The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode with London Stock Exchange Group's Chris Mayo has just been released. Listen 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.
A new report estimates the introduction of a higher windfall tax on oil and gas firms could lead to the loss of 100,000 jobs industry jobs in the North Sea.
Investment bank Stifel had previously released analysis which estimated 100,000 jobs could be lost under a “worst-case scenario” which assumed the Labour party committing to no new drilling in the North Sea, which it has not yet done.
However this new report from the bank states losses could be incurred by raising the windfall tax to 78% and removing investment allowances, which the Labour party has proposed.
Stifel said this “accelerated decline scenario” could lead to £20bn lower capital investment in the North Sea by 2035, and a £30bn reduction in spending out to 2050.
Based on the Stifel analysis, which shows a strong correlation between North Sea spending and jobs, the report estimates the sector could lose around 100,000 jobs “possibly as quickly as by the next general election in 2029”.
But now, the firm said factoring in recent employment data led it to conclude that in the event of a rapid decline in investment spending, up to half of the current 200,000 jobs employed in the sector could be lost.
The loss of so many skilled workers would “harm the skills base needed for the UK’s energy transition due to the high transferability of skills between offshore oil and gas and floating wind, carbon capture, and hydrogen.
EPL a ‘multi-billion-pound’ paradox
Stifel said raising the Energy Profits Levy windfall tax represents a “multi-billion-pound paradox”.
The higher tax rate would initially generate £6.5bn in tax revenue up to 2029, but would lead to lower tax takings than the current regime from 2030 onwards.
“Over the remaining life of the North Sea, we estimate the UK loses c.£20bn of tax payments if the UK North Sea is forced into this accelerated rate of decline,” the report states.
Under this scenario, Stifel forecast that the UK would see its competitiveness for investment “dramatically eroded further”, with investment “almost completely ceasing” by the early 2030s.
UK North Sea not comparable to Norway
The Stifel report also expressed concern about comparisons made between the UK and Norwegian oil and gas tax regimes.
With productions costs in the UK North Sea nearly double that of Norway there is “less profit to tax”, Stifel said.
With the UK energy industry now making less post-tax cash to pay for continued investment due to the windfall tax, Stifel said the UK’s competitiveness has “already been damaged”.
“Making investments in the UK North Sea uneconomic or limiting the development of resources in the future is not consistent with the structure of the windfall tax and is the opposite of how Norway’s tax system works,” the report said.
Stifel also said there is “no longer a windfall to tax”, with UK gas prices down 95% compared to the peak seen in September 2022.
Stifel said the windfall tax represents a “tax on investor confidence” for any energy or infrastructure investment in the UK, including renewable energy.
According to the report, this loss of confidence in the UK is “damaging the North Sea industry more effectively than the windfall taxes themselves”.
Stifel pointed to Deltic Energy’s Pensacola prospect and Hartshead Resources’ Anning project as examples of two North Sea gas developments which have struggled to progress in recent months due to political and fiscal uncertainty surrounding the windfall tax. Raising the windfall tax would also accelerate the pace of shutdown of platforms and bring forward the share of money the UK government will need to spend on decommissioning, Stifel said.
In the accelerated decline scenario, the report estimates the UK would be importing around 80% of its gas by 2030, up from around 55% currently. With all sources of UK gas supply other than Norway being higher in carbon intensity than the UK’s own production, Stifel estimated the UK would create an additional 35 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2035.
“Therefore, disincentivising investment in the UK North Sea through higher taxes or enforced decline in investment, and therefore reducing domestic gas production, could actually increase overall emissions from UK energy use,” Stifel said.
Good report from Stifel, and you can call be cynical Syd from Southend, but my worry is Labour will be happy to bank the extra tax now and then think up some other revenue-raising scheme later in their expected Parliament. Going against this thinking is the pressure building from the Unions, who must know to continue with investment is about fiscal policy as much as licensing.
“EPL a ‘multi-billion-pound’ paradox
Stifel said raising the Energy Profits Levy windfall tax represents a “multi-billion-pound paradox”.
The higher tax rate would initially generate £6.5bn in tax revenue up to 2029, but would lead to lower tax takings than the current regime from 2030 onwards.
“Over the remaining life of the North Sea, we estimate the UK loses c.£20bn of tax payments if the UK North Sea is forced into this accelerated rate of decline,” the report states.
Under this scenario, Stifel forecast that the UK would see its competitiveness for investment “dramatically eroded further”, with investment “almost completely ceasing” by the early 2030s.”
I think this adds a bit of colour to the discussion. Yesterday I had lunch with an old friend who is a staunch lifelong Labour supporter. He accepted that parts of Labour are ideologically driven and mistakes have and will be made. I’ve convinced my friend over the costings of renewables and their intermittency which are ignored by the Labour crusade. I then asked him why Labour tolerate such an incompetent left wing ideolog like Ed Miliband whose track record is pathetic. His demonic attack on O&G started with coal-fired power stations in 2009 finishing off the work Thatcher started. My friends did throw me because he is one of the most fair-minded and unprejudiced people I know. He said “it’s because he’s Jewish”. It threw me. He wasn’t being anti-Semitic but stating the facts about the Labour Party and the problems caused by Corbyn and his anti-Zionist approach. With Ed on board Starmer has appeal to the Corbynistas and a defence against any residual antisemitism in the Party. Then there is the bonus that the Greens and climate activists warm to him.
Another point to consider. It is pretty pointless arguing about O&G from the “essential” perspective or even energy security. Few things are more important to life than water yet it is expected to be sparkling spring water delivered to our homes for free. There have been corporate abuses (Macquarie with Thames) but fundamentally not enough has been spent on infrastructure. Up until the 1960’s rain water and sewage ran jointly. The release of sewage into rivers and the sea is mainly because they act as an overflow. If you didn’t have that option many would have what you put down the toilet come straight back to you in times of heavy rainfall. Then you have these “wild water” swimmers demanding our rivers to be as clean as tap water. I’d like it too but as with spotlessly clean air there is a cost that the politicians pretend isn’t their responsibility. I’m sure that what we see in overseas hotels as tourists doesn’t often extend to the hastily erected shanty towns surrounding many exotic locations. They are banging on about nationalising water and everything else. It too has mixed results but you can’t get away with paying Zero and you either pay through your taxes or accept that a company won’t do it unless there is a profit to be made. The parallels with O&G are obvious but once again the media is following the outrage narrative about "them" and that most disgusting of words "dividends".