Member Info for romaron

It would need a trade to push it down and I can't see one unless it is on another platform. I follow on this one:

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/stock/ENQ/enquest-plc/company-page

I can only see the late posted 106,021 and that is hardly massive. Truth is we're in stasis. Little from govt; macro staring at Gaza and apathy from learning to hate oil companies.

I have a small position with City Index on EnQuest. I had it up because I find it easier to check the price. I'm not glued to it and today it didn't move. My margin indicator was static at 130%

I had it up and it suddenly dropped to 124% c. 16:30. That normally means something has occurred. Started looking for a reason and it bounced back to 131%. The only conclusion I can make is that we are thin as f*ck. I'll look through the trades after the 20 min delay (I don't have, need or want a live feed). It is uncommon and unless there were some big trades I'd say a result of the lack of depth in the stock at present.

Https://www.ft.com/content/f322e8d4-17f0-475b-a942-d670c33f5df3 Trust the French to get it right.

You only need the headline.

Worth revisiting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aexV3dF1E04

He couldn't make this speech today. It was in the days when solar and wind was 9X less than that of gas (01:10). Total wilful misrepresentation. Not even close to a half-truth.

Hi AOK - "pounding the politicians" I couldn't agree more. It will be interesting to mark the changes in their rhetoric as people stop investing in renewables. They were all about growth, not returns. That is fine with investors until it isn't. We saw it with shale.

Where does it leave fossil fuels? Dunno - but we are heading for a situation where we have an energy shortage on the near horizon. We can import but at what cost - both in fiscal terms and emissions.

Keep banging away. I had a confirmation from an important source that my points about the 33rd round are being followed by people who can do something about it. I'm also attacking from the insulation direction and Enfield's response in hiding behind the FOIA using the 43 (2) excuse actually strengthens my argument. What are they trying to hide. I sent details to Angela Rayner and I have local groups beginning to come round. Insulation is important but you can't insulate a tent. No. 10 is F rated - should they knock it down or class it as unhabitable? I'm surely not the only one here running out of runway but I grew up in council housing rated D/F and am still here. I laugh at those who whinge about damp. I remember waking up to ice or pools of water inside the single glazed windows shortly to be followed by the gale that came through the house as my mother opened everything up to "air" the rooms. Those same houses go for £700k today.

A post on here can make us feel better by venting but you could just as easily send a letter in that time. I use letters because snail mail is in itself a bit of a rarity and emails are so easily missed or ignored. The O&G industry and EnQuest need our help. We are using facts and realities. Offer solutions if you can. I think the next battle will be to demolish the reality of Red Ed's GB Energy. I'm for it but to imagine ONshore wind is the answer is cuckoo land. Renewables may be cleaner (eventually but capex and emissions at front end) but once the public know the true cost (and I think it'll be higher than fossil). Then where are you going to put them? The turbines themselves can't be hidden underground like HS2!

I feel as though we are beginning to inch forward after prolonged shelling from the eco-zealots. The non-combatants (the public) are becoming aware of the true cost and are preparing to join us and weaponise by sharpening their pencils for attacks on the polling booths. I hope the feeling is the same North of the border. The eco-zealots there are even nuttier and they do love a bit of face-painting.

Juan - you need to go to Specsavers

I don't trust him at all. More like he sees the way (sorry) the wind is blowing. Under the cover of Net Zero, with the backing of climate campaigners and jso it has morphed into just plain Zero. With no new fields the North Sea has about 12 years of viable reserves. Reservoir and natural declines are just a mixture of economics and physics. So, it's all over around 2035. Some on the Left will be applauding this early victory.

Labour will hopefully dispense with the earlier rhetoric as victory in the GE looks more likely. There has probably been a mistake made by the industry in not having kept the avenues to Labour as open as they should be. AB did make a mistake here with his donations to the Tories.

Jeremy Hunt has maybe fatally damaged the remaining NS O&G industry. Evangelists don't worry about things like this and he could hardly have done more harm than if he'd personally sprayed orange paint over No. 11. His replacement, Ed Miliband, looks even more anti O&G and has been spreading lies and half-truths since he got the post. That isn't a mistake. The O&G have had two politicians actively doing their best to destroy the industry. At least in the next administration Ed will be outranked by a Chancellor who may have a better understanding of how the world works.

I sense that BP might be playing hard ball. Read that Clair phase 3 FID due next year likely to be moved back. Grasping for headlines they have "Japanese firm to invest £10bn in UK renewable projects" and then you read further that its a MoU which any oil investor knows is about as convincing as a second viewing on a house-sale during a slump.

Great find Dumbly - I especially like the line of little windmills with height and power output. Perhaps Runner can write to Ed Miliband and ask him what the proposed height and estimated increase in the number of ONshore wind turbines under the auspices of GB Energy?

Although offshore is more expensive it is windier so you actually get more hours of power over the year. You also get stronger and more constant wind the taller they are (flying kites quite apt her). We might have a bit of a "gotcha" here by linking the lauding by EM of the Lawrence Weston scheme which is 150m high for intermittently produce electricity for 4.2 MW capacity. It is the tallest building in Bristol (European green City capital 2015).

What are they aiming for. Four 50m 1MW or one 150M 4MW? Or bigger still. The Green Belt is up for grabs as Labour said at Conference. Personally cricket doesn't interest me so a suggestion could be put them on village cricket pitches though some might disagree. I anticipate a wee bit of resistance across this green and pleasant land or is it only those along the HS2 line that count?

First RR :"to levy a proper windfall tax on the huge profits that the energy giants are making"

Then EM: ""still refuse [the Tories] a proper windfall tax on the oil and gas companies"

Today KW: ""clean British energy is cheaper than foreign fossil fuels"

------------------

On the face of it not exactly a peace offering to the O&G industry. However, around the world they are struggling to grow the offshore wind and I think the quote by Sir Dieter Helm that the cost of offshore wind is about the same as nuclear is correct. This makes a mockery of the claim today by Keir Starmer that clean British energy is cheaper does not include offshore wind unless it is heavily subsidised. The recent offshore wind auction confirmed this and I expect the O&G industry has given a similar answer with bids for the 33rd round of licenses.

"“The whole value chain is in trouble. The contracts signed for offshore [wind] will be heavily lossmaking for a long time until the different governments realise that they need to give $80-$100 per MWh and not $30-$40,”

– Renaud Saleur, CEO Anaconda Invest"

This will not be a quick win but the Treasury will have the results of the O&G Fiscal Review which I assume will be made available to Labour [anybody know?] I expect it to surprise quite a few politicians but we have a window where we don't have to say "I told you so" Labour will come to this realisation from the facts. Labour can be pragmatic and once victory is in the bag I expect they'll be more amenable - getting rid of Ed Miliband would go down well. I have had it with Jeremy Hunt and Sunak. They were under pressure and picked on an industry that was having its best year in a decade after many losses and squeezed hard with a windfall tax. JH acted no differently to JSO because that is what he has effectively done. They also knew they could get away with looting the industry because climate activism was popular and lies and omissions about cost were rampant. The losers so far have been the shareholders of NS O&G companies.

The Tories are still hanging on to the misguided belief that they may stay in power. There is Zero chance that they'll risk giving the O&G industry a break as political survival trumps what is good for the country.

The only way that they can aggressively push renewables is by increasing subsidies and they have a lot of resistance if the think onshore wind will work. Minimum height for turbines is 150m or so. Maybe in Scotland and through the grid South.

I think Labour will gradually swing around to Zero Net. The realisation that in 2050 when and if we achieve NZ there will still be a large percentage of fossil fuels in the mix.

Keir Starmer completed the triangle. "clean British energy is cheaper than foreign fossil fuels" (c.2:55) at the Labour conference.

He is basing it on the new GB Energy which will be based in Scotland because it has the skills and ingenuity to be at the heart of a Britain built to last [*votes too but he never said that]

There are no numbers or multiples any longer. Intermittency isn't solved and a lot more talk of joint projects. Afraid it's over to you Scotland to decide if you want an O&G industry. The Southerners don't understand it and prefer to walk slowly and spray paint. Reality will hopefully turn up and knock on Labour's door.

Starmer was impressive. There is no getting away from it. The rhetoric has certainly been turned down a notch or two against the O&G industry . He even said a competitive tax regime is part of the plan for going forward. He said the Tories were the ones using populism and conspiracy in their arguments. After the two conferences there is only one winner in the General Election imo. Scotland is highly influential and important.

We have the three sentences from the politicians that count. We've had worse. I think they realise they need O&G and there will be negotiations. I just hope that Ed isn't part of them.

Very good Frac. This is another Moody Blues song dedicated to the Tories https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2L3UzM_FfE

What is it? I'm just as confused as to what the Tories and Labour mean by it. With Labour it seems to lean more towards renewables and the security that cheap (?) intermittent electricity supply can provide.

The Tories seem happy to keep renewables ticking over as we're on target anyway and suggest that the security is even harder to pin down.

To me security in an ever more dangerous world is having access to oil and gas which will be there during the hours of darkness and windless days and access to fossil fuels that even Red Ed said today we'll need for decades to come.

Both exaggerate the O&G industry as a cash cow and both seem intent on destroying it by starving it of investment because of an ill thought out and opportune windfall tax. To me, not even the definition of "Energy Security " is clear and the public are even more unaware. If the current treatment the industry is receiving continues then there is only about 12 years left (level of reserves that most seem to have to keep their banks happy) imo.

A start might be for each party to define "Energy Security". A hymn sheet for each party seems necessary and I doubt they'd be identical.

We had Rachel Reeves earlier on Labour choices ""to levy a proper windfall tax on the huge profits that the energy giants are making". And later Ed Miliband on excessive energy prices "still refuse a proper windfall tax on the oil and gas companies". Tomorrow we'll get Keir Starmer so we may have a slightly better idea. These are direct references to EPL and future investment in the NS. I'm sure there'll be some better analysis elsewhere but we can do our own too. I should wait for the 3rd big beast in energy terms but there is so much wiggle room with these statements it is a bit like nailing jelly to the wall. It is for public consumption and the acolytes at the Conference and is (as usual) remarkably light on detail.

I also got this joint email @ 20:17 from Rachel and Ed:

"Ronald, what a day it’s been at Labour Party Annual Conference.

We’ve unleashed our plans to unlock Britain’s clean energy potential, to get our economy growing and to make working people better off.

The next Labour government will rewire Britain by building Britain’s clean energy grid and unlocking £200bn of private investment.

This will create 220,000 well-paid local jobs, cut energy bills, boost our energy security, and make working people better off.

There’s a real buzz here in Liverpool at our largest Annual Conference to date. 17,000 people from across the UK, all eager to see what the future holds with the next Labour government.

We want to do everything in our power to spread that optimism and hope about Britain’s future to working people and families across the country.

Up and down Britain, we know people are desperate for change – but that is not enough to guarantee a Labour victory.

As we saw last week, the Tories will stoop to low levels to hold onto power.

We need your help to push back. " Then a request for a donation.

One other point I would add is that we may have politicians that agree with us and against the sprint to Net Zero but they can be dismissed easily by asking where is the evidence. A letter isn't anecdotal, it can be produced. It weakens your case if you work for an O&G company. Even more awkward if you work for OEUK or NSTA. They have to go via official channels although back channels always exist. There is strength in enough people querying the costs and asking questions. A letter from a concerned constituent is valuable. Don't underestimate your power. The closer and more involved you get into the arguments surrounding Net Zero you realise that many of those involved know less than you. The ignorance among politicians is astounding - obviously Craig Baxter and AB wouldn't put that in writing or say it to a journalist on the record. Off the record it is a different story. They really have to go through official channels whilst we are free to go most places. Radio phone in, Mayors, MPs, Local papers etc... and even down the pub.

If Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer think that demonising the North Sea harms their election chances they will ease off further. This is attritional until the general Election. We need to keep pressing.

Rachel Reeves today. Impressive and scary. In her speech the most relevant (c.12:16) comment for us was; on Labour choices "to levy a proper windfall tax on the huge profits that the energy giants are making".

I'll take that. I consider it a slight watering down. No direct North Sea or fossil fuels attack. No abandonment or U turns on earlier hyperbole but creating plenty of wiggle room (Shell trading profits?). She also created another bogey man by requiring online tech giants to pay their fair share.

I look at whose on the top table - (why not - it works with Putin and Kim Jong Un) and Ed isn't there. My wish is for him to be given another department or removed altogether. He is a liability imo and we should do all we can to help his departure. Most people don't write to their MPs or local Councils but this is where you need to direct your protests. We have as much power here as any CEO or (say) OEUK. We have a VOTE. They need us. Simple facts such as the minimum height of wind turbines and land needed for solar panels. Points made by Frac and Taverham today are perfect illustrations of concern and facts we can mention. I doubt we can stop Labour but I think RR is a lot cannier and stronger than previous Chancellors. Strong women are (I'd say) on balance less romantic and idealistic about what can be done. I cannot recall that she has ever given a number on the "cheapness" of renewables and there are many instance where Ed and his master, Sir Keir, have repeated the old mantra of "9X cheaper" which obviously they have now dropped. We shouldn't let them forget it and work towards the removal of Ed who is a dangerous ideolg.

Labour already realise that there is a shortage of money and a premature closure of the North Sea won't help them even if they're only in charge for 5 years. That doesn't matter to Ed but it does to Rachel. Think closer to home and who is the most sensible and cautious person in your household [editors note: it can't be you because you invested in EnQuest]

I am actually less gloomier about politics than I was before her speech.

be Lucky

I like that Frac - War of the Worlds - a picture speaks a thousand words. Will pass on.

Also the wry comment that electricity prices fallen from 7p to 34p from Taverham. I immediately went to my Octopus Bills taking the oldest in September 2018 until September 2023.

Gas 2.72p per kWh more or less doubled to 7.05p per kWh

Electricity 12.00p per kWh to 29.26 per kWh

Standing charge on each 6.32p/day to 26.16p/day gas and 40.01p/day electricity

I can be ridiculous too. I was expecting my electric to be closer to 2.90p/day because somebody told me that renewables were 9 times cheaper. Still, they will be when all our electricity is "clean" in 2030.

Just thinking. Labour could be gone by then. Politicians are in the delightful position of being able to leave others left holding the baby.

He still has some support - this from the Bristol Energy Cooperative last November:

"Onshore wind is now ten times cheaper than gas and can be deployed far more quickly. There are still challenges with grid connection, but we can be hopeful that wind developments will be more commonplace in the near future."

Bristol Energy is a solar farm that provided some backing to the proposed wind turbine out of their £9m funding from Bristol City Council and Triodos Bank as well as something they call crowd-funding which offers bonds without the protection you get from banks https://www.ethex.org.uk/investments

Should be Ed Miliband

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/08/labour-to-unveil-plan-for-largest-expansion-of-renewable-power-in-british-history

You can all read it but this subheading more or less sums up his plans - they're hot air.

"Exclusive: Party says bill would enable UK electricity system to be fully based on clean power by 2030"

What does it mean? F*all - we're already moving to more renewables than fossil in electricity and why is he muddying the waters and using "clean" energy. Probably a better headline word. Then we'll be "fully based" - a quick read might make the public think 100 per cent. It is only about the roughly 20 per cent of energy that is electric and doesn't explain where our other energy requirements are coming from.

These are easy, cheap headlines that mean little. I'll listen to his speech with interest. The article in The Guardian tells us nothing that hasn't already been said by laboour and are if anything getting vaguer. I somehow don't see village greens throughout Britain with 150 metre tall wind turbines.

I'm assuming Labour will win the next GE and they could tactically score points against the Tories by pointing out the mistakes made by imposing the "windfall tax" - too high, too long, knee-jerk and demolishing the 33rd Licensing Round. Starmer needs to recognise and be reminded that Red Ed is a liability.

*Angela Rayner was superb and her ideas on social housing get my vote.

That was last week. It didn't protect Israel. When it comes down to it they knock down Palestinian homes with a bulldozer; very high tech.

Perhaps now we'll see an ease back on the fatwa declared on fossil fuels. "Energy Security" don't make me laugh. Hard for me to differentiate between Ukraine and Palestine. Israel have breached many UN resolutions and have a weak human rights record.

I don't want to go off topic too much because this is an EnQuest board but I've become a swinger (stop it matron: I mean in the voting sense) and it is the weekend. I find it hard to trust the Tories and the country probably needs a stable clean anyway. I am moving back toward Labour because of the housing crisis but will not vote for them if Ed Miliband is still energy minister. His crackpot schemes do not work in the real world where I live. One of his schemes is to encourage local power plans - community energy. I'm not a nimby and are all for them if they help and he was using Lawrence Weston as a model to follow - plucky individuals on a run down housing estate build a wind turbine against the odds (soon to be a film directed by Richard Curtis or Ken Loach - I imagine).

I'm being sucked into campaigning in my borough and there is resistance to a 29 storey tower, tallest in Enfield, at a planning stage. I'm for it but that isn't the point. The 29 storey building will be appx. 100m high. The wind turbine that Ed is promoting is 150 m high. Making wind turbines smaller doesn't work and if anything bigger is even more efficient (technical).

Cities and much of urban Britain is pretty built up and if they struggle to get tower blocks built, what chance a 150m wind turbine and one isn't enough? Maybe build them in Scotland or Wales and move the electricity by grid but to suggest that these are the solution is cuckoo land.

AOK - of course the Israel/Hamas flare up is caused by global warming. Everything is - even arguments with the wife.

*google says that minimum height for being called a "skyscraper" is 150m.

Good effort Runner - You'll feel better and the important thing is that you are a constituent and they'll see your address on the letter. A couple of points. Too long - the nice intro is less important than your address and potential vote but has made the letter more authentic.

Point 7. The Treasury issued a 'Call for Evidence' relevant to the O&G fiscal regime. It closed 11 September but I can't find anything suggesting a response time. It does state that EPL isn't part of the review (exceptional profits don't you know).

Point 8. juststopoil are directionless infantile protestors. They have no hierarchy and Dale Vince has dumped them (announced yesterday) for being 'pointless'.

It is worth asking a question so they have to answer. It will be a political response and a swerve but it may elicit a reply that is innocuous now but may be powerful in the future. For example I intend to write to Laura Kuenssberg mentioning the anniversary of Ed's 9X cheaper quote on her Sunday show. She probably won't use it but you never know? I think Miliband may be gone before the election and you aren't really seeing much of him. I don't think they wheeled him out at the Party Conference?

Wait for a reply and then send another. Even involve the council a route I am following. Another Ed plan is building up to £6bn a year for retrofit. If Enfield is an example then it is prohibitively expensive and just giving money to contractors.