Member Info for romaron

That's the whole point Modestus. Investments that outperforms over 10, 15, 20 years and more should form the backbone of any decent portfolio. There are plenty of companies that won't be around in 5 years. I've stopped worrying about the share price one week from now. Bonds are an essential ingredient of a balanced portfolio and I think that what AB is aiming for is something in the middle. We'll have some of the qualities of a utility/bond. I particularly zeroed in on the word "lucrative". You can be unpopular but still lucrative. I wonder where the investment will go?
In Europe and the UK it is the "new" in renewables that attracts the funds. Cryptocurrencies show how gullible (imo) the investment fraternity can be and the quest for a quiet life seems to be a fundamental of many funds. Perhaps we should just use"populism" when it comes to certain sectors and stocks. They tend not to last into the next cycle.
Interesting that Canada hasn't given up on oil. They have some of the same qualities that US investors and company founders have. It's a long time between now and carbon neutral!

typo - meant to say part of a tracking transition series but typed transaction. Probably makes sod all difference anyway.

https://vimeo.com/539683083

Hi Modestus - I don't know if you can see the link above but its an eye opener. It's part of a Hydrogen transaction series involving Energy Voice with Principal Partners Deloitte, Costain and Fasken and in this first one they're joined by Orsted and BNP.

Those involved outside of Energy Voice are all supporters of Hydrogen because that's the business they're either in or making money from its take-up. If these guys can't sell Hydrogen then the future looks grim for hydrogen. They singularly failed imo because it relies on increasing the contributions to the begging bowl (subsidies). Daniel Brock from Falken admits that the take up of hydrogen is at best medium term but probably long term. Renewables don't work unless society (that's us) are happy to buy the bullets that kill fossil fuels at a price that just keeps getting higher. Renewables lack many of the properties that make oil and gas so successful; portability, reliability and storage. The closest to that would be if green hydrogen could be produced economically; it can't!
The BNP guy goes on about renewables (wind/solar) being intrinsically deflationary and FREE. If that's the case then why am I paying for water and sewage whilst as Pelle points out that in some cases it is more costly than oil? This country's care and health system is in a mess but my 92 year old mother-in-law must pay through higher electricity a subsidy for EV's. Shame she can't drive. I'm not gonna listen again but one of the "experts" glossed over the need for polyethylene liners for the [non-existent] hydrogen grid due to its effect on making pipes brittle (over to L7).
Apparently the target is for 10mio tons of hydrogen by 2030. Well it's modest because we are already at 8.2mio tons because hydrogen has been used as a feedstock for decades. Hydrogen ain't gonna work for most transports systems due to no grid (Fasken again) but could be suitable for return to base transport like buses (and recycling lorries - must remember to put the bins out tomorrow). They make a big case for keep spending on renewables because as you build costs fall [I think the same applies to fossil fuels as well].
This is the second hydrogen revolution. The 2000 one failed. However, their hopes are not dimmed because they are very, very close to solving the physics that make green hydrogen economic. It is a secret but I believe it is a mixture of powdered unicorn horn and angel's tears.

I think we should try snake oil as a renewable. The gullibility of the public is up there with QAnon; or is it?

Aussies often replace empathy with pragmatism. That's not really allowed here and explains why their baths empty anticlockwise.

https://www.facebook.com/mike.maloney.58367/videos/10221584822744708

Modestus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqZ-hDJHbQ0

It's only a matter of time. I've started practising some moves.

Pelle - you haven't gone over to the other side have you? Personally I cannot see concrete aircraft. It might have properties for thermal mass storage which the building industry has known about for centuries but as an idea I don't think it'll fly.

I have in front of me share price movements over the past 2 years of BP, Tullow, Hurricane and EnQuest. I can't find one for PMO but it would look like TLW. They are road crashes except for BP which is limping along. EnQuest even outperforms BP. Not perfect but an industry under attack from many directions making a decent profit is in my mind something of an achievement.

maps are interesting because they show the difference a curved surface makes. Warsaw is as close to China as Canberra. In 1848 (before global warming was invented) an attempt to cross Australia EW from Brisbane to Perth failed. A party of 7 men led by Ludwig Leichhardt including 2 Aboriginal guides, 50 bullocks, 20 mules, 7 horses and a mountain of equipment simply vanished. They are still looking for them. The distances haven't really shortened but China is doing a lot of sabre-rattling in the region. China is still far away from Australia but so too is help if needed (basically the USA).

If China were to blockade Australia it would soon be in an energy crisis. It has 2 months of strategic oil supplies onshore & about 3 weeks worth or so making its way there on tankers. Of course I'm being alarmist.

In 2020 Canberra took advantage of the oil price crash to to top up supplies, but stored it in the USA's Strategic Petroleum Reserve stockpiles and might not even be able to access it.

Sweden is nearer to China than the UK so it is probably of more interest to Pelle. The main point of the post is that the strategic importance of oil is being forgotten and how quickly it can deplete. Being rescued by "renewables" doesn't seem to be being relied upon by the military.

Poorer parts of the world (and that's a lot of world) are already struggling with daily existence and I believe if you are jobless and hungry today you don't take kindly to promises of a 'better tomorrow' or even 'belt tightening' due to actions taken thousands of miles away. How will Nigeria react in 2050 when their population is expected to grow from 200mio to 400mio and you've taken away their biggest product and only foreign exchange earner away? China and Russia don't obey or follow Western fiats anyway so where will the poorer countries migrate their economies toward whilst individuals migrate west?
Spin point about a mud hut and a solar panel is not the height of ambition for people in the third world. The impact needs to be bigger and infrastructure cannot be piecemeal or below scale. Those promoting renewables should be aware that there will be consequences in moving too fast and ignoring the disenfranchised.

p.s. shale was a good bet and I missed it. The US won the war with SA and Russia imo. The US isn't gonna produce at a loss again or give OPEC plus another opportunity/reason to crater the price. Energywise the US can go it alone if they choose.

Hi E - Which is why the Canute story (actually he was a ****) is misinterpreted. He was actually showing his piety and the fact that he couldn't control the tide despite what his courtiers were saying. That applies to EnQuest as well of course. The US valuation differential against UK valuations has been in existence since I invested in EnQuest. I'd go further and say that the US has a unique advantage over other countries in that it "eats what it kills" in oil terms. Listen at 8.45 in about lottery tickets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdjTi-uhoqI
This is why I've been saying for a long time that it is pointless expecting salvation by fossil fuels regaining popularity any time soon. It ain't gonna happen. We will though have an investment case that is hard to ignore with FCF and a product in demand for decades to come. I don't expect the world to turn to renewables in an instant even though some of the more vociferous think it possible and even welcome. It isn't and at some stage they will look at costs. It will be gradual and I suppose the bet is how fast you think "gradual" is. I expect my EnQuest investment to be like a high yielding bond and about as exciting in a year or two.

I'm not surprised that we are ignored. Because of the large holding by AB and friends we are of little interest to hedge funds and merger pressures who are the only ones buying. PI's have given up on fossil fuels to an extent so there is an absence of buyers generally and many of the more timid funds want a quiet life without renewable activists spoiling their sleep.

Build it and they will come. It has to be the right design for the conditions that exist.

Not much if you're a renewables proselytizer . "Last year, Coilín ÓhAiseadha and Ronan Connolly, two Dublin-based researchers published an academic paper that found that between 2011 and 2018 global spending on solar and wind energy totaled some $2 trillion. “Despite all of this spending, wind and solar energy still produced only 3% of world energy consumption in the year 2018, while the fossil fuels (oil, coal, and gas) produced 85% between them,” they wrote. “This raises pressing questions about what it would cost to make the transition to 100% renewable energies.”
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2021/05/25/the_ieas_roadmap_for_net-zero_is_full_of_dead_ends_778705.html
But what is really concerning is the effect on a further third of the world who cannot just move into "new" technology. The real problem would be those in need moving to the West. It would make immigration to places like the UK and Europe move from a trickle to a stampede. Do we really want to build walls, a la Trump, to keep these people out? Holland, for all its high flown ambitions has its fair share of racism and they are notoriously "tight" when it comes to spending. They should be careful what they wish for.
https://www.ft.com/content/27b4b7f1-9b08-4406-8119-03a73fb6ce19

Interesting to see that even Bloomberg resort to using OGA data. From Energy Voice today "JX Nippon, whose parent company is ENEOS Holdings Inc., also has stakes in oil and gas fields including Kinnoull, Brae and Andrew. The assets produce more than 20,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day, according to Bloomberg calculations based on data from the UK Oil and Gas Authority."

Just thinking that as fields decline in the NS, companies like JX Nippon see production drop below a scale that interests them or become unviable. Fair enough. There certainly isn't a lot of encouragement for exploration or new fields. Having said that; it isn't matched by the interest shown by hedge funds and smart US money. The fact that they're finding a home tells us something. Maybe it is still a sellers market with the only buyers being the hedge funds. Meanwhile PIs go elsewhere for excitement.

Ooops- missed out carbon capture. Read somewhere that getting children to run around the countryside with special butterfly type nets that convert CO2 to base material for straw sandals is being trialled and paid for by taxpayers. The added benefit here is that it tackles the obesity crisis and saves on expensive playing fields. That is if they can avoid the solar panels.

Slift - if BP weren't buying their own shares it'd be the same story there. I was reading through Tullow today (similar poor volume) and their CEO did a CMD promoting their 10 year plan last November. The TLW stock is flat but the new 5 year bond is doing fine. My point is that all the emphasis on Net Zero is much further than 10 years in the future. They're unlikely imo to achieve that yet alone anything of substance in 10 years (in UK heat pumps, hydrogen, EV penetration). Carry that over to EnQuest and I'm not worried about 2050 because if oil is around this level and supply constrained for 10 years we'll have all the return we need to make EnQuest an outstanding investment by 2030/31. Even Tullow are talking about 130% returns and they aren't a shadow of what EnQuest is. We haven't sacrificed the company at the altar of the high bond priesthood.

They can ignore EnQuest and others for as long as they like but the hedge funds are dressing up transitional smaller oilies as mini-bonds in their own right. It will be impossible to ignore the returns in oil. Get in early to avoid the rush!

Build it and they will come.

monkey - save your breath and use the filter. The posting numbers indicate atroll at work or at the minimum a door-knocking obsessive. He's not even that bright and doesn't understand that hypotheticals butter no parsnips.
"What is known, however, is that everywhere renewable energy has been hailed for its market dominance, fossil fuels are needed to provide power when the wind ceases and the sun disappears. We see this problem growing in the U.S. A study reported that between 2015 and 2020, the number of blackouts annually in the United States doubled. There are other studies of earlier periods showing similar increasing trends in the number of power blackout experienced. Some of the outages are attributed to the age of the nation’s electricity grid, while others attribute it to extreme weather events, outside of tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods. Because virtually every country’s electricity grid is aging, the rise in blackouts is not unexpected. What will become more likely is that the increased reliance on intermittent renewable power, without adequate storage backups that can provide power for extended time periods, will contribute to increased numbers of blackouts. The experiences of California and Texas clearly show the human suffering and economic costs of blackouts. This problem needs to be addressed before we allow renewables to grow to levels that ensure blackouts become a fabric of our lives."
They put in wind and solar even though far more expensive than gas but get away with it by closing a perfectly good coal plant. In the short term they cause far more damage with this evangelical crusade. They are getting challenged and found out every day. The world has priorities and challenges. It ain't run by (supposedly) do-gooders. next they'll claim its "god's work" and who'd dare challenge a wizard in the sky!

Perhaps because of Covid we're getting two years activity rolled into one. Deals are going through and TBH they are at the cheaper end though the sellers add clauses of windfalls if the price stays or goes up. Some are gambling that real world economics will prevail making deals profitable (buyers) whilst some are taking Boris's targets and aspirations as promises (sellers). His record on delivering is not good. The NHS is still waiting for the Brexit benefit (£350mio a week). Others just find the uncertainty makes the fossil industry uninvestable.

*In WW2 towards the end the Germans made motor fuel from coal. Not because it was cheap but the allies controlled all the oil wells. It was forced on them by desperation and had nothing to do with economics. We are not desperate regarding emissions. The evangelists are still using CPR8.5 as their baseline and that is plain wrong. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-high-emissions-rcp8-5-global-warming-scenario
So we'll have UK banning gas boilers and using hydrogen as a fuel soon? That's not gonna happen and I'm prepared to bet that targets are missed and not by months.

Why are we letting Stanley Green turn this board into an amateur patent office? His ignorance of cost but belief in alchemy is all he has. He's a crackpot.

I don't really understand this move by Mercuria but I'm sure it's important. A lot of chess pieces being moved around by very clever inside track people in the NS. Shearwater appears to be gas so maybe they're not so interested in oil? What is confusing me (apart from everything) is the raft of new companies eager to replace the majors. One of the aims appears to be to either bring to market or a reverse takeover of a company with a listing. We certainly have early mover advantage in that respect even if we were a bit too early. So many things seem to be moving in our favour yet the stock looks like it needs dynamite to move it. Talk about the mark of Cain. People would rather sink money into Hurricane or Tullow. I don't get it.
https://www.tailwind.co.uk/FINANCIAL-HIGHLIGHTS

Modestus - maybe that's why the hedge funds (mostly US funded) are investing in the NS or see the money to be made in buying up the Major's discards, repackaging and taking to market (Neptune, Harbour). Ignoring net zero the Majors were leaving the NS anyway. Scale and old basins are considerations too.