Member Info for romaron

Hi Runner - only problem with a drafted email is that it is simply copied and you haven't really fought back because it will look like a lazy duplication, a kinda retweet. It dilutes your expression of concern or anger. Equivalent of cribbing at school. I actually think that spelling mistakes bring authenticity to a missive and there are no spelling tests at the polling booth. It is your vote that worries them more.

Having slept on it I will also write to whoever the prospective Tory Candidate for my constituency is when announced. I still think that there has been a poor turn out for the 33rd round of licenses which is of course an embarrassment to both parties following the offshore wind auction. I did think of sending a FOI request but unfortunately they have left if vague (3rd Quarter) and can drip feed results. A FOI would not be answered before the conferences either. The conferences should make the situation clearer.

What I will do, starting today, is write to some people who can break down the true cost of renewables and post it here and people can use it however they choose. We know wind is free but so too is water and solar but their intermittency makes it impossible to truly cost them and we are seeing the signs of bleating from the renewable industry for more subsidy and higher prices. Water companies are getting a poor press too as profit making is being attacked and may well be legislated as illegal by an incoming Labour party (profit that is).

We could perhaps ask for more details of "obscene windfall profits". Just this year, within 6 months Keir Starmer has said that renewables are 9X and 3X cheaper than fossil fuels. I wish he'd make up his mind. I think when all is taken into account they may well be more expensive. After all windmills didn't survive coal.

My quest is to get a breakdown of the true cost of wind and post it here.

The SNP and NI politics is far too complicated for me to address.

The discussion about activism needs to be directed towards our political appointees. We have the Tory Party conference 1-4 October and the Labour one a week later 8-11 October. We can all do what KO did (today 17:15) which means we'll be writing to both parties unless you live in Brighton or have a Lib-Dem MP. My own MP (Bambos Charalambous) is suspended so I'll have to check it out but will do the same. It needs to be continual and if we get on their nerves, so what!

The "run the company into the ground" has I believe the support of the Labour party. Basically they said they'll support existing licenses but NO NEW ones. Where does that leave Bressay/Bentley - a question we should all be asking Labour if you are in one of their constituencies.

I did a quick google and this is from the last speech where Keir Starmer spoke about energy security for Britain in Scotland on 19 June 2023. You'll note he did not mention licensing in it but I picked out these two nuggets.

(1) This isn’t some kind of sackcloth and sandals message anymore, it’s not a nice-to-have. Clean British energy is cheaper than fossil fuels – three times cheaper, that’s a potential gold-mine for our mission on growth and the benefits flow primarily to working people and working class communities.

(2) And finally, the centre-piece, the embodiment of our new priorities and values, a new home-grown energy company. A benefit so many of our competitors enjoy – like Ørsted in Denmark and Vattenfall in Sweden.

On the first one (3X cheaper) that may be true when the wind blows and the sun shines but I doubt it is accurate. Why are the companies not investing and asking for larger subsidies and price guarantees?

On (2) I need help from our Swedish friends. Vattenfall is owned by the Swedish government and we know the Labour proclivity towards nationalisation. Is it a success story?

Ørsted is easier to check as it is a quoted company. They haven't had good press lately and I took the price at 16 June before the speech to today and they are 38% DOWN.

Parliament is back and Russell Brand won't be hogging all the news going forward. If we can "activate" other retail investors from other UK msmall O&G companies then we may gain some traction. As with KO they do like that they can put a name to a complaint or question. We need to start NOW.

Missed that. Agree mrc. Buybacks now could be interpreted as opportunism or a belief that the industry can influence the government and expect the EPL to be rescinded. I don't really think there is any M&A in the background preventing buybacks so discounting that it would feed into the narrative of expected "windfall profit". I have no idea what the market would think. I doubt they'd be that interested in a deal going on, more like desperation by an embattled CEO. The market like us is waiting.

*St Leger ran on Saturday.

You are both correct. I am still invested because I believe in AB. The response that “it doesn’t work that way” is because behind Net Zero and market operations there is a nuclear option – and that is to run the business into the ground when all else fails. For all else to fail requires humankind doing something it has never done before and that is to go backwards. We in the West are arrogant enough to believe that we can still dictate to the r.o.w. The West still controls much of the requirements for production and distribution of oil so has restricted influence but this will only make producing oil more difficult and more expensive. I’d argue we are in a good position because alternative energy forms are not getting cheaper and never were. The public continue to be lied to with unproven claims, dodgy data and hidden costs. It is possible that the UK could give up producing fossil fuels but I can’t see Phoebe Plummer in No. 10 or Dale Vince converting us to veganism.

An activist investor would probably steer clear of EnQuest for a variety of reasons. The structure of Double A is opaque enough to deter them as well as unknown friends and allies of theirs. The bet wouldn’t be on the company, more on the regulatory and fiscal regime which is beyond their control anyway. As for a possible sacking of AB what would that have achieved? We all know why we are priced as we are and I believe that if AB hadn’t contributed from personal funds we’d be gone by now. The tax credits give us enormous leverage if we get some respite from government. If we don’t get respite then there is not much future for O&G in the UK. Whether we have AB or not makes little difference to that.

I think AB is well aware that shareholders are entitled to a return. If we are making money and have achieved targets I expect that to happen. If it doesn’t I’ll be at the front of the queue calling for his head.

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIL8F53V4yY

Only if you're bored. It is (I'm afraid) about Russell Brand but he is sucking up all the news at present. The observations on British people are very funny (and accurate).

*Small herd of reindeer for sale. Surplus to requirements.

Further more - as it looks like we're going back to pre-industrial times my position in ox-carts and teams of oxen looks likely to reap dividends. Without boasting (too much) I have cornered the market in East London and Essex. I may consider an IPO in the not so distant future (2030 everyone else has). I have the added advantage of easily getting within the 20 mile an hour speed limit and there is a precedent in oil here to support my expansion plans. In early days oil was carried in carts by draught animals in second-hand barrels typically used for wine, pickles, apples or nails. These barrels usually held between 46-50 gallons but, after allowing for spillage and leakage during bumpy journeys, refiners paid producers on the basis that a barrel contained 42 gallons of crude and that measurement has stuck [the government and councils have interfered here by increasing potholes so the figure may change]

*It pays to diversify

First, the technical bit. Sour oil dates back to the early days when crude was mostly used for indoor lighting. Too much sulphur in your kerosene and not only was there a noxious smell when it burned, it would also tarnish the silver in your lamp. Back then the quickest way to test before burning was to give it a quick taste - the more sulphur, the more sour it was - and this shorthand has stuck.

Broadly speaking, the less heavy and sour an oil is, the less time and effort refineries have to put into it, so lighter and sweeter crudes usually fetch a higher price.

With the Saudis and the US (shale) having an advantage with sweet it has meant that some oil is in the wrong place refinery wise (US) and with the restraints imposed by OPEC and ESG eco-zealots maybe heavy oil is about to enjoy a bit of a renaissance?

*I'll clutch any straw.

For the first time ever, Britain has more wind capacity than natural gas hooked up to the power grid, a new study shows

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

That's capacity and connection to the grid so is about electricity which is roughly 20% of our energy requirement. It isn't generation.

I liked how a commentator described wind power - it is like picking the cheapest baby sitter and in this cost of living crisis, who wouldn't? Problem is that when the baby-sitter arrives she forgot to tell you that she cannot promise to be with the baby all the time and may have to go out unexpectedly. Unfortunately she cannot guarantee when this might be or for how long. You are dismayed but all is not lost. She has a pal who covers her for just these emergencies but as there is no telling how long or when she'll go out there is a fee to pay. This makes the cost far higher than the usual baby sitter who though reliable was older and smoked. She was also known to like a tipple and wasn't vegan. On balance you need to go with the trend and pay the extra to impress others at the school gate. And of course you've increased the number of green jobs.

Good point Dumbly but I wonder if they even entered bids. Harbour went public and ruled itself out but what about the rest. If we have the best tax position of remaining NS oil companies and aren't competing then what does that say about the industry? Has anybody emailed IR or asked the question?

The OBR will produce the revenue from the NS under a variety of scenarios but the only one for sure at the moment is lower production, less revenue and more imports with the current fiscal regime and uncertainty about the forthcoming general election. At least the public will have some information to base their voting decisions on.

Both parties run a very big risk if they allow the NS to stop investment in new fields and go into terminal decline at an increased speed. If the world is such a safe place why do we need two aircraft carriers and why are they diesel and gas powered?

It wasn't aimed at you KYC - it was a question thrown out there asking if we'd bid for blocks in the NS for exploration purposes. I may have missed something or we had been told or hinted to that we'd made some bids?

It may be sacrilege but I'm not overly interested in CCS. It might interest the climate activists but I think it is largely symbolic and playing to the ESG gallery.

Appreciate that you have knowledge to add to this board so I definitely don't want to frighten you away.

If bids in the 33rd licensing round are insignificant will that mean the government will have to rethink its fiscal policy or will it be seen as a win by eco-zealots in that it has speeded up the demise of the industry along with steel and car making?

Now I'll really show my ignorance. Did we bid for any blocks for straightforward exploration for O&G and are still awaiting a decision?

Rather moot in some respects as we have infills and tie-backs on existing fields plus Bressay/Bentley if they ever get the green light.

Agree completely Dumbly, the argument is swinging back towards us because the claims by the eco-zealots have proven to be largely bogus. Promising clean air (which wasn't that dirty in the first place compared to (say) China) is something I support; don't we all. The lies are around the cost. People are becoming aware of the failure of renewables to live up to the promises made by the likes of Miliband and Lucas. A good example based on rogue pricing back in July 2022 is the 9X lie. These claims, endorsed by Keir Starmer, will resurface as the stakes get higher and we could even see a reversal of the Labour stance if it stands in their way to a decent majority in the GE. Never underestimate the venality and expediency of politicians if it helps their chances of being elected. "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - Groucho Marx ·

The industry can only wait and we aren't seeing companies invest in the North Sea under the present unsatisfactory regime. The next few months will be interesting as people remember that it can get cold in winter.

During times of Universal Deceit. Telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

Hi KYC - spooky but I was going to post something about the 33rd round and whether there is potential for a FOI request to explain the delay in releasing the results. I think they are ultra-important because if serious companies haven't bid for blocks then it is sayonara to the future of the North Sea imo. It does create a deadline for the government as they won't want a repeat of the offshore wind auction. You know more than I do about the process. Are you involved in the industry?

I posted that licenses have a certain lottery value in that they are relatively cheap but with big prizes. That is why small fry are attracted (some we know have bid - Deltic, Orcadian, Baron. Hartshead, IOG, Parkmead, Cornerstone, Europa, Serica and of course NOT Harbour. I profess to only knowing a little about Serica.

They may be small but together they form the base of a food chain which feeds into a strategic reserve which the politicians say the country needs. And then do their damndest to crater the industry by making it practically impossible to make a profit by imposing a windfall tax when there wasn't a windfall. I suspect there is a delay because the take up has been poor. The government will have to bring a policy forward to encourage take up or explain why they have driven the O&G industry out of the NS.

I'm pretty sure we have bid for blocks (other than CCS) and Waldorf announced they have bid for a block close to Kraken. I think we are frozen for the time being until we get a signal from the government. Nobody is buying into the NS at present so anything that gives an excuse to sell (Swedish delist) gives a reason to trade. It will take government action to change that which is why this licensing round may be seminal.

Welcome aboard.

Dale Vince - self-publicist, eco-zealot and sponsor of juststopoil was on Cross Question with Iain Dale yesterday evening. He tried continually to steer the conversations back to the environment and interrupted a discussion about the dangers of Putin getting weapons from Kim Jong Un. Dale Vince was upset that the conversation was drifting away from his obsession and said this (around 56:50) and the movement had been accused of being "too preachy and out of touch".

Upon losing the argument he frustratingly interrupted with "bacon will kill you first is my answer - it won't be Kim Jong Un's missiles that kill us or harm us; it will be bacon - bacon will kill you first".

barry Gardiner on the panel hung is head in shame and embarrassment. Nimco Ali was shocked and she is agtainst real oppression - not the dangers of a bacon sarnie.

"Bacon will kill you first" is the gotcha quote. Our future is safe in the eco-zealots hands.

Please, please pass this on. He deserves to be "outed" for the dangerous extremist he is. He tried to say it was light-hearted due to the reaction from co-panelists who correctly were shocked. Barry Gardiner will regret going on the show but to give him credit he was against the suggestion and I expect Labour to create distance between them and the eco-zealots.

I was greedy and presented 4 questions of which 2 were answered. The excuse is often that they won't comment on other companies but if data/information is available, effectively in the public domain, but not easily accessible to private investors, why not? One of the unanswered questions was this - "Which other companies have advantageous tax losses operating in the North Sea and are potentially our competitors for ageing fields - or are we almost the first port of call because of our advantage?" Perhaps others on here can help?

and the other was a bit cheeky and I didn't expect an answer?

"So no M&A until the Swedish delisting is finalised?"

"The UK pays Norway a deafening £14 billion a year for gas while our PM struts on the world stage, boasting that Britain is leading the world in “decarbonising”. Like a man snipping the cords of our last remaining parachutes while bragging that we’ll hit the ground before anyone else.

Take a recent report from Offshore Energies UK which warns that, by 2030, unless a fortune is invested in new North Sea exploration and production facilities, the UK will be reliant on other countries for 80 per cent of our gas and 70 per cent of our oil. In what world is that secure? It sounds criminally stupid to me."

At the G20, the Prime Minister said he wanted the UK to be a world leader. Marvellous, Rishi, but who wants to be a world leader in shooting ourselves in the head?" - - Allison Pearson Telegraph.

You're not really getting it KO. Getting debt down and making a profit is soo.. last year. The UK government sets a rent for NS oil that only gets adjusted upwards with no respite if the price of oil sinks.

More bad news I'm afraid https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/oil-prices-hover-near-10-month-high-supply-concerns-2023-09-13/

Enjoying the conversation between Stevo and Sekforde - a couple of my own personal observations.

Backwardation is traditional in oil futures but that is (in my mind) basically because the commodity, oil, will be around a lot longer than us and unlikely to run out. Indeed, stranded assets is closer to current market thinking with the unceasing pressure from climate activists and the renewable solution (which is imperfect and expensive). Governments add to this by taxation and legislation making it impossible or too risky to grow. I actually think there will be a shortage of oil for these reasons and we will see a flattening or even contango. It happens in currencies all the time.

I quite like that both include capex but what do they think it is for? In my simple mind I think that without new fields it is almost always to pay for organic growth, infills and the like. We could (I don't know) potentially keep production at 45,000 for 10 years (say) and anyway with a reduction in supply which looks unavoidable any reduction in supply is likely to be matched by an increase in demand and price. This is an area where Gareth Penny can advise. Oil the next diamonds or gold? The difference is we cannot thrive without oil.

*another point is that oil futures only go out to about 9m-1y in any size. Too much can change in the intervening time. What is happening to long term contracts between countries and the like of Ineos will never hit the headlines. Oil and the sector we are in is relatively short term. If the government and Labour ever think longer than election cyclers we might get some reprieve.

I was wondering why she had been quiet so googled and found this clip:

https://www.channel4.com/news/drivers-feel-victimised-by-ulez-expansion-says-fair-fuel-uk

She has probably been on holiday (where?) but I'm more interested in her comment around 3:30 . Talk about being disingenuous. At the evisceration of Linda Cook in July 2022 TK asked LC "can we just clarify that we do accept that renewables are 4X cheaper than gas?"

She has now rephrased that into "at the height of the spike in gas prices renewables were 9X cheaper as a source of electricity". The useless presenter had an open goal and should have simply said "what are they now?".

I checked and this is still around:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-record-low-price-for-uk-offshore-wind-is-four-times-cheaper-than-gas/

They are basing this on a freak spike that bore no relation to before or after. Prices in a free market bounce around but it appears that after the last auction gas is now cheaper than offshore wind in the future. They might stand a chance with onshore and solar but they have their downside too and both need back-up. Subsidies complicate the issue and what she calls subsidies to the O&G industry are tax credits NOT SUBSIDIES. And these are people that call Boris and Trump liars. It really is time to bring these charlatans to account.