in control of operations;
- Major oil & gas expansion opportunities for decades (longer-term, gas will become the more important commodity);
- Max $15 Opex costs;
- Infrastructure already in place;

Also, production zero emissions by 2035, which a region like the FI would probably demand.

sensible people would think twice about being punched again?

LTT, I reckon rather less than within 9 months - I'd say within 6.

World economies should start to recover early next year. If not, that would be very bad news, because the next autumn/winter would be on the horizon, with another looming economic crisis.
However, with World economic recovery (even if sluggish), the direction of PoO should be clearer than it is now, and it's already above $50. Of course, it's not guaranteed to stay there.

If we were looking at this for the first time, I think most people would stick a few bob on it without much concern.
But with RKH and SL, we've suffered so many banana skins over such a long time, that most investors are punch drunk. If you've been punched on the hard nose on multiple occasions just after being told this is virtually a dead cert, don't you reckon most

The real test of your (or my) opinion is whether you're convinced enough to bet money on it!

As already said, the PMO SL project team continues (at least for now) and it looks as though Linda has learnt the lesson, from TD, not to make public rash promises, which fail to materialise as the day passes and expectant investors look on in dismay.

So, with the PoO nicely above $50, but a lot to do, what else should Linda be saying in public about SL?
The places to look now are whether the PMO SL project team continues and what's going on in the FI (e.g. FIG activity and other preparations).

I should have written:
"No one's going to spend that much in a virgin region, subject to so much environmental interest., without a decent guaranteed ROI"

As we've said over and over again, it'll be the PoO that will determine what happens in the FI.
No one's going to spend that much in a virgin region, subject to so much environmental interest.
But nor are they likely to spend big sums in a region like Mexico, where the politics and general security are seriously dodgy.

As I said below, while they digest PMO, they're going keep a VERY close eye, while NOT making any more rash promises, as TD did, which was part of his undoing. Maybe they've learnt that lesson.

I haven't heard that the team (albeit smaller) continuing the SL project is about to be disbanded.
Mogger, you keep your ears and eyes open. What have you heard?

All good points.
Greed is another factor, which affects us all and can skew an otherwise reasonably straightforward issue.

I think Chrysaor will continue to digest PMO, then take out RKH before (or as part of) announcing its intentions to go ahead with SL.
Any plans to develop the wider NFB will probably be kept under wraps, so as not to have to pay too much for RKH. In any case, they'll want to see how SL goes before committing further in the region.

Come on Godfrey, we're still waiting.

Gone into hiding, or just polishing the Tesla?

Isetown, that's a very interesting way of putting things.

Assuming we don't all go up in smoke, or under water beforehand, (and there hasn't been a switch to hydrogen fuel cells) there'll be a time when all EVs not being driven will be connected to the grid as a mass electricity store and source thereby solving many/most problems we see at the moment.
But that's a very long time away.

In the mean time, fossil fuel has to take the strain, which will see SL bring in loads-a-money and probably the development of the greater NFB too.

Godfrey,

As you try to find that reference, the Supreme Court today has authorised Heathrow's 3rd runway.

One assumes that at least one result of this, post-Brexit, is that Heathrow will attract even more activity and, of course, flights.
Now I don't know about you, Godfrey, but I'm not aware that the clean, green electric aeroplane is ready yet, so, for the foreseeable future, all these new aircraft (and the machinery to build the 3rd runway) will be fossil-fuel powered.

Despite Boris' fine, green and environmentally friendly words (some of which you seem unable to produce), the actions on the ground and in the air, continue to require fossil fuel.

So I see UKEF support as a continuing possibility, but with or without it, there's no doubt that our economic recovery is going to rely on fossil fuel.
That's why the FI will become a new oil/gas region.

Now, Godfrey, where's that "very clear and unambiguous" statement?

Godfrey, we're still waiting for you to produce that "very clear and unambiguous" statement you claimed to have seen.

Arfur, another of Tony's "sins" was to make statements about SL FID, which then didn't materialise.

I'm sure he believed them when he said them, but to do this more than once was a serious error and didn't help his credibility as CEO.

LTT, I hope you meant: "Either way it's NOT the deal breaker it once was".

Anyway, post-Chrysaor, UKEF has become something of a red herring, although I maintain that (despite what Godfrey says), no one has made a statement that would make it impossible for UKEF support for SL, even if it's a bit less straightforward than it was.
Also HMG funding involvement would signal very firm foundations to the project, for anyone not yet convinced that things are going ahead (e.g. those who might consider providing support services in such a remote place).