Member Info for romaron

Https://www.google.com/search?q=ed+miliband+speech+july&rlz=1C1GGRV_enGB751GB751&oq=ed+miliband+speech+july&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigAdIBCjEwNzU4ajBqMTWoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:cc760c4c,vid:aexV3dF1E04,st:0

Listen in at 1:07.

I'd like to see him explain this graph. : https://twitter.com/NetZeroWatch/status/1723284646505455656/photo/1

Later he goes on to explain how insulating Britain for a mere £60bn "led by our 'brilliant' Labour led local councils". I did a quick calculation and it'll be a lot more than that if Enfield Council are anything to go by. He will be pinioned by his rhetoric and there's no other word for it, LIES.

Https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/federal-data-shows-again-that-the

Hi guys - I read the Equinor article on Energy Voice. Yousaf is likely to be gone by the GE and I hope that his blind support for renewables and enmity towards O&G is publicly given as a major reason. This extract from EV is important imo:

“My starting position on Rosebank is I’m not convinced it should go ahead and I’ve said as much publicly, for a number of reasons,” Mr Yousaf said in an interview with the Daily Record.

“First and foremost, for example, the majority of Rosebank is oil as opposed to gas – that oil, of course, then gets exported.

“Any suggestion that helps us in terms of our domestic energy security, I think, doesn’t quite stack up.”

This is ignoring how commerce works and that we export oil because the the UK doesn't have the refining capacity. Crude oil isn't of much use until it is refined. BP and Shell have (since 2011) NO refining presence in the UK. The eco-zealots use majors and 'obscene profits' when it suits their narrative. I think to some of the extreme left all 'profits' are 'obscene'. I mention this because exporting our oil came up in Question Time this week and Tessa Khan uses it all the time. They use it to suggest that it is a traitorous act and they're only in it for the money. Well sugar, I'm sorry to tell you this but that's what companies do. If there isn't a profit there is NO company. As for security the QT Tory rep, David TC Davies, did say that in desperate times we would still have the oil and that is a better position to be in. He didn't say it but the hint was obvious, "force majeure".

Perhaps we can come up with a simple slogan that refutes their sloppy argument that has become a mantra and is oft repeated that "our oil is exported".

Hi Dumbly - you asked for thoughts in your 14:56 post.

I doubt many will be "suckered in" as Labour's ideas have been so clearly been signposted. The timing is awkward with a GE expected in a year's time and the Tories losing. I guess most companies will just sit on their hands and we'll basically have another year of declines. I actually think Labour's position is more fragile and they run the risk of being 'stranded' by their green ideology. The review will not be pleasant viewing imo for the greens as you can more accurately predict an energy shortfall and rising costs than a breakthrough on land based wind turbines, turning Essex into a solar park, hydrogen dreams, tidal, geo thermal etc... all backed by pseudo-science on global warming evangelism and models that may or may not be accurate. They can hardly ignore the truth about offshore wind costs either. To sweep them under the carpet won't please Orsted or Vattenfall. Renewables are losing the price war and I expect politicians to conveniently forget earlier statements and promises (9X cheaper). I predict a collapse in offshore wind if they remove the subsidies being sought in the same way that EAGA went to the wall back in 2010 when Warm Front grants were cut (Labour subsidy). After 20 years offshore wind should be able to stand on its own after all the hype and promises from Labour. GB Energy will become a subsidy hub and will create thousands of jobs that will need all the help it can get unless it raises prices which Ed has conveniently skated over.

At some stage Labour will need to have a reconciliation with the O&G industry or face a very short period of being in power. Many have been drinking the Kool-Aid served by the likes of Tessa, Ed and Caroline but lets hope the Review' is not politicised. Surely it is duty bound to tell the truth and effects of a draconian and spiteful fiscal regime that is killing a vital industry.

Https://mailchi.mp/767475352b22/myth-of-cheap-offshore-wind-has-been-exposed?e=35cf3821be

Who will get the worse public reaction? Tories for gross mismanagement of our energy policy or Labour for building their future manifesto around five missions of which two now look cratered below the waterline - specifically clean energy and economic growth.

The costs that Net Zero Watch claim are being considered by ministers will not change under whoever is in Parliament. Science is like that. It doesn't have a vote or an ideology. Economics follow on from these facts and realities. I wrote to Rachel Reeves in October pointing out the Tory trap and they have fallen right into it. It does not augur well for a future Party that has based its promises on clean energy and a company to be called GB Energy. It is gross incompetence before they are even elected. They say Suella Braverman position looks threatened. What about Ed Miliband's?

Labour will jump on the Tory incompetence but where do they stand on offshore wind costs? How will they explain that they can reduce them without increasing the price or subsidies?

This has an excellent chance of blowing up and damaging both parties. It cannot really damage the O&G any further. Ørsted have lost half their value in the past year whilst Vattenfall have pulled out of development of the Norfolk Boreas offshore wind project whilst reviewing Vanguard East and West projects. Both parties will struggle to explain why they are supporting foreign companies in offshore wind and penalising British companies in O&G who can provide cheaper energy, regularly.

*KO - I'm pretty sure Rachel Reeves will never read my letter but I will still send a follow-up saying "I told you so". Some of my letters do get through and I am a voter. Somebody on her staff would have read it and these things are sometimes brought up to support arguments. You'll often hear names attached to a point in parliament without a surname. It helps when the cameras are on them. This was the last para of the letter I sent to RR: "I sense a Tory trap and although I expect us to win the election this is a weakness of our policies. Let Ed have his fun with GB Energy playing in the renewable sector but we need fossil fuels to fill the vacuum for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. We won’t be in the sunny uplands by 2030. It isn’t a sprint as Ed Miliband describes it and the costs are phenomenal – they will make the PPE scandal look like a rounding error. The windfall tax is destroying what is left of the North Sea O&G industry. The super-majors left the basin years ago. It needs saving."

Is what scares people out of stocks. Diageo dropped 15% today. Now that is unusual. However, people still drink and move around. Some demand is like baseload and is there whatever way the wind blows. I take solace in the fact that O&G is priced/valued for even worse headwinds than we are seeing. It isn't anything EnQuest specific today.

I did listen again to Barry Gardiner at the Environmental Audit Committee and strangely wasn't so annoyed as before because I now know more than I did on previous views. I found the bit around 15:02 quite interesting. It was an audit committee so the questions were meant to be tough and the opposition are always even tougher because they never miss an opportunity to attack the government in power. A proportion of the committee meeting is pure theatre and can be discounted to an extent. He spun the situation and the point about decom was beyond most peoples' understanding but revolves more about Chancellors wanting revenue up front and the decom can be kicked down the road and become a following Chancellor's problem. If Labour were in power Barry Gardiner's performance would have been very different. Tessa Khan and Caroline Lucas are stuck in their roles. They'll never be stars.

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/09e28c6c-4afa-48e8-aae2-d73485784719

At least somebody read your letter KO. That is actually important. Their replies like our IR have to be couched in a certain way but enough letters will chip away at the anti-fossil lobby. Keep sending them because we are all voters and you can also send a FOI over certain points. Make them brief. You'll often get an anodyne response but they have to respond. The current impact of EPL is only worsening the situation of O&G in the NS and I'd rather this was the case as it does put pressure on companies and lobbyists like OEUK whilst we must have some friends or grown-ups at the NSTA. It doesn't look like we've many friends in Parliament but they always have different priorities anyway.

Whatever happens in the NS there will always be a need for a company like ours and the tax credits are valuable. As fields age and decline they are passed on. Using a building analogy the majors prefer greenfield sites whilst we are definitely brownfield. There is opportunity for us because we can go in cheaply and every day the truth about renewables becomes more apparent. It isn't pleasant at these levels but the pressure is being returned and put onto the politicians. The narrative is changing but the brainwashing has been going on for a long time. When the ordinary people start getting hit in the pocket you will see change and that is close.

If you want a bit of fantasy you should listen to Question Time last night in Llandudno the seaside town said to be the inspiration for Alice in Wonderland. Start about 30:00 in with the Tory MP speaking relative sense about climate change but it really plummets when Sir Chris Bryant the Shadow Minister for Creative Industries and Digitalisation adds his contribution. He has the right qualifications as he is an ex-Anglican priest so he believes that belief trumps facts and unproven science; plus there is an invisible friend looking after us who we can speak to but never answers or responds.

His answers are the usual tripe.

Make wind turbines in Wales

Insulate homes (I hope they're cheaper than the Enfield retrofits (£127k per home)

He waffled when picked up about the £28bn Ed promised but escaped by saying that Labour had an "Industrial Strategy" and of course GB Energy. He was even vaguer about spending commitments.

One bright spark in the audience suggested that tidal power was the answer. The Tory guy, David TC Davies, gently pointed out that it cost around £200 per MWh and was 4X MORE expensive than cheaper energy and that ain't offshore wind if what Bloomberg is hearing is true.

Bloomberg is reporting that the Government is planning to raise the offshore strike price to £70-75/MWh (£100+ in current prices). They are effectively admitting that "cheap wind" was a cynical lie. Bloomberg is reporting that the Government is planning to raise the offshore strike price to £70-75/MWh (£100+ in current prices). They are effectively admitting that "cheap wind" was a cynical lie.

Can labour still pretend that it is cheaper than fossil?

Thanks Stevo - I'll read it several times and stuff will sink in. I'm beginning to understand the reason why we are presently sticking with our 'scavenging' model on older field because of our tax credits (your 19:46 para 2). Talk about tail wagging dog. I'd say that puts Bressay on the backburner.

I keep remembering the 121% being pressed home by Barry Gardiner at the 20 July 2022 Environmental Audit Committee meeting as though it was a gift of actual money from the Tories. The reps from Shell, BP and HBR were either to timid or didn't understand the structure of the tax (I'll listen & watch it again when I have time). Like the 9X cheaper they mangle a fact until it is unrecognisable but leaves the innocent public with the idea that they are paying for the 'obscene profits of billionaire oil magnates'.

I'm relatively happy that I did understand it correctly (well almost) but worryingly the way Labour portray the investment allowance is that we the public are gifting them the actual money. If the companies don't invest and the Tories have succeeded in harming them re the EPL/RBL reduction and practically closed the NS even earlier than planned which will result in a lack of revenue with the bonus of reduced energy security and higher costs and emissions.

Maybe the companies and OEUK should start educating the public.

Wish I'd never asked. Para: 1. This is going to be embarrassing. I can't get my mind past 100% so if you made the investment you pay $100 out of your own resources and the government gives you a tax rebate of $21? What I'm trying to establish is the govt and Labour are happy for the public to believe they give the company $121. Am I still warm or miles out?

Stevo - futures with their shorter expiries are different to the speculation in shares. If the company stays solvent it can go on for decades and EnQuest is in its thirteenth year. There are no formulas that can guarantee success with black swans and governments doing their best to torpedo you. You can lose money in anything and if you deal in large enough amounts futures can damage you as much as spot. In my currency (Lira) you didn't go into Salomon or Goldmans line if the amounts were less than $100mio. The advantages that the large banks and trading rooms have almost guarantee they'll come out winners. I am not surprised when Shell and BP announce record trading profits. Guvnor and Trafigura too. I think the Equinor Rosebank deal shows the advantage majors have with cash and strategic stakes.

I have never really understood the 91pc tax saving. This is my understanding. The company has to put up the money; not the government. All the government do is not tax you on (your example) $910Mio of a $1bio investment. Am I warm?

I would like to see you get into a debate with someone equally at home with the numbers and go through the rationale of the Equinor/Rosebank deal. Of course it may not realise $1.5bio but Reuters have the story too and I trust their sources. They [Equinor] are in a different situation to us but certain benefits and leverage do filter downwards and our tax advantage is a powerful catalyst in the right scenario. At first when I read that they were selling part of Rosebank my heart sank but it looks a superb bit of deal making because they played to their strengths. Hopefully we can do the same.

Sadly both parties can afford to treat the O&G industry with callous disregard by using the faux religious appeal of climate nutters; when they think it can win them votes. Ed Miliband is a clear and present danger whilst Hunt does not appear to have a clue.

Could have been a purchase earlier in the day. The time is when it was recorded; not when it was traded. Not significant imo. 500,000 shares Dumbly. I use these to check on trades https://www.londonstockexchange.com/stock/ENQ/enquest-plc/company-page

Couple of points. The oil future and swap market wouldn't exist if there wasn't a physical market. The larger trading market applies to all markets - pork bellies, wheat and any commodity of consequence and of course the Forex market. Most here know that already. It's a bit like saying that the Grand national only has a prize of say £1mio for the first three home but the gambling on the event is £300mio and the meeting £650mio.

As for the point about volatility of spot against the future (forward) price is your misunderstanding of what may not be a short term movement. Sometimes oil moves down (or up) for months at a time. I didn't say forwards are more volatile than spot. On that we can agree but it is the inherent volatility of spot oil that affects settlement.

Spot oil will affect you more than futures ever will.

Like the National Lottery Ad - "it could be you!"

Today in Energy Voice it announced that Equinor are reducing their stake in Rosebank by 20%. They will be left with 60% so they're not fleeing from the NS and seems to be closer to a percentage level that majors are happy with. There are triggers involved, mainly around O&G prices and first oil. There is a rumoured $1.5bn price tag.

"The deal to acquire a 40% interest in Rosebank from Suncor UK for $250mio just eight months ago saw Equinor push the project forward with a view to divest after FID.

"As expected, Equinor is seeking to reduce its capex exposure, however, a $1.5bio price tag would represent a 12X uplift, compared with the Suncor deal, with the majority of investment still to come."

I have written to my MP and Rachel Reeves asking the same question - "“There are many existing fields that are going through environmental impact studies and other regulatory hurdles such as Cambo and Bressay. Will they be given the go ahead under a Labour Government?”

I suggest others petition their MP's with the same question.

"Spot prices are always going to be volatile and the futures market is a much more stable predictor of future oil prices which remove short term anomalies - both up and down." - Er, no.

The future and forward prices are a margin allowing for many variables - cost of funds, storage considerations, tanker rates, opportunity cost etc. which move more slowly than the price of spot oil. Inflation for example doesn't jump overnight from 2% to 5% in the West nor do base rates. It is a mechanism for moving spot oil out for 3/6 months or whatever.

I traded/brokered forex swaps for 27 years and they go out to about 2 years but it is the 1m, 3,m and 6m that are the active periods and have the size. If you quoted or dealt an outright you usually immediately covered (you could run it) the spot risk because the swaps move much slowly. If today you traded (say) the March future at 79.21 with spot at 80.00 and spot went to $90 due to an incident in the Taiwan Strait involving the US and China the 79c differential would move but by a much smaller amount - however if you had sold the future before the incident you'd be sitting on a nasty paper loss.

I don't profess to understand the complications of forward oil prices but unless you are speculating against other futures or periods if you actually have to buy and sell oil in the physical world (because it all eventually boils down to that) then at some stage you have to get your willy wet and that means you take a view on spot. When you arrive at the March date settlement will rely massively on the spot price at that time. I don't see futures as an indicator - the consensus tends to be usual market practice; until it isn't.

Take contango for instance you have to factor in the cost of storage and other carry costs on top of taking a view on the direction of spot. Swaps and futures intention is to create a futures market to enable the efficient distribution of oil and I haven't even mentioned refineries and oil in the right place to start with.

*In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. -Carl Sagan, astronomer and writer (9 Nov 1934-1996)

Afraid you've all missed the boat. Some of you grey hairs may remember the Central Electricity Generating Board. Ed's a bit too young but its new name is soon to be GB Energy.

Prof. Helm said this: "Admit it or not, the electricity industry is returning towards a monopoly – monopoly of generation contracting (the electricity system operator, ESO), monopoly of transmission, monopoly of supply, plus in effect an oligopoly of similar suppliers passing on these costs. In the process, the energy system looks much more like the CEGB again (starting with EMR), and it is the state directing and, in the case of nuclear, investing in generation. The CEGB did not build power stations. It let contracts to do so – as the state does now via the auctions it backs."

Source:

https://mailchi.mp/0ab2b4012c04/new-paper-reveals-sorry-state-of-gb-nuclear-199412?e=35cf3821be

It is a mess and I'll gain a certain satisfaction when Ed's plans are seen to be the fantasy and economic disaster that only ideologists and religious fanatics believe in. They'll leave oil and gas alone because it's dying anyway in the UK but does subsidise their fanaticism.

just reading about the repeat attack on the velasquez painting. the perpetrator in 1914, mary richardson, got six months jail for it. i don't have a problem that she was from *canada or a ******* but why bring up the suffragette connection? isn't the fact that she later achieved the role of head of the women's section of the british union of fascists (buf) also interesting? or is this what they call 'an inconvenient truth'. sounds to me more like a professional activist or even anarchist. just as messed up as the average juststopoil zealot.

*actually i do have a problem. greta from sweden and tessa from australia/bangladesh.

isn't there a un resolution or human rights thingy about it? this is terrible:

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/judge-puts-just-stop-oil-protester-in-her-place-over-9-000-mile-trip-to-india/ar-aa1jkkjq

i mean, everyone deserves a holiday. the poor dear. thank goodness they haven't been imprisoned as that would have prevented the one in the middle from trying to destroy one of the great works of art today.

*i'm not usually a conspi****** but it is beginning to look like big oil are behind juststopoil.