We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Company BP plc (BP.)
Stock Exchange London Stock Exchange (United Kingdom)
Amount 6.61c
Dividend Type Quarterly
Ex-Dividend Date Thursday May 11 2023
Pay Date Friday June 23 2023
Your Holding 1 share change this
Your Payment: $0.07 (approx £0.05)
General Gordon had the right idea
Traders worried about the security of these exports in a market that is getting increasingly tight in the supply department.
24-hour ceasefire in Sudan has ended and clashes between warring political factions have resumed, dampening hopes for a quick solution to the situation in the country.
The conflict erupted in mid-April, when the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group, took up arms against the Sudanese army in the capital Khartoum. The fighting quickly escalated, plunging Sudan into chaos.
Sudan is the only conduit for landlocked South Sudan’s crude oil. South Sudan has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels in oil deposits. The two countries export primarily Nile and Dar blends to markets in Asia from Port Sudan via the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. While most of the oil belongs to South Sudan, the two countries together exported some 132,000 bpd of crude oil in 2021. This has since risen to some 170,000 bpd.
This is not a whole lot of oil but it appears to be enough to get some oil traders worried about the security of these exports in a market that is getting increasingly tight in the supply department.
The ceasefire that lasted from Saturday to Sunday was brokered by U.S. and Saudi mediators but these have so far failed to achieve a more lasting arrangement between the two warring factions: the Sudanese army led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the head of the Rapid Support Forces and former deputy of Al-Burhan, Mohamed Hamdan Daglo.
So far, the conflict has resulted in 1,800 deaths and the displacement of close to 2 million people, according to media reports. Analysts have pointed out that neither the Sudanese army nor the Rapid Support Forces have any interest in disrupting oil flows from South Sudan, Al Jazeera reported in April. Yet the fighting has threatened the security of transport for the oil from landlocked South Sudan to the Sudanese coast.
The United States is about to start unloading crude from a tanker allegedly used to carry Iranian oil abroad, the FT has reported, noting the move would fuel the escalation of tension between the U.S. and Iran.
The U.S. seized the Suez Rajan in April, prompting quick retaliation from Iran, which in its turn seized a Chinese-owned, Turkish-operated tanker that was loaded with crude for delivery to Chevron.
Iran claimed that the tanker collided with an unidentified Iranian vessel just hours prior to its seizure, with several crew members reportedly falling overboard while others were left injured. The tanker then fled the scene and ignored radio calls for eight hours before a court-ordered its seizure.
The Suez Rajan, according to the FT, has received a license from the U.S. Treasury Department to import Iranian crude into the United States. Its cargo is some 800,000 barrels of crude and, per an unnamed former member of the Biden administration, its arrival in Texas is likely the result of a deal that got struck between the administration and the owners and operators of the vessel.
The cargo of the Suez Rajan will either be sold now or has already been sold and the proceeds may be given to a fund created by Congress for U.S. victims of state-sponsored terrorism. The affair is unlikely to go down well in Tehran, especially since it is not the first tanker seizure the U.S. has done this year.
In fact, it recently emerged that another ship seizure may have been what prompted the Iranian seizure of the Chevron-bound tanker in April. Maritime security firm Ambrey said in late April that Iran's motive for seizing Chevron's load of crude oil was in retaliation for the U.S. seizure that took place not even five days prior.
"Both tankers were Suezmax-sized. Iran has previously responded tit-for-tat following seizures of Iranian oil cargo," Ambrey said in a note to clients, according to the Jerusalem Post
Probably why 250 top execs +pa's have all been out there on a jolly recently
Newly leaked Pentagon papers showed that Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salmon threatened the United States with economic calamity over oil production decisions, according to the Washington Post.
Relations between U.S. President Biden and Saudi Arabia's bin Salman have been sour since before President Biden took office, with the latter threatening to make bin Salman a pariah. But newly leaked Pentagon documents suggested that Saudi Arabia's decision to cut production last October started a whole level of chilly for the duo’s relationship.
Following Saudi Arabia's decision to cut oil production along with fellow OPEC+ members, President Biden—battling inflation at home and fearing production cuts would worsen the situation—had promised OPEC+ that there would be "consequences".
"I am in the process, when the House and Senate gets back, they're going to have to – there's going to be some consequences for what they've done with Russia," President Biden told CNN's Jake Tapper last October.
In response to President Biden's threat, the documents show that HRH threatened the United States with "major economic consequences."
Bin Salman said he would "not deal with the US administration anymore," according to the document, adding that there would be "major economic consequences for Washington."
It is unclear whether these comments were made directly to a US official or whether it was merely an intercepted conversation.
Saudi Arabia again moved to cut production as recently as last week—this time volunteering to cut an additional 1 million barrels per day from its already reduced production targets. The move would normally raise the hackles of the U.S. Administration, which already seems to have a bone to pick with Mohammad bin Salman over what the U.S. considers to be his role in the killing of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi. But oil prices failed to elevate and stay that way following the cut, diminishing the likelihood of any meaningful U.S. response.
Child,
Good God man, calm down & on a Sunday morning.
What a rant, such a furtive imagination....
Theaky,
I think I have 'sussed' the reason for so many Tory, 'shoot yourself in the foot 'seemingly' crazy policies' ; they are NOT crazy but part of a larger world stage plan to ensure that the Tories loose the next G.E, so they can sit back, watch Labour trash the economy even worse, then ride to the rescue, BUT telling 'all' the broken, downtrodden unemployed "The only way we can do such is by a renegotiation of the UK/EU 'deal'.
And that 'renegotiation' will VERY MUCH resemble the deal we had when in the EU, for that is what the world, and many MP's and others who DID gain by being in for their own agendas wanted.
And because the UK has to uphold the 'image' of democracy, the ONLY way to get what they wished for, not what the 'plebs' wanted is to ensure that Labour are blamed as they certainly will ruin our economy. Thus the Tory party will have to wait a few years to gain power again, but to them if it means the 'master plan' of the EU can continue, then such is more powerful than mere 'British politics'.
They get what they wanted, and with the image that democracy is upheld, as we won't 'technically' re-join the EU, but the terms will make it as bad as.
Watch and see, as you no doubt will have little choice.
Try putting into google the following
bp partners for hydrogen production
It’s a good start for who they are linking up with.
And which companies carry out the Engineering & Construction Services works on behalf of BP?
Are there any preferred companies or is there a scheme to be recognised?
Https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-buys-3-mln-bbls-oil-stockpile-announces-plan-3-mln-more-2023-06-09/
Looks like the comerce dept plans to trickle oil into SPR at 3 million barrels a month at present WTI prices.Will see what happens if POO goes north in August.
Agree. Cant abide that constant self satisfied sneering grin of the bloke. I find him detestable and as theaky says his tax policies seem designed to deter investment in the UK. If so they are about the only thing hes ever got right. Maybe as a remainer he wants us to join the EU in recession
BP has lots of experience in Hydrogen,they have been producing it in refineries for many years.
They have roughly the same expertise as anyone at present as it’s all new technology.
But they have about a dozen mega Hydrogen projects world wide, and a stated aim to capture 10% of the world market.
If Hydrogen is the next big thing BP is placed to be a big part of it.
The changes won't make a difference. Partly the damage is already done (as companies now will put a huge risk premium on the UK for having an unpredictable tax environment), and partly the change was insignificant.
The change might only kick in if there is a bad recession where OPEC lose control of oil prices and then no guarantees it won't be slapped back on a whim.
When pricing projects, future cashflow is everything. The current tax is ridiculous as no profits can be extracted without the huge tax. So the potential profit is very low, the investment really high and the oil company takes 100% of the risk. It's insane, unless your intention is to kill all future North Sea fossil fuel extraction.
This just adds to all the other UK policy incentives that result in less production and more people trying to grab. We have gone past tipping point.
I have a few questions for you.
With reference to the following article:
Hydrom, BP Oman secure $20 billion deals for massive green hydrogen projects
https://www.oilandgasmiddleeast.com/news/hydrom-bp-oman-secure-20-billion-deals-for-massive-green-hydrogen-projects
"Hydrom’s recent social media updates revealed that the first project was awarded to the Amnah consortium, the victor of the initial round public auction for block Z1-01.
The consortium consists of Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, Blue Power Partners, and Al Khadra Partners.
In another significant move, the agreement for the second project was inked with BP Oman for block Z1-03.
Two additional agreements were also signed to secure the rights for land use and potential project expansion.
The final project was awarded to the Green Energy Oman (GEO) consortium, winners of block Z1-04. The consortium comprises Oman Shell, OQ, EnerTech, Intercontinental Energy, and Golden Wellspring Wealth for Trading."
What do you think? Isn't it a bit strange that BP Oman is without a partner for the second project?
Does BP even have the capabilities to do this alone?
Maybe it's just me but I can't watch Hunt speak, he reminds of those nodding dogs we had on the parcel shelf of the car in 60's/70's. Churchill advert style.
That and his spooky grin.
Theaky, I would say anything is better than what he is doing, but we can see how stupid they can go from last October. But I do agree, it's like they are trying to destroy any reason to be in UK
NalaKapala,
I agree, Jeremy Hunt as remainer has introduced some very puzzling measures. Like raising windfall taxes, corporation taxes, which seem at a glance very anti UK Business.
Surely we should be reducing taxes and fostering an economic environment to increase jobs and encourage inward investment.
Bit late Hunty. Harbour has gone along with its investments, jobs and numerous other businesses. You keep taxing and they will keep leaving - check your history and your psychology text books. My history book says you were hopeless as health secretary nobody knows who gave you this job to similarly make a balls of. It was underhanded and behind closed doors for certain.
Government softens windfall taxes on profits of energy producers
Tax has raised £2.8bn to date to fund energy support schemes, government says.
The government is scaling back the windfall tax on bumper oil and gas profits in response to fossil fuel companies warning they are cutting back on investment.
Prices had reached historic highs following the invasion of Ukraine, resulting in record profits for oil and gas producers such as Shell and BP.
The windfall tax - 75% of North Seal oil and gas production profits - will continue to March 2028 but the government has announced that if prices fall to historically normal levels for "a sustained period" the tax rate for oil and gas companies will return to 40%.
Companies do not pay the full 75% or 40% rate as they can offset tax liabilities on investment they make.
The windfall tax, known as the energy profits levy, has raised around £2.8bn to date, the government said, and is expected to raise almost £26bn by March 2028. Funds raised have gone to support household energy schemes such as the energy price guarantee, which limited typical domestic energy bills.
No new oil and gas projects can be developed if the world is to stay within safe levels of climate change, the International Energy Agency said more than two years ago.
That is the dumbest comment I’ve ever heard and you have me or you to compete with.