London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

This found its way to a friend (who sent it to me). It is from a social media platform my friend posts on from time to time. I make no comment.

"𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗡𝗘𝗧 𝗭𝗘𝗥𝗢 𝗩𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗧: 𝗔 𝗙𝗔𝗠𝗜𝗟𝗬 𝗔𝗙𝗙𝗔𝗜𝗥?

We have raised the question in previous posts but still see that some are blind to the fact that Ed Miliband, the Government’s Energy Secretary, has a vested interest in achieving Net Zero—and it is not as a tree hugger.

With Miliband driving the UK’s aggressive Net Zero strategy as Energy Secretary, his family’s private sector links are raising eyebrows in Westminster.

Is this a genuine conflict of interest, or simply independent careers crossing paths? The answer is blowing in the wind.

Here is what you need to know about the Miliband family connection to the green boom.

𝗗𝗔𝗩𝗜𝗗 𝗠𝗜𝗟𝗜𝗕𝗔𝗡𝗗, 𝗚𝗜𝗔𝗡𝗧 𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗘𝗦 & 𝗧𝗛𝗘 £𝟭𝗠 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗧

Ed’s older brother, David Miliband, is a paid advisor to Giant Ventures, a London-based venture capital firm managing massive funds dedicated specifically to climate tech and sustainable businesses.

While they do not directly own multi-billion-pound infrastructure like the massive 57-turbine NORTH FALLS OFFSHORE WIND FARM just approved by Ed Miliband, they invest heavily in the infrastructure surrounding it.

Giant is a primary backer of battery storage firms like FIELD, which are poised to clean up on lucrative grid-stabilisation contracts as a direct result of the exact offshore wind expansion Ed Miliband is conveniently championing! 📈💰

The web tightens further: Giant Ventures' advisory board also features former BP CEO Lord Browne [Giant Ventures], while its venture partners include Hayden Wood, the co-founder of the collapsed taxpayer-bailed-out Bulb Energy.

On top of this, Ed Miliband's department recently awarded a £1 MILLION MARKET RESEARCH CONTRACT to Verian Group—a company where David Miliband was just appointed as a director. It’s getting cozy, and it is not the solar panels

𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗥𝗡𝗧𝗢𝗡’𝗦 𝗟𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗟 𝗣𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗘

Ed Miliband’s wife, Justine Thornton KC, is a highly respected environmental law barrister.

While she does not own a renewable energy business, her past legal practice includes representing major wind energy firms in high-profile legal battles.

While her chambers ensure she stays clear of cases directly involving her husband's government department, it does show just how deeply embedded the household is in the green lobby.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) insists all proper ministerial declarations and mitigations are strictly followed.

No official watchdog has ruled that the Ministerial Code has been breached.

However, it could be argued that a glaring "perceived" conflict of interest remains as to whether it is right for one brother's policies to help fuel and subsidise a sector that directly enriches the other brother's employer and network

This is the KP video I was looking for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8I4PrSRXI4

It's 17 mins long - take the time to watch it. She has many videos on YouTube, all of which expose the ignorance and destructive behaviour of Miliband and his henchmen. The damage they are doing to our country is incalculable.

It might interest some to consider again what was said by the CEO and Chairman of Orcadian Energy when they presented ORCA's H1 2024 results on 16 Dec '24. The comments that interested me were around the lack of concern they had over the new Scope 3 emissions requirements (introduced following the Finch ruling), which introduced another hurdle for UKCS companies to jump.

The key part of ORCA's statement relates to the de minimis effect on CO2 production of ANY individual project to produce oil and gas in the North Sea:

"From Orcadian's perspective, the Finch ruling does not raise concerns for us. Quantifying the impact of Scope 3 emissions is a reasonable step, as their effect is expected to be negligible. As an example, the Rosebank field will produce about 300 MMbbl of oil, that when combusted will produce about 134 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, which will increase the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere by just under 0.02 parts per million, assuming nature absorbs nothing - a very unlikely assumption given about half of the carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuels since the industrial revolution has been so absorbed. Using the IPCC central estimate for the impact on global temperatures of a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration - 3ºC - that increase in carbon dioxide concentration could increase global temperature by less than two ten thousandths of a degree, far below the level that any creature could perceive.

This is why action on climate change needs global agreement on actions to reduce demand for fossil fuel energy. Constraining supply can only impact demand by increasing the price of energy; increasing the price of energy will undermine support for any climate action. So, politicians and engineers alike need to focus on delivering low-carbon energy for the lowest cost possible. That is why our Earlham project is so important. It will deliver low to no carbon energy at an affordable cost and on a dispatchable basis. We hope to learn from that project so that we can implement repeat projects at lower costs.

Nevertheless, because of the Finch ruling both Shell's Jackdaw project and Equinor's Rosebank project will have to be re-approved, and the government will have to re-issue guidance on how EIA documents are prepared".

I am not aware ORCA's comments have been challenged. The question (to me) is: why has the UKCS industry not agreed a standard text, along the lines of what ORCA claims, to accompany all FDP applications? I wonder how NeoNext+/Serica/JOG have dealt with Scope 3 in Buchan's FDP?

I'll provide a link to the relevant RNS in a separate post

dyor

What we are dealing with here is a very dangerous individual who Starmer is too scared of to control. Miliband has unilaterally taken control of the NSTA, which is akin to Reeves deciding it is up to her, not the BoE, to set quarterly interest rates.

Miliband already has form in this regard. The following is from Google AI but is a fair account of what happened:

"Immediately after taking office in July 2024, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband unilaterally approved several large-scale solar farm projects—classed as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs)—that faced significant local council and resident objections, mainly regarding the loss of agricultural land.

The projects approved in the first week included:

Solar Power Portal

Sunnica Solar Farm: A 2,400-acre project spanning the Cambridgeshire-Suffolk border, which faced strong opposition from multiple local councils.

Mallard Pass Solar Farm: A 350MW project spanning Rutland and Lincolnshire, heavily opposed by local MP Alicia Kearns and residents.

Gate Burton Energy Park: A 500MW solar and battery storage project in Lincolnshire.

Key Details of the Approvals:

Overriding Objections: Miliband approved these projects over the recommendations of the Planning Inspectorate, which had in some cases recommended refusal or raised significant concerns.

Speed of Decision: Miliband noted these projects had been delayed for months by the previous government and stated, "They were put on my desk on Monday, and I have made a decision in three days".

Planning Policy Shift: The approvals were part of a broader move to lift the de facto ban on onshore wind and accelerate solar projects by taking the final decision-making power away from local planning authorities.

Subsequent to these initial approvals, in February 2026, a 1,300-acre solar farm in his own constituency (Fenwick) was also approved, though this was signed off by a junior minister to avoid a conflict of interest".

Stop him someone..............please............

dyor

OK - a slightly more serious post.

The general consensus seems to be that Rachel from Dagenham (comment from Allison Pearson in today's Telegraph: "Dressed in a powder-blue trouser suit with flattering hair and make-up, she could appear attractive were it not for the fact that she has the foghorn delivery of Carry On’s Bernard Bresslaw") does intend to replace the EPL as soon as practicable (some interpret this as being when events in the ME stabilise, so she doesn't end up with egg on her face in the event of oil & gas prices hitting the roof). This apparently sensible intent on her part is imv born only out of a realisation (ie someone who is an adult in economics and business matters has explained things to her in a way she is capable of understanding - quite an achievement) that:

1. If the EPL continues, the companies that have retained a long term interest in the UKCS (particularly those who have merged operations with others in order to maximise flexibility, efficiency and opportunity) have come up with the idea of putting new development infrastructure in place (ie spending the money needed for it) when first year/initial allowance can be claimed at (78%CT + 6%SCT) = 84%, such relief then being claimed against profits booked on existing fields. By the time profits are booked on the new developments (post 2029) the EPL (and or Labour) will have gone, so tax will only be payable at 40%. This practice (entirely legitimate as far as I can tell) would mean straight cash out of the Treasury of 38%

2. Those companies that choose to either cease UKCS operations, or who rework viability numbers, based on a 78% tax rate instead of the 40% when fields were first commissioned, will incur decommissioning liabilities a good deal earlier than would otherwise have been the case. As these will all be fully allowable under the normal UKCS tax rules, a huge loss of taxation would be left to blight the first term in office of whichever party/ies follow this lot of socialists (or worse). That would keep

Labour even longer out of office - hopefully permanently, although they would never admit to the possibility.

All a bit technical (and probably boring) to most, but explains why Reeves appears to be acting sensibly. Were it not for the above, she is unlikely to have done anything other than pretend that windfall profits ended as quickly as they began and that it was ok (and not counter-productive) to continue - for 8 years - to apply a tax that should have gone within 2 years. Utterly dishonest - like most politicians today, sadly.

dyor

It goes without saying (although in these woke times I will say it) that what is set out below might not be entirely factually accurate.

“Simon Francis, coordinator of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, said that the windfall tax "remains necessary”.

He said: “When geopolitical tensions push up prices, energy companies and their shareholders benefit while households face another round of higher bills from July.

“Energy firms have made tens of billions in profits in recent years even with the energy profits levy in place, so the idea that removing it will suddenly make energy cheaper or more secure simply doesn’t stand up.”

……………He went on to say:

“I have been giving this general subject much thought in recent times. This has been very difficult for me to do, possibly because I had the misfortune to be born without a cerebrum. Notwithstanding this, my latest very clever idea comes about because I noted some time ago that the big supermarket chains like Tesco, Asda, Morrisons, Sainsburys and a few others on top have also made tens of billions in profits. I’ve noted their bottom-line profit after tax seems to average about 2%, so what I’m lobbying for is a new tax on Supermarkets (based on revenue so they can’t get up to any tricks) of 1.99%. Householders wouldn’t go hungry while fat-cat shareholders (yes – the same ones who have greedily banked dividend returns on their investment in the filthy oil & gas sector of up to 4% pa) get even richer. This new tax I'm on about should sort them out.

And did I mention the big banks and their shareholders? All that money and they don’t give anywhere near enough to people who’ve never saved a penny in their lives – or indeed done anything to help anyone other than themselves since the unfortunate moment they were born. Yeah, we'd all like to see bankers and their shareholders busking for a living

And then there’s companies like Amazon, Google, The Tony Blair Foundation............there's thousands to aim at

I think I deserve a knighthood as a bare minimum (and he’ll very probably get one – Ed). Just to show you how clever I am, I’ve worked out that if big companies (and smaller profitable ones) had all their money taken off them in tax, everyone would be better off and the world would be a much better place to live in. I ran this across my friend Ed Miliband and he said he agreed with me, before adding that in his case it already was.

PS Ref Rachel from Dagenham (so called because it’s one stop from Barking) and her commitment to ending the EPL, she can say whatever she wants because she won't be Chancellor after 7 May. What she said was pretty stupid anyway. I’m committed to dying. I’m just not going to tell you when

imo

dyor

Rachel Reeves is among many politicians from both parties making (or having made) decisions that are fundamental to the future of GB. They not only fail to understand the most basic economics relating to whatever it is they are seeking to tax to oblivion, but wouldn't stop taxing it if they did. The EPL is a dishonest tax - it has been 3 yrs+ since it could be claimed the Upstream O&G industry had any kind of windfall gains.

The UKCS O&G industry has not imo been well represented by Whitehouse and his crew at OEUK, who have naively tried to persuade Reeves & Milliband (inter alia) all along that it is counter-productive to continue to apply the tax, which does nothing to reduce overall carbon emissions, adds hugely to the balance of payments deficit and is raising less tax than would be raised were a fair tax regime to apply in its place. I won't even raise the huge cost of decommisioning cost relief that will hit whoever replaces these socialist economic vandals in the middle of their first term in office (poss Reform?).

There's a saying: "you can't negotiate with terrorists" and this applies here. The only thing this Labour Government will understand is the UK industry acting in concert to restrict supplies and bring (or threaten to bring) the UK economy to a standstill. Perhaps we'll all then be able to see how wind and solar cope with filling up articulated lorries carrying food and other essential goods to supermarkets around the country. And the cars of people who haven't made the switch to electric. Probably best not to restrict gas supplies (heating and cooking) unless the first week of cuts don't help Rachel, Ed & Keir to undertstand things a bit better.

Summary: the general consensus seems to be the tax will be left in place until 2030. These socialists are nothing if not stubborn (and dishonest, thick and unprincipled):

" The UK government is not expected to cut the Energy Profits Levy (EPL) in the Spring Statement on 3 March 2026. Despite intense lobbying from the oil and gas industry and calls from the Scottish Government for an immediate end to the tax, Treasury officials have indicated the event will focus on stability and contain "no new tax or spending measures".

The Telegraph

"While there have been reports of an "intense schedule of meetings" between the Treasury and energy operators ahead of the 3 March statement, the government's official position remains that the tax provides certainty and will only be replaced by a new price mechanism after its scheduled end. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has committed to making major fiscal announcements only once a year during the Autumn Budget, making a mid-year cut to the EPL highly unlikely".

Buchan is an existing field, the case for developing it is clear and JOG's JV partners are committed to the UKCS. FDP is now expected in H2 next year with FID to follow, hopefully when it's even clearer Labour's destructive period in office will only last one term"

all IMO

DYO

Contd:

Using my numbers (sourced from published accounts and RNSs) the net cost to SQZ of acquiring JOG @ £5 per share would therefore be £119m (£184m - £65m). This converts to £6 ($8) per barrel for the further 20% working interest acquired and would reduce the overall cost pb of SQZ’s share from $16 (30mmboe) to $9.8 (50mmboe).

Sentiment in the sector is at something approaching an all-time low. But an end is in sight to politicians’ disastrous interventions in an industry that should be for basic economics and markets to determine the value of.

I’m hoping for an end to the EPL, in the small print in the forthcoming Spring Statement. If it comes, there should be an immediate reassessment of values across the board in an industry politicians have trashed for perceived short term-term gain and vote-seeking for way longer than could ever be justified. It has been downright theft since around a year after the Ukraine invasion.

I repeat: I have no idea if either NeoNext+ has any interest in acquiring JOG for £5 a share, or any other number anyone cares to come up with. I have used £5 simply for illustrative purposes. I also have no idea if any other company might want to buy JOG, but it doesn’t make much sense to me for JOG to be contemplating trying to grow into a medium sized UKCS player, when everyone else seems to be looking towards efficiencies by merger or acquisition. So, I don’t see any other outcome that’s more likely than a takeover at some point in the not-too-distant future.

What seems plain to me is that however risky an investment in JOG might seem, it doesn’t justify a price that implies a total company worth of around £40m. That’s just silly. It might still take time for events to unfold, but JOG is well-placed to outlast Miliband (if it comes to that). Thereafter it doesn’t seem that likely Labour will get another go and all the others except the Lib Dems and Green eejuts JOG’s now seem to recognise the part the North Sea has to play in proceedings if the UK is to recover.

Finally, on a potential sale to SQZ (for illustrative purposes only) given SQZ’s solid profile and its dividend yield of 10%+ I’d be happy to take a 75/25 paper/cash deal for my shares on an offer I found acceptable (<£6?)

Chris Cox, Serica's CEO commented on 21 January 2026:

• Material free cash flow is set to be generated in 2026 at prevailing commodity prices, strengthening Serica's balance sheet in support of Serica's strategy and track record of growing the Company through organic portfolio investment while delivering attractive shareholder returns

• Serica remains committed to moving from AIM to the Main Market of the LSE at the earliest viable opportunity in 2026

• The Company continues to be active in screening a broad range of cash-generative and value accretive M&A opportunities, primarily focused on the UK North Sea

Seems a bit daft to me to be selling at anywhere near present levels but wdik?

DYOR

Under the terms of the second farmout, Serica Energy (SQZ) acquired a 30% working interest in the Greater Buchan Area ("GBA") licences (estimated to contain a min. of 100mmboe). I set out below (in brackets) a breakdown what SQZ agreed to pay for a 30% WI in the GBA licences:

• a 7.5% carry of the estimated $25 million cost to FDP approval: cost to SQZ $9.4m (£7m)

• a 7.5% carry of Buchan field development costs; equivalent to a 1.25 carry ratio (estimated costs £850-950m - say £900m; cost to SQZ 37.5% x £900 = £337m)

• a $6.8 million cash payment to JOG on completion, which included a $5.6 million payment associated with the finalisation of the GBA development solution and associated acquisition of the "Western Isles" FPSO (cost to SQZ £5m)

• a $7.5 million cash payment on approval of the Buchan FDP by the NSTA (cost to SQZ £6m)

• a $3 million cash payments on each FDP approval by the NSTA in respect of the J2 and Verbier oil discoveries (cost to SQZ £4m)

So SQZ paid (or agreed to pay) £359m for SQZ’s 30% working interest in the GBA licences. Given the GBA fields are estimated to contain a min.100mmboe, the consideration valued the resources in the GBA acquired by SQZ (30mmboe) at £12 ($16) per barrel.

I have no idea if either of JOG’s two JV partners has any plans to acquire JOG. It would, however, make more sense for one of JOG’s JV partners to acquire it than an external party, because they already know so much about the project and would also be able to avoid the milestone payments on FDP approval of Buchan, J2 & Verbier (cost: £10m to SQZ; £16.7m NEO).

JOG has 36,745,128 shares (fully diluted). In the event that either or both of SQZ and NEO had an interest in increasing their stake in the GBA licences (by buying JOG) the question follows: what price would they have to offer JOG’s shareholders to tempt them to sell?

For illustrative purposes I have used £5 per share (fully diluted) as a starter. 36.75m shares @ £5 = £184m – gross cost to SQZ. But the true cost would be significantly less than this (the same principle would apply to NeoNext+) because SQZ would acquire on the deal:

• Cash balances in JOG: (<£10m)

• Cash value of JOG's tax losses: (£40m)

• Cash receivable on exercise of options @ average – say - 125p (£5m)

• Avoidance of payment to JOG on FDP approval: (£6m)

• Avoidance of payment to JOG on FDP approval for J2 & Verbier: (£4m)

Total value of assets acquired: £65m. Whilst tax losses rarely change hands for full cash value, the value is there nonetheless. Because my numbers are for discussion purposes only, I have assumed full value.

TBC

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for dickupham

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for dickupham

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Please enter at least 2 characters

No results found

Search results

Recently viewed

Trending