Member Info for romaron

Bearing in mind that the Trump administration is 'transactional' you could argue that in this article Chris Wright is protecting US interests. This story in EV today is pretty illuminating 'UK halved LNG imports in 2024 as Europe cuts supplies'. We led the field with 47% followed by Belgium 29% and Spain 28%. in cuts The other way round France was biggest importer with 19% of total followed by Netherlands 14%, Spain 13%, UK 8%.

These are the numbers that the likes of Ed will use to signal progress. It is when comparing renewables against LNG which is (pick a number) around 3X as expensive and dirty. Not our own NG. And of course they'll focus on the fact that energy security is enhanced and a cost we have to pay as protection against the US dictator, Donald Trump, and his petrostate.

The Ukraine talks could have the adverse effect of making us depend more on renewables. Increased defence spending is unavoidable. Bankruptcy looms. Sell UK bonds. Emigrate.

I agree with this bit "“Let’s be realistic, let’s be credible in our goals,” he said. “Most of the climate-obsessed people I’ve discussed with or debated, actually know very little about the climate data. Or the true cost of renewable fanaticism."

I added the last sentence.

Aren't you glad you're Belgian Modestus? There was a time in history when this country was a haven from religious persecution. There is a risk that you'll have some of us using the inflatable boats that arrive here to claim asylum in you country!

Response today:

Thanks for contacting us about The Today Debate.

We note your concerns regarding the views of one of the panellists.

Having reviewed the broadcast, Nick Robinson was joined by a panel of guests to consider whether it’s possible to go for growth at the same time as going green.

We heard from Beccy Speight, Chief Executive RSPB; Dale Vince, founder of the green energy company Ecotricity; Shevaun Haviland, Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce; Tim Leunig, an economist who was an advisor to Rishi Sunak when he was Chancellor and Justin King, Chair OVO Energy.

We invite a wide range of contributors on to our programming. The decision to invite these contributors is based on a variety of factors, including their knowledge of a certain chosen field. The range of tastes and opinions held by our audience is so diverse that it's inevitable some listeners will disagree with certain guests or the opinions they express.

Our aim is simply to provide enough information for listeners to make up their own minds. This may include hearing opinions which some people may personally disagree with, but which individuals may be fully entitled to hold in the context of legitimate debate.

In a fast-flowing interview situation, it may not always be possible for an interviewer to cross-check every statement and claim that is made by a guest. Our aim is to allow and facilitate lively debate and Dale's point was challenged by another panellist. However, I have noted your concerns about the discussion.

We very much value your feedback. Complaints are sent to senior management and we’ve included your points in our overnight reports. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC. This ensures that your concerns have been seen by the right people quickly, and helps to inform decisions about current and future content.

If you’d like to understand how your complaint is handled at the BBC, you might find it helpful to watch this short film https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints. It explains the BBC’s process for responding to complaints, what to do if you aren’t happy with your response and how we share the feedback we receive.

Kind regards

Darren Loughlin

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

This is their CYA response "In a fast-flowing interview situation, it may not always be possible for an interviewer to cross-check every statement and claim that is made by a guest. Our aim is to allow and facilitate lively debate and Dale's point was challenged by another panellist. However, I have noted your concerns about the discussion." Er, it wasn't but I didn't expect them to concur. The BBC is under cash constraints and I would bet a large amount that Dale Vince gets either sod all or only expenses. He is cheap and controversial. The BBC should charge DV for the propaganda and promotion of his company

Sirs,

On 04 Feb 2025, BBC’s Nick Robinson chaired a debate called “The Today Debate” discussing whether it’s possible to go for growth at the same time as going green?

I accept the debate was between growth and green so I can accept the absence of anyone representing the oil and gas industry but unfortunately it reduces the debate to an advertisement and further propaganda for the renewables industry with no checks on the veracity of statements.

Dale Vince said towards the end (39:20) “I’ll be your numbers man tonight”* and proceeded to promote renewables with highly questionable assertions and then said this, “Rosebank itself is going to cost us £7billion in subsidies for a Norwegian company to build it and never pay any tax into our country”

This is completely untrue and there was no correction by the chairman or other contributors.

There are NO subsidies for the UK oil and gas industry. There are tax reliefs just as there are in renewable industries but O&G remains the highest taxed industry in the UK.

These taxes are; Petroleum Revenue Tax (PRT), Energy Profits Levy (EPL), Ring Fence Corporation Tax (RFCT) and the supplementary charge.

I can remember a time when the BBC was not such a left wing biased broadcaster. If I can access AI and information so easily (I’m not in the industry) then why can’t your researchers? I’ve seen better balanced 6th form debates.

In the article about raising defence spending this little gem - "Yesterday Keith Kellogg, Trump's special envoy for Ukraine, in effect confirmed that European allies would be excluded from the Ukraine peace talks, stating that he was from "the school of realism, and that is not going to happen". He also claimed Russia might have to cede territory in any peace deal and there was A NEED TO TARGET ITS OIL REVENUE to force Moscow to reach a compromise."

Not sure if it means production or the $300billion that is held in Western banks.

The article is by 2 heavyweights Tim Shipman and Harry Yorke. Monday will be interesting.

Totally incoherent rant from the Green MP Adrian Ramsay on Kuenssberg a few minutes ago (9:42). Losing the argument with Richard Tice he went back to the old slogan and shibboleth that they have all pretended they never said:

"renewable energy is 9X cheaper than gas which is sold on the International market". Perfect 'gotcha'.

With careful handling Reform can include these other 'believers' and make the public aware. As a memory jogger here are some of them:

https://www.ted.com/talks/tessa_khan_how_can_we_escape_soaring_energy_bills_stop_using_fossil_fuels (4:15)

https://x.com/NetZeroWatch/status/1830995939496206552

And to cheer you up on a Sunday morning. Stop worrying about nuclear war but watch what you're eating as explained in this video:

https://x.com/aDissentient/status/1836702480668758322

I often wonder how usually intelligent men and women can preach about a tender God on a Sunday as disease, hunger and poverty persist whilst children get killed in ideological or territorial wars. They clearly don’t realise that what they are saying flies in the face of reason and fact. Many are coming to realise that the Climate Change Committee (CCC) is an offshoot of religion and among its leading proponents we can add Emma Pinchbeck the new CEO of the CCC. https://davidturver.substack.com/p/pinchbeck-incoherent-in-parliament?r=lx6e9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&triedRedirect=true

The sham and lies continue and renewables were quoted as “cheap” 17 times by her in her testimony to the Scottish Affairs Committee. In the link I supplied David Turver destroys her testimony. Not one of those questioning her has the experience or scientific knowledge to pin her down and she was not challenged on the use of the word “cheap” when discussing electricity which clearly is not cheap and we have the highest prices in the IEA to prove it. The numbers Turver quotes are astonishing. There is a link in the article to Renewable Obligations (ROCs) which add more to our energy bills than CfDs. Turver calculates that in YE Mar 23 the cost of ROCs was £241 per household.

Meanwhile the UK O&G companies are being hounded into extinction as the inquisition continues. They [O&G industry] need to be removed because they pollute the atmosphere. It is easier on the conscience of the likes of the CCC that they import O&G by virtue signalling to the world that Britain is now closed for industrial business and people support them.

NO the public don’t support them. The public have no idea how much renewable subsidies cost them. Getting it over to them is the challenge. And we haven’t even asked where the dwindling extra cash from EPL goes?

Romaron he/him/his/grump/geezer

I wasn't really following WG or PFC. Remember AB ran PFC Resources and segued into EnQuest. Quite scary really and I imagine he [AB] must be involved even if only on a consultancy basis. Maybe this was inevitable but there can hardly have been a more unwelcoming basin than the UKCS in the past few years. It must inevitably have had an impact on PFC and WG.

I was trying to get yesterday's UT for WG because I felt that the 55% drop couldn't be true. Then I saw the number of trades 12,838. Only algos can move that fast and often. I guess its overdone but I would still not touch the equity of either. There'll be bargains in the bonds no doubt. One thing it did persuade me is that the lack of turnover in EnQuest shares is a good thing but while this turmoil is happening in both these energy serving companies we are untouchable. Untouchable because without clarity and firm numbers and details why would you expose yourself to this carnage or buy any shares in EnQuest?

I haven't been following but in simple terms you've had one industry that is loss making without subsidies (renewables) being funded partly by dismantling and fining another industry (UK O&G) that had the temerity to survive the recent geopolitical and pandemic events that caused structural economic damage throughout Europe. The Tories deserve to disappear for good being the instigators behind this and handing over our security to an ideological failed professional politician whose fanaticism seems unabated and allowed by his incompetent leader. No wonder Reform see renewables as a cancer if not treated sensibly.

Inexorable. Up 50 points to 103.00 that coverts to 10.32% down from 10.54% yesterday. The RB is c. 9.86%

That is NOT distressed debt under pressure. A reflection on our ranking sure. Last time I looked Moody's gave EnQuest plc a Baa3 rating, which is considered medium-grade and subject to moderate credit risk. We may be on the bottom rung but have moved from a Non-investment speculative grade with Moody's.

S&P B+ not so good but both are pretty much up to date following the September tap issue.

Looks like they're in the queue waiting for news alongside us shareholders.

Trevethin and Penygarn Council by-election.

Reform UK: 47.0% (New)

Labour: 26.6% (-49.2)

Independent: 12.0% (New)

Independent: 11.7% (New)

Green: 2.6% (New)

They're bigging it up and it is small beer in the scheme of things but imagine if it was repeated during a general election? Whatever your political views (I was a member of the Labour Party) the average person isn't an activist or ideolog. This is a flea bite to Labour presently but I bet the Tories are scratching more whilst Labour can afford to ignore it for now.

I'm not woke and don't accept DEI or positive discrimination. I am tolerant and totally against discrimination. I suppose that is why I support O&G (discriminated against) and argue against the headlong rush into expensive and untried renewables (DEI). On this I am with Reform.

If they had an election now I guess it would be repeated. The committed Reform vote would stay the same and many in the other parties would hesitate to repeat their previous vote if faced with excruciatingly high energy bills and the preachy direction that Labour is taking us.

Reform can bide their time for now. As Napoleon said: "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

Nice' Both up today 50 points to 102.50

Bond holders not worried about the debt.

You have no idea how happy this makes me. I feel vindicated. By no lesser a person than Professor Sir Dieter Helm today

"Part of the problem is that the sprint to net zero is increasing the relative cost of UK electricity. Far from being “nine times cheaper than fossil fuels” as Miliband would have us believe, the UK, along with Germany and its Energiewende, have put us in the leaderboard for the highest energy costs.

https://dieterhelm.co.uk/publications/competitive-industrial-electricity-prices/

Https://order-order.com/2025/02/12/ed-hijacks-india-energy-week-says-uk-is-proud-oil-and-gas-producer-then-leaves-without-questions/

I especially liked Richard Tice's response to Sky saying "most people back NZ according to a recent yougov poll".

RT said "you have to ask the right question" rephrase it to "are you happy to pay an extra £300, £400, £500, £600 per annual bill when it will make no difference to co2 emissions?" - you will get a different answer to "do you care about the countryside and environment? - of course you do"

No mention of the actual date of the poll but sadly for Ed and Dale the truth is coming at them like a hurricane. I do wonder why they timed this Press Conference after close of business. I expect tomorrow Labour will try and get ahead of the news cycle. I'll be looking at Orsted's share price.

*Not sure if it's relevant but 99% of beauty queen's wished for World Peace at a recent poll of Beauty Pageants.

Net Zero Watch says the Reform Party may have stopped the green bandwagon in its tracks. In a news conference today, the party’s deputy leader Richard Tice announced plans to claw back subsidies from renewables operators.

With the party now ahead in many polls of Westminster voting intention, the announcement will be a major blow to a renewables industry already beset by problems, from soaring capital costs to collapsing demand. In particular, it threatens the next annual round of the Contracts for Difference renewables auction (AR7). The government needs the auction to deliver an unprecedented quantity of new renewables if it is to deliver on its Clean Power 2030 plan. However, the auction timetable has slipped compared to last year, suggesting that investors may already be nervous, and now Reform’s announcement may kill it off entirely.

Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said:

‘Reform’s announcement is undoubtedly a major threat to future renewables auctions, because it completely undermines the economic rationale for building new wind and solar. If it brings the renewables bandwagon to a halt, consumers will at least be able to hope that their energy bills will eventually stop rising.’

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

AR7 will be fun. Orsted only need half an excuse to wriggle out of commitments. Proof that you can't fool the people all of the time.

*Bond market looked at today's RNS and raised the 144A 25 points and the Reg S 50 points. They're awaiting an announcement too. Not overly significant but it's a positive and the bond market is not known for its frivolity.

Message to the government. “As one of the largest O&G producers in the UKCS we have increased our investments in Asia whilst continuing to run down assets and maximise extraction where possible in the UKCS. This is a speeded up enforced repositioning due to the hostile fiscal regime in the UK towards the O&G industry. Our responsibility to shareholders is paramount but it is not too late for government to make it possible for there to be a future in O&G for the foreseeable future. Energy security should not depend on importing fossil fuels from overseas.”

Bits of the RNS I liked.

Reminder of the HYN tap. It wasn’t an ‘in trouble’ loan but strategic and gives us increased flexibility away from lien restrictions.

Production holding up nicely.

For me this is the icing : “The Group is focused on maturing the Kraken Enhanced Oil Recovery ('EOR') project. Following encouraging testing, EnQuest aims to progress to a final investment decision within the next 12 months. EOR represents a material upside to the existing Kraken base reservoir performance, with initial estimates suggesting 30 to 60 MMbbls of additional recoverable oil could be unlocked.”

If it goes ahead that is something like 10-20,000 bopd and ‘recoverable = commercially viable”. They were talking 10 years ago about EOR for Bentley. We’ll probably have a new government by then and Bentley a reality. Labour cannot prevent EOR at Kraken because that would make no sense with imports continuing.

Finally, “Building shareholder value remains at the heart of our capital allocation decisions and we will provide an update on the Group's shareholder return plans when we announce our final audited results in March."

AND ABOUT TIME TOO

Additionally, an LNG vessel that departed Wheatstone, Australia, on February 5-6 is making a rare voyage to Europe, and is set to arrive at Dunkirk in France on March 7-8, the data showed.

The Elisa Ardea is a new ship put on long-term charter for French utility EDF, said Alex Froley, senior LNG analyst at ICIS.

If the Elisa Ardea completes the voyage to France, this would be the first Australian cargo to Europe since the Woodside Rees Withers took one from the Northwest Shelf to Gate in Rotterdam in November 2022, he added.

https://www.bairdmaritime.com/shipping/gas/oman-australia-lng-tankers-head-west-one-via-red-sea-as-europe-draws-supply

Well that's the plan - I wonder if Keir thinks this is pertinent -

https://x.com/theobertram/status/1888870115116028186

I looked for the report /paper but couldn't find it. The article itself is the usual self-aggrandisement of the usual suspects. Stern and Khan. I have no wish to wear a hair shirt to impress other countries who are actually amazed at the self-destructive course our government has chosen. Once again Khan is wrong. So what if oil is a roundabout - if it's ours we earn tax revenue and that will do more good than trying to impress China, India or the US. If we've got revenue we can direct it where it may do some good. Her claim that the UK public pick up most of the cost of developing Rosebank is risible. The 'generous' tax breaks are available throughout industry and business but still not as generous as for renewables.

My head hurts. I do think you need an accountancy background to understand the amount of complications that abound in energy pricing. Then you have to get your head around CfDs and other subsidies that are priced in 2012 terms. Luckily David Turver had a go in September but gas volatility seems to be making a mockery of those calculations https://davidturver.substack.com/p/what-the-ar6-auction-results-mean-for-consumers

You'll probably hate me Steve but here's some data that I'm not even going to attempt to understand. Curiosity might make you read it: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1WE6mhp1engVv3Y3_-myBanh2DSroXIJH

I don't know John Brown but he is happy to share and he's put a lot of effort in. He's actually asking for peer review and checking of his figures.