Diversified Energy Share Discussion Threads

[1knocker] 05/11/2021 10:47

If virtue signalling at the Glasgow carnival did not cause a bumpy ride for a few weeks for companies like DEC, nothing would. We should focus on the realities. The faster the green utopia is rolled out, the more fossil fuel energy it is going to take to achieve that.

Capital to explore for new gas deposits is going to be scarce, as it is to develop new wells and create new pipelines. Look at the lengths even the oil majors are having to go to in order to appease their woke shareholders, for example, and note that they are to be answerable for their customers' carbon footprint as well as their own. Banks ill think twice about lending for fossil fuel exploration and well development too, if that lending counts against their carbon footprint. Such investment will also be increasingly be risky, because well and pipelines take time to pay for the initial capital outlay, and any acceleration in the green direction of travel risks long term investment leaving the investor holding uneconomic stranded assets.

That should provide a very favourable backdrop for companies like DEV, which acquire existing assets and exploit them efficiently, with a conservative financing model.The post about petrol tax was a sound one. That tax does not make producing and selling petrol less profitable. It merely increases th cost to the ultimate consumer. The real risk lies not in across the board taxation or regulation, but in differential burdens which render particular segments of the fossil fuel industry uneconomic. Gas is the cleanest dirty shirt in the fossil fuel laundry basket, so it is likely to benefit rather than suffer from any such unequal treatment of the various fossil fuels.

We shall have t get used to periodic scare stories, witch hunts and anti fossil fuel political virtue signalling, and a bumpier SP, but to my mind the investment case for holding DEC is as good or better than ever.

[johnhemming] 05/11/2021 10:08

>Is taxing methane a problem?
If they simply add to the price of Methane then the end users who area already suffering from high prices are not going to be pleased.

What is suggested, however, is a fee for methane that escapes the system. In the broadest sense there is some logic to this, but the details matter. They are proposing something based upon basin averages which is not a good idea as it penalises the better organisations although this is quite a mutable system.

What the broader impact on gas prices would be of taking more money out of the gas system is unclear. I would not think it would reduce it.

[aleman] 05/11/2021 09:56

Is taxing methane a problem? Tax on petrol across most of Europe is 2/3rds of the price yet the price adjusts accordingly and refiners make money. Consumers pay tax to goverments but businesses still make money from supplying.

[johnhemming] 05/11/2021 09:55

@Brucie5 I don't think there are many people who think we can simply turn off natural gas. There is also an argument that controlling methane which otherwise naturally comes from the earth and burning it reduces the climate warming effect anyway even if the CO2 is not captured (which rarely works in practice).

The real problem in this area is that the Scientific aspects such as laws of conservation of energy and 2nd law of thermodynamics cannot be repealed or modified through economics. The articles that are written such as Bloomberg's two articles are at times not well informed.

In the end that gave a buying opportunity for some people such as myself, but it does not really help.

[neilyb675] 05/11/2021 09:49

stonking buy at 105p, despite the withholding tax non-sense

[brucie5] 05/11/2021 09:26

The_Gold_Mine4 Nov '21 - 22:43 - 1842 of 1844
0 6 2

I'm reminded of the quote attribute to Mark Twain:-
------------------------------------------------------
Hmm. Are you aware of what Mark Twain said about gold mines?

;)

Very happy, btw, to focus on the merits of DEC. I continue to think that gas is a vital transitional fuel, and managed right, DEC can have an important part to play in maximising the benefit of legacy wells, while taking responsibility for minimising leakage, and of course, completing the finished wells.

The Bloomberg article did us all a favour - the company needs to be continually accountable, and on its toes, because if close climate scrutiny doesn't come now, it will certainly arrive in due course. In this no different to all responsible oilers/gas companies: they need to demonstrate their safety credentials, and show how they fit on the path to eventual zero carbon.

Which is btw the future, if there is to be one.

[lab305] 05/11/2021 08:13

The_Gold Mine. I agree entirely. The irony is that a company which has adopted a very cautious low risk strategy is so volatile.

[the_gold_mine] 04/11/2021 22:43

This board has gone dramatically downhill in terms of quality information relating to DEC since the Bloomberg article got posted and tanked the share price It now seems to be a general climate change/wokeism/politics board with the occasional mention of DEC in-between the ramblings.

Clearly 1 or 2 eco-fanatic anoraks have managed to upset the applecart and sucked people into conversing with them about their own particular quasi-communist eco-fanatic world view when the sensible thing to do would be to put them on filter and conserve energy for people who are capable of rational debate.

I'm reminded of the quote attribute to Mark Twain:-

“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

[brucie5] 04/11/2021 17:45

Sogoesit4 Nov '21 - 16:39 - 1838 of 1840
0 0 0
Post 1836 @Brucie5:
Now, in addition to being ignorant about what science is, whether I am a scientist or not....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
No published papers, then, Professor?
Oh.

[swallowsflysouth] 04/11/2021 17:21

Given that methane is re-cycled from some sources other than oil/gas wells perhaps the real solution is find a way of re-cycling methane emissions from old oil/gas well ?

[1knocker] 04/11/2021 17:18

Brucle5, do you really think it is in your best interests to hold DEC shares and to post on this board, given the bad company you are keeping by doing so? I am sure everyone will understand if you feel you must sell your DEC shares, cease posting, and distance yourself from people like us.

[sogoesit] 04/11/2021 16:39

Post 1836 @Brucie5:
Now, in addition to being ignorant about what science is, whether I am a scientist or not, you have proved that you have misunderstood the point about the assertions you make on this thread about so-called “Climate Science” and its “catastrophic” conclusions for the planet.
“Good luck” to you and please leave us to debate our investment and the overwhelming benefits it has to our fellow human beings.

[sunbed44] 04/11/2021 16:21

Did I mention that im a professur

[brucie5] 04/11/2021 15:49

Sogoesit4 Nov '21 - 15:17 - 1835 of 1835
0 0 0
Thank you, Brucie5.

You failed my examination question
----------------------------------
Well here's mine.
Simply, to show me your peer reviewed paper in a journal of repute. And then perhaps we can take your claims to 'science' a bit more seriously.
Good luck.

[sogoesit] 04/11/2021 15:17

Thank you, Brucie5.

You failed my examination question, a question I answered correctly in an exam over 30 years ago, and therefore you have proved that you do not know the definition of science.

My assertion stands.
You, Sir, are a believer in Scientism.
Quod erat demonstrandum.

[sogoesit] 04/11/2021 14:41

---------------------------------------------------------
No. Science, not the same as Scientism.
The first is empirical, and in this case based on overwhelming evidence.
Learn the difference.

@Brucie5
I am a scientist.
Define science in one or two sentences, please.
Then you may teach me something.

[brucie5] 04/11/2021 14:09

Sogoesit4 Nov '21 - 13:31 - 1828 of 1830
0 0 0
A believer in Scientism says:
------------------------------------------------------------
No. Science, not the same as Scientism.
The first is empirical, and in this case based on overwhelming evidence.
Learn the difference.

[brucie5] 04/11/2021 13:58

1knocker4 Nov '21 - 12:33 - 1825 of 1829
0 2 0

It is a great misfortune for the future of the planet that Greta was born an ugly duckling amongst so many Scandinavian beauties.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't worry. I don't think anyone expressing your views would get much of a look in, unless the "Scandinavian Beauties" you speak of are entirely pneumatic, and come with an inflatable brain cavity. So unlike Greta, they would be unable to talk back. Or think.

Probably how you like them.

1kocker filtered. You join with Cassini in giving this share a bad name.