London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
You will only have one login account. Registering with multiple accounts is not allowed. Any user found to have more than one account on this site will have all, and any future accounts suspended permanently.
Your email and password must only be used by you. If a post is made under your account, it will be considered that it was posted by yourself.
Your account nickname must not be the same, or contain, listed company names or board members' names.
While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate; rudeness, swearing, insulting posts, personal attacks, or posts which are invasive of another's privacy.
You will not;
discuss illegal or criminal activities.
post any confidential or price sensitive information or that is not public knowledge.
post misleading or false statements regarding the share price and performance. Such posts are deemed as market abuse, and may be reported to the appropriate authorities.
post any private communication, or part thereof, from any other person, including from a member of the board of directors of a listed company. Such posts cannot be verified as true and could be deemed to be misleading.
post any personal details (e.g. email address or phone number).
post live price or level 2 updates.
publish content that is not your original work, or infringes the copyright or other rights of any third party.
post non-constructive, meaningless, one word (or short) non-sense posts.
post links to, or otherwise publish any content containing any form of advertising, promotion for goods and services, spam, or other unsolicited communication.
post any affiliate or referral links, or post anything asking for a referral.
post or otherwise publish any content unrelated to the board or the board's topic.
re-post premium share chat posts on regular share chat.
restrict or inhibit any other user from using the boards.
impersonate any person or entity, including any of our employees or representatives.
post or transmit any content that contains software viruses, files or code designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of this website or any computer software or equipment.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium and Verified Members
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
have plenty of experience of life - yes, I think what I suggest is possible. Look at how quickly the Russians built their factors in the Urals to mass-produce tanks and aircraft even as their main armed forces were being defeated heavily and forced back to within 15 miles of Moscow. Yet within months fairly unskilled people were manning factories that were producing hundreds of tanks and aircraft per month - why, because the head honcho had the desire to put the few necessary people into the right management positions from whence it could all happen!
Have you ever considered in your electric world fantasies how electric powered tanks would ever defeat the diesel powered ones. You do make me laugh - go electric if you want and lose a future war to China and their diesel powered tanks!
have plenty of experience of life - yes, I think what I suggest is possible. Look at how quickly the Russians built their factors in the Urals to mass-produce tanks and aircraft even as their main armed forces were being defeated heavily and forced back to within 15 miles of Moscow. Yet within months fairly unskilled people were manning factories that were producing hundreds of tanks and aircraft per month - why, because someone had the desire to put the people few right people into the right management positions from when it could be made to happen!
“All you need to employ to begin with is about 5 competent managers with 5 years experience in the oil industry - after that they can train all the hundreds of other employees and temps that will play a role in this project.”
One can only assume from a simplistic statement such as that that you have absolutely zero experience in the industry.
What's the point in suing the Irish government/APEC when an easier solution is to purchase jack-ups direct from the secondary market and hire unemployed people from Ireland and train them up. All you need to employ to begin with is about 5 competent managers with 5 years experience in the oil industry - after that they can train all the hundreds of other employees and temps that will play a role in this project. And surely it is more ethical to train up local people and provide them with jobs rather than hiring a Chinese company which won't even stump up what it has already owed PVR since December 2018.
You people are unbelievable - talk about no desire to get up and get things done.
Ergo he shares in Providence are worthless if the BoD will not tell the people who request the company to waste time engaging in rubbish to feck off.
Indeed nobody reasonable could expect PVR to try and calculate how their operations 150km away could have even the tiniest impact on the River Shannon estuary.
Anyway shouldn't the government be writing to PVR to explain how the impact of their tactics to slow-down the Irish economy are impact the daily living standards, in a negative manner, of Irish citizens?
I presume they will have to ask but since the same requirements with the EU Directives apply to the survey as apply to the drilling it will at most be given by default as all the answers will be covered once they have the green light on the survey.
I presume the drilling permission will be granted in parallel with the survey so should not cause any delay. After all, Providence has allowed three months for the survey in Q3/19 after which it is anticipated drilling will be in Q4/19.
And as for how trivial the limited information was just consider that the first mentions Lower River Shannon cSAC where a cSAC stands for Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). So what impact could echo sounding on the southern Celtic sea have on a river estuary along the Atlantic Coast which is about 150km away around the bottom of Ireland for 75km and up the West Coast for about 75km?
That is the type of rubbish being requested. How could you refuse permission based on that?
In my oppinion, the chinese have told PVR something like this:
"You are the operator. You are the local company pretending to know operational procedures (including how to apply to permits) and to have good relationship with the government (in order to get all the necessary approvals). Then, show me the permit first, and I will show you the money".
APEC is backed financially by a chinese state- owned company. The farm out agreement was previously approved by both governments. So, I don`t think, as Maniana said, that there is an issue related to justification of where or from whom the money is coming from.
On the other hand, as another poster have said, if the chinese were to walk away from the project, they would have announced it by now.
There may not be a provision in the farmout agreement that makes the payment conditional on the permission being forthcoming from DCCAE, but APECs backers may nevertheless be taking that view. If DCCAE block this again, I imagine its dead in the water, as it were, with the noy option for Barryroe to sue the Government to try and recover sunk costs. If the permission is forthcoming, but APEC still won't stump up, then it's much the same scenario, but with APEC being sued, rather than the Government. I'm still optimistic. The idea that the world can now forego fossil fuels, while maintaining living standards, is magical thinking of the first order.
I cannot understand how in this age when we now talk of "billions" rather than "millions" that there is an issue over a derisery $9m unless there are other factors at work especially after the fiasco Providence had in the past with Sequa and all its promises.
I suspect that the issue with the APEC money is not that it is available but how and where it is coming from.
With anti-money laundering legislation now limiting how much you can transfer daily without legal clearance you have to have very robust permissions to move large sums internationally. I suspect APEC have run up against a problem and hence its current "Due to delays associated with internal transaction processing with their investors" has nothing to do with funds being available but rather "where is it coming from and from whom".
Hence, Providence's agreement to extend the period to allow APEC to resolve its legal obligations. After all, the UK is finally taking a stand on "unexplained wealth" of Russians, Chinese etc who are buying up London with no questions asked up to now. After all, the money needed to develop Barryroe would not buy a decent house in London.
All speculation on my part but far more feasible than the fact that the Chinese cannot find a miserable $9m to progress Barryroe. But if APEC cannot raise that sum what chance have they of finding the rest of the money to do the real heavy lifting?