Gamesinvestor1
25 Feb 2020
Value Territory or a value trap? Yes – I’m coming round to the feeling that this has been oversold partly because of the huge hysteria around climate change, that in reality rises in CO2 emissions have limited impact on - scientifically measured, not political or press adjusted fear factoring. Have a read of this lot :- I believe in Climate Change of course, but for such a wholesale adjustment to our way of life, prosperity, and freedom we owe it ourselves to take a look at the numbers, rather than rely on wish-washy statements of whether you or I ‘believe’ in something or not. Science is about numbers. I believe in gravity, sure. But this belief is not that especially useful. Will things accelerate at 9.8m/s^2 downwards (on the earth), or 1.6 m/s^2 (on the moon). Both are consistent with theory, but what effect will gravity have? The numbers will change your decision making process will they not? So let’s try this with global warming: Increasing CO2 acts by warming the atmosphere. And we can measure it. Quite accurately as is turns out. The atmosphere has warmed very slowly, at around 0.12°C per decade from when accurate measurements began in the 1970s. It can be measured accurately in four different datasets using satellites and radiosondes (weather balloons), and amazingly they all agree! Which, when you consider how small this change is that’s quite an achievement. These observations are in line with atmospheric physics, which also states the earth’s surface will warm at around half this rate, so 0.06°C per decade. To check this, download the atmospheric data yourself into Excel, do text-to-columns, and chart the 3rd column [link] Then take a simple average over each decade, and see that the: 1990s were 0.14°C warmer than the 1980s 2000s were 0.10°C warmer than the 1990s 2010s were 0.15°C warmer than the 2000s And I’d venture a prediction that the 2020s will continue the trend: 2020s will be 0.12°C warmer than the 2010s? And remember how the effect works. The earth’s surface is warmed by the sun and emits infra-red radiation to space… some of which is absorbed in the bending frequency of the CO2 molecule. This additional energy is trapped and warms the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere then re-radiates the energy, roughly half towards the earth’s surface and half out to space. If you know how much the atmosphere is warming, then you know the magnitude of the effect. So if you (pessimistically) attribute all this atmospheric warming to CO2 (encompassing the feedback effects which also warm the same atmosphere), you can then make accurate projections… of 0.06°C per decade. Your next question is: if CO2 is not effecting climate very much, then why and how come places like Australia are 2°C warmer? Five decades or so of 0.06°C per decade is only 0.3°C. Not 2°C. So if CO2 can only have caused 1/6th of the surface warming in Australia, then what caused the rest? The rest is either caused by humans, (changes in land use, deforestation etc) or natural (ocean PDO, ADO, ENSO). Either way, it’s clear CO2 can only be attributed to about 1/6th of this surface warming. Your next question will be, well if this this is true, then why isn’t it more widely accepted. The answer is that yes indeed it was accepted, with similar results published in as early as 1994, by IPCC lead authors such as Dr John Christy and subsequently proven correct with the atmospheric temperature data. But these scientist were removed from the IPPC review process and replaced by more ‘motivated’ scientists who attributed almost all of the surfacing warming to CO2. It’s getting more and more difficult to separate the politics of Climate Change from the science. But science is numbers, so look at the number: Are we really going to spend trillions to stop the 0.06°C per decade caused by CO2 (that’s the maximum number, it might be less that that), while other factors our changing the climate far more? Look again at that number again: 0.06°C per decade.
Eadwig
25 Feb 2020
Value Territory or a value trap? Gamesinvestor1: The LNG projections are interesting with a doubling of usage in the next 20 years to offset carbon reduction requirements – how they forecast this lot is anybody’s guess. Been expecting that for years, LNG being used as a ‘bridging fuel’. It hasn’t really happened, I hope RDSB aren’t projecting on the basis that it will. Meantime LNG prices around the world continue to hit all time lows, especially in USA, but even in the far east which always had much higher prices. A lot of hostility around the world to any new ‘fossil fuel’ electricity generation - yet at the same time no solid plan to replace the capacity, let alone to increase it to allow for the electric vehicle revolution and rising population etc etc Gamesinvestor1: The dividend yield is 7.9% – how sustainable that is, is the big question? No cut since 1945. I’m banking on that. I’ve been buying RDSB on its drops as a high yielder likely to come out the other side of any major downturn still paying dividends and with a future ahead of it. Long term horizon on this one.
swamp_rat
24 Feb 2020
Value Territory or a value trap? Of they’re still this process April, I’ll be putting 20k in my isa
Gamesinvestor1
24 Feb 2020
Value Territory or a value trap? Having got out of all commodities apart from gold some time back, it looks like RDSB is now down at a much lower level over the last 4 yrs. 1822 at close today compared to a peak of 2800 back mid year 2018 – some 35%+ drop. The oil price seems trapped between the low and high $50 level and the uncertainty seems all over the place. The dividend yield is 7.9% – how sustainable that is, is the big question? Forward P/E of 9.5 – but subject to where the oil price ends up over the coming months. Scare factor on the virus must be overly factored in or is there worse to come? Monster borrowings at more than 4 times after tax profit Cash was reduced last year, largely due to $10bn of share buybacks, $15bn dividends and $3.4bn of debt reduction. Without the buybacks they would have increased net cash by $2bn. RDSB - really needs the oil price nearer $60 than $50 to keep this lot stable. Statement of the blxxdin obvious I know. The LNG projections are interesting with a doubling of usage in the next 20 years to offset carbon reduction requirements – how they forecast this lot is anybody’s guess. Nonetheless and against my better judgement I popped some in my basket after the sell off today. LK Hyman would be pleased – although I am rather suspicious that he is less than pleased with the £10 a share drop in the last 20 months or so. Games
Eadwig
16 Nov 2019
RDSB & ii accounts Saint_Michael: The significant line is about 10 lines down which says:- "Dividends on B Shares will be paid, by default, in pounds sterling at the rate of 36.28p per B Share. " Within ii you can now elect to be paid dividends in foreign currencies where companies give the option for holders to elect the currency in which they wish to be paid. Dividends paid into ISAs must be in GBP.
Eadwig
17 Sep 2019
US false flag, Saudi Arabia,US/Iran war? SaraRacano: Iran is the sole remaining country in a wide stretch of land between the Atlantic in the west and Indonesia in the east (with the exception of the little that remains of Syria) with a political system that is neither pro-Western nor pro-American. This, in turn, has causes that go back decades. Utter rubbish. I suggest you look at a map of the globe.
Eadwig
17 Sep 2019
US false flag, Saudi Arabia,US/Iran war? SaraRacano: Don´t forget you have the AMCO placing on the NYSE in the coming weeks. Also a higher oil price does wonders for the faltering U.S. shale gas industry. Highly indebted never made a profit. No it isn’t and yes they have.
SaraRacano
17 Sep 2019
US false flag, Saudi Arabia,US/Iran war? Don´t forget you have the AMCO placing on the NYSE in the coming weeks. Also a higher oil price does wonders for the faltering U.S. shale gas industry. Highly indebted never made a profit. What does Iran stand to make out of this it defies all logic? But you cannot contemplate a false flag event to justify war. The end game to 911. Another dates back to the 1980s, with the triumph of financial capitalism and Saudi investors’ discovery of the American market. There remains not one publicly owned US company without Saudi capital. Iran is the sole remaining country in a wide stretch of land between the Atlantic in the west and Indonesia in the east (with the exception of the little that remains of Syria) with a political system that is neither pro-Western nor pro-American. This, in turn, has causes that go back decades. An attack on Iran would bring Armageddon to the Middle East. The entire region would explode: Jews against Muslims, Shi’ites against Sunnis. And what if Russia and China were to come down on the side of Iran, against the US? Would it trigger NATO’s Article 5 on collective defense?
Trisco
17 Sep 2019
US false flag, Saudi Arabia,US/Iran war? They do like to smoke, @eadwig!
Eadwig
17 Sep 2019
US false flag, Saudi Arabia,US/Iran war? frog_in_a_tree: The other suspects are Iran but I would question whether that would risk a direct attack on Saudi. Iran are the obvious suppliers of the technology and maybe the operators of it too, but this would certainly be a ‘deniable operation’, unlinkable with the Iranian authorities in terms of its execution.
Eadwig
17 Sep 2019
US false flag, Saudi Arabia,US/Iran war? @Trisco, approx 17 carelessly discarded fags… image.jpg1117x793 350 KB
Eadwig
17 Sep 2019
US false flag, Saudi Arabia,US/Iran war? Trisco: I think that’s highly unlikely in this particular case, don’t you @Eadwig? I have no reason to disbelieve the rebels who claim they sent a force of 10 drones, not ‘a couple’ against this target, especially as they have targeted this place before. I have no doubt they will do so again, but seem to be using the threat as a negotiating tool right now. Meanwhile Saudi will be organising defences that have a greater chance of stopping such an attack in future. Its a big target though - and there are others once you have a long-distance drone capability (if indeed they do). They may also be able to deploy medium range missiles, although from what I’ve heard they weremn’t used in this attack.
SaraRacano
17 Sep 2019
US false flag, Saudi Arabia,US/Iran war? It´s not ususal remember the Buncefield fire 2005, credited to a fuel-air explosion in a vapour cloud of evaporated leaking fuel? You have to remember the age of these refineries.
Trisco
17 Sep 2019
US false flag, Saudi Arabia,US/Iran war? I think that’s highly unlikely in this particular case, don’t you @Eadwig?
Eadwig
17 Sep 2019
US false flag, Saudi Arabia,US/Iran war? SaraRacano: How could of a couple of drones done this? The whole of the Middle East could potentially kick off. Its an oil refinery. You could do that with a carelessly discarded cigarette.
