Member Info for romaron

Aug 18 Keir Starmer posted on twitter/X a reminder of his 5 national missions.

1. growth

2. NHS

3. safe streets

4. remove barriers to opportunity for every child

5. make Britain a clean energy super power

I'm only interested in No. 5 - definitely a distancing from earlier rhetoric. No mention so far that I can see of them attacking the Tories for inviting MBS to Britain. Both have got themselves into a corner here. Expediency will win so expect backtracking from both parties. Oil is the devil's sperm but we want the world's biggest producer to pump the profits via the UK. How long before Labour dump Red Ed? The wind (sentiment) has changed direction and they want to be elected.

Kinda fits in with the invitation to MBS to visit us later this year.

"Hi Mo, just like update you. As agreed I have cratered the UK oil industry and in return you will provide our future oil needs (at your price) whilst we will manage the profits for you. What we over here call a win/win. Extra business for our financial industry whilst at the same time taking credit for continuing the downhill road towards Net Zero. You in turn get a guaranteed long term customer and our flexibility in money matters.

Only one small favour I'd like to ask, please don't decapitate any of our journalists. Most over here ignore them anyway.

Best, Rishi.

p.s. for any technical matters that crop up and to save time please go directly to Phoebe Plummer at juststopoil."

Http://www.nea.gov.cn/2023-08/16/c_1310737130.htm

I read it twice and they didn't mention Net Zero or saving the planet once. The biggest energy users and polluters seldom (if ever) do. Over there (China) energy is respected for its importance.

"Energy is the food of industry and the lifeblood of the national economy. It is related to the survival and development of human beings, the national economy, the people's livelihood and national security."

"Sunak's raft of new oil and gas permits exposes the deliberate ambiguity of Keir Starmer's pledge to 'honour existing licenses' but not to issue any new ones.

Starmer writing in the Times on Monday to 'clarify', the ambiguity, in fact perpetuated it. Sunak is issuing EXPLORATION licenses, and for a subsequent oil or gas discovery to be developed a PRODUCTION license is required. So: does Starmer mean Labour wouldn't issue any new exploration licenses, but would convert any existing ones into production licenses if a discovery is made; or would it be no new licenses of any kind under Labour, meaning no new North Sea production?

He is playing to two audiences: greens, whom he hopes will read his words in the latter sense; and industrialists and many Scottish voters, who are seeking reassurances about the future of North Sea oil and gas in the event of a change of government."

Source 'Old Sparky' Private Eye.

Interesting that Private Eye understand the situation better than most mainstream media. MNone of this is news to us but the public are being taken for fools. Spread the word. Also:

"In its latest bills to customers Ovo, a major energy supplier so keen on renewables it runs an 'anti-greenwashing campaign' against spurious green claims of other firms, states that it obtained 70.1 percent of its electricity from gas in the billing period."

*despite being basically lock-up paper the HYN crept up .75 on Friday

Https://chuffed.org/project/q9rje9q70fltbjn

Delusion and virtue signalling has always appealed to certain groups which is why most here want there name attached. I'm always suspicious of the larger donations when they choose anonymity. What is their agenda?

Thanks Zippy. So we'll struggle to compete with older fields but Bressay/Bentley holds a lot of potential.

Thanks Therapist. It led me to this https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/news-publications/news/2020/north-sea-gas-has-lower-carbon-footprint-than-imported-lng/

where in 2020 Norway was higher and LNG lower and we were about the same. I wonder if it is to do with some CO2 being removed by Norway before it enters the pipe? I think they have a better record on CO2 emissions at source anyway (hydro electric assistance?). Is there a simple explanation as to why Norway 's CO2 intensity is so much lower?

Thanks for that mrc. It is easy to miss stuff and the NS gas 4 X cleaner than imports is an easy number to remember and from a trusted source. I'll be using it.

Https://thecritic.co.uk/ned-zero/

The next 14 day outlook for Rhodes shows the average daytime maximum temperature will be around 34°C, with a high for the two weeks of 37°C expected on the afternoon of Saturday 15th. The mean minimum temperature will be 23°C, dipping to its lowest on the morning of Friday 7th at 22°C.

No wildfires either.

UK forecast: more rain

Q: when does weather become climate? There are less deaths in the UK from drowning than when I was a boy. This was put down to "weather" then but it has now morphed into climate and we are safer. Go figure. I'm guessing here but I imagine they had summer fires in Rhodes in antiquity but were better at controlling them by land utilisation and clearances. Many old olive groves are left untended as people moved toward better paying tourism and provide the tinder for fierce fires. In the US native Americans were banned from the age old practice of prescribed burns that intentionally burned up excess tinder off-season. They paid the price in California. There are even "phoenix plants" that require fire to spread their seeds.

Another investor pointed out to me the lumpy after hours trades and a decent sized UT. Not the usual algo trading we'd got used to. Smart money is interested again.

Nothing on the Labour Party feed other than Keir Starmer banging on about making our streets safer.

The two protestors who held up the Dartford Bridge crossing for 40 hours last October have failed to have their sentence reduced on appeal. The two offenders were jailed for 22,560 hours and 26,280 hours. Or 2 years 7 months and 3 years.

Now I am old school and think that for justice to be served there must be an element of fairness. Like in insurance whereby you are returned to the position you were before the loss which in this case is hours stuck in a jam stopping you going about your business. Or to make the punishment fit the crime. So (say) 160,000 cars/trucks a day at 2 hours lost per car/truck = 533,333 hours. So to make the punishment fit the crime the sentence should have been closer to 60 years for each rather than the leniency they were shown.

The sentences they received was 1/20th for each motor they held up; many of which had more than one passenger. Let's say 1/40th allowing for this. So each got jailed for 3 minutes for delaying someone else for 2 hours. I think they got off remarkably lightly.

A golden

I got on LBC a few minutes ago with Shelagh Fogarty. It was about Rishi Sunak going back on earlier promises and being opportunist since Uxbridge. I got a dig in about how physics is basically fixed (well it was when I was at school) so how come renewables can be flexible (anywhere between 3X and 9X cheaper).?

I did though think on my feet regarding an earlier caller, Tim Montgomerie a well known Tory activist, blogger, columnist and green supporter stated that the Daily Mail only has to sell to 1.5mio whilst the Tories need to win 8mio over. I threw her when I said that I think he will appeal to more as the majority of people in this country are basically middle of the road and not extreme right or left.

It is important that we get a counter message out there on what is often a left leaning media firmly on the side of climate activism but basing it on false and incorrect data.

These kind of programmes only want confirmation of the presenter's bias. I am something of a free agent and like to throw a spoke in their diatribes. At the end of the day these are entertainment programmes and facts sometimes get in the way.

*btw the 3X v 9X went over her head.

The "100 licenses" have to be the 33rd round and is weeks away. By default Bressay & Bentley are existing licenses and are now a decision for EnQuest and partners with effectively a green light from government. I'll be happier when Rosebank is over the starting line.

Details will arrive over the week and Labour's response will be illuminating. Talk about 'may you live in interesting times'.

I have a tip for Keir Starmer. Ditch Red Ed; he's a liability. We can only see from the outside but the rest of the shadow cabinet don't seem over enthusiastic for the sprint to green energy by 2030 (impossible imo). They don't live in the virtual ideological world that Red Ed, juststopoil and Caroline Lucas inhabit

This could be game-changing Dumbly. The Tories aren't necessarily doing it for the reasons stated. No doubt their Nudge Unit (Behavioural Insights Team) has informed them that it is pointless going further against the British public and economic reality. I don't know about you but for some time I have been aware that the voters don't embrace (or fully understand) Net Zero. If if was at Net Cost they would but the media is increasing resorting (begrudgingly) that renewables aren't cheap and technological miracles are empty promises. I misread Brexit but this time I sense the same resentment of ordinary people being told what they can and can't do by the intelligentsia. It is rhetorical to say the majority of people believe in net zero but if asked would they pay double for oil or live without its benefits there would be a different answer.

I suppose the real development could be the Labour Party's response. Most voters are pragmatic (even more so in this cost-of-living crisis) and what happened in Uxbridge looks like having unintended consequences in the rest of the UK.

Labour also have a weak hand in that they are on record for making outrageous claims about renewables and conflating that figure into total energy not just electricity.

And I thought August would be dead!

Successive Conservative prime ministers have been “systematically dishonest” with the public about the trillion pound cost of achieving net zero, the former chancellor Lord Hammond has said.

Lord Hammond said there was a “cross-party disease” of politicians not being straight with voters about the “significant” true cost of the project and the inevitable consequence of slower rising living standards.

“In a democracy, you fail to take people with you at your peril,” he warned.

As chancellor, Lord Hammond was in Number 11 in 2019 when Theresa May enshrined the 2050 target for net zero carbon emissions into law.

He caused controversy at the time by telling Mrs May that the cost of the UK achieving the goal could exceed £1 trillion.

A senior Conservative figure who asked not to be named said that the Treasury should now repeat the exercise to see if the figure had changed.

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

From The Telegraph yesterday. Of course the figure has changed. Its higher. You now have the ludicrous situation of both parties glued to higher energy prices. With current policies they're unavoidable. As with Brexit, people are angry at not being listened to and duped. So Labour are promising to continue with the deception if elected?

In one form or another this comment is made or has been made by climate activists and Labour politicians when discussing the windfall tax; “For every £100 an oil and gas producer invests in the North Sea, they will receive £91.25 from the taxpayer.” It is stated as fact and seldom challenged.

This is misrepresentation and blatantly untrue. It is in fact ‘bunk’ as explained here at 20:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-585aVUNz68

It was never the taxpayer’s money in the first place and they (we the voters) don’t pay the invoices for exploration, drilling or an FPSO for example but if it scores political points Labour will gaily spout this rubbish because they are NOT challenged. I don’t know why because it is an example of extreme economic naivety (but then Jeremy Hunt isn't that different).

At present it looks like this investment allowance will wither on the vine anyway with even Rosebank still under something of a cloud. What is causing the delay of the 33rd Offshore Licensing Round?

At present he Tories have other more pressing matters and Labour (apart from Red Ed) would prefer to let it drop as they have maxed out any benefit of attacking fossil fuels. They [Labour] go for the giveaway and penalising O&G but will have a problem if they get into office with the whole industry avoiding investment and running down existing fields. With NO takers of the Investment Allowance NS revenue will decrease whilst import costs will rise. In fact if they get into power they [Labour] have promised to remove the investment allowance.

Surely someone from OEUK or Conservative Central office is preparing a spread sheet of the likely hole in revenue and increased import costs if Labour’s foolish claims were ever turned into reality? Converting the financial loss into financial capital I wonder how many hospitals won’t be built by following this reckless and relentless crusade against fossil-fuels.

*and of course it totally misses out on the jobs and revenue creation that spending the investment allowance would bring. Talk about a lose/lose situation.

JAdams is a fluffer. I'm filtering him.

News cycle more like. Guterres has got his soundbite out there "The era of global boiling has arrived" which to me reduces the UN to the equivalent of justanotherclimate activist group. Then the courts backed ULEZ today in London so not a good backdrop. Even Red Ed has come out of hiding. We'll have to wait until something more interesting hits the headlines. It always does. People are getting fed up with the continual whining.

I'm sure there are plenty of examples. There is this: 19/06/23 Keir Starmer speech in Scotland

(38:00 left) Not a sackcloth and sandals message anymore – “clean British energy is cheaper than fossil fuels; 3 X cheaper. That’s a potential goldmine for our mission on growth.”

https://labour.org.uk/press/keir-starmer-speech-unveiling-labours-mission-to-cut-bills-create-jobs-and-provide-energy-security-for-britain/