Member Info for ZYX098

We know what's next for you Penguins ;)

https://jpt.spe.org/penguins-fpso-arrives-at-field-site-northeast-of-shetland

GW71,

Showing your age with that Supertramp reference - as am I with getting it ;)

Adrian,

Showing what a thoroughly nasty example of a human being you are again, so no surprises there.

Odd assertion to make, since all the posters you mention have consistently been on the side of the Oil Industry (you know, the industry we work in, unlike you - a fire extinguisher salesman) and against the likes of your beloved Sarah, XR and JSO.

It won't affect me either, as I've only worked on Overseas projects for many years.

Of course the immediate effect on you is to increase your already massive losses on UKOG.

But it will ultimately affect everyone in the UK in more ways than one, as the ultimate effect will be to increase our energy bills, decrease tax income and make us more reliant on Overseas sources for the Gas and Oil that we will continue to need for many years to come.

That's the same BBC article that said HH had six Wells on it?

These Campaigners need a dose of reality stuffed up where the sun doesn't shine.

Or left on an Island for a week with absolutely nothing produced by using, or includes Hydrocarbons.

Like food (fertiliser, harvesting, processing, transport), water (needs filtration and transportation), clothes (even 100% cotton needs O&G in it's manufacture and transport), or power (renewables like PV & Wind need hydrocarbons in the manufacture & transport).

They can build their own wooden shelter, but they cannot use any tools which contain metals to cut or join together any of the building materials.

I suppose they could use Hemp to tie logs together, but they'd probably just try and smoke it instead.

Unbelievable.

So - contrary to the expectations of, well, everyone - the SC have ruled against UKOG, and essentially ruled retrospectively too.

Never mind the effect on UKOG, this will have a devastating effect on the UK Onshore oil industry as a whole, as the eco-warriors will no doubt use this ruling to take all other Onshore Operators to Court to get them to do retrospective EIA's on this basis.

Utterly stupid.

BP,

Don't forget that all production taxes (30% Corporation Tax, 10% Supplementary Charge, 35% EPL) are ring fenced, so they cannot be offset against losses or tax allowances elsewhere in the organisation.

That's why Harbour made a loss and others such as Ithica have said they cannot progress other projects, as they don't have the finances to do so any more.

So your argument is still incorrect.

Unlike other businesses (except water), the consumer Companies are legally obliged to pick up consumers left high and dry by failures, and that includes the associated debts.

We should be able to go after Company Directors if the Company failed due to their negligence/incompetence (UKOG....), but that's not easy to prove in Law.

Besides, being given a licence to supply in the first place by OFGEM gives them perfect legal cover, as OFGEM were supposed to have done their due diligence before giving them the licence.

BP,

The maximum Standing Charge levels are set by OFGEM, not the suppliers.

The suppliers can charge a lower Standing Charge if they want, but they can't exceed the limit set by OFGEM.

OFGEM recently set the limit higher than normal, to allow the suppliers to make some of the losses back that they took when absorbing the customers of the 30-odd suppliers who failed.

There's also a component of the increase which is due to the inflation that we have all been seeing (and they will see in their network maintenance etc).

Similarly, they cannot exceed the unit costs set by OFGEM. The result is that despite the headlines in some papers (Cough, f***ing Guardian, cough), the consumer side is very limited in the profit it is allowed to make - I think the current pricing structure allows around 2.5%.

In any case, these days majority of the UKCS O&G producers don't have a consumer facing arm of the business, and your argument also completely ignores the renewables, biomass and Nuclear that are all part of the consumer energy mix.

For those O&G producers that do (e.g Shell, Centrica), the supply side company is a different entity from the production company and their results are separate right up until the final Umbrella Company - which will also include all the Overseas entities.

So your assertion is not correct.

I've asked my Nieces and Nephews how they were going to vote.

All bar one said they were going to vote Labour.

None of them could name their local Labour candidate.

Their primary reason was "I don't like the Conservatives".

I pointed out that in the last election where someone got voted in primarily because they didn't like the other choice, Donald Trump got elected as President....

And a lot of the 20 & 30 somethings seem to be treating this election as a Presidential election " I'm voting for Kier Starmer", not who they think will serve them best as MP for their constituency.

The grass is pretty brown on this side of the fence, but that doesn't mean to say it's going to be any greener on the other side.

Irrespective of who gets in, it's going to be a tough five years as the UK (and Europe, for that matter) struggles to get over the financial shocks from Covid / Ukraine.

That will play into the Reform narrative for 2029 "The Conservatives were crap, you've just seen that Labour were crap, so vote for us".

Fortunately the Lib Dems stand no chance of getting in, as cancelling existing licences would see them in the Courts and cost the taxpayer millions in compensation.

The windfall tax - sorry, EPL - has cut the UKCS off at the knees.

Labours plans will cut the head off.

Even if Labour don't do what they say, going forwards the EPL tax won't contribute anything like what they claim it will - the damage to ongoing investment has already been done and may well be irreversible.

If Labour needed examples, the two Countries who previously promised to stop issuing new O&G licences (Denmark and New Zealand) have both had to do a U turn as reality bites.

In the meantime Norway continues to explore for more gas - gas that they know that we (the UK) will need.

The biggest lie told (so far!) in the whole election campaign was that "Great British Energy will produce thousands of jobs and the cheap renewable energy generated will reduce your fuel bills".

Renewable energy isn't cheap when you take into account the cost of having standby power available for when it's not producing - the FSLCoE for offshore static wind is around £200/MWhr - eyewatering...

BTW, the load factors (i.e how much is actually produced) used by HM Govt are 11% for PV and 45% for offshore static wind.

Our fuel bills will never come down.

HITS,

Yeah, I thought that as well.

But it could be a badly phrased way of saying "If conditions A & B are met, then the offer becomes binding"?

Irrelevant though, since PPP don't have the cash.

Why?

With another 1.2-ish billion shares yet to be issued to cover the death spiral financing, why on earth would anyone buy on the 18th?

More of your usual mindless ramping nonsense.

That 50p short he had on RR (currently 465p) must have really, really hurt.

He said BP wasn't worth buying at 300p (currently 471p) - I wonder if he had a short on that as well?

If he bought into UKOG when he said, he must be over 80% down here too.

And the poor wee Lamb thinks he has credibility....

It appears as if Ells is trying to get his latest ID of Sonmoon banned from LSE, so he can pretend to be the innocent victim when he comes back under yet another ID.

Insidious,

You claim "I will always defend myself against people who attack me" and yet you still haven't answered my post about rebutting your claim with respect to Loxley.

So in other words, more nonsense from you.

Insidious,

Loxley????

The Loxley that is so good UKOG chose to spend what money they had in Turkey instead?

The Loxley that is so good that the CPR contains zero proven reserves?

The Loxley that is so good it had to rely on some very dodgy mapping to show the structure UKOG claim to be there?

The Loxley that is so good they had to fiddle the E-Log interpretation of an offset Well to get a gas reading?

The Loxley that is so good that they've failed to find anybody to farm in for over two years?

The Loxley that is so good that they've had to engage a 'specialist' outfit to try and find someone to farm into?

But of course, you know better?

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us all as to why you think so, Insidious?

But you won't.

Because you cannot.

Just more mindless rubbish from one of the resident rampers.

Insidious,

I've got plenty to do, which is why I haven't been on here for a while.

Yet the first thread I see is you posting nonsense, being corrected by another poster using those pesky things called facts, then you resorting to cheap insults because you have no answer.

Strikes me that you'll be the one that misses UKOG when they are gone.

Insidious,

No, you can't engage because you have nothing to back up your assertions when they are challenged by facts.

Your agenda is very clear and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Do your friends and relatives know what you do?

Insidious,

Your very first post on this thread was demonstrably misleading nonsense.

This is pointed out by another poster using factual data.

You avoid answering questions on this and instead resort to cheap insults.

Which has been your modus operandi on this board for as long as I can remember.

Your credibility is as bad as that of UKOG.

Where does it say no Q&A's?

Not in the notice for the AGM?