Member Info for ps200306

Link to that IT article: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/eirgrid-to-seek-bids-from-firms-to-build-new-power-plants-by-2025-1.4649570

Shocking state of affairs. We are sleepwalking into an ultra-expensive unreliable energy future. This is not hyperbole. Anybody can check the last two Eirgrid "Ireland's Energy Future" reports from 2017 and 2019 and the Engineer's Ireland (engineersireland.ie) report from last year on how this is likely to work out. All are available online.

Among them you will find Eirgrid statements like: "New household technologies help to make electricity consumers more energy aware. This increases energy efficiency in homes and businesses. Over time, electricity consumers gradually begin to make greater use of electric vehicles and heat pumps".

So has everyone been carefully checking their new smart meters to shave their energy usage? I haven't even looked at mine. What's the point? I don't waste electricity now, and the standing charge and PSO levy ensure that any fractional savings would be negligible. Those levies are effectively a tax by which consumers pay for renewables, and will only increase over time.

What about a heat pump? "For an average Irish home, an air source heat pump may cost about €12,000 - €18,000" (source bordgaisenergy.ie). Uh, no thanks. Electric car? Cheapest one available in Ireland costs €32k (Volkswagen ID 3), but a decent range battery pushes that to €40k. Right now you can slash €5k in rebates off that, but that will disappear over the next several years as there's no way governments will subsidise the 3000% increase in vehicles needed to hit even modest 2030 targets when they are losing huge fuel taxes as well.

It's all for the greater good, of course. Per Eirgrid's 2019 report, "Given the extent of the climate crisis as outlined by the United Nations, we can no longer afford to change slowly". This is the UN led by Secretary General Guterres, whose gross misrepresentation of the latest IPCC document as a "code red for humanity" was dutifully picked up and screamed across alarmist headlines worldwide. So yeah, Ireland's 0.1% of global GHG emissions are the reason we have to crucify energy users.

Even if you agree with this, the inescapable fact is that we are going about it in the worst way possible. According to the IT: "Irish and European energy companies plan to spend billions of euro building wind farms off the coast that will ultimately supply thousands of megawatts of electricity to the national grid". That makes it sound like ecofriendly philanthropists are going to pay for it. In fact, Big Wind is as profit-driven as anyone else, and rightly so.

(cont'd ...)

Alright. Truce.

The Biz Post's digest this morning had no less than three separate climate alarmist news items. I haven't read last week's IPCC report yet, though I intend to, but I know it isn't quite the apocalyptic vision that the news has been reporting. However, this reporting is what's shaping public perception, so the chances of PVR developing Barryroe without a tonne of sheeeit hitting the fan have to be slim.

*** Climate change: Apocalyptic assessment confirms we now have everything to lose.
The IPCC’s report on climate change demands dramatic changes to reach our targets now. But will governments have the courage to push back against sectors that have much to lose? Daniel Murray reports.

*** The race to go green: can business get fit for climate challenge in time?
With stark warnings from the latest IPCC report on climate change, sustainability has leapt to the top of the agenda for businesses and investors. But how can companies accelerate such change? Lorcan Allen reports.

*** Our politicians need to catch up fast with the reality of climate science
Extreme weather events this year have shown the dangers of climate change, but our government has already given in to the agri-industrial lobby, leaving our 2030 targets dead in the water, John Gibbons writes.

STD123: "PS your maths are way off again. How can I be 60% down when my average is 3p and Fridays close was 1.55"

Because you bought at 4p last June/July. Yes you've averaged down since -- the fact that you HAD TO says everything about your naive ramping.

STD123: "Perhaps if you did [trust in Graham] then your £600,000 loss might have been far less"

Yes, perhaps in the parallel universe you inhabit, where the shareprice was going to double ... except it halved. You mouth off every day about how I lost my shirt *because* I sold out, knowing full well that it made no difference because the share price HASN'T MOVED SINCE. If I did the exact same thing today the exact same result would ensue. You seem to literally believe the cr@p you're spewing because you so desperately want/need it to be true. Lay off the crack pipe!

STD123: "If you are stupid enough to believe someone who just cuts and pastes paragraph after paragraph of facts and figures then that's up to you..."

Truly hilarious. What's your problem with facts and figures? If you'd read some of them you might realise how ridiculous your ramping looks to anyone with a brain.

STD123: "... but remembering they have also sold out prematurely and endured a £600,000 loss without the ability of being able to evaluate that Graham would pull off the deals he did just weeks later."

That parallel universe again. I SAID AT THE TIME (and anybody can check the history right here) that EVEN IF he pulled off the deals it wouldn't make any difference to my losses. And I was right ... which you would realise if you weren't smokin' crack in some parallel reality.

STD123: "A few of us with a low average have every chance of making a profit here"

You're only here a year, and have been brown-nosing the CEO all that time, and you have a "chance" of getting back the 60% you're down. You realise how tragic that sounds?

STD123, I guess there's not much point talking to someone with the numeracy of a chimp. I sold out prior to Graham securing those deals because I reasoned that even if he managed it, they wouldn't make any difference to the share price. SP Angel subsequently agreed with me. And history subsequently agreed with me too.

You, on the other hand, predicted the share price would double over the same period in which it halved. As chief ramper that leaves you in the invidious position of having to pretend to be a total moron, by refusing to understand that I haven't lost *anything* by selling. (Though perhaps I'm being too generous in suggesting you're "pretending").

Yep, STD123 has abandoned all pretence of backing up his shameless ramping with anything of substance, and just resorted to denigrating those who have lost money. Woe betide anyone who listens to this constantly lying charlatan.

STD123: "PS I will explain this very slowly back to you. Sold up prematurely when Graham was about to turn us around and made a £600,000 loss"

Clearly the explanation for five-year-olds went over your head. Let's try again. Although this time we'll add some arithmetic which is sure to flummox you, since you failed the basic reading test. Ready?

Share Price on 15th March: 1.4p
Share Price today: 1.5p

Loss on 15th March: 600k
Loss today (if held): 596k

Your implication that I lost 600k *because* I sold on 15th March is a non sequitur. (Though I guess if you failed the basic reading comprehension, and can't do arithmetic, you're hardly going to understand Latin).

STD123: "Why don't you just admit Graham has turned us around and you have missed the boat and now bitterly regret selling up."

I'm going to explain this to you one more time, slowly, like you were a not very bright five year old (which for all I know, you may well be). Ready? Draw a deep breath. Here goes:

Share Price on 15th March: 1.4p

Share Price today: 1.5p

I appreciate you are hard of understanding, but surely this can't be TOO hard???

Electricity supply under threat due to delays in connected gas-powered generators: Gas Networks Ireland seeks emergency measures to meet projected increases in demand for electricity as developers of 16 new power generators are slow to sign contracts. Daniel Murray reports.

STD123, it's clear you are in an inveterate liar and fantasist. But even you must have a bit of shame when lying about something that anyone can easily check for themselves. My first post on bailing out stated that it took me a week and a half to get rid of most of my shares. And you're claiming you were able to get the exact share price by looking at the timestamp on my post? Idiot! I dumped the majority of them on 15th March. Anybody who cares can go to finance.yahoo.com, look up SOU.L, click on historical data and see the daily prices. On 15 Mar, the daily high is 1.4p, which is what I got. Most of the 4 million traded that day are mine. And just because I know you can't bear to look at things that contradict your fantasies, here's a screenshot for you: https://i.imgur.com/hEVHCA1.png

Also, I explicitly stated on the day that I did not think SOU were necessarily "going under" but that they had many hurdles and even getting to first LNG was not sufficient to create any shareholder value. As you would know, if you didn't spend all your time avoiding reading the company's official statements, that view was exactly borne out subsequently by the SP Angel valuation. So am I trying to talk this down to get back in at at lower value. Not on your life. Also, as I have pointed out many times here, I WANT the share price to do well -- I still have an amount invested here that is almost certainly more than whatever pittance you put in. Your constant droning on about me being an embittered former shareholder is wrong on every count. I'm just trying to save people from listening to fantasists like yourself.

SOU have a veritable mountain to climb to find $180m for a pipeline. Thankfully, STD123 is here to point out what "a lot of people have missed": that they could build TWO of them!

STD123: "I think that the BOD are presently talking to a few parties and exploring many options.Graham did also hint at a "little plan" that he stated would unfold over the next 6 months so stay tuned in."

Could you possibly sound more sycophantic? You'd think someone who's down 60% might be a *tiny* bit more circumspect when a CEO is blowing smoke up their a$$. But then you're not around long enough to remember Luca's baby.

Agree about the nukes, Spuddy. Unfortunately none of that will stop activists from taking the government to court over their climate commitments if they dare to approve a fossil fuel project, as has already begun to happen. Meanwhile we're spending half a billion on an interconnector to France so we can buy *their* nuclear electricity.

Thanks, STD123, I'll take that as a clear admission that you cannot back up your lies. I'll also take it as a sign of severe mathematical disability -- you can't lose money on a share price that hasn't moved in five months.

STD123, I presume your casual lies are premised on the idea that none of the people upvoting your comments will actually bother to investigate them. Here for instance is what I said on 16th April -- that's when you were claiming the share price was very shortly about to double from the 3.1p it spiked at after the bondholder announcement.

ps200306, 16 Apr 2021 11:10:
"Graham looked uncomfortable, as he did in the January interview. He knows the bondholder deal was not good for shareholders, albeit necessary. He probably did the best he could under the circumstances. He admits that the arrangement is just barely fundable through cash flow (assuming the LNG goes to schedule). He admits, as I suspected, that the bond will basically suck in all revenue out to the end of 2027. On the other hand, the lease purchase on the LNG plant should end in 2028. At that point SOU could be worth about 6-8p/share based on LNG revenue alone. Long time to wait though. It's also clear the pipeline funding is on a rocky road as well, what with his excuses about traditional investors not funding hydrocarbons. Will be interesting to see what transpires."

Care to point out how that amounts to "Sound are finished"? In fact it was too optimistic because the SP Angel valuation subsequently set the value based on LNG alone much lower. If you're gonna make up porky pies you should probably base them on something you can defend, because everything I wrote is easily accessible right here on this forum. So point me at one of the "many occasions" I said SOU were finished, either before or after I sold out ... or admit that YOU are the one telling shameless lies. Or would you prefer if I pointed YOU at the plethora of tragicomically ridiculous claims you made in contradiction of the company's own announcements, even while you watched your own investment plummet 60%?

STD123: "When Graham told us of his plans aligning up a few ducks I can remember you calling them dead ducks."

Yep, bobbing upside down in the water, like the current share price.

STD123: "Graham has secured the bondholder and LNG agreements when many thought it was impossible."

And yet you still don't ask yourself why the share price has gone DOWN since?

Rubber: "Ps said for certain that we were finished and is now in denial that he was very wrong, whilst losing a fortune in the process."

You need to stop listening to STD123 and his lies. I didn't and still don't say that. What I said is that the SP is going nowhere for at least a couple of years. There will be plenty of time to bail back in if one wanted. And no, I didn't lose a fortune "in the process". That was long gone already. The share price right this minute at 1.54p is 0.14p higher than when I bailed on 15th March. Any thoughts on why sorting the bondholders and closing Phase 1 contracts has done nothing for the SP?

STD123: "The recovery has begun so watch this space and do try and keep up this time..."

LOL. You said that four months ago and the share price has halved. Indeed you predicted the SP would have doubled by now. If this is a recovery I'd hate to see a crash!

The irony is that the answers to all these questions are in SOU's OWN VALUATION which tells you that Phase 1 is worth LESS THAN ZERO. I've heard of shameless ramping, but when the share price is constantly going the opposite direction to your predictions and the company itself is telling you that it's still overvalued, that's gotta be a redefinition of "shameless".

Spuddy, agree with you we are in a warmer period of a cooling period. Who decided that the temperature at start of the industrial era -- which happened to coincide with the end of the Little Ice Age -- is the optimum one for humankind? I will grant you all that. However, the cold associated with the LIA was neither as rapid nor intense as the recent warming (though there seems a margin of uncertainty in the temperature reconstructions). What's more, your theory of ocean outgassing caused by increased insolation doesn't seem to be backed up by anything. Handwaving at the tilt of the Earth and such like doesn't really add anything. We understand those epochal astronomical variations very well indeed. Anthropogenic CO2 does indeed seem to be a main culprit.

Anyway, all that aside I genuinely believe the biggest near term threat to human well being is a hysterical response and pandering to Green policies. I'm in favour of reining in CO2 emissions but not by the route we are trying to go down. Wind and solar power are not going to achieve anything except societal impoverishment. Faced with the fact that we are going rapidly backwards in terms of addressing climate change, the Greens pretend it's because we're not doing enough and want to double down on the same failing strategy. They claim wind is now the cheapest power source and point at "unsubsidised" sites like Hollandse Kust.

This is a complete fallacy. They will still get guaranteed power purchase agreements, even though excesses of production are projected to make power almost worthless when the wind is blowing, and they will have nothing to offer when it is not. Fossil fuel plants are criticised for not counting externalities such as the CO2 burden, while Big Wind is able to ignore the same externalities when they are left dependent on the same plants for backup. The public has been mollycoddled into believing that Big Wind are not exactly the same voracious capitalists as Big Oil. I've no problem with capitalism, far from it, but I have a problem with the dirty little secret that Big Wind is receiving their profits from massive costs passed on to consumers, aided and abetted by Green socialists.

And it would be bad enough if it was just pampered westerners getting screwed by their own politicians, but you can bet a pound to a pinch of ****aki mushrooms that developing countries are not going to crucify themselves with these huge costs when their citizens are looking to get basic amenities like lightbulbs and water pumps. Low carbon energy is going to have to come from something at least as cheap as existing fossils and *way* cheaper than these Green boondoggles. Ironically, climate resilience *depends* on it. But as long as we have econuts convincing themselves that they are saving humanity, we are letting them wheel us to hell in a handcart. And I have little faith that mainstream politicians will do anything to stop it.

"very frustrating the SP has dropped after last Friday's RNS"

As STD123 would say "find the negatives in that!". Maybe it's got something to do with the fact that they just gave 10% of the company away at 1.25p per share? Or that Phase 1 is still months away from FID and even when consummated will be worth LESS THAN ZERO to shareholders as per the company's own valuation. First LNG still at least two years away and whatever noises Graham is making about an Anoual drill, he knows they still don't have two brass farthings to rub together. It's still all about Phase 2, and incredibly they're STILL faffing around about the GSA all these years later. Not to mention an eye-watering amount of money to raise which is clearly dependent on the GSA *and* demonstration of flow results from the Horst production wells, and therefore unlikely to be signed and sealed before first LNG with pipeline construction beyond that. In short, Graham is to be commended for keeping things moving forward albeit at a relative snail's pace, but real shareholder value is literally YEARS away. The market now understands this -- it's been beaten into them often enough -- which is why those deluding themselves about near term magical SP rises will continue to be disappointed.

Clouds aren't made of water vapour, they are made of liquid water droplets. Low level clouds generally act to reflect sunlight and have a *cooling* effect. The warming effect of water vapor is a completely different thing -- it's to do with vibrational and rotational degrees of freedom (which don't exist in liquid water) of water molecules in the gaseous phase. I could go on about the other factors you mentioned, but something tells me you have your mind made up. It's a pity because we possibly share some disaffection for Green policies, however I don't think we have a strong argument if we get the basic tenets of the global warming argument wrong.