Funds Insider - Opening the door to funds

Welcome to the Citywire Funds Insider Forums, where members share investment ideas and discuss everything to do with their money.

You'll need to log in or set up an account to start new discussions or reply to existing ones. See you inside!

Notification

Icon
Error
Trump and fossil fuels v Green investment in infra etc.
+ Reply to discussion
Options
Thrugelmir
Posted: 20 January 2025 17:05:39(UTC)
#11

Joined: 01/06/2012(UTC)
Posts: 5,317

Thanks: 3255 times
Was thanked: 7876 time(s) in 3263 post(s)
Phil 2;331693 wrote:
Well I wasn’t expecting both DEC and GSF to be down by 4%. Total madness, that surely presents opportunities somewhere?!



Lower power prices = lower profits. Meanwhile interest rates will remain elevated. Reducing the return on capital employed.
Back to top Quote
1 user thanked Thrugelmir for this post.
Phil 2 on 20/01/2025(UTC)
ANDREW FOSTER
Posted: 21 January 2025 09:39:30(UTC)
#16

Joined: 23/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 8,101

Thanks: 11340 times
Was thanked: 18200 time(s) in 5967 post(s)

I get the expansion of oil and gas if for no other reason than energy security against Iran/Russia supply disruption.

Makes sense.

But banning new offshore wind leases is proper lunacy. It's actively preventing companies that wish to from conducting that business.

That's just dogma over common sense.

It costs the Federal government nothing if someone builds a wind or solar installation and in fact they get revenue as a result. Throttling a business is idiotic.


But I guess we can expect a raft if decisions good and bad to come.


Popcorn is at the ready 🍿
Back to top Quote
4 users thanked ANDREW FOSTER for this post.
Phil 2 on 21/01/2025(UTC), Sheerman on 21/01/2025(UTC), john brace on 21/01/2025(UTC), Martina on 21/01/2025(UTC)
Robin B
Posted: 21 January 2025 09:58:32(UTC)
#17

Joined: 01/04/2024(UTC)
Posts: 1,507

Thanks: 1509 times
Was thanked: 4600 time(s) in 1233 post(s)
ANDREW FOSTER;331752 wrote:

I get the expansion of oil and gas if for no other reason than energy security against Iran/Russia supply disruption.

Makes sense.

But banning new offshore wind leases is proper lunacy. It's actively preventing companies that wish to from conducting that business.

That's just dogma over common sense.

It costs the Federal government nothing if someone builds a wind or solar installation and in fact they get revenue as a result. Throttling a business is idiotic.


Wrong.

There is no commercial case for off shore wind energy without public subsidies. It also results in a hideous eyesore that is harmful to ecology - as we can readily see off the coast of England. There are numerous impacts, including to shipping and radar. They are bad for the environment, as will become apparent in the not too distant future when we need to start replacing them all and landfilling the junk that has expired. There may also be national security considerations if these massive bird mincers are manufactured in China.

It isn't dogma over common sense - perfectly legitimate reasons to ban them.

You might give more attention to the fact that the governments of this country are deliberately preventing the extraction of commercially viable energy resources that would be good for our energy security, economy and balance of trade. That is definitely dogma over common sense. As usual, look elsewhere, overlook what's under your own nose...
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
3 users thanked Robin B for this post.
Dexi on 21/01/2025(UTC), Guest on 21/01/2025(UTC), Martina on 21/01/2025(UTC)
ANDREW FOSTER
Posted: 21 January 2025 13:07:56(UTC)
#18

Joined: 23/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 8,101

Thanks: 11340 times
Was thanked: 18200 time(s) in 5967 post(s)
Robin B;331758 wrote:
ANDREW FOSTER;331752 wrote:

I get the expansion of oil and gas if for no other reason than energy security against Iran/Russia supply disruption.

Makes sense.

But banning new offshore wind leases is proper lunacy. It's actively preventing companies that wish to from conducting that business.

That's just dogma over common sense.

It costs the Federal government nothing if someone builds a wind or solar installation and in fact they get revenue as a result. Throttling a business is idiotic.


Wrong.

There is no commercial case for off shore wind energy without public subsidies. It also results in a hideous eyesore that is harmful to ecology - as we can readily see off the coast of England.



Fine. Then stop subsidies and let the market decide what is viable....

but that isn't what's happened. What has happened is market manipulation.

Quote:


There are numerous impacts, including to shipping and radar. They are bad for the environment, as will become apparent in the not too distant future when we need to start replacing them all and landfilling the junk that has expired. There may also be national security considerations if these massive bird mincers are manufactured in China.

It isn't dogma over common sense - perfectly legitimate reasons to ban them.



Listen to yourself...That sounds hilariously snowflakey... LOL

..even citing "environmental" concerns as a reason to ban a clean energy in favour of shale oil and gas. A few posts earlier you were refering to 'Green Lunacy' and here you are woried about birds getting hurt. And said without a hint of irony.

True dogma there.

Quote:


You might give more attention to the fact that the governments of this country are deliberately preventing the extraction of commercially viable energy resources that would be good for our energy security, economy and balance of trade. That is definitely dogma over common sense. As usual, look elsewhere, overlook what's under your own nose...


Whataboutism...
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
1 user thanked ANDREW FOSTER for this post.
Phil 2 on 21/01/2025(UTC)
MarkSp
Posted: 21 January 2025 14:22:52(UTC)
#22

Joined: 02/02/2020(UTC)
Posts: 2,176

Thanks: 282 times
Was thanked: 5797 time(s) in 1715 post(s)
i managed to avoid Robin B as I filtered the bile. Will the resyt of you be kind enough to stop quoting his/her posts.

personal view is that Trump stuff is all puff. Too many states have renewable investments for him to do more than huff and puff and make MAGA think he is doing something.

I am looking forward to the cut in EV tax subsidies.let's see what Elon thinks.

The whole "drill baby drill" thing is funny. More hydocarbons were extracted under Biden than under Trump.and there is a mad view that if US gas is cheap, energy costs will come down.........er...no....they will just export more to higher priced markets.

hard to get petrol from oil shale sludge........it is all simple spin.

BTW Trump can't stop permitting except for Federal land and, that can be challenged in the Courts.
Back to top Quote
3 users thanked MarkSp for this post.
andy mac on 21/01/2025(UTC), Phil 2 on 21/01/2025(UTC), Sheerman on 21/01/2025(UTC)
Robin B
Posted: 21 January 2025 14:44:11(UTC)
#24

Joined: 01/04/2024(UTC)
Posts: 1,507

Thanks: 1509 times
Was thanked: 4600 time(s) in 1233 post(s)
Snowflake Mark. Ooh pls don't quote him, ooh my eyes 😂

Also very dumb. Releasing more oil and gas on to the markets will obviously reduce the cost of these things to consumers, all things being equal. And what is wrong with earning income by selling it to those who need it? Like how Norway has made itself the richest country in the world per capita. We should be doing the same, not building subsidised, inefficient junk across hundreds of square miles of the sea whilst trashing our oil and gas industry. Highest energy prices in the world - round of applause!
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
Newbie
Posted: 21 January 2025 14:46:26(UTC)
#23

Joined: 31/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 3,816

Thanks: 6009 times
Was thanked: 7025 time(s) in 2602 post(s)
MarkSp;331791 wrote:
i managed to avoid Robin B as I filtered the bile. Will the resyt of you be kind enough to stop quoting his/her posts.

personal view is that Trump stuff is all puff. Too many states have renewable investments for him to do more than huff and puff and make MAGA think he is doing something.

I am looking forward to the cut in EV tax subsidies.let's see what Elon thinks.

The whole "drill baby drill" thing is funny. More hydocarbons were extracted under Biden than under Trump.and there is a mad view that if US gas is cheap, energy costs will come down.........er...no....they will just export more to higher priced markets.

hard to get petrol from oil shale sludge........it is all simple spin.

BTW Trump can't stop permitting except for Federal land and, that can be challenged in the Courts.

Agree with most of that.
The only divergent/spin I think that I will add is in relation to the Marmite that is Tesla.

The EV cuts actually works in favour of Elon imo.
It already has a march in terms of US market dominance AND that TSLA is likely to pivot away from EV's (esp as he has little chance against the likes of BYD and others from China unless Trump intervenes).

Instead it will focus on self driving (with cut back in regulations) along with being an AI company (having mapped out all the roads (bit like Google and Maps), and slowly moving into the defence sector along with the likes of PLTR especially with his starlink system and spaceships. Its next focus is likely to to be Robots and Musk emulating Tony Stark.

As for its energy business, again TSLA has a march and his buddy Trump is defending his position as he does not. have a MOAT of any kind.
Back to top Quote
2 users thanked Newbie for this post.
Phil 2 on 21/01/2025(UTC), Sheerman on 21/01/2025(UTC)
Robin B
Posted: 21 January 2025 15:11:37(UTC)
#19

Joined: 01/04/2024(UTC)
Posts: 1,507

Thanks: 1509 times
Was thanked: 4600 time(s) in 1233 post(s)
ANDREW FOSTER;331785 wrote:
Robin B;331758 wrote:
ANDREW FOSTER;331752 wrote:

I get the expansion of oil and gas if for no other reason than energy security against Iran/Russia supply disruption.

Makes sense.

But banning new offshore wind leases is proper lunacy. It's actively preventing companies that wish to from conducting that business.

That's just dogma over common sense.

It costs the Federal government nothing if someone builds a wind or solar installation and in fact they get revenue as a result. Throttling a business is idiotic.


Wrong.

There is no commercial case for off shore wind energy without public subsidies. It also results in a hideous eyesore that is harmful to ecology - as we can readily see off the coast of England.



Fine. Then stop subsidies and let the market decide what is viable....

but that isn't what's happened. What has happened is market manipulation.


I gather you know absolutely nothing about the way the licencing works? How do you know it doesn't have federal assistance baked in? In which case, cancelling licences might be the most expedient way to cut off public money from this scam.

And it isn't snow flakey to have regard to the environment, you clown. Government policy should always be weighing up the pros and cons. The problem with the green lunacy is that the alleged benefits don't anywhere near make up for the shortcomings.

Having thousands of wind turbines spread out across the sea is a ridiculous option on basic cost and maintenance grounds alone. Compare that arrangement, where boats and crews have to go to every single installation and compare to a single, concentrated power plant at one site. Then throw in how unreliable these things are, how short their life spans, and how much public money they gobble up and hurt consumers/industry then you have an option that is crap from the very start. Are all these shortcomings offset by environmental benefits at least? Well no, because they don't deliver the goods and leave a reliance on fossil fuels anyway; they are an eyesore, bad for wildlife and will be landfilled on a large scale once they stop being useful. The cost benefit analysis doesn't make sense unless there is green dogma involved. Waste of time, space, energy and money.

Better to keep investing in more and better fossil fuel extraction and use, as had been happening. Then invest in more advanced technologies to surpass that in due course. Not legislating to force windmill rubbish through whilst undermining the better alternatives. We are being legislated into national bankruptcy. The new US administration realises that the only hope of getting out of the crippling debt trap we're in is to cut costs, lower the price of energy, incentivise higher productivity and improve income.

UK: most expensive energy in the world. All deliberate policy choices. Supported by useful idiots.
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
3 users thanked Robin B for this post.
Guest on 21/01/2025(UTC), TGod on 21/01/2025(UTC), Guest on 21/01/2025(UTC)
ANDREW FOSTER
Posted: 21 January 2025 16:14:08(UTC)
#20

Joined: 23/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 8,101

Thanks: 11340 times
Was thanked: 18200 time(s) in 5967 post(s)
Robin B;331803 wrote:
ANDREW FOSTER;331785 wrote:
Robin B;331758 wrote:
ANDREW FOSTER;331752 wrote:

I get the expansion of oil and gas if for no other reason than energy security against Iran/Russia supply disruption.

Makes sense.

But banning new offshore wind leases is proper lunacy. It's actively preventing companies that wish to from conducting that business.

That's just dogma over common sense.

It costs the Federal government nothing if someone builds a wind or solar installation and in fact they get revenue as a result. Throttling a business is idiotic.


Wrong.

There is no commercial case for off shore wind energy without public subsidies. It also results in a hideous eyesore that is harmful to ecology - as we can readily see off the coast of England.



Fine. Then stop subsidies and let the market decide what is viable....

but that isn't what's happened. What has happened is market manipulation.


I gather you know absolutely nothing about the way the licencing works? How do you know it doesn't have federal assistance baked in? In which case, cancelling licences might be the most expedient way to cut off public money from this scam.

]


Err... because I took the trouble to actually do a bit of reading first.... You should try it.
Back to top Quote
3 users thanked ANDREW FOSTER for this post.
Phil 2 on 21/01/2025(UTC), MarkSp on 21/01/2025(UTC), SF100 on 21/01/2025(UTC)
SF100
Posted: 21 January 2025 16:36:50(UTC)
#25

Joined: 08/02/2020(UTC)
Posts: 2,254

Thanks: 4159 times
Was thanked: 3070 time(s) in 1371 post(s)
must be a slow 'news' day elsewhere on the forum...
INRG doesn't seem to have doubled-down it's previous drop.
Presume that means the market is unconvinced by 'everyone's least favourite revel'.
(the orange one)
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
3 users thanked SF100 for this post.
Phil 2 on 21/01/2025(UTC), MarkSp on 21/01/2025(UTC), Sheerman on 21/01/2025(UTC)
4 PagesPrevious page1234Next page
+ Reply to discussion

Markets

Other markets