Is climate change a fraud?

[Kopek]

There seems to be a World of Climate Change happening outside the Isle of Man that we don't seem to be aware of???

[HeliX]

26 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Why would Crogga give away shares? What individual interest would a single share give? What dividend do you think they would earn?  You also open up all kinds of obligations to keep a group of people happy who have stumped up nothing. How do you think they would deal with the investments can go down as well as up mantra?  

Why? Because we'd write it into the licence.
How much per share is impossible to know unless we know the value of the gas, and Crogga's costs. But if it was structured roughly how I mentioned (investors retain enough shares to make 1.something times their money back, rest of profits divided evenly among public) then at least most of the proceeds would come back to the Manx public.

There's no obligation to keep those shareholders who haven't invested money happy. Their "investment" also can't go down.

Quote

Again why? They are the ones who are risking their capital. 

And for that they can take the 1.something x returns I mentioned.

Quote

Easy to say, not so easy to implement when you are issuing shares to an unsophisticated investing public. Would you pump in more money if there were shareholders who were not?  

If it meant increasing my return, yes. I think maybe using a share structure has gotten this hung up in the wrong place - it doesn't have to be a share structure, a profit cap with the rest redistributed evenly among the public is the same net result.

Quote

Others may be interested, but not for one share and without legislation there is no power to do this, and  you risk making the licence terms so onerous that most investors will walk away.

Not if the return is competitive and beats out other options for investing. Which if the estimates for the amount of gas are to be believed, it should do.

 

As I say, if you don't like it just because of the share stuff, how about a profit cap and the rest being taxed at 100% and distributed evenly across the public? Would need to have other things capped, such as salaries, to avoid gaming the system, but in principle...

[Banky]

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

What? Outrageous alcohol prices and a diet of whale blubber. 

10 years i lived in Norway you rasistisk dritt, and i don't know one Norwegian that ate whale blubber. Try Iceland ! BTW, whale meat is delicious, the once i had it in 1991. 

[b4mbi]

4 minutes ago, Kopek said:

There seems to be a World of Climate Change happening outside the Isle of Man that we don't seem to be aware of???

Something we have no power what-so-ever to change. 

However we do have the opportunity to put the Island on a stable financial footing with a  sustainable, secure energy supply into the long term.

Which is manifestly in the best interests of everyone on the Island. 

[Gladys]

16 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Why? Because we'd write it into the licence.
How much per share is impossible to know unless we know the value of the gas, and Crogga's costs. But if it was structured roughly how I mentioned (investors retain enough shares to make 1.something times their money back, rest of profits divided evenly among public) then at least most of the proceeds would come back to the Manx public.

There's no obligation to keep those shareholders who haven't invested money happy. Their "investment" also can't go down.

And for that they can take the 1.something x returns I mentioned.

If it meant increasing my return, yes. I think maybe using a share structure has gotten this hung up in the wrong place - it doesn't have to be a share structure, a profit cap with the rest redistributed evenly among the public is the same net result.

Not if the return is competitive and beats out other options for investing. Which if the estimates for the amount of gas are to be believed, it should do.

 

As I say, if you don't like it just because of the share stuff, how about a profit cap and the rest being taxed at 100% and distributed evenly across the public? Would need to have other things capped, such as salaries, to avoid gaming the system, but in principle...

The share stuff is not the best way really.  Superficially, it looks like a great way, but it really isn't, it is fraught with all kinds of issues.  The biggest issue is that this has to be attractive to those putting up the money.  If IOMG wade in too heavily it could all disappear because it no longer is attractive.  The existence of gas there has even known for 40 years, (I vaguely remember when it was found,  much to great celebration of becoming the next Aberdeen).  Nothing came of it, no one was prepared to invest.

The best way for the island to get benefit (apart from the gas) is  licencing and tax, and without IOM plc putting up any money. Leave that to the investors, if gas is there we will benefit. If there isn't, the loss is for the investors. 

Meanwhile, IOMG must make proper inroads to a more sustainable (in all its guises) energy plan for the island and not pin their hopes on this working or some nebulous 'we must create jobs' plan.  There has to be a credible plan, based on what is realistically achievable and not what just passes the green sniff test because that is what mollifies. 

[Banker]

Another gem from Stu 

 

[HeliX]

19 minutes ago, Banker said:

Another gem from Stu 

 

Quick, someone make one called "Even realer climate science" so Stu believes that instead.

[HeliX]

24 minutes ago, Gladys said:

The share stuff is not the best way really.  Superficially, it looks like a great way, but it really isn't, it is fraught with all kinds of issues.  The biggest issue is that this has to be attractive to those putting up the money.  If IOMG wade in too heavily it could all disappear because it no longer is attractive.  The existence of gas there has even known for 40 years, (I vaguely remember when it was found,  much to great celebration of becoming the next Aberdeen).  Nothing came of it, no one was prepared to invest.

The best way for the island to get benefit (apart from the gas) is  licencing and tax, and without IOM plc putting up any money. Leave that to the investors, if gas is there we will benefit. If there isn't, the loss is for the investors. 

Meanwhile, IOMG must make proper inroads to a more sustainable (in all its guises) energy plan for the island and not pin their hopes on this working or some nebulous 'we must create jobs' plan.  There has to be a credible plan, based on what is realistically achievable and not what just passes the green sniff test because that is what mollifies. 

I'm not married to the mechanism, but I think there are two questions I want to see answered:

Has an independent survey on the ecological and environmental impact of both the surveying and extracting been done? Results should be public.

How much will IOMG net for every £ Crogga and its investors net?

 

I think given it's a national resource, these are things that should be answered and be in the public domain.

[Gladys]

5 minutes ago, HeliX said:

I'm not married to the mechanism, but I think there are two questions I want to see answered:

Has an independent survey on the ecological and environmental impact of both the surveying and extracting been done? Results should be public.

How much will IOMG net for every £ Crogga and its investors net?

 

I think given it's a national resource, these are things that should be answered and be in the public domain.

Agree, but there comes a point when you assume so much responsibility that you become responsible. 

While it is in the ground, it isn't a resource. 

I would hope that the extraction licence, if that is the right term, puts reasonable terms on the environmental and ecological impact as well as a reasonable pay off to to the island in cheaper gas, a licence fee and tax, to ease a transition to sustainability.

Frankly, if this comes off it gives us cheap gas, tax and licence revenue that, say, pays for every house to be insulated and installed with solar panels, etc, who cares if the investors make a bundle?  What is important is that IOMG decides what it wants from this to benefit the whole island and positions itself to achieve that.  Most importantly that IOMG does not dictate so many terms and conditions that it becomes a hostage to funding it. 

[HeliX]

7 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Agree, but there comes a point when you assume so much responsibility that you become responsible. 

While it is in the ground, it isn't a resource. 

I would hope that the extraction licence, if that is the right term, puts reasonable terms on the environmental and ecological impact as well as a reasonable pay off to to the island in cheaper gas, a licence fee and tax, to ease a transition to sustainability.

Frankly, if this comes off it gives us cheap gas, tax and licence revenue that, say, pays for every house to be insulated and installed with solar panels, etc, who cares if the investors make a bundle?  What is important is that IOMG decides what it wants from this to benefit the whole island and positions itself to achieve that.  Most importantly that IOMG does not dictate so many terms and conditions that it becomes a hostage to funding it. 

I hope the licence does that too, but since it's not been made public...

It matters how much the investors make because if we let a private company take 90% of the revenue, that's not a great deal for Manx people. It is effectively giving away a huge amount of our natural resources to private investors. Shouldn't do that with any finite natural resource.

[Gladys]

7 minutes ago, HeliX said:

I hope the licence does that too, but since it's not been made public...

It matters how much the investors make because if we let a private company take 90% of the revenue, that's not a great deal for Manx people. It is effectively giving away a huge amount of our natural resources to private investors. Shouldn't do that with any finite natural resource.

But we haven't 'got' the natural resource and for the past 40 years have had no interest ( or risk appetite) in getting it.  IOMG shouldn't roll over, but shouldn't put up so many barriers that the risk is not worth the reward. 

Edited June 19, 2022 by Gladys

[HeliX]

Just now, Gladys said:

But we haven't 'got' the natural resource and for the past 40 years have had no interest ( or risk appetite) in getting it.  IOMG shouldn't roll over, but shouldn't put up so many barriers that the risk is not worth the resources. 

Agreed, but there needs to be some guarantee in place around the return we get for our resource. Through a profit cap, probably. It can be a handsomely generous one, but you wouldn't want to find we'd given away billions in resource for millions..

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, HeliX said:

Agreed, but there needs to be some guarantee in place around the return we get for our resource. Through a profit cap, probably. It can be a handsomely generous one, but you wouldn't want to find we'd given away billions in resource for millions..

But if we have not tried to extract the resource, we haven't really got it to give away. All we have given away is the opportunity and risk to exploit it. 

A percentage return is the best we should aim for, and that is through taxes.

[HeliX]

3 minutes ago, Gladys said:

But if we have not tried to extract the resource, we haven't really got it to give away. All we have given away is the opportunity and risk to exploit it. 

A percentage return is the best we should aim for, and that is through taxes.

I very much disagree - the resource definitely belongs to the Island. I'd sooner see it unused than sold for a tiny fraction of its value.

The question is what percentage though... the licence should be made public. Then I can stop being a pest. Or at least be a pest with the right numbers.

[Stu Peters]

My understanding is that around 50% of the profits from this will go into the IOM Treasury, plus we'll have energy security, and Crogga will reinvest some profits into alternative energy schemes - all at no cost to the taxpayer. At least until Comrade Helix launches a cappuccino coup and turns us into a totalitarian Marxist state funded by wishful thinking and grotesque taxes on anyone who earns more than him.