Member Info for Phil164

Yes, if people want to harangue others for their views on climate change then there is a little protest scheduled in London shortly I hear......bet it wont go anywhere near the Chinese embassy.

Well good that you recognise it.

Fuddstone, you must be confused, this is not a weather site.

....Its also ironic that China's state news agency reported on the UN "code red" Report, but didnt mention that China is the worlds biggest polluter, that shows what we are up against.

China commissioned more new coal fired power stations last year than the rest of the world retired, coal is by far the worst polluter of the fossil fuels, until that changes nothing we do in the UK will effect the outcome of global warming, its nothing to do with not caring about people's grandkids, its about recognising where the problem lies and our own minsicule ability to change it.

Ralph, I understand your pessimism, my confidence has been steadily eroded over the last three years of pmo missed deadlines for fid, I still hope for the best though....am just also prepared for the worst. For me it is the anti oil sentiment which has really got going over the last three years or so which may have tipped the odds, but we are where we are, the world will continue to need oil for decades, and the irony is at least partly because of the climate change warriors we could be heading for an almighty supply crunch.

Some on here appear already to be counting their chickens....I do hope that is not tempting fate.

Bootledodger, Im not arguing about climate change, Im arguing that we in the UK can have no effect on the outcome until china stops what it is doing.

Buzzthomas, I totally agree but the reality is the politicians and media have completely bought into the climate change activists agenda.

Personally jaceorge when somebody makes a comment I think is strange I prefer to interrogate them for their reasoning.......most of the wind up merchants then just go quiet, but some will dig themselves an even bigger hole.

Daddypig, I take it you believe the company has been well managed and company funds justifiably spent?

If RKH did fail in their due diligence I wonder if a claim against the directors for negligence could be considered. I believe this is the sort of scenario covered by Directors and Officers Insurance.

Just my own feeling but if the case had no merit I wonder why it would take 4 years to come to that conclusion, the thing that takes the time it seems to me would be establishing quantum, since that is dependant on future price of oil, and look where poo has been over the last 16 months. Im not a lawyer, just my feeling.

I dont see how any failure of due diligence could completely release the Italian Government from its duty to abide by the treaty, it may mitigate any award yes, but it does not mean it can do as it likes.

Yes Dicko, I was being slightly flippant....I hope you are right.

ATB.

cyan2, ahh I see its not that harbour cannot afford it, but that choices may be made in a different direction, well that is a different argument, however a lot has changed with Mexico since the conference call you mentioned, and the global oil company reference was, I believe, the words used by Harbour, which is why I used them.

Cyan2, if Harbour do not have the finance to develop assets already discovered and on their books how will they achieve their stated aim of being a global oil company.

With the way the Mexican government has been behaving surely all independent oil companies must be thinking twice about commiting to the region, how can zama still be viewed as attractive after what has happened with pemex, can Harbour really risk what Argentina did to Repsol happening to them, yes there are political arguments against sealion, and enviromental ones, but zama is surely now too big a risk.

Think you have answered your own question.....Greenland, and they willl not be the last.

Just wondering how many times over the years I have read comments like that on here.