Member Info for romaron

An article in The Sunday Times was co-authored by Tim Shipman and Caroline Wheeler. TS is their chief political commentator with top inside contacts (he scooped the coup against Theresa May). CW has worked at the heart of Westminster for over 20 years as a lobby journalist. This makes the article far more valuable than the usual commentary. They rely on leaks and contacts. Most is gossip but every so often they land prizes. Most politicians are friendly towards them because like us they are nosy and to get information out you often have to trade. Good journalists never reveal sources so the confessional rules apply.

Together they wrote this in an article about Rachel Reeves. This is the extract that interested me regarding the Heathrow expansion:

“Another announcement last week from Steve Reed, the environment secretary, that will make it easier for developers to bypass environmental concerns to speed up new wind farms, railways, roads, gigafactories and data centres, was also seen as a win for the Treasury over the net zero zealots.

Insiders say Miliband will not resign, not least because it would give a victory to his internal opponents. “If he offered to go, I think they would hold open the doors for him” one senior government source said. But even Reeve’s supporters think Miliband is playing a canny game. “Ed understands that the way in which he can fulfil his objectives is by talking about this in terms of growth and jobs,” one said. “All our conversations with investors are about clean energy and biotech.””

So the last sentence shows the frailty of Ed’s crusade. It ain’t happening. Words are cheap. Energy bills are rising. The ‘net zero zealots’ is not a complimentary term but is now in the lexicon and I think we should all use it. Like families government’s like to show a united front and hide internal discord. It can’t go on and I expect a clash. Starmer needs to act and he can’t afford to let two go together. RR could spend more if they cut back on renewable subsidies whilst Ed threatens to increase the next CfD auction. Something will break.

This is one of the best explainers I’ve read on CfDs https://davidturver.substack.com/p/record-cfd-subsidies-in-2024?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

At the end of the article was this - "Barry Gardiner, the Labour MP for Brent West, said the government was “going down absolutely the wrong road” with the Drax power station, which burns wood for energy.

“We should not be paying them at the moment – I think it is £9bn. The impact on biodiversity is disastrous … they say it is renewable but not in the timeframe we need for the 2050 targets,” Gardiner said. Miliband is due to make a decision on whether to grant the power station more subsidies."

Biomass is base load. I agree that Drax is a con. Another problem for Ed.

Oh dear. Once again Ed hasn't done his homework. Next it'll be his bacon sarnies being banned. Here's the evidence https://x.com/aDissentient/status/1836702480668758322

Please pass on

The CAN (Climate and Nature bill) has not just been kicked down the road its disappeared down a huge green hole that Ed has been digging furiously.

My thoughts are with Caroline Lucas "I’m still hoping this isn’t true. In what world would a Labour Government want to scupper the one Bill that brings climate & nature restoration together, increases ambition & generates good jobs & security in every constituency?" - it has made my evening. Ed has done the things he's good at which is deflection and spinning. They talked it out and made worthless promises which meant Ed didn't have to break with the Cabinet. It is shameful face-saving and politicking. This is a massive win for us as it doesn't matter how they paint it they've backed down. A few months ago this might have got through. Momentum is now with us.

A shame Starmer's father wasn't a painter & decorator. The cracks are getting worse and he hasn't the skill to repair or hide. Have a look at this https://x.com/Ed_Miliband Ed pretending that this is a good result. He was quick off the mark and just shows how opportunist and shallow he really is. Starmer seems to be still infatuated with Ed but others in his Cabinet must be sick to the back teeth the favoritism and money being shown to Ed and his department.

A great result and more to come I think.

“While those on the left typically support executive action to achieve their objectives by dictate, we close by reminding them that Trump now has four years to comb through the dizzying array of federal statutes to reciprocate to the fullest extent. Unmoored by the need to stand for reelection and schooled by his tumultuous first term, we suspect he will be far more effective in this regard than many are anticipating. While we might find ourselves in agreement with some of Trump’s moves—especially regarding energy policy—we find the entire breakdown in constitutional norms despicable.”

For the struggling wind sector, life comes at you fast. Among the avalanche of executive orders signed by President Trump during his historic first hours back in office was one titled Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects. See if you spot anything familiar:

“Under the authority granted to me in section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1341(a), I hereby withdraw from disposition for wind energy leasing all areas within the Offshore Continental Shelf (OCS) as defined in section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1331. This withdrawal shall go into effect beginning on January 21, 2025, and shall remain in effect until this Presidential Memorandum is revoked…

This withdrawal temporarily prevents consideration of any area in the OCS for any new or renewed wind energy leasing for the purposes of generation of electricity or any other such use derived from the use of wind. This withdrawal does not apply to leasing related to any other purposes such as, but not limited to, oil, gas, minerals, and environmental conservation.”

To be clear, Trump is merely and predictably walking through a door blown wide open by his predecessors, and the same legal barriers that were used to stop him from rescinding former President Obama’s drilling bans during his first term will undoubtedly serve to insulate this blow to the wind sector from judicial reprieve. The progressive environmental left won’t be spinning any new turbines in coastal waters for at least the next four years, if ever. Companies that probably should have never existed but were nonetheless spooled up by the whims of one president have been crushed by those of another, which is probably not the best way to run a country, but this is the reality of the moment.

*Doomberg today

(cont) For those not up with climate activists’ terminology, ‘the remaining global carbon budget’ means the maximum emissions which could still be emitted while still meeting the target of limiting global warming to 1.5 Celsius above ‘pre-industrial levels’ – i.e. the temperature which the Earth happened to be around the year 1850. The global carbon budget is arrived at, needless to say, through crude modelling. Yet it is taken as gospel by climate activists who appear to have little idea of the uncertainties involved in such calculations; it is ‘science’, they reason, and therefore must be the truth.

But let’s leave that aside. The text of that version of the bill went on to define the remaining global carbon budget as 400 billion tonnes. What would Britain’s ‘proportionate share’ of this be? The bill doesn’t make it clear what it means by this, but if you are going to calculate it on the basis of current population rather than – as some activists would like to do – on the basis of a country’s historic carbon emissions, it would mean the UK (which has 0.84 per cent of the world’s population) being limited to a further 3.36 billion tonnes. Britain could be restricted from being allowed to emit any more than that. Given that UK territorial emissions in 2023 were 384 million tonnes the ‘budget’ is equivalent to just over eight and a half years’ worth. Calculate UK emissions on a consumption basis – which were 487 million tonnes in 2023 – and it would allow us only 6.9 years’ of emissions at current rates.

The Climate and Nature Bill really does risk taking Britain back to the dark ages – quite literally. It is up there with Extinction Rebellion, which originally demanded Britain achieve net zero by 2025 – i.e. now. It is deeply disturbing that so many MPs appear to be prepared to vote for such a future. Ignorance about the consequences of net zero continue to run shockingly deep among our elected representatives.

*Ross Clark - Spectator today

Today the Commons will debate something called the Climate and Nature Bill – which would have severe consequences for the UK economy, and for living standards, were it to be passed.

This is a private members’ bill which has little chance of becoming law in the absence of government support, and the government has not yet shown any inclination to support it. Nevertheless, it demands to be taken seriously, because its backers are already claiming the support of 195 MPs, including 90 Labour MPs. Among them, although he is reported to have been ordered to steer clear, is Chief Secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones. The bill was originally promoted by Caroline Lucas, which is never a good sign, but at first sight it seems reasonably innocuous. It is not.

The bill seeks to turn the government’s ‘Nationally Determined Contributions’ (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement into legally-binding commitments. Given that Energy Secretary Ed Miliband last October set an NDC of reducing Britain’s carbon emissions by 81 per cent – relative to a 1990 baseline – by 2035 this would establish a much more immediate target than the net zero commitment laid out in the Climate Change Act.

Moreover, the bill demands that the UK reduce the carbon emissions embedded in imports by a similar proportion. So, for the first time, we would be under a legally-binding commitment to reduce our overall carbon footprint by 81 per cent by 2035, from 1990 levels.

There is good logic in measuring carbon emissions on a consumption, rather than a territorial, basis. What the government does at the moment, only counting territorial emissions, gives it a perverse incentive to offshore our remaining industry and agriculture so that that its emissions can be counted on other countries’ carbon budgets – while doing nothing whatsoever to help the planet.

However, the new demand would place impossible conditions on importers. For many countries, data on carbon emissions, product by product, are highly unlikely to be available, so importers simply won’t be able to conform to compliance demands. But even where data is available, the chances of

obtaining zero carbon products by 2035 is pretty slim. We may have removed steel emissions from our own carbon figures by closing down our primary steel industry, but that doesn’t mean we will be able to buy carbon-free steel from anywhere else in the world by 2035. The same goes for chemicals, fertilisers, foods and many other products. Unless the rest of the world progresses towards net zero at the same rate as Miliband is determined to make Britain do – which is highly unlikely – we are going to be stuffed. We may not be able to import certain foods.

But the promoters of the bill really want to go further. The original version published last May went demanded that the UK’s total carbon emissions be limited “to no more than its proportionate share of the remaining global carbon budget”.

Thanks smokin - afraid I have to disagree. I've asked IR for clarification on the 8 cents v 14 whatevers. I learned nothing that hasn't already been said as that would potentially require an RNS. As for AB looking relaxed - he's on holiday FFS.

I don't think Chris Stark or Ed Miliband are talentless. Neither was Torquemada during the Inquisition. Putin is far from stupid but all seem to think they have an almost religious mission. All are/were deluded but had/have huge support. If you are in the Priesthood there is a tendency to believe you're doing things for the good of the masses. Putin and indeed Trump know the power of creed and superstition. Has anyone ever witnessed a miracle or confirmed a reincarnation? Does any one know the exact number of virgins in Islamic heaven?

Miliband is like any religious leader. He has enough acolytes and even when he fails miserably, possibly taking us with him, he'll claim things would have been even worse if we hadn't carpeted the country with windmills and solar panels. There will always be a divide on climate and of course it will continue to change. In fact it has never stopped changing but we need to destroy their carefully curated collection of half-truths and impossible to prove or disprove claims. Speculation and models have been renamed as 'settled science' and a proportion of the public (and every member of juststopoil) proudly back it and accept the words of the High Priest like some 15th Century peasant.

My faith is in the common sense of the public and their concern over paying their bills. The climate evangelists are just as strident but their numbers are diminishing. With the reduced backing of the charities and .orgs that used the "climate emergency" followers will fade away and the self same charities who seem to duplicate in amazing numbers and give incest a bad name will implode as benefactors find some other crusade to make them feel better. Roll on that day.

If the O&G Industry along with opposition politicians cannot manage to bring common sense into this then we deserve to be driven out of the NS. WE all know why AR5 failed. The wind companies realised they couldn't make a profit at the prices offered so didn't bid. The Tories had miscalculated and fell for the green grift. AR6 had money thrown at it by Labour and they will need even more for AR7. Labour's solution as with the Junior doctors and Railways is to throw money at the problem. This isn't a war or a pandemic just a ridiculously timed "sprint" to 2030. Ed's intention is to throw so much money at renewables that sunk cost syndrome will apply and we'll end up with bankruptcy or blackouts. Forget AI in the UK - it needs baseload. Surely someone in the Cabinet or Labour Party can stop this madness.

They don't like judicial reviews and enquiries but I think gross mismanagement of public funds cannot be allowed until the next election. If this doesn't motivate the industry I don't know what will. Unite are still planning demonstrations regarding the Winter Fuel Allowance removal this month. Why are industry so afraid of Labour that they won't play hardball? Resistance needs to be organised.

There is one big problem for Ed. You cannot predict the price of oil and gas BUT you can predict the cost of renewables, particularly wind. We'll have enough data to show performance to date and we are already decommissioning and retiring turbines. This is NOT a new industry. 15 year contracts can be costed and a fair assumption made on the cost of curtailment payments and subsidies that have been hidden from the public. A few heavyweights and public figures need to be hired to head the fightback and demand that Ed and the CCC don't hide behind parliamentary privilege or that they are "busy".

Ed has got away with it because the O&G industry laid down and took it. Admittedly the likes of juststopoil and the UN were on a roll and everyone knelt at the court of Queen Greta. That has changed and now the UK looks closer to Venezuela politically. DEI and ESG are toxic. Let's drive the stake home.

The Harbour update throws a perspective on our RNS yesterday. WE had to issue a RNS because it was “material” information that could reasonably be expected to affect the price of our shares. Not the case with HBR who left the announcement until today. It did help us a tad and was possibly more of a ‘just in case’ to please the lawyers. It would have been run past HBR for sure.

I’ve an open mind about the transformational deal (whoever and whatever it is). I’ve stopped getting in a lather because I think the next government move overrides all of the current speculation. WE are well positioned with the tax losses. I imagine HBR thinks more like a US company and maybe like Apache the future ain’t here.

I was wondering about that today too. Interconnectors help and I was surprised that we were getting electricity from Denmark and Belgium who I assume aren't have much more wind than us. Norway is largely hydro and France nuclear.

I think that they make a decision on using their gas instead of renewables because they have built up a strategic reserve at much cheaper prices in the summer. Always happy to help a friend out - at a price!

The truth is that the interconnectors from Belgium, Denmark and Netherlands may well be electricity generated by gas?

Hi AoK, I've been here since 2011 it says but I only really started posting since 2015 when I first invested in EnQuest. There has been enormous change and most importantly it is MSM that has changed the most. I find energy absorbing and without it I'd probably be a farm labourer living a marginal existence as many in the 3rd world do. Early adopters to social media were the young and I only scraped in. My parents remained oblivious. TV and ink have become almost obsolete. The upside is that we now have access to 'experts' but they don't have to follow previous accepted standards or even need qualifications. "Climate scientist" only applies to a few like Dieter Helm but the BBC will invite the likes of Dale Vince and Greg Jackson on to shows and give them equal billing to actual scientists. In fact it's worse than that as many scientists see NO reason to engage in hypotheticals and descend to the low level of piffle espoused by the 'climate activists' (who are always available) and don't bother to accept invites to QT or Kuenssburg. It has been even worse for executives in the O&G industry. They have families to consider against the baying mob.

It has taken best part of a decade for it to tilt back and even now the playing field is not even. BUT what you, I and others have done is spread the word. We can back our arguments with facts. WE have skin in the game rather than the likes of juststopoil or Uplift who are mouthpieces for a cultism that objects to how we live in the West but wouldn't dream of protesting where the real climate dangers lie. Does the 'climate emergency' even exist. Millions die in Africa due to pollution from burning wood and charcoal in poor housing. How will we help them?

The Green Blob told many lies and they have come back to bite them in the *rse. They rode a wave that social media created. Like all cults they eventually wither and die. Look at religion. No wonder the churches support those against fossil fuels. They have successfully made it a good v evil argument. Problem is people still want to travel and have holidays. If I get sick I wouldn't care less what propels the ambulance. Life is always a trade-off and ideology just gets in the way.

The current crop of Labour politicians are largely 'professional politicians'. I met Margaret Mullane the Dagenham MP last week. She is an old school constituency MP with an accent to match. She can't get an audience with ministers and regrets her vote on the Winter Fuel Allowance. She was a newbie and 'only following orders'. She won't do that again. She does however know the route of the 173 and its unreliability in reaching King George Hospital. She was also onside regarding EV's and the threat to jobs at Ford Dagenham.

This is priceless. Miliband wants to triple solar power in the UK to 47 GW in the next 5 years.

https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/energy/publication/solar-photovoltaic-power-potential-by-country

It shows a Global map showing practical solar energy potential after excluding for physical, environmental and other factors. This is another race our politicians entered us for and it’s not winning that counts but taking part (we didn’t come last of 230 entrants, Ireland did) we came a respectable 229th according to Ed.

But Ed isn’t a quitter. “Solar PV may still be economically attractive in countries with relatively low solar resource potential due to the prevalence of high electricity prices, or a high daytime peak load from industry or air conditioning.” So the answer is simple – make our electricity the most expensive in the world. Ed is a genius.

I’m glad to see that Labour is going back to its roots and building on its ground breaking (literally) success to another ‘emergency’ back in 1947 with ‘The Groundnut Scheme’.

Another investor suggested that Ed is either a Chinese spy or looking for a job in the ‘Green industry’. That is ridiculous. They're not that silly. Only a political party or a Charity would employ him.

Another investor thinks the “transformational deal” could involve Harbour. There could have been pressure to release news of the Vietnam deal because it was an impediment to the other deal and/or HBR have changed strategy regards Viertnam.

I wasn’t sure so went back to my letter to Linda Cook back in 2023 writing to her about her evisceration at the 20 July Environmental Audit Committee July 2022 by those smiling frauds Tessa, Carolyn, Barry and Clive. They got carried away with their success where the ladies stated that renewables were 4X cheaper than gas and it grew into the 9X cheaper canard that was picked up by Ed and Carolyn and broadcast on National TV by the BBC without any fact checking. Kier not wanting to be left out used it in his New Year speech and at Davos. No fact checking again of course as it is not a requirement with miracles. Belief is enough. I think the fact that Uplift and the Green Party appear to sing from the same hymn sheet could leave them open to a conspiracy charge against the British Public. I know Linda read it and I got a thankyou from their IR.

I think Linda Cook understands the British very well and we deserve the sobriquet “Perfidious Albion”. I’ve just finished reading “The Golden Door” by the great polemicist A.A.Gill and it is an eye-opener. He ridiculed the ‘special relationship’. It doesn’t exist except in the convenience that we both speak English. In fact Dean Acheson of presidentsUS Secretary of State and manipulator of presidents from Eisenhower to Nixon said: “Of course there is a unique relationship between Britain and America. But unique doesn’t mean affectionate.” He went on to point out the truth: that America had fought England as an enemy as often as an ally, and most famously and crisply he pointed out that Britain had lost an empire but failed to find a role. In 1914 Britain and its empire had the richest and deepest reserves in the world. In 1919 it had the largest debt in the world. The gold had crossed the Atlantic.

Maybe my fellow investor is right.

In an article about the EnQuest Vietnam deal: "In September the EnQuest boss struck out at the “irreversible damage” he perceived was being done to the UK’s oil and gas market as a result of the country’s taxation policy.

Bseisu said at the time that his firm had invested over £4 billion in the UK and “has the capacity and opportunities to do so again”.

And in another article by David Whitehouse CEO of OEUK:

"We still have significant oil and gas reserves in our offshore waters and much of this is in close proximity to existing platforms. We should use these resources responsibly alongside renewable energy. Unlocking an additional 4 billion barrels adds over £200 billion to our economy, supports our jobs and supports our world-class supply chain.

The simple truth is that, if we do not produce it here in the North Sea, we will import it – paying less tax to the treasury, without the wider economic benefits, and with a higher carbon footprint."

From the RNS " As EnQuest continues to work towards a transformational transaction in the UK North Sea"

This is more like it. Hardly likely to use this wording if the deal had cratered. It will be an interesting AGM if one isn't announced before May.

Not exactly PYUECK but must be considered. Unless Labour drops its fundamentalism and stops talking with forked tongue about growth and opportunity. There is a danger in losing your industrial and manufacturing base. Maybe it is inevitable but why speed up the self-immolation with attacks on your remaining assets? I can see the attraction to immigrants because they all come from countries weak on basics to what is basically becoming a "welfare state". I'm running out of runway but would encourage younger people to put their investments offshore and even consider moving abroad.

Self-interest should mean that industry titans back Reform but they're just as likely to invest OR MOVE abroad. INEOS are already well into the process.

Https://dieterhelm.co.uk/economics/competitiveness-why-uk-economic-growth-is-so-elusive/

It is clear that Ed Miliband has never heard of him.

“Since the windfall tax was introduced, the total tax take from the North Sea has fallen by a third to £2.9bn and is projected by the Office for Budget Responsibility to drop by a further £1.6bn in 2024 to 2025.

As previous governments should have learned, companies react to the signals they get. Excessive taxes mean less investment and inevitably ends in lower overall tax revenues over the medium to longer term.

Separately, data centres are proliferating around the world as artificial intelligence becomes a reality and energy is at the centre of that growth. For the UK, without reliable, affordable baseload energy, the current stance on not issuing new offshore licences is similar to tying your legs together at the start of a race."

This was from a recent opinion piece by Brian Gilvary the Chairman of INEOS. I missed the original but thanks to Martin Copeland of Serica because he posted it on his LinkedIn page. I'm disappointed that it came via this convoluted route. Wouldn't it be nice if EnQuest could point us in a similar direction? After all AB shares the Chairmanship of Pragma with Brian Gilvary. Pragma includes 'Advocacy' on its front page. Maybe I'm missing something and EnQuest are taking a leading role in speaking up for the O&G industry. BUT like everything else they are keeping it secret. I am sick and tired of listening to excuses and the paucity of information keeping shareholders up to date.

I am only interested in shareholders return. I don't get a healthy salary from EnQuest. The Chairman and CEO basically ignored us after the AGM and quickly exited stage left. The 2025 AGM is closer than last year's but in all honesty we aren't really better informed at all. We have been treated shabbily. It needs to end.

https://www.ineos.com/news/shared-news/higher-taxes-on-oil-and-gas-are-deterring-investment-in-uk/#:~:text=Since%20the%20windfall%20tax%20was,to%20the%20signals%20they%20get.