Proposed Directors of Tirupati Graphite explain why they have requisitioned an GM. Watch the video here.
Walking on water clearly ain't what it used to be. The SP is lower than it was when Parsons, Traynor and Mitchener left. Graham may have saved SOU from the abyss but so far he has not added any value. What he *has* added is half a billion shares to the register. That's on top of the half billion that were added since SOU's last success with TE-7.
SOU's potential asset value has been diluted by two thirds since TE-7. It has been further diluted by the decision to do micro LNG which, while necessary to keep the show on the road, is of much less value than pipeline exports. And five years on from the decision to monetise SOU's assets we are a long way off doing that. The cost of the pipeline is eight times SOU's current market cap. I would say there is no possibility of a cheap loan just falling into SOU's lap. So the impact of Phase 2, if and when it happens, still remains to be seen.
You may call this "a great chance for success". I would call it a "wait and see" situation, and so far the market agrees.
Wind supplied 33% of electricity in March, down from 53% in February:
https://windenergyireland.com/latest-news/6434-wind-supplies-33-of-power-in-march-as-gas-pushes-prices-to-record-high
With lacklustre news of generation -- due to lack of lethal storms compared to February, I guess -- the focus is on other issues. Wind Energy Ireland (the mouthpiece for Big Wind) points out that gas prices are too high and planning permissions for new wind are too slow. Gotta keep those subsidies flowing!
... says the fat kid who doesn't want to play ball but hangs around moanin'.
https://www.rte.ie/radio/radio1/today-with-claire-byrne/programmes/2022/0406/1290754-today-with-claire-byrne-wednesday-6-april-2022/
McWilliams starts at 1:05:00
The FF point is a valid one: "As our energy minister, [Ryan] must do what is in Ireland’s best interest. That is his sole responsibility." Moreover, when it comes to Barryroe, it's not even a policy matter that he has discretion over. Existing hydrocarbon licenses are valid. As long as PVR's application is valid they are entitled to a lease undertaking. They fact that DCCAE will neither issue it nor will Ryan respond to questions about it is scandalous.
Ryan has a real talent for getting away with a ton of waffly nonsense. In that Newstalk interview he managed to dodge the question about burning your house down by running the tumble dryer on nighttime electricity. He keeps spouting on about the 200 quid energy voucher, even though that won't come close to covering the increase in energy costs for most people. He referred to "lithium, cobalt, copper, nickel and all the other rare earths" ... even though not one of those is a rate earth element.
And his answer to the short term energy crisis is to build a new hydrogen infrastructure from scratch in ten years, which a) isn't short term, and b) is quite likely to never going to be feasible. And his dumbest idea is that we're going to burn the hydrogen in a repurposed coal power station. The end-to-end efficiency there is about 30%.
The long and short of it is that Ryan thinks he can keep kicking cans down the road for as long as it takes. LNG? No thanks, we'll have hydrogen in ten years. Fossil fuels? Nope, we have to increase our energy security by doubling down on wind. This goon is spending 380 million a year on cycle lanes while the lights go out. Funny how he thinks solving the rare earths problem (even though he doesn't know what they are) has to involve global cooperation. He admits there's not much we can bring to that particular party. But he won't touch an area where we COULD be self-sufficient on our oil and gas requirements.
GuntherGoobdaw: "I will be leaving again in a couple of weeks for a few months"
Can't think of many places with no internet these days, even Antarctica. You checking into the psych ward or rehab? Anyway, don't let the door hit you on the a$$ on your way out.
STD123: "The 50p per trillion estimate is not SOU specific and has been applied to many companies sitting on such reserves."
So the value *PER SHARE* is independent of the number of shares? Then SOU should just issue another 1.6 billion shares and double the value of its gas. Why don't you suggest that to Graham -- he will surely recognise your financial genius.
"The 50p per trillion estimate is from Malky. Before you start rolling on the floor Malky has used this estimate for years"
The number of shares has tripled in those years. Basic arithmetic should tell you that if he was right then, he can't be right now.
All stocks are up on positive murmurings about Ukraine. Oil is down. Low volume on PVR -- 10% rise is nothing significant.
STD123: "The rule of thumb is that for every trillion cubic foot of gas roughly adds 50p to the share price so we would not need the full trillion to achieve 30p."
Whose rule of thumb is that, then? Was it the one from back in the day when we had about a third of the shares on issue compared to now? Also, that one didn't seem to factor in the cost of getting the gas out of the ground or transporting it, or the cost of the associated finance. And note, it's *recoverable* gas, so I reckon you'd need 2 Tcf GOIP for the shares to be worth 30p. Maybe a bit less because Anoual isn't as far from the Maghreb–Europe pipeline as Tendrara.
"As I have previously stated it is a pointless exercise trying to work out a current valuation"
So you can say what a future Tcf is worth, but you can't say what the current ones are worth? Sounds very odd. Especially when there's already a valuation from the official broker.
Hi quelfromage1,
It's true there's no ideal energy solution. All forms generate waste. Sellafield isn't representative of the nuclear waste issue though -- it was a reprocessing plant. It reprocessed nearly 10 kilotons of spent fuel, at a lucrative £1m per ton, but it had some pretty ropy design and organisational issues. There are some pretty novel high burn-up fuel cycles today, and thorium which produces no transuranics. However, realistically, the bureaucracy involved in deploying entirely new fuel cycles is prohibitive. The only chance for fission is standardised modular designs based on existing technology that don't need custom certification processes for each installation. These can be walkaway safe and the waste storage problem is very manageable.
I'll get laughed at for saying it, but I actually think fusion is not as far away as is supposed. There are four different fusion concepts that I know of which are all due to hit significant milestones by 2026, and one of them plans to be producing net electricity by then. These are all privately funded enterprises with serious money behind them. There are half a dozen others besides these four, but they're the ones I'm keeping an eye on. Fusion research has been quietly revolutionised in the last decade by the introduction of high temperature superconducting REBCO tapes, and hardware/software capable of simulating turbulent plasmas.
But as I said, we shouldn't depend on technologies that still need years to mature. Leave the hopium to the Greens with their batteries and green hydrogen. And hopefully persuade them that we still need hydrocarbons between now and then.
We are doing "better" than the UK with wind power equalling about 9% of primary energy. Though that was in 2020, an above average wind year. Even at that we missed our targets for renewable energy for 2020, like the UK and Germany. We achieved 13.5% overall (target was 16%), with most of the remaining renewable energy coming from biomass.
In today's Business Post there's an article saying we're almost certain to miss our targets for 2030. I've no doubt the response from government will be to say we need to double down on our efforts with wind. At what point do we acknowledge that wind power just isn't capable of getting us to where we want to be? In the meantime we'll have spent enormous money, caused environmental damage, increased prices, and quite possibly wrecked the grid and the economy with it.
"The Annoual licence will be getting drilled soon anyway, if successful and with the LNG plant opperational I see a price around 30p plus not unreasonable."
I can't even *think* of a suitable response. Given the number of upvotes that comment got, I'm afraid that delusions about this share are still widespread. As someone pointed out, the market is forward looking. LNG is already priced in. Given the SP Angel valuation for Phase 2, a single Anoual drill would have to find more than a Tcf of recoverable gas (three times the size of the TE-5 horste) to give that sort of valuation. To say it's unlikely would be a massive understatement.
Wind provided 53% of Irish electricity in February, and hit a new record for peak generation at 4,584 MW early in the month. Lobby group Wind Energy Ireland was quick to fire off press releases. They didn't mention that we got three named storms in the month, causing loss of life and electricity outages. They also seem to think that an average wholesale price of €175 per MWh was a noteworthy achievement. It's four to five times the monthly averages for most US regional markets for example.
January was a more average month with 30% of electricity from wind. March figures will be interesting to see, since the wind died pretty much on the first day of the month, and the first and last weeks of the month have been extremely lacklustre.
"Gamblers in O&G shares (like me in 20 at present) should just be honest with themselves and others: they have no interest in anything but profiting so should give up ranting about energy security etc."
Speak for yourself. I've been following energy issues and the O&G industry for 20+ years, far longer than I've held shares in them. I'm VERY interested in energy security and strongly in favour of nuclear technologies as the main hope for long term, low carbon baseload power. My objection to wind energy is that it is diffuse and unreliable. Far from now being "the cheapest form of energy" as Green ideologues claim, it is an ultra-expensive, resource hungry, environmentally unfriendly monster. It uses crazy amounts of land, copper, and rare earths per megawatt of capacity, and that's just the turbines themselves. It also imposes uncounted costs on other sectors of the energy market.
This is not idle speculation -- look at the government's own costings for 2030 and beyond in Ireland. Or show me a place where energy costs have actually gone down as a result of all this supposedly "free" wind. Germany has higher energy prices than its nuclear powered neighbour to the west or its coal burning one to the east. Its lauded Energiewende program is a dismal failure. Environmental objections to wind farms are widespread. Electricity prices have soared -- they are 43% higher than the EU average and 50% of electricity bills are taxes and charges to support renewables. And after all that Germany missed its 2020 emissions targets. Merkel admitted in 2019 that if they were to phase out coal and nuclear they would have to rely on massively increased gas. She forgot to factor in that their main supplier is a psychopath.
I have written here numerous times that Barryroe is not going to save the world, nor even Ireland. On the other hand, I do have a pretty good idea of how utterly dependent modern economies are on oil and gas. Axing the supply before we have a viable transition approach is batshyt crazy. Lunatics like Ryan are happy to drive us over a precipice, appealing to non-existent technology that they hope will come to the rescue. That includes battery storage -- which has a role in peak shaving but cannot conceivably be an answer for long term storage -- and green hydrogen which is disastrously inefficient. Like numerous biofuels entrepreneurs in the last decade (until their projects all went bankrupt), Ryan is applying "Silicon Valley" thinking to energy -- falling technology costs will fix any problems. But energy is not like software -- you can't fool the laws of thermodynamics.
If you want to bet on future technology that will actually work, there is Gen IV nuclear, and there is the Allam Cycle (under development for years and which delivered actual power to the grid for the first time last November). The latter burns fossil fuels with 100% carbon capture. Of course, the Greens are ideologically opposed to nukes and fossils, even low carbon o