Member Info for romaron

I'm not seeing any reaction so far from the people who really understand the costs. The strike prices are at 2012 prices I believe so the con continues. Electricity bills are at today's prices.

The response was idiotic by Keith Anderson CEO of Scottish Power but completely predictable. It's called "talking your book". He lied.

He said "we need to stop the lying on volatile gas prices and right now unfortunately those volatile gas prices still set and influence the price of electricity but the more and more renewable energy we put on the system the less and less the impact of gas and then eventually we need to get to when the government wants us to do this by 2030 to a system that's dominated and the prices set by renewables and therefore we have much more stability and have lower electricity prices and that will be good for the whole of the country".

Who is lying would have been a good question. A surplus of renewables means Zero when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. He has swerved the important question of what happens when there aren't enough renewables going into the grid. Unicorn technology hasn't yet arrived.

I remember EAGA going bust and being saved at the last moment when Carillion bought them back in 2010/11. The reason was that EAGA existed purely off the back of the Warm Front scheme. The grant was reduced and the business became unviable overnight. What Keith Anderson never said was that without subsidies the wind industry isn't viable either.

Hi Oxygen - I don't think Benitz is CEO of NEO but he wouldn't have said it without their blessing. NEO are the people that both EM and RR need - they have the investment funds and make things happen. JOG are potless chancers by comparison (market cap £19.27m). NEO, like Shell and BP, can afford to wait for the politicians to find out what reality entails. There is also another company that can do the same called EnQuest. I was listening gain to both our webcasts of last September. Because of the tax credits and the way they're geared we have a 2.6X advantage over competitors in the UK. The downside of that is our major assets are trapped in the UK. We've also stopped talking about the Net debt to EBITDA metric (target 0.5). We must be close and I will be pressing for dividends.

I've thought for some time that with our competition disappearing and the cost of our bread and butter being funded by the sellers we are in an excellent position compared to others in the UKCS. Our tax losses are protected from the avaricious confiscators in Westminster by tax laws. Changing them would crater the chances of ANY new investment in the NS. There is another angle that I know Stevo disagrees with but the ESIM is a backstop and would mean that if O&G prices went below the ESIM prices our tax rate for much revenue would be zero. O&G go together and you're unlikely to see a collapse in oil not dragging gas with it or vice versa. We are in a good position and just need a few facts of life to be accepted by the eco-fanatics within Labour.

Thursday's HY figures are important but it will be a signal from Labour that they aren't intentionally destroying the UK O&G industry that will really help and are making investment possible again. Without it we'll just plod on but we are a very profitable going concern because of past losses that are ring fenced. We cannot expect anything from Government yet but lobbying before the budget has already started.

It intrigued me me too Oxygen - the impact of the NEO on JOG (Buchan field) caused it [JOG] to drop 20% today. NEO are owned by HitecVision who have their roots in Norway. Mugs they ain't and the impact on them is to some extent minimal. They aren't committed to saving the UKCS but mainly they are not afraid of the UK Government.

There is definitely a change in the narrative. Ed will say they are bluffing or he's won. NEO don't really care. Labour are Sovereign and there isn't much to stop their decision making even if it loses the UK tax revenue, increases emissions due to imports and raises the price of energy. NEO are merely acting sensibly and protecting their investments.

"Haven’t the Tories been doing that since devolution? In a bid to build a grand Unionist coalition that alienated no one, they moved to the centre – going so far as to initially endorse what would become the SNP’s disastrous experiment in education.

The alternative would be to revive and represent an authentic, philosophical, Scottish conservatism, cashing in on an anti-progressive turn that feels highly likely. For the first time ever, the Tories can blame the condition of Scotland on the SNP and Britain on Labour, a confederacy of dunces that will play into their hands.

For starters, there are seats to be won for a party that is anti-net zero. The Lanarkshire landscape is littered with wind farms as far as the eye can see – already peeling and cracking, relics to yet another experiment forced on the locals. In 50 years’ time we shall pull those wretched things down, wondering why we ever put them up."

from an Article in today's Telegraph by Tim Stanley

I can remember my mum having contempt for Labour and would oft quote "The Groundnut Scheme". This was another crackpot scheme where experts were ignored and the weather and terrain proved to be an implacable foe. History doesn't only rhyme; it repeats itself in this case.

Https://www.netzerowatch.com/campaigns/view-email/kc4FkWb2c_vEIKVy5k4krCd7KtYUXGCSYQGiHWQyx9HJ5IjH8r1NcB_dt7phExoh_Y8YxG_Qpvc9c24fgVUr4LvE216DC8OnMAYSzOC6T9_pC7Z7CvD9mv3upA8CXyYVDYNFf4uLXBavJnW0dwyt6WqPwVS8S-j-ofvDDw==?ss_source=sscampaigns&ss_campaign_id=66d2c18b797f23319c5fb494&ss_email_id=66d2d3c28189b23fc31dbac6&ss_campaign_name=NZW+Samizdat%3A+Autumn+of+discontent&ss_campaign_sent_date=2024-08-31T08%3A27%3A08Z

Silly season is over. I liked this:

"And there is also a little consolation in the way our message is starting to dominate the media, both traditional and social. Requests for media appearances are coming thick and fast – there are several linked below – and supportive op-eds are appearing almost every day.

The return of Parliament next week promises some fireworks, although Ed Miliband doesn’t have to face MPs until the start of October. Whatever happens, there is no doubt that Mr Starmer and his crew are facing an autumn of discontent."

Labour councillor Tom Morton described the company’s attitude towards Shetland as “colonial, patronising and contemptuous”. He added: “As far As SSE is concerned, Shetland is a battery park.”

Poor old Tom Morton just doesn't understand. It's for the greater good. Career politicians from London see the bigger picture.

Labour’s new-found enthusiasm for the oil and gas industry can be seen as another victory for the unions, albeit, in this case, in a way which will act in consumers’ interests, too. This shouldn’t come as a big surprise. Back in June, the Unite union refused to endorse Labour’s manifesto specifically on the grounds that its energy policy would destroy jobs in the North Sea. There are other ways in which Labour’s relationship with the unions is a threat to the economy, most notably the government’s capitulation to pay demands from Aslef and others without any proper requirement for them to adopt more efficient working practices. But for once the unions are right, and their influence on the government is beneficial to us all. Let’s enjoy that while we can.

From an article by Ross Clark in The Spectator yesterday titled "Is Starmer now a friend of the oil and gas industry?"

This isn't good enough. We're supposed to interpret mixed messages from Labour. It is quite simple to me. Abandon oil and gas in the NS and replace it with imports. Sod the security and revenue. Only Ed thinks we'll not need them for electricity past 2030.

Keir Starmer’s government appears to have softened its stance on oil and gas. Back in June 2023, the Labour leader told an audience in Edinburgh that there would be no new licences for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. Instead, a Labour government would pursue green energy all the way, slashing our bills (it promised) and taking us ever faster to the nirvana of net zero. But how the responsibilities of government come to bear. A release from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) this morning indicates some notable shuffling of ground.

Far from cheering a recent Supreme Court ruling which quashed planning permission for a small oil well development in Surrey on the grounds that the Environmental Impact Assessment hadn’t considered the carbon emissions which would be released when the oil was burned, the government says it will step in to help the oil and gas industry to obtain the relevant consents for developing new fields. It will consult on new planning guidance to ensure that projects can go ahead. While the government says it will not challenge a judicial review brought by Greenpeace on the development of the Jackdaw and Rosebank oil fields in the North Sea – which are similar to the challenge against the Surrey oil field – the licenses for those fields will not be withdrawn. They may still go ahead if they can satisfy the new guidelines.

The government has thought twice about throwing the oil and gas industry to the dogs in favour of renewables

Remarkably, the DESNZ adds that ‘oil and gas production in the North Sea will be a key component of the UK energy landscape for decades to come as it transitions to our clean energy future in a way that protects jobs.’

In other words, the government has thought twice about throwing the oil and gas industry to the dogs in favour of renewables. But the wording of today’s statement does rather suggest that the inspiration for its change of heart was not so much the interests of energy consumers as those of oil and gas workers. If anyone was in doubt that Labour is suddenly worried about destroying jobs in the oil and gas industry, the release adds:

‘The government recognises the proud history of the UK offshore industry and the brilliance of its workforce, particularly in Scotland and the North East of England, and the ongoing role of oil and gas in the country’s energy mix.’

What about the concern that has been raised here, and in many other places, about Labour’s energy policy? How is the government intending to keep the lights on if it tries to switch Britain to renewables without much in the way of reliable back-up? (cont)

The change in FES 2024 from scenarios to pathways was supposed to bring in “additional economic modelling,” but such modelling was conspicuous by its absence. Now Slye must deliver the previously non-existent cost benefit analysis for these new pathways within three months. That is a very tall order indeed.

The big question is whether NG ESO can maintain the pretence that a net zero grid by 2030 is achievable and economically viable and lose whatever remaining credibility the have or will they be the first to point out that Mad Emperor Ed has no clothes?

Source: David Turver - Eigen Values Aug 30

*sounds like your family are going to be busy monkey

If you were ever uncertain that Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and his Head of Mission Control, Chris Stark were space cadets with only the vacuum of space between their ears, then the letter they sent to the NG ESO yesterday should remove all doubt.

First, it is rather unfortunate that the file name for the letter on the Government website is “SOS Chris Stark Letter Clean Power 2030.” It smacks of a certain amount of desperation. But it is the substance of the letter that is more worrying. They have written to Fintan Slye, director of the National Grid ESO (soon to become NESO) for “practical advice” on achieving a clean power grid by 2030. In other words, neither Ed Miliband nor Stark have the faintest clue how to deliver a net zero carbon grid by 2030.

The letter goes on to detail the advice they need which includes a range of pathways to enable a decarbonised power system by 2030. For each pathway they ask that Slye sets out the energy generation and demand mix and the underlying assumptions that need to be met for these to be deliverable. They also ask for the key requirements for the transmission network and interconnectors. Interestingly, they do not ask for any information about the distribution network. They also ask for a high-level view of the costs, benefits, opportunities, challenges and risks as well as the key actions to be taken by Government, NESO, Ofgem and industry to enable delivery of the pathways. Stark’s post on X/Twitter says the advice will be delivered in the Autumn, so NESO has just three months to complete this work.

Labour's Green Prosperity Plan was launched with some fanfare back in September 2022 and was put together for them by Ember, the green energy think tank. Back then it was described as “ambitious but possible” which is consultant-speak for completely barking. As we covered last year, the plan included completely unrealistic build out plans for wind and solar power and was very sketchy on the amount of storage that would be required.

The letter from Miliband and Stark put Fintan Slye in an exceedingly difficult position. Only last month, NG ESO launched their latest Future Energy Pathways which were supposed to demonstrate a “a narrower range of outcomes to drive more strategic, credible routes to net zero.” The trouble is all the “credible routes” included very significant CO2 emissions for power generation in 2030.

To comply with the request from Government, Slye and his team have to completely re-hash this year’s FES “credible” pathways, deliver a completely new set of pathways and somehow pretend that the new pathways are plausible. The extra difficulty arises because FES2024 had it its own credibility problem because it called for a halving of per capita energy use by 2050, had deindustrialisation built in, assumed the use of as yet unproven and expensive technologies to deliver unrealistic amounts of hydrogen and relied upon carbon capture unicorns. (cont)

So your family are linemen for the county monkey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxSarBcsKLU

Thanks for confirmation of what's happening on the ground (and in the air). I read that most career politicians are scared of heights (I made that up but hey - they do it all the time).

The previous comment from Steve Bowyer shows the restraints on companies. They have to tread a careful line between what they can say and putting out an RNS. That is why the rider "not at EnQuest" was added. Meanwhile the politicians can carry on with newspeak and drivel that by its very nature and vagueness erodes the industry's future.

"starting to see resources, key equipment, drilling rigs and personnel leave the basin and that's obviously a concern - jobs are already going, there are already processes already under way, not at EnQuest but at other companies"

The Tide is turning but are government listening? By that I mean all parties other than Reform. The resistance is building.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/net-zero-is-sending-your-energy-bills-through-the-roof-and-things-can-only-get-worse-4757973

I never thought I'd write this but I will contact Diane Abbott. She has the necessary ideology to match the fanatics. People think it was only the Tories riven with division. Labour are risking the support of Trade Unions. Only zealots believe they have the right and are deaf to opposition voices. I'm with you Dumbly - onshore wind looks great on paper. Just wait until they try to build.

I haven't got the Times today but there seems to be a lot of journalists scratching around as we come to the end of the 'silly season' that happens every year. Then you have the fact that Labour are short of representatives simply because it is the holidays and people are away. They had to wheel out Jonathan Ashworth for a response and he didn't get re-elected. I had to look up Michael Shanks who was quoted in EV as 'Minister for Energy'. An ex-school teacher so highly qualified for the role. He said nothing. Just a word soup.

I'm concerned about the suggested fuel-tax increase in the budget. It is yet another attack on motorists and working people. Labour seems to be going out of its way to be unpopular but you're also left wondering if it is a distraction ploy. Terrify the public and companies and then ease back.

Keir Starmer is beginning to frighten me. The speech at the beginning of the week was planned. Commentators said it was a disaster but I disagree. It was a step further along his agenda and will be forgotten when Parliament starts again. This is what happens when you have a large majority and no opposition.

Sounds to me that Labour (and the Tories before them) have just lost the argument that our fiscal environment and tax rates on oil and gas were raised to be 'more like Norway'. The public will be unaware.

It won't power 500,000 homes. What about businesses, council offices etc. that use this expensive intermittent energy. They always use the "homes" argument because us simple consumers understand that. You missed mentioning this Frac.

"We're starting to see resources, key equipment, drilling rigs and personnel leave the basin," agrees Steve Bowyer, North Sea general manager of oil and gas producer, EnQuest.

"We actually want to grow in the UK but we need the right fiscal conditions to drive that growth,” he adds.

Mr Bowyer says his firm will be "watching very closely" what Chancellor Rachel Reeves does in her autumn budget and how she engages with industry “over the next six to 12 months” as it considers where to invest in future.

"There's a risk of causing irreparable damage to the industry and the UK economy if we don't see proper engagement, collaboration and action to put in place an appropriate fiscal regime," he added.

----

Seems to me that EnQuest pretty much in the dark along with us.

🎉 Demand 1: No New Oil and Gas Licences - WON

🔥 Demand 2: Just Stop Oil by 2030

🧡 We need a Fossil Fuel Treaty. Part of the A22 Network

This is from juststopoil's "X" heading. They'll probably claim another success if the fuel duty is increased as threatened. We all know who the losers are. The insanity continues. I remember when we used to elect legislators and representatives. WTF do these people think they are?

Personally I think it will be a WIN for Rosebank and Jackdaw. It is easier to be awkward in opposition but real life is now impacting Labour. My feeling is that doing it this way will give Labour the perfect smokescreen to allow Rosebank and Jackdaw progress under the "not my fault, guv" law. Also Jackdaw has Shell involvement and Rosebank has Equinor. Heavyweights and I believe Labour need them.

What is worrying is the time it might take. We need decisions about them as Bressay is next. From the Energy Vice article: "Further details including the timings for consultation will be published in due course. In the meantime, the government will be working in partnership with operators to navigate the implications for individual projects.

The government will aim to conclude its consultation by spring 2025.

The decision not to challenge the supreme court ruling “will save the taxpayer money” DESNZ added."

Plus waffle from yet another Energy MinisterL

"Minister for Energy Michael Shanks said: “This government is committed to making Britain a clean energy superpower, helping to meet our first mission to kickstart economic growth. While we make that transition the oil and gas industry will play an important role in the economy for decades to come.

“As we support the North Sea’s clean energy future, this government is committed to protecting current and future generations of good jobs as we do so.

“We were elected with a mandate to deliver stability, certainty and growth. Every action we take will be in pursuit of that. We will consult at pace on new guidance that takes into account the Supreme Court’s ruling on Environmental Impact Assessments, to enable the industry to plan, secure jobs, and invest in our economy.”

What a load of boll*cks. He said nothing. Pre electioneering is over. Time for action.