London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

Are being misrepresented. They work on new-builds and that is where they will grow in the same way that condensing gas boilers became mandatory after 2005 as building regs wouldn't permit regular boilers. There will be plenty of warning. There is a big difference this time as regular to condensing was quite simple when it came to replacement. Condensing gas to heat pump IS NOT.

I will need a new boiler soon so investigated my options with heat pumps. I challenge anybody to find out the size of radiators needed to fit in a ground floor if unsuitable for underfloor heating (or upstairs come to that). I found plenty of advice saying you need bigger radiators than existing (up to 2 1/2 times bigger) but as for exact sizing you always had to fill in forms to get an engineer or advisor involved. My own house built in 1994 has solid floors and 12 Radiators downstairs. Upstairs another 12 Radiators and solid floors again. I imagine all will need replacing and associated decoration and redecoration. Two rooms downstairs have expensive oak flooring and unlikely to be saved if the underfloor route is taken. I don't really want to drill up existing floors or build over the tiles, alter the kitchen etc. that I already have making rooms smaller, doors needing shortening etc..
The cost for me would be between £50-£100k I estimate.
Some of you may have older properties where underfloor heating has been added to an extension but usually not to the rest of the property. I like the look of underfloor as it frees up wall space but in my present home is just too expensive.
The alternative of bigger rads would not get past the first leveol of opposition - 'er indoors. The economics are insuperable.

I know Green Stanley is a big fan of anything other than fossil so would appreciate his solution. I really want to go green so if he could subsidise me? - I'm not proud!

*my point is that if they are lying about heat pumps how far can we trust their other statements? Then there are all the people living in flats. Just getting insulation improvements is a nightmare whilst communal heating (forget it) and just how much money have local councils got and where do they get it from. One huge CON. What next - Ferraris for grandmothers to get to the shops quicker?

Using my rudimentary numbers from the 20.15 post I have a sp drawn from the MC of 32p with debt at $1bn and 51p with debt at $500mio. I’d also expect the MC to pick up momentum if this happens within the next 6m to 1 year and the price to overrun the 51p.
We could easily become debt free in a short space of time.
It brings us to why we are where we are today. My explanation is simple. The funds/institutions and associated paraphernalia (newspaper/magazine pundits, sell side analysts etc. are no longer fit for purpose. I’m not saying they’re rubbish but we still cling to them and they haven’t done us any favours at all in the past 7 years. The more bullish holders here are not what I would describe as normal retail holders. They are far less sheepish and independent anyway. Just sticking with the not so magnificent seven. I’ve met hitman and E121 they are both smart individuals. Therapist carries attention to detail lightly and knows more than he lets on. Juan has had an interesting career and must have picked something up. I suspect L7 is more than an engineer with an oily rag and spanners to get behind the sink. Pelle thinks a little like me. I have a problem with authority and resent paying commission for stuff I can do better than an agent.
To this you can add the likes of HMHn, onedb and monkey and plenty more.
Having said that the numbers of shareholders like us are a minority and most shareholders are passive members within funds & pensions who have largely deserted the sector. In fact I’d go further and say they are still disinvesting (although the majority is sold) taking advantage of what they see as an opportunity window of slightly higher prices. This is what has held the price back in the whole sector imo. It is NOT an EnQuest phenomenon even though it feels personal at times.
The credit and rating agencies will continue to be important to us but the analyst target prices are anachronisms. Who pays their wages? The advice they produce isn’t of much use to their bosses who have abandoned the sector and won’t return. The blowback would be too severe and there are plenty of other opportunities and suckers to charge. I can even see a situation where sell side analysts give poor reviews of the industry for their masters and the public but BUY for their private account.
CONCLUSION – we have all become hedge funds where private equity rules and the rewards for taking on risk can be many times the initial investment. You must be prepared for opprobrium from your kids who are being fed misinformation on a daily basis on both sides of the argument. For me – cash rules and as long as you don’t boast about it who is going to know.

Welcome to paranoia club. First on the agenda: Who told you about this place? Were you followed?

Hi HMH - I have my own system of valuing oil companies. Forget Shell and BP as they trade oil and also muddy the waters with "renewables" and just stick with (say) EnQuest and Harbour. Indeed, the majors are leaving the NS basin anyway so are effectively ex's. Companies that may never lift oil and fields that may never be developed (and that may include Bressay/Bentley) value 2C at c.40 cents and oil with a 2P CPR but no funding at around $1.40. It was used by Steve Brown of Orcadian who comes over as a bumbler but he worked for BP and as a rule of thumb it seems to work (on the basis that so much is wet finger in the air anyway).
With 2C not having much value it is almost worth discarding it (the stock market which has priced in oil to last less than a decade already has). Very roughly I get HBR 2P at $12.64 a barrel using EV and 2P reserves and ENQ $9.67. Easily rubbished but bear with me. At 50k a day our reserves will last 10.35 years and HBR 8.34 years @ 200k a day. These figures aren't meant to be accurate but are useful to my argument.
The stock market and its reliance on Institutional support cannot be seen to ignore ESG concerns and "climate change" and have only done what is political, expedient and expected (e.g. do bears sh*t in the wood).
I'm afraid this doesn't work for some investors here as their reliance is on these Institutions and funds reversing the path they've followed the last few years. It ain't gonna happen.
Much of the world is following an Evangelical path led by Greta and David Attenborough with The Pope, The Queen and now Biden tagging along. The pragmatists of the world including Xi and Putin (along with Canada, Australia, Japan and some others) will pay lip service but stick with 2050 or 2060 imo.
If renewables can become economic then my argument falls down but I cannot see any country giving up energy independence and security for a dream that some scientists disagree with anyway and levels of efficiency that may never be achieved. There is always a downside to any activity or chemical reaction and fossil emissions are well understood and coming down too.
We'll stay unpopular but make money hand over fist for a bare minimum of 10 years but most likely much longer. It'll be our "dirty little secret".
I also expect us to become one of the majors in oil following the retreat of the 'old majors' into renewables. I don't mind us only having an ecomnomic life of 15-20 years. The market only gives us about 5 at present.

Be Lucky

An encouraging sign. It is the offer and I have RB in 2 places and they fixed at 98.45 and 99.075 but whilst talking interest rates this from the Times on Thursday referring to the impact of ESG demands on this industry: "The impact can be seen iin the energy sector, for example, where Goldman Sachs estimate that the cost of capital for hydrocarbon projects is now up to 15 percentage points higher than for renewables developments. That is the equivalent of a global carbon tax of $80 a tonne."
This imo helps explain why we and the whole industry is in the doldrums. A constant undermining and attacks from activists, often supported by an acquiescent media, has priced O&G businesses as though they will be finished in 3-7 years [THEY WON'T]. Sometimes it is easier to go along with it and I had sympathy for van Beurden when he was attacked at Edinburgh by @laurenthesunflower who appears to be about 19, (possibly one of Stanley's crowd-they don't give surnames).
You can understand why Putin and Xi Jinping will probably give COP26 a miss but we'll have Greta, David and the Queen instead.
I think it'll be a talking shop because renewables have had more funding and assistance than the Covid epidemic received yet still cannot compete with fossil fuels. I completely understand why poorer parts of the world and those that were "colonised" might think that it is hypocrisy for the West to take the moral high ground after they have taken all the first mover advantage from the industrial revolution. I also suspect that Biden has more pressing demands and he cannot afford to alienate democrats who quite like the advantages of fossil fuels and the economics (think red wall in UK).

I accept transitioning. I think the demands and pace required by activists is unreasonable and unfundable. Tax the fossil industry more? They'll walk away, close or move to Asia. I expect the US would raise its drawbridges and start fracking again. GE is important to us but the Institutions will wait to post COP26 to see if we are investible again.

*very few journalists at TED in Edinburgh. Very US slanted and many delegates from there. It'd be interesting to know who funded their air fares.

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for romaron

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)