Member Info for romaron

This seagull might be black -something at the back of my mind about the unexpected. juststopoil have assisted us by attacking a Velasquez painting this morning. They're p*ssed that some minor disturbance in the Middle East is stealing their media air ignoring the genocidal threat we are all facing (apparently - needs peer review). Few disturbances on our streets which Labour, who voted against the Public Order Act, seem to be in an uncomfortable position in that they support protest and therefore juststopoil and all the pleasant people defending the Hamas freedom fighters. All a bit messy but I'm sure we'll have Labour's response along soon.

Ed's knee-jerkresponse on 'X' that this morning's 'political stunt' won't cut a penny off energy bills. About time he told us how much his 'political stunts' will reduce bills by. GB Energy is another HS2 heading our way but much, much more expensive. He (Ed) promises to lower energy bills for good.

This is what he posted "The worst energy bills crisis in a generation, and now the Government admits their flagship Kings Speech measure won’t cut energy bills by a penny.

A government that has given up on governing and is reduced to embarrassing political stunts."

https://twitter.com/BBCBreakfast/status/1721438027250028725

Do you believe in coincidences? The announcement regarding Seagull by BP is timely: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/reimagining-energy/seagull-starts-up.html

and this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67326497

You can listen to Claire Coutinho on Radio 4 this morning (1:52 in appx 07:50) She even suggested we might increase our refinery capacity. The Conservatives are beginning to get it but the importance is labour's response. She mentioned revenue more than once. Even Labour must see that fossils bring money in whilst offshore wind need subsidising and it ain't sunny or windy every day and anyway, that's only for electricity which is 20 percentish of our total energy. The macro is improving for us but I'd like the supporters of renewables to be grilled as hard as the O&G industry is.

If there is something other than fantasy thinking at labour HQ they must be beginning to worry about Ed's hopium and unicorn farts promises.

The UKCS well may be more important to Equinor than to Shell and BP. It is still marginal to Equinor but they are probably working on the basis that you get further with sugar than with salt. Someone should ask them why Bressay was sold if they have a true commitment to the UK. I know the answer will be wrapped up in commercial criteria but without EPL it was probably a goer. I can see Shell registering their company in the US or somewhere more favourable.

Hi Dumbly - I just see them as mealy-mouthed words and phrases. You can easily see the get-out excuses built into almost every government pronouncement. Equinor won't go to war with a Government because they know they'll always lose. If the Govt/NTSA made a commitment to Cambio I'd be more confident but that isn't clear at all. These are just tentative positions taken by both govt and Equinor. The only response imo is for the companies to play hardball and watch the UK reserves decline hoping that something will arrive (black swan?) to make reversal a possibility. Equinor have sunk capital in the NS and obviously need to keep a border country sweet. I don't see that they have really increased their exposure to the UK, just playing table-tennis politics.

Hi Dumbly - I read the exact opposite " “[The chancellor] asked him to work with us and BEIS on the messaging around their investment in the North Sea – to build public support for oil and gas.”

I think it shows he's totally out of his depth in understanding the mechanics of the industry (any industry?) and where in all this was Shapps? He [Shapps] was doing his own 'transitioning' around this time. From 'Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy BEIS' to 'Dept for Energy for Energy security and Net Zero'.

The lunatics are losing, but we're not winning. How can any serious company deal with this government and their replacement looks even worse regarding energy. I know it is hard to think of a less imaginative and incompetent politician than Shapps and then labour play their trump card by appointing Ed Miliband as Shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.

The timing of Bressay being dumped by Harbour and Equinor gets missed in all the talk about Rosebank.

Just talking to a pal and EV's cropped up. His diesel BMW had to go in for some work and they gave him a series 4 EV as a courtesy car. He was expecting something bottom of the range petrol. Apparently all the staff have EVs and now the courtesy cars are too. Seems they have a lot of EVs at the moment.

You can easily type in google "Orsted share price" and it makes for grim reading if you're an investor. It made me wonder how their Scandinavian neighbour Vattenfall is doing? As it is 100% government owned the figures are probably opaque.

I'll have to search for Ed Miliband's reference to Orsted when he was promoting GB Energy if they win the election. He seemed to think they were winning. Perhaps we've got it wrong. Costs really don't matter if you're government owned and can rob from one to subsidise another.

We live in a headline world with accompanying slogans. My local paper shop has stopped delivering newspapers. There was little demand and no money in it they said. I only regularly get the Times on Saturday and Sunday. In my dotage I spend more time talking to check-out girls and ladies. On being asked if I wanted a receipt I said why - would I get a refund if I didn't like the news? The young girl laughed but admitted she got all her news on her phone. I don't think they watch the TV news that much either.

I'm off tomorrow for an Oxford Union debate "This House Regrets the Influence of Influencers" and attended a talk at Cheltenham on the 8th October another debate delivered by the Editor of the Sunday Times and others titled "Is Journalism Doomed?" The answer was NO but it is challenged and misinformation is rife. The only saving grace for us is that unless you are a complete ideolog you do tend to revert back to the likes of the Times, Sky, CNN, BBC, Reuters, WSJ etc. I don't listen to GB News but I imagine that it must be similar to Fox News and extremely partisan. I think that, for now, we have lost the media war to an extent because every time climate is mentioned they add "crisis" or "emergency". I was looking up the history of the River Roding which was part of my growing up and I can remember regular floods in the 50's that came up to my Aunt's house which was half a mile from the river that was normally only inches deep in places (minnows and sticklebacks). It doesn't really flood that often now. It isn't the climate imo but over population and poor drainage when it comes to flooding. There will always be the odd flood and even snow storms but the cost of having a fleet of snow ploughs on standby is prohibitive. The simple knee jerk of blaming everything on the climate has become a trope for many - I'm surprised it hasn't been used for the Gaza conflict.

The true won't be subdued forever and no bets placed at the last wind auction says it all whilst the 33rd license round looks suspiciously like a lot of hedges placed rather than real money. It should frighten a proper Government.

It is fiendishly complicated but once you accept different facts it all becomes clear. There is a post on X (twitter) from yesterday which insults everyone's intelligence of Jacob Rees-Mogg actually losing an argument with a hysterical representative from jusstopoil (James Skeet) on GB News. I didn't want to give either of them the publicity of naming them but I could have done a better job than JRM. Naturally Skeet claimed that jso have the solutions to everything and of course "energy that's 9 X cheaper". I don't think you're getting it Tigar; repeat a lie often enough and that makes it true.

*hitman - what's a dividend?

Hi hitman - welcome back. Are you in EnQuest too or do you thing that Energean, surrounded by failed States, Countries and terrorists that want to see Israel annihilated is less risky than facing Ed Miliband?

Before you start there is a point to discussing another stock. I bought these last year in April - was the only PI attendee at their May 22 AGM and sold out in December, not because I was negative on the stock but needed to survive 2023 and had to sell something. It was the classic mistake of sell a profitable share so the collapse is nothing to do with my trading skills. In fact if you wanted to buy a gas stock I'd say there isn't a better stock out there. The only problem is how long will the Gerald R. Ford and support ships protect their FPSO? In war energy is everything and taking out main sources becomes strategic. If anything it shows how serious and close to blowing-up the whole Eastern Mediterranean is. The fact that I read the US will send a second Carrier Strike Group is not reassuring.

Perhaps Red Ed has similar worries and has decided to cower behind a windmill?

This is what the British Public should be told. The problem is; they won't and even if they were they probably wouldn't understand it.

"The failure to attract a single bid in September’s fifth CFD auction at a headline price of £44/MWh (which is actually £59/MWh) means the prospect of building 50 GW of offshore wind by 2030 now looks dead in the water. Consider that the “winners” of the fourth CFD auction in 2022, at a superficially low £37 MW (now £45 MW), suffered buyer’s remorse and refused to build their projects — notably Vattenfall’s 1.4 GW Norfolk Boreas project and Ørsted’s 2.9 GW Hornsea 3, the two largest projects awarded to offshore wind."

https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/november-2023/britain-a-goner-with-the-wind/

If Labour want to win the next election they need to remove Ed Miliband - now! "As befits a parasitical industry, wind enthusiasts have reacted furiously to the failed auction, blaming the government for its parsimony and hoping that a new Labour government might prove more malleable, rather than accepting that it became a prisoner of its own propaganda in claiming that offshore wind power was an economically feasible, scalable and, above all, sustainable solution for powering Britain’s electricity grid."

*When a competitor is drowning, stick a hose in his mouth.

You get these small amounts pop up from time to time and governance says that they have to make a notification.

O/T JSO on the news. 60 + arrested. They have little support and have become a parody and some are still quoting oil companies committing "genocide" from the safety of a tolerant society whilst arguably REAL genocide is being committed and threatened NOW in the Middle East. I think they expect that they'll have another group replace those arrested tomorrow or maybe some will do it again. Fine - start locking them up. Interesting to see Sadiq Khan come out on the side of the police for the time wasting and pressure on resources caused by JSO when there are REAL threats to the public from terrorism tonight.

This is an improvement on this meaningless drivel I got from him in March after warning him of JSO plans to slow march from April:

"With regards to your concern around mobility around London, the Mayor believes in the right to protest, but has been clear that it must always be done peacefully, safely and within the law. The Mayor shares the passion of those who campaign to highlight the urgent need to tackle the climate crisis – this is an issue he cares deeply about, and it is evident from the extreme weather events London has experienced in recent years that much more needs to be done to tackle the climate emergency. However, dangerous and disruptive protests can risk turning public opinion against a vitally important cause. The Mayor asks anyone looking to protest to think carefully about their tactics, to co-operate fully with the police and to act peacefully, safely and lawfully."

Another one who backed the wrong horse?

The climate is changing. Not in the planetary sense but In the Labour backrooms where they actually talk real figures and if they have any sense, Ed Miliband isn't invited.

https://mailchi.mp/8ba0096d9d03/north-sea-tax-credits-are-not-subsidies-198015?e=35cf3821be

It isn't that long a paper and quite easy to read. What I take from it is the bit on P.3 that says "Thus the quid pro quo for the ban on providing for the decommissioning costs over the life of the fields was that when the bills actually arrived, there would be tax credits. The Chancellor had shifted a chunk of tax revenue forward in time. Doing so left a hole in future tax revenues, but that would be ‘somebody else’s problem’. - Labour have been outsmarted by a dope. Jeremy Hunt has had most of the money and credit for raping the oil industry.

This has left the politicians with a problem. It would love to make the oil companies pay twice but that is illegal. Their past profligacy (mainly Tories) has caught up with them and they instead taxed the life out of every NS producer because oil companies have NO votes and FEW friends.

There appears to be a gradual realisation that Labour's policy to end fossil fuel but seek it instead from abroad (anywhere but home) will close the pipeline of revenue they have pencilled in against the failure of renewables in the timespan (sprint to 2030) promised by Ed. I sense a second black swan will follow the one that has just landed in Labour's paddling pool from Gaza.

I'm underwhelmed by the announcement.

13 Drill or drop

14 straight to second term

5 merge

I suppose it is the same as the other license rounds in principle but I do suspect there is something of putting lipstick on a pig about it.

BP and Shell whilst important to our media will hardly push the needle on their global revenue/production. Drill or drop are exactly that and second term still makes the reserves contingent. It is when they reach 2P that life gets very interesting. It is no secret that we have bid for areas close to Kraken (two I think but that's memory?). I suppose the important move would be if we got a green light to Second Term for Bressay or Bentley [I'm an amateur here so these are thoughts only].

One thing that is bugging me is that when I spoke to Craig he mentioned Neo. He was talking about comparative advantages in new fields and he said it in the same way the rest of the Premier League talk about Man City. They have better access to capital and this seems to have been borne out in today's announcement. Even if we got a pass on Bressay would we have resource to capital? Neo clearly have and Shell or Equinor for example will always favour a financially strong partner. We have the tax credits but access to capital will always trump them. A combination of the two would be transformational for us.

I would describe Neo as 'smart money' and it looks like they're playing to their strengths. The minnows of the NS are noticeable by their absence.

I suspect politics at play here too. At least it'll make this week interesting as the experts give their views.

We are in stasis if things remain the same mrc - if they changed from a more hostile position (both parties) the whole North Sea would become attractive. Our leverage on deals with the tax position is the only reason to hold on to EnQuest shares, or any company with a heavy exposure to the basin imo.

Politics got us here - it's their call. Costs, economics and, dare I say it, energy security count for little.

Agree Dumbly - Tessa Khan is using the juststopoil playbook and making statements that please her followers but on deeper analysis proves to be pure caca. She reinforces the attitude of the average Guardian reader so it will be interesting to see when others bother to disassemble her version of the gas market. Looks like she's having a problem with gas good/oil bad rather than all fossil fuels. Lets wait to see if she produces a breakdown or we'll be chasing shadows. We know the NS is a declining basin so no surprises there but our gas is still cheaper and cleaner than most alternatives. We are net importers of both gas and oil - why would we prefer to purchase abroad at higher prices?

My daughter was in Greece recently and sent a picture (they all do it, why?) of 'beef liver'. She tried it but gave up halfway. I grew up on it and it was called 'ox-liver' then. We had it at school too and you could save it for later (it lasted weeks) or mend your shoe soles with it. The best thing you could say about it was that 'it was cheap'. My mum used to make 'liver-pudding' with suet and Echo margarine, always ox-liver. We weren't well-off.

When my daughter was about 7 years old she joined us for dinner in the Anassa Hotel in Cyprus. There were no kid's meals and we'd booked for three but not realising they didn't want young children so it was a one-off event. Treating her like an adult we let her choose and she was given a menu. As a starter she chose tagliatelle with lobster and foie-gras. I blanched as it was the dearest item on the menu but didn't want to disappoint her. She loved it and didn't even share.

The next evening she asked for it again but I told her that this restaurant didn't sell it but the chicken nuggets and chips were excellent, plus you got ketchup.

That'll teach her.

*the head of the Department I've been dealing with at Enfield has offered to meet me for an 'informal' chat.

In yesterday's Times they had a headline that 9 in 10 people would support an import ban on foie gras. A YouGov poll, commissioned by Animals Equality UK found that 86% of respondents supported a ban.

Forget that it is the equivalent of a - do you support World Peace type of question but are we reduced to clickbait minority interests that spoil the enjoyment that many get from this dish?

I was on a skiing holiday in France about 15 years ago with a pal and some of his colleagues from the journalist world (Reuters, Bridge News). In a mountain restaurant I was surprised to see foie gras on the menu so immediately ordered it, offering to pay the extra as it was expensive. The actual liver not the pâté . Nobody else ordered it and I did an on the spot survey. None of them had ever tasted it and these were people with access to expense accounts. I shared some of it as tasters and all 5 agreed it is delicious.

I'm guessing here but I expect that nobody from Animals Equality UK have ever tasted foie gras and possibly no meat product ever. What is even more worrying is that I doubt most of the respondents had ever tasted it and many would be vegetarians. It is already hard to find in the UK on menus so what is the point? I haven't checked but I don't think Wetherspoons sell it and a lot of food based on fatty corn-based products sold in our supermarkets has the same effect on those who buy it.

This is the modern world now. Small groups of activists now dictate to the majority or interfere in area that only affects a small group. juststopfoiegras doesn't have the same ring about it as another similar group but it comes from the same well. They couldn't care less about the farmers, retailers and supply chain. What next, chicken or beef?

I'm off out tonight to a new restaurant to enjoy their signature dish, baby panda in honey, before they ban it too.

*as a LTH of EnQuest I can no longer afford foie gras.

I'm stuck in a worm-hole:

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-data-and-research/data-portal

Go there and type in 'Breakdown of an electric bill' and after saving 'Breakdown of a gas bill'.

I would like to get a further breakdown of these costs rather than the simple pie-chart. What exactly is 'Environmental and social obligation costs' (ESO)? 25.48% of electric but only 2.46% of gas?

'Wholesale costs' - 41.4% gas but 29.28% of electricity. Gas will be LNG, imported and our own. Electricity will be partly gas for CCGT but also renewables- wind, solar, hydro, nuclear and sundries.

I'm more concerned with electric because my suspicion is that the 25.48% of ESO costs are mainly subsidies. I'm after a rule of thumb we can use to get an idea of true costs. Take the headline that RWE says that the price offered by the government to wind farm operators must rise by as much as 70% to entice companies to build. Then how much of wholesale costs is from offshore wind. If it is (say) 40% of the 29.28% then it's impact on my electric bill becomes 11.70% of my bill. So on my last bill the kWh was 26.60p and if offshore wind rose by 70% my bill would only go up by 3.11p. With what's going on I'd probably not notice. In this case the 70pc increase of offshore wind could be filed under scare-mongering BUT if you include ESO then it could be up to 37.18% - or closer to 10p of my charges (in fact it probably already is but masked).

It says at the bottom - Source: Companies' consolidated segmental statements. I'm only guessing here but that might be an excuse to hide the figures from a FOI under section 43 (2) of the FOIA.

*final thought - taking the ESO and renewables percentage of wholesale electricity minus the 2.46% that gas has to pay we could say that presently the cost of renewables is 34.72% of our bills for electricity. Call it a third.