Hurricane Energy Share Discussion Threads

[gary38] 10/3/2019 09:57

55p to 60p Ron.

[hopeful holder] 10/3/2019 09:57

But I prefer to look at the milestones and potential. The market will determine price.Remember our M-Cap is already c £1bn which feels as though some future potential / success is already built in.Our boosts will come as each field starts to produce and then £1bn will be a shadow of its potential.Big Oil will wait until proven production had been established imho

[hopeful holder] 10/3/2019 09:53

I think that is possible spiking perhaps higher.50p and above until FOIL and I would suggest a spike there also perhaps to a new all time high before drifting - but what do I know. :-)Spirit news will support and if a decent test, will help.I don't think the spirit drill will go smoothly go on the issues thatHUR had but I'm certain all that knowledge will be built on.

[ronwilkes123] 10/3/2019 09:22

Changing subject a little back to hurricane - what share price do we reckon on hook up - 55p for myself

[rahosi] 10/3/2019 09:15

It will be a VERY long time before power storage technology will get anywhere near the power density to weight ratio of oil based fuels.Commercial Aircraft. They get somewhat lighter as a flight progresses. This would not be the case with an EV. An aircraft's undercarriage is only strong enough to land a relatively low on fuel aircraft. Stronger heavier undercarriage and heavy power storage require even more fuel. (However aircraft design will switch from hydraulics to servos; much lighter and simpler to maintain.)If all strands of transport were to go over to EV, where will be the generating capacity come from?With current technology, comparing the cradle to grave carbon cost of cars, there is little difference, other than shifting the point where the pollution is created.

[whitegold1] 10/3/2019 08:48

Hurricane isnt the story this week. The B stuff in parliament is. If you.re not onboard with this idea, you.re ostriching. Could be an interesting week. Boyzee.

[buywell3] 10/3/2019 08:45

Numbers of EV's on the road is set to rocket as more manufacturers changeover from combustion engines.

Many of them will go bust as they cut each others throats on price.

But that will take a few years and in the meantime EV prices will get slashed.

10 years from now the roads will be a lot quieter and a lot less stinky.

OILIES , you guys had better factor in this change V demand for your product

It is not just cars either.

Diesel Trains are being phased out, Smaller ships like ferries are now having battery packs fitted, and as battery technology gets better bigger ships will go over more to battery power , Hybrid to begin with.

Which leaves Aircraft ... a major polluter and burner of fossil fuel.

These are going tom have to be heavily taxed which will put ticket prices up no end.

As Airline profits get squeezed somewhere a clever engineer will develop a fuel cell that will do the job , with a high tech low weight battery backup for emergencies.

Operational Jet engines have been around for 80 years

They are now old technology and are polluting the planet big time.

A new tech next generation aircraft engine must be coming soon now , when it is announced OIL will tank.


Flying now

[extrader] 10/3/2019 08:41

Hi all,

Just a couple of other comments before getting on with the weekend :

...Food production would probably suggest warmer is better... and higher levels of CO2 promote plant growth and reforestation, some even claiming that Sahel desertification is being rolled back, see hxxps://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mueller-sahel.pdf [Ignore the conclusions, just look at the facts quoted]

.... Well, it's certainly given rise to some perverse outcomes : consider that Germany is now burning more lignite (dirty) coal than ever - despite high electricity tariffs - and that we have the abomination of Drax, shipping woodchips across the Atlantic and reaping massive 'green subsidies'....

… the world uses more energy on keeping warm than cooling down, I thought it was the other way round, if only because the process of cooling things down itself generates heat, no....?

…It now appears that the scientific community got it wrong on saturated fat and is quickly backtracking... At some point the damage caused by excess (hidden) sugar consumption deserves to be recognised as one of the great health hazards, akin to tobacco. But the vested interests of the big sugar and big corn syrup lobbies will push back in the same way.

ATB

[gary38] 10/3/2019 08:38

This is the Hurricane energy discussion board not the climate change discussion board.

[francis55] 10/3/2019 08:31

We have a duty of care to out children which to me means when me and my wife leave this planet when we pass I would like to think I left it in a state thats not going to hinder or threaten theirs or their children's. For that I will play my part in encouraging a healthy plant within the existing structures by reducing my footprint and where I need to use fossil fuels I will. As someone heavily involved in AI/ML and IoT I can absolutely see a fucture where via quantum computing that will unlock fusion which is controlled in a manner we can all use it and fossil fuels will no longer be required.

[fireplace22] 10/3/2019 08:30

Similarly it was pretty unanimous among our 'scientific community' that saturated fat was the principal cause of heart disease, since then we have experienced a sugar fest as people replace one food group with another to maintain their calorie intake. It now appears that the scientific community got it wrong on saturated fat and is quickly backtracking.

[fatnacker] 10/3/2019 07:27

Rahosi, absolutely agree, people are being brainwashed and when you question it the reply is "are you a climate scientist"? not much said about deforestation I notice, obviously you can't tax the pubilc for deforestation, funny that.

[rahosi] 10/3/2019 06:46

Climate change is predominantly a solar phenomena. Man does contribute a small addition to the problem. As a tax raising enabler, it was a convenient excuse.However cleaning up the environment can only be beneficial.

[steve73] 10/3/2019 03:11

tournesol, ..572

You have taken a very simplistic approach to understanding my post on climate change.

I don't disagree that its happening. I'm just not totally convinced that WE are the cause. IF it IS due to burning hydrocarbons, then the requirements to reverse this occurring will put civilisation back to the stone age. It's just not going to happen not matter how much the "greens" want it to.

And since you're (supposedly) invested here, you are hardly one to be banging that drum.

The responses by Extrader & Davidblack were more supporting of my position on this - thanks...

V11SLR raises an interesting dilemma with his question on post ...576, optimal temperature?

What's good for equatorial regions would not suit the more polar regions, and we would also need to agree on "optimal for WHAT". Overall living conditions would probably dictate it should be a little warmer, since the world uses more energy on keeping warm than cooling down, and keeping warm is a necessity for our survival, where as keeping cool it more of a luxury. Food production would probably suggest warmer is better since it opens up more land than it removes. Irrigation is almost certainly more important than temperature, and artificial irrigation is easy (although energy consuming), as is adequate fertiliser/vitamins (both energy intensive). But without the energy to provide either of these the planet would struggle to support a fraction of the population it currently does.

The earth's climate has always been changing, it has driven evolution from early life, through complex life, to humanity, and has subsequently driven our migrations and development into the society we are today. It naïve to think it will not continue to change, and what gives us the moral superiority to try to stop it occurring? Perhaps we really are God's chosen ones...! (Sarcasm, in case anyone is too stupid to recognise it.)

I found the following 2 links very interesting, but they need to be approached and understood from a few different perspectives. The first discusses how humans have evolved to reduce immediate threats to our survival rather than looking at the long game.



The second looks at ways we may be able to deliberately change our climate... perhaps for the better? I'll leave you to judge what is better...?



edit.. thanks also, Pro - I missed your post while I was typing this one..

[pro_s2009] 10/3/2019 02:14

The earth is actually now much cooler than a hundred million years ago.

The earth over millions of years has had much cooler and much hotter times.

The trouble is humans only think in decades as a long time, whereas the earth is billions of years old..........kind of like looking at a 25 year share price over 2 nanoseconds of trading.

Climate change is normal.



.

[davidblack] 09/3/2019 21:03

As to climate change being a fact, the truth is we will not know for certain until it is either too late or it turns out to be not something to worry about. The former means extinction whilst the later is a forgotten story. So maybe a modest amount of caution?

One thing is however certain is that oil and gas are the premium hydrocarbon fuels.

Consequently it’s not unreasonable that they should be managed as prudently as possible and with as little pollution as possible ideally.

Does anyone really have an issue that breathing clean air is better than dirty air? I doubt it.

For the record 60% of my portfolio is oil or gas, so hardly an Uber greenee. For me oil is in long term short supply and the value of those precious assets should rise over the next few decades. Or at least that’s my game plan.

[evilgenius] 09/3/2019 17:30

TG: Thank you for the information. Appreciated.Buzzzzzzzz: Evidently illiterate and as the second portion of your name suggests, you are a snooze.

[pol123] 09/3/2019 17:02

Yep, lets make everything electric. We can then use hydrocarbons to generate all the electricity we need.

Nothing we need worry about for the next few decades thats for sure

[v11slr] 09/3/2019 16:08

Is the world's climate at its optimum now? Would it be better if it was cooler or warmer?

[tournesol] 09/3/2019 15:59

Extraderquite agree. Wasn't suggesting for a minute that proposed remedies are sufficient. Unfortunately the remedies that would be sufficient will never be adopted by myopic politicians whose need to keep power leads them away from hard truths. And they wouldn't be accepted by their constituents who are even less capable of facing unwelcome facts. I don't think humans en masse are capable of facing harsh realities until the very last minute. By which time it is too late.

[extrader] 09/3/2019 15:16

Hi Steve73/tournesol,

I think a middle way is to accept that climate change is happening; that Man's activities are a contributor/accelerant/catalyst; but that the 'remedies ' proposed aren't necessarily well thought through.....

AIUI, there's precious little overall CO2 emission saving from wind, once allowance is made for all the extra CO2 used in associated cement production; ditto re the 'whole cycle' costs of electric (solar and vehicles); and there's a curious blind spot / aversion to nuclear which, objectively looked at, deals with both the intermittency issue and CO2 avoidance of other 'mainstream' sources eg, hydro, wind, solar or tidal...

I think that has something to do with the necessity of nuclear being a Big State solution....and people exclude it for that reason.

Well, it IS the weekend...

ATB

[jimboau] 09/3/2019 14:47

LIDCO, PMSL!