Member Info for romaron

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.

There's plenty of wiggle room in the release. Rosebank and Jackdaw have judicial reviews pending and the government is letting them run the course rather than intervene. Should the review go against them I suppose there could be damages cases brought by the company's involved. They are levering it off a decision affecting the Horse Hill development (goes back to David Lenigas-Gatwick Gusher) and it is tenuous to connect it to Rosebank and Jackdaw imo. The proponents are the usual suspects who I believe have lost public support and even more relates to Scope 3 emissions. Take it to its conclusion and it'll be goodbye to practically everything unless living in caves becomes aspirational. These are some of Scope 3 categories:

purchased goods and services.

capital goods.

fuel- and energy-related activities.

transportation and distribution.

waste generated in operations.

business travel.

employee commuting.

leased assets.

Hi T - I think the answer is "not a lot". This from the last presentation:

2023 – DELIVERED CONSISTENT TOP QUARTILE PERFORMANCE • Record-breaking NNS P&A programme - 25 wells across Thistle and Heather • Completed 49 wells over two years (dual string operations) • P50 well duration 27 days vs. industry average 32 days1 • P50 cost of £2.6 million per well vs industry average of £4.3 million".

There doesn't seem to be a lot left over for net profit and I think the RNS was a legal requirement a la buybacks. I think they mention the decomm expertise because there's little else to brag about or fill a presentation.

I preferred divi too. I kept quiet because I thought that EnQuest were up to something. Putting shares into treasury doesn't cancel them just means that the options pot for directors and staff can be increased. Assuming they know what they're doing i considered they were looking after all of us. LTHs and staff. So far nobody is winning. It isn't only Keir Starmer who talks a good book and blames everyone else. What has Penny done since he arrived?

Https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj08n4rv26no

I checked out the political balance of Worcester CC. Labour 13, Greens 11, LD 4, and Tories 4 so we've a fair idea how the vote would initially have gone. It has now been put on hold (dumped) because in Oct 2023 it would have made a net return of 2.5% but a new report said: "despite factoring in the increased electricity now paid by the council... the net return on investment is 0.5%."

Sounds like a golden opportunity for GB Energy to step in.

What chance of the general public understanding the complexity of energy bills and the savagery inflicted on the O&G industry?

Whilst here I've just been advised that there is a presentation of Serica's half year results on 10 September. Ours are around the same time. It'll be interesting comparing them. Memory plays tricks but at last year's 6M results we had a different CFO and Richard Hall was COO. At last year's we were invited to ask questions. I hope there is a push for dividends this year.

There are two mentions that affect us:

"no longer dependent on foreign dictators because we're producing our own clear energy right here" and

"it's why we set up Great British Energy to create good jobs and cut people's bills".

Both are examples of bloviation that would make Boris proud to have said

What foreign dictators? Most gas comes from Norway and the US whilst they made a big thing out of pushing the point that our oil was sold on the "global market" and we couldn't control price or eventual destination. It seems unnamed dictators somehow mysteriously control our energy. I'd like to ask who he meant exactly? As for producing our "own" clean energy there is no mention of costs involved.

The second quote is even dafter. We have the most expensive electricity in Europe. I'd like him to give the number of jobs created. Most capex seems to come from overseas and that means the jobs aren't here.

On the upside they aren't making the completely outrageous claims they made in opposition. They daren't - Diane Abbott is on the case. She might struggle with billions but the 9X tables is well within her ability. Cancellation of the winter allowance is undefendable unless bills come down. He didn't mention 'obscene profits of the oil and gas giants' either.

The world would experience severe energy shortages and disruption to daily lives within a year of investment ceasing. Given price responses to past oil supply shocks, the permanent loss of 15% of oil supply per year could raise oil prices by more than 400%. By comparison, prices rose 200% during the oil price shocks of the 1970s. Within 10 years, unemployment rates would likely reach 30%. That’s higher than during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

This is what Ed wants? I'd rather take notice of Exxon https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/sustainability-and-reports/global-outlook#Keytakeaways

Download the 2024 Executive Summary.

Our Outlook reflects oil production naturally declining at a rate of about 15% per year. That’s nearly double the IEA’s prior estimates of about 8%. This increase is the result of the world’s shifting energy mix toward “unconventional” sources of oil and natural gas. These are mostly shale and dense rock formations where oil and gas production typically declines faster. To put it in concrete terms: With no new investment, global oil supplies would fall by more than 15 million barrels per day in the first year alone. At that rate, by 2030, oil supplies would fall from 100 million barrels per day to less than 30 million – that’s 70 million barrels short of what’s needed to meet demand every day.

But I don't take it as seriously as Modestus monkey. He's back in northern Norway/Sweden counting polar bears and wrestling penguins. He'll be back in 2 months if he isn't eaten.

This is more in response to Dumbly's post (13:24). The industry isn't bluffing and that is why there is stasis until the budget. The companies and amounts involved mean that deals close to fruition will be dependent on the budget. Pro forma contracts are ready and only awaiting the announcement from the Priestess of Downing St.

For that reason I cannot see anything happening until then.

There is a speech from Starmer tomorrow that will probably impact too.

It isn't just two month's Purdah. We've been here since the EPL and that's 27 months already.

If Labour follow through with their intentions then it looks very bleak for the industry.

It isn't the industry being uncooperative. They have NO choice. I'm not sure what leverage is left as Labour have a stranglehold on the media and have poisoned the water-hole with their nonstop propaganda and imaginary voracious "energy giant's profits" (NO presenter ever asks for them to be named or amounts?)

The winter allowance gives a golden opportunity to challenge the claims made about renewables. I'm not so sure that this time they won't get traction. O.A.P's and Diane Abbot have a lot of friends and although mostly ignored they are persistent. Along the way we might get a wave of support from unlikely sources. Electricity is super expensive and Ed needs to produce the figures for the Great Rapture due in 2030. We might as well make a nuisance of ourselves up until the budget.

I got on LBC (Natasha Devon) talking about winter allowance. Got in most expensive electricity in Europe and gas is cheap, Diane Abbot, Ed and 9X cheaper, Drax . My solution - keep the winter allowance by moving renewable subsidies to income tax (that's means tested). My suggestion that most of us pensioners will be dead before unicorn technology ever arrives to make renewables cheap annoyed the presenter but pensioners will understand. I do enjoy being a disruptor.

Also got the point about it was news to me that we are at the mercy of dictators regarding gas. I said last time I checked Norway and the US were still democracies.

Another heretic

https://x.com/Raphfel/status/1827519234265522650

'We don't have a single case throughout the entire world where renewables brought down energy costs.'

Https://rumble.com/v5c2b3t-faith-hope-and-cataclysm.html

.

Administrative Strike Prices -Offshore wind £73 (£MWh, in 2012 prices) or £108 in today's prices.

Onshore £64 and solar £61. All intermittent.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/contracts-for-difference-cfd-allocation-round-6-core-parameters

*OFGEM's new Energy price Cap is based on a wholesale price for electricity of £86.75/MWh

I'd say that by the time all the subsidies and hidden costs are taken into account not one of the renewables will outcompete gas for heating and electricity. There is no chance of Brenda understanding any of this. I struggle.

Watch this:

https://x.com/KathrynPorter26

You'll never see her on BBC or in the Guardian. You'll never see her on a platform with Ed. They should get her in front of a larger audience. She is concise and breaks down the problems into simple understandable English.

Apparently we've got it wrong. The "international gas markets are controlled by tyrants" according to Ed today. So that'd be Norway and the US for us I guess?

"The rise in the price cap is a direct result of the failed energy policy we inherited."

Energy Secretary Ed Miliband reacts to Ofgem raising the price cap which will mean households will face higher energy bills on twitter today.

How long can this deflection go on?

We know Ed is a fanatic and a zealot when it comes to renewables. He along with juststoipoil, Dale Vince and others have turned it into an almost religious cult. We all understand that true believers wear hair shirts - my anger is that he also expects us to wear them.

I listened to their webcast this morning (I am not an investor). I find them useful because they face the same headwinds that we do in many cases. The QA is the most interesting because the analysts try to extract more information.

One point that immediately jumped out was the wish to Iain Lewis from an analyst "good luck tomorrow with your discussions with the energy ministers". Is it just Ithaca or a group of companies? Hopefully we'll get some leaks or even a statement from it.

I especially liked an earlier comment that they saw value in oil "especially in these turbulent times" (not that Ed notices).

Asked if Captain is the first offshore platform on UKCS to be electrified they replied that they think so but it "needs fiscal support" - that is one discussion today obviously.

Iain Lewis also said that the decarbonisation allowances were one of the few sensible parts of the EPL regime and need to be maintained - only Stevo will understand them.

There was a discussion about maintaining the dividend. I know it isn't easy to cut across to EnQuest but we are a relatively close match to them in production and debt. Where's our dividend? We need to start asking questions.

Maybe you've got it wrong Frac? - Ed landed, laid down his cape and said "I'm from the British government and I'm here to help".

When asked to elaborate he said - "simple, there's an awful lot of coffee in Brazil. Caffeine can cause heart problems - double the tax on coffee and increase subsidies to wind and solar." He then unswung his guitar off his shoulder and gave a short rendition of the Coffee Song.