Pyramid Comment

This journal takes an alternative view on current affairs and other subjects. The approach is likely to be contentious and is arguably speculative. The content of any article is also a reminder of the status of those affairs at that date. All comments have been disabled. Any and all unsolicited or unauthorised links are absolutely disavowed.

Friday, December 26, 2008

EDF And British Energy

The European Commission forced a sell-off of assets and then approved the $12.5bn acquisition of British Energy by EDF. and it must sell its non-nuclear Sutton Bridge and another at Eggborough is owned by British Energy (archive) to overcome competition objections. EDF is a state-controlled power company and has an aggressive expansion strategy. Other conditions have been applied: to sell minimum amounts of electricity in the UQ (aka UK) wholesale market and dispose of land at either Dungeness or Heysham that could be used to build a new nuclear power station and end one of its three connection agreements with National Grid. This is the EC forcing a French state-controlled energy concern to profit out of UK customers by removing competition and building more nuclear power stations in the UK

EDF will avoid any inquiry into its acquisition of Britain's biggest electricity provider and this will put EDF at the forefront of the UQ (aka UK) nuclear power development. The government will doubtles welcome the proposed smooth flow of events as part of its energy strategy. The idea is to become internally nuclear-dependent and so avoid the external forces creating havoc. Just create havoc within the UQ (aka UK) and use the backward-thinking nuclear argument in its effort to go forward. Windscale The French company (EDF) was instructed by the EU to sell the grid connection at Hinkley Point because the capacity would not be taken up by the combined (British Energy and EDF) group's expansion plans. Hinkley Point A power station Hinkley Point B power station The government has ruled that the expanding nuclear power strategy is best to deal with global warming an alleged untruth.

My view it that it is not the proven 'fact' it is purported to be. The science is speciously plausible, but the climate change case is very, very weak. The (unrealistic) demands set by the government in its nuclear strategy made it impossible to finance in the time allowed and an alternative had to be found.

  • Sell off British Energy to the French. And UQ (aka UK) control.

  • The UQ (aka UK) will become a nuclear-powered country controlled by the French

Paradoxically, wars have been fought to retain UQ (aka UK) sovereignty, but this is yet another bloodless invasion. EDF generates more than three-quarters of France's power and is the world's biggest operator of nuclear power stations. The British Energy deal can only benefit the growth of EDF. and the loss of control within the UQ (aka UK). In the US last week, the utility agreed to buy a 49.99% stake in the five reactors owned by Constellation Energy for $4.5bn (£3bn). The aggressive strategy will also involve expansion into Italy and South Africa. British Energy will be swallowed up by the expected early January takeover. European Parliament and President Sarkozy It is difficult not to see the connection between the bloodless power control and the European Parliament that is clearly the objective. Sarkozy doesn't favour the way the Irish voted in the Lisbon Treaty referendum, so instead of them voting again (and again until they get it right), they will just be ignored.

The goal has been identified:

 wars have so far denied the complete control of Europe by the 'European Parliament' that is centralised in Brussels

Until Now 

Thursday, December 25, 2008

Energy Price Reductions

Claims are being reported in the press that large price reductions in energy are to be expected next year (by up to 30%). The combination of gas and electricity could see a drop in the annual outlay of up to £400. The first part (15%) is expected in the New Year with a further reduction of 15% in the summer. Since January 2008, the duel energy bill has risen from an average of £900 to £1300 (+£400).

The proposed figure for the overall reduction is...


Energy prices have plunged over the past 6-months and these reductions are morally expected to be passed on to consumers. It's inevitable as any justification, however specious, for massive rises evaporates. The volatility of price fluctuation is exposed by the summer high (2008) of $147 a barrel and less than $100 (December 2007).

The real test will be whether any price reduction actually happens. If it does then this should only be expected, but if it doesn't then the charge of profiteering would be difficult, if not impossible, to defend. Shareholders' profits will be reduced if the moral reduction of prices is passed on. Otherwise it becomes a simple case of taking money under false pretenses, unless there is a quality case for imposing a high charge, and is then tantamount to theft.

Any argument that includes repayment of an overestimated charge has absolutely no foundation as any interest on the predictable overcharging would not happen. The energy company would profit by accruing interest on the growing balance of its account, but not pass it on when the overcharge amount is returned.

It's child's play accounting.

Ofgem has claimed it would consider "naming and shaming" those companies that fail to pass on wholesale price cuts. It is very likely however, that any price reduction would take a very long time to drip into a customer's account. It would mean diverting profits away from the shareholders and back to the consumers who partly fund those profits.

The main predictable event is that oil production will be drastically cut back. OPEC has already announced a cut by 2.2 million barrels per day. This is the mechanism for price massage and control: cause a glut and prices drop so create a shortage and see those prices escalate. And since gas and oil prices have been linked (for no justifiable reason) the inevitable becomes entirely predictable.

A cynical comment from British Gas:

  • "We are committed to passing savings on to customers wherever we can. While wholesale gas prices are still high, they are falling. If that continues we are hopeful that we will be able to reduce energy prices for our customers next spring."


...will be able...?

So, why should it be only a possibility should prices go downwards?

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Southern Electric - The Letter


Note added: 19.06.2009

  • The 'Note added' (copied below) is UNTRUE. The communication was a lie. The amount taken from my account was the original £69. I had taken Southern Electric at its word, but this has been demonstrated to be worthless.

Note added: 03.01.2009

  • To it's credit Southern Electric has responded positively to this issue which has been resolved and the suggested £54 accepted. The original quarterly billing has been restored. No detail was provided in the response, but it was satisfactory.
Southern Electric

13th December 2008
Customer Accounts
Southern Electric
PO Box 7506

  • Direct Debit payment of £69.00 is unacceptable
  • Direct Debit payment of £54.00 is reasonable
My justification for the lower reasonable and 'fairer' amount is discussed further below, but I am very disappointed at the method used by Southern Electric (Home - the business) to reach the value and the extremely weak justification given for an increase to my monthly direct debit of almost 82% (£38 -> £69). I am not impressed by the review and a reassessment is required. I have lost considerable faith in the probity of Southern Electric as any meaningful adjustment could be made sometime in the near future when accurate figures will be available.

A 6-monthly statement is totally unacceptable and associating bill estimation with environmental concerns is wrong since the one has nothing to do with the other. Seasonal change in consumption is effectively hidden and it becomes almost impossible to determine a use-pattern. You do not inform me of how my account debt is moving and I must do this myself. The maximum information that can be mined in the current statement is the total consumption for the two 3-month periods 30th May 2008 through to 24th August 2008 and 25th August to 26 November 2008. This will become impossible in the 6-month statement. If the minimum of monthly usage were to be effectively hidden, I would regard this as a deliberate attempt to prevent the consumer from checking the consumption detail. Southern Electric could easily provide this information if it so desired.

This is exemplified by the apparent quantum jump in consumption during 2008: the 3-month period of 30th May to end 24th August suddenly jumps from 1950kWh to 4289.55kWh for the subsequent quarter (26th August to 26th November). This is unrealistic and should reflect the gradual increase in consumption from October through to November. This must be assumption since no detail is available to monitor monthly change.

The level of consumption towards end November (heaviest use) is then used to gauge the estimated consumption for the 11-month year in 2009.
This means that Southern Electric enjoys the highest payment in the period of least use:

Winter rate during the Summer

This is unfair and, quite frankly, immoral. Doubtless, the predictable accrual of an inflated credit surplus will be repaid (interest excluded) at a future date. This amounts to quite a considerable financial advantage to Southern Electric. The claim "Your gas statement explained" does nothing more than confuse. The detail can be worked out and the usable information for 2008 can be unravelled though it has been made difficult, but not impossible. Southern Electric has forced scrutiny of these figures by the outrageous DD payment that has been proposed and some interesting features have arisen as a result.

The period from 30th May to 24th August uses the tariff before the price rise that applies from 25th August to 26th November. The percentage increase can be calculated for both the Standard energy and Discounted energy parts and is respectively:

3.620p/Unit ->4.440p/Unit = 41.4%
2.56p/Unit -> 3.370p/Unit = 31.8%

The proportion of Standard energy and Discounted energy is easily calculated:

714 kWh @ 3.620p/Unit (Standard energy) = 36.6% (£25.84)
1236 kWh @ 2.56p/Unit (Discounted energy) = 63.4% (£31.64)

yielding the total of 1950 kWh

rising to

1570 kWh @ 4.440p/Unit (Standard energy) = 36.6% (£69.70)
2719.55 kWh @ 3.370p/Unit (Discounted energy) = 63.4% (£91.65)

yielding the total of 4289.55 kWh
  • Total for the 6-month period: 6239.55kWh (£218.83) and less the 6% DD discount gives


These figures are mined from your own statement and therefore cannot be disputed.

To yield an approximation of seasonal use for the following two quarters (6-months), these quantities should be reversed:

December (2008) -> Feb (2009) = 3 months
  • 4289.55 x 36.6% = 1570 @ 4.44p/Unit = £69.70
  • 4289.55 x 63.4% = 2719.55 @ 3.37/Unit = £91.64
March (2009) -> May (2009) = 3 months
  • 1950 x 36.6% = 714 @ 4.44p/Unit = £31.70
  • 1950 x 63.4% = 1236 @ 3.37p/Unit = £41.65
The total consumption for the period December (2008) -> May (2009) is estimated at 6239.55 kWh -> £220.60 (after 6% DD discount). Consequently, the predicted consumption over the 12-month period from December (2008) -> November (2009) = 6239.55 x 2 = 12479.1 kWh

£220.60 + £220.60 = £441.40 and with 5% (VAT) ->


This falls well short (by £240.17) of the


calculated by Southern Electric:

  • £203 + £509.91 = £712.91
  • -> £670.14 (less 6% DD discount)
  • -> £703.64 (+5%VAT)
The price of gas is not under my control, but my usage of that gas certainly is. Yet, Southern Electric reaches a figure of 20,702.78kWh (4572.00 + 15130.78) for the following 12-month period. My estimate of 12479.1 kWh is at odds with the Southern Electric calculation. However, careful examination of the quantities involved demonstrates some apparent massaging of the figures.

Considering the proportion of Standard energy and Discounted energy the calculation of estimated consumption is clearly wrong. 4572.00kWh Standard energy (36.6%) equates to a Discounted energy (63.4%) proportion of 63.4/36.6 x 4572 (36.6%) = 7919.8 (63.4%). The quantity (202702.78 - 4572) = 121.13% as Discounted energy. This totals 12491.8kWh and is very close to my own estimate of 12479.1kWh. This amounts to a massive

65.9% over estimate

by Southern Electric of my predicted consumption and is clearly absurd. There is no reason to presuppose such a large rise in the volume of my gas consumption. Any movement should be downwards and not upwards.
  • How is there such disparity (12479.1kWh and 20702.78kWh) between the two figures? The Southern Electric calculation has almost double (1.91) the Discounted energy that it should be according to the Southern Electric proportion formula.
Notably, the current Direct Debit of £38.0 resulted in a 17.2% decrease in the amount carried forward as a debit from the previous statement. This is specified as

£69.80 -> £57.79 = -£12.01

The shortfall amounts to around an averaged £9.00/month (£57.79/6). Southern Electric calculates the charge into 2009 using an 11-month year and this I do not understand. It does have the benefit to Southern Electric of raising the Direct Debit from £63 -> £69 every month:

£761.44/12 = £63
£761.44/11 = £69

The estimated usage is very confused and confusing and appears to misrepresent the situation. The concept of the 6-monthly statement creates an extra level of difficulty in the assessment of any consumer's bill and this letter states my objection to this. It would be a straightforward task for Southern Electric to detail monthly usage on a 6-monthly statement of account. A proper analysis of consumption is then possible.

These figures present my direct challenge to Southern Electric for comment. An acceptable remedy would obviously be to simply increase the Direct Debit by no more than

£16 (£38 -> £54.0 = 42%)

which takes into account the highest actual increase of 41.4% and even this is a gross overestimate.

The proposed increase to £69 is strongly challenged and explained in this letter.

I have enclosed a cheque with this letter to clear the debt of £57.79.

Please be accurate in your explanation.

Yours faithfully,

Rescuing Cars

As the population grows then the perceived need for cars grows. The fact that overpopulation (2008) is having its impact on the employment of that population is not even considered. More people and more debt with a decrease in wealth. The movement of wealth to the minority continues and the majority which has the dwindling wealth is expected to buy the cars that roll off the production lines. Reality is different.

Cars continue to be built, but the potential buyers are decreasing. The car manufacturers build cars with the potential to be faster (if driven in that way - DA) and are consequently less efficient cars. The wake-up call happened some while ago. The sale of cars has become more difficult.

Too expensive to buy
 Too expensive to run

Simple really, but the failure of the manufacturers to remain viable was inevitable, yet now requires public money to rescue the bad management. Government will put public money into these concerns to keep them liquid, not accepting that they make articles that fewer people want or can afford. Deferment and procrastination again. Putting off until tomorrow that which should be faced today.

But new government. New solutions. Old joke. The problem will only get worse and the population of consumers will continue to grow. Taxpayer bail-outs appear to stem the flow, but in reality it's straightforward denial of the problem.

Overpopulation and over production of objects that nobody can afford or wants. The pyramid grows upside down. Getting bigger and more and more unstable. The ultimate crash is almost here. And is absolutely inevitable. Politicians without vision has always been the single and most dangerous scenario (the opposite can equally apply - DA).

Nothing really changes, unless it's something that goes from bad -> worse. Talking up an issue does not make that issue disappear or improve. It can only remain unchanged.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Southern Electric


This posting has been left for historical purposes only since the issue to which it pertains has


(19.06.2009), but is now closed (Oct 2009)

This has been revealed to have been based on a nauseatingly patronising lie. Clearly, there was never any intention of accepting my logic using the Southern Electric model.

Erroneous. Note had been added: 03.01.2009

  • To it's credit Southern Electric has listened and responded positively to my argument. The suggested £54 has been accepted as an increase from the earlier £38. And a more frequent billing (original quarterly) restored. The response was not detailed though appeared satisfactory.
This has since been proven to be a lie (19.06.2009). The 'agreed' level of charge was not applied and neither was a quarterly billing instigated. Southern Electric lied to me. The reason for the absence of detail is now very clear.

Energy Price Reductions (25.12.2008)
Southern Electric Prices

On the face of it, Southern Electric does not have the probity that it would like consumers to believe. Simply, the accounting formula has a definite proportionality for Standard energy and Discounted energy. It could also be defined as Inflated energy (= Standard energy) and Standard energy (= Discounted energy).

The Standard energy is represented by the first 36.6% of the total. The residual 63.4% is the Discounted energy proportion. Interestingly, the estimated usage for the year starting in December (2008) through to November (2009) has a hugely different rate. The Discounted energy part rises to 66% and accordingly the level set is greatly increased from any realistic one. The shabby concept though is to massage the monthly Direct Debit payment for the entire year at the highest Winter amount.The same payment is expected for the low usage Summer period.

Summer use at Winter prices

At best this is immoral.

I have written to the supplier clearly remarking on this outrageous pricing estimate and the very weak justification for raising the cost level, but suggesting that 'wringing hands' with the very lame apology for the increase that is, of course, out of their control, is a complete non-starter for a sensible explanation. Frankly, this is appalling and I await the detailed explanation that I have requested (13.12.08). A follow up e-mail has been sent (25.12.08). No response by 31.12.08. It is anticipated that more activity will be necessary.

  • (Unapproved) payment taken from my account 29.12.2008 after an enclosed cheque cashed and cleared (24.12.2008). The recorded letter was delivered 19.12.2008. There is a contemptible failure to respond to my challenge.
Ofgem will be contacted to alert to the interpreted mechanism of the Southern Electric calculation.

This proposed action has now been abandoned

I suggested a reasonable and sensible monthly payment that is very probably still a gross overestimation, though very much less than that proposed by Southern Electric. Using the mathematics of Southern Electric. This still accounts for the +35% alleged rise in gas prices, but works not so favourably for this business. It's fair and realistic (oxymoron).

British Gas - The Attitude
British Gas - The Disaster
British Gas - The Hiding
British Gas - The Owner (Centrica)
British Gas - The Round Up

Friday, December 05, 2008

Mortgage Holiday And Control

A highly cynical description of a government offering 'help'. The illusion is that those desperate homeowners being chased (hounded) by the banks for 'their' money are to be given a respite. The banks were 'given' a paddle to assist the passage up the creek and effectively any repayment they are (not) expected to pay is deferred forever. Taxpayers' money taken and 'used' without permission. Of course, there is no money. Only the 'promise to pay' device. Any ultimate settling will involve £100s billions. Sometime. The future is nebulous and exists only in the mists of imagination. Hidden and forgotten in those mists of time. Anyone borrowing finance from the restocked (with 'money') banks will payback what has been borrowed according to an amortisation schedule. A very fixed repayment plan defining when the loan must be settled. In full. This doesn't apply to the banks. They will repay the loan to the taxpayer:


That could technically be never. It'll just get forgotten. All those £100s billions. Just a long string of (meaningless) zeros.

£100s x 1,000,000,000

Significantly, the conditioning has been applied to make people think in terms of billions so the odd few million doesn't seem that important. Of course it is, but it just doesn't appear such a great deal of (virtual) money. The term millionaire is becoming relatively, and very patronisingly, commonplace. To be somebody really important and influential (money shouts very loud) it is necessary to be a billionaire (1000 x 1 million) in 2009.

The repayment of the principal and its attached interest that doesn't exist anywhere, but in principle. A borrower will pay back to the 'lending' bank with interest on money that has already been loaned to another borrower by the lender. A vicious circus of interest when only the banks can win-win all the way... to the bank. The mortgage holiday just stokes up the future-proofed debt. It doesn't cancel it and is a way of deferral with the bonus of increasing that debt. Win-win for the banks. Again. Lose-lose for just about everyone else. Again. The parasite flourishes at the expense of the host and this parasite-host scenario is distributed around the globe as total control (world domination and the subjugation of its inhabitants) becomes closer to reality.

The global population will be allowed to increase under the delusion that more people means more money. The point of no-return has been exceeded where it will always cost more in terms of money than can be 'created'. But the obvious reason is control and subjugation. The minority is one that holds the power-crazed freaks and the medium for controlling the majority is... money.

The concept of greed is self-propelling and the incarcerated become their own gaolers, making it all the easier for the would-be controllers. That the financial system cannot ever be allowed to fail has already been repeated many times. It's always being 'propped up'. And continues to be heard. Tell a lie often enough and it starts to become the truth. Global systems depend absolutely on money, money, money and it's what allegedly makes the world go round. Odd thinking when money as a non-living entity has no power of its own, but only perceived anthropomorphic influence.

The current (New/Old Labour) government clearly doesn't anticipate returning at the next UQ (aka UK Ltd) general election as the borrowing spree to help spring over the next hurdle simply attempts to deflect the tsunami that's already on its way. Deflection will not stop the onslaught. It'll just happen tomorrow and not today. Leave a mess behind as an exit present. The bigger the mess the better. The next 'government' will make noises that it is 'fixing' the problems, but will need years in office to do nothing in particular, but  creating its own set of new (additional) problems. Today's issues dissolve into those mists of time and are forgotten.


Inflation is only a jargon word, but should be the constant reminder for what it really stands for:


Inflation And Oil
Inflation Control
Inflation And Control Of The Global People

Government in power and government in opposition close ranks when 'power' (and therefore control) gets threatened. This is the epicentre of the issue. This invasion of parliament to conduct a search of an MP's office at the Houses of Parliament (Westminster Palace) has been criticised for the mechanics of its execution, though not condemned by either half of that power house. The message has been repeated again and again that nobody is above the law. No anti-terror excuse was offered as was no search warrant for that search. Permission was granted to search with a failure to disclose that a search warrant did not exist. If a warrant had been applied for, it was possibly refused on the grounds of its application. Or it was never applied for.

This is tantamount to the politicised
police placing themselves
above the law

Senior policemen are politicians with a uniform that camouflages what lies beneath. Not at all confused, just cynical, threatening and sinister. The control engine flourishes. What will not ever, ever happen is that Buckingham Palace will be invaded. Only the Palace of Westminster. This would constitute an act of war conducted by the government appointed by the monarchy to rule and control the people. In this, the police set themselves way above the law with a free ticket to do as they please.

The army will simply do as they are told by whoever is not in charge.

Until the military has had enough and they take control. After all, politicians cannot be trusted with national security, can they? The clowns in a circus do nothing practically useful except keep the people amused. They divert attention away from Something Wicked This Way Comes.

Power play continues with the citizens of UQ (aka UK Ltd) being the pawns in the game.