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

You're being silly, MPO818. What you say makes perfect sense and is entirely logical. Why on earth

An increasing number of people are coming to realise they've been conned by the climate change freaks and liars. Many are red-faced about being taken in by their false data and absurd claims. Billions of people have been brainwashed into cheering the emperor's new clothes. The result (because the perpetrators won't back down) is that Govts like the UK's will go for what's popular that happens to give them max control. Economic catastrophe and infinitely lower living standards will follow and our choices progressively eroded (where we go on holiday, how we heat our homes, what views we'll get when we look out to sea, or across formerly fields of green now covered with huge metal turbines that kill countless thousdands of birds daily and will end up littering the land as they rust after 17 years or whatever. Ditto, the millions of homes covered in solar panels, along with millions of hectares of set aside farmland covered by the same.

What for? is a question you won't be allowed to ask without insultingly being called a "climate denier" (whatever that means). I'd be ashamed of myself if I wasn't. Only one question is needed? Who ends end up with more control: individuals or the Govt?

Try to imagine a debate between any of: Dr Patrick Moore, Prof Wm Happer, Dr Judith Curry, Prof Richard Litdzen and (say) Ed Milliband or racy Rachel - I wouldn't dare suggest Gingerwoman. All of those named have had their reputations smeared, with steps remorsessly taken to have them discredited and ultimately "cancelled". These are incredibly dangerous times - particularly with Labour having no credible opposition unless somehow an inspirational leader emerges from what would have to be a united Cons/Reform Party. One can but hope. It's a big ask for Reform alone.

There are trillions to be be had out of renewables - it's now a vast industry. Always follow the money..............Al Gore (and Clinton) were instrumental in the early days of "the movement". Gore was worth $1.5m when he became Clinton's running mate. He's apparently closing in on $0.5bn today. On the way he collected a joint Nobel Peace Prize with the IPCC “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”.

You truly couldn't make it up. Gore's doctored NASA photo of the earth on the cover of his book takes some beating, with virtually all of the ice in the Arctic removed, ditto cloud covering large parts of the planet and - best of all - a huge hurricane shown at a latitude there aren't any hurricanes and just for good measure, rotating in the wrong direction.

Try to find some time - it's worth it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H0OxmF7fak

Google the other names for recent i/vs

dyor

jmos......fwtw

"Now the UK Govt needs to listen and negotiate soon before its too late. If not, then this could spell disaster for the UK Govt and the UK economy at large"..........

............trouble is, it won't listen, James. One of Starmer's 5 missions in his term in office is "Energy". Miliband is appointed to ensure as big a switch as possible to renewables by 2030. It overrides everything. Does it matter that no-one on Labour's front bench understands the first thing about oil & gas, economics as they play out in the real world or - perhaps most importantly - human behaviour in a business context? Nah - ideology wins every time. And it's good for us too.

I learn something new about the oil & gas industry every day, after deciding to invest in the UK sector of it about 15 years ago. What hope is there of politicians understanding the huge compexities of the industry, the numbers involved, the timescales in which events play out, or the risks involved at every stage in an E&P's lifetime, with all the scheming they have to fit in between holidays? Or how price volatility means the industry has to rely on bumper profits in some years to offset the losses (invariably caused by price volatility outside its control) made in others.

People still think the levy is on "extraordinary"profits" only, when it's charged on ALL profits, not just the WF ones. Tax has more than doubled, when the disallowed expenses items are factored in. Many companies can't now make any profit at all and the rate will apply for the next 6 years because Hunt set an artificially low "price floor escape level" everyone knows is a con - it's said to be the average of O&G prices for the past 20 years, but ignores the Covid years, when oil fell to c.$20pb, the 3 years OPEC turned on the taps to break the US frackers and 20 yrs' inflation.

Reeves thinks she's holding all the cards. I don't think she has the slightest intention of letting the 2 big approved projects (Rosebank & Cambo) or Buchan go ahead. They'll show big negative NPVs if FYAs are removed in Oct. imo she's stringing industry reps along until the Budget, when removal of FYAs will get buried in a heap of other taxes not in the manifesto. Scotland will be apoplectic with rage - but so what?

I wouldn't talk to her or anyone else in Labour. Someone said they're not to be trusted - lies and dishonesty are second nature. The 42 signatories of: "Please, Mrs Reeves, don't take too much of the FYAs away from us - we'd be ever so grateful if you'd let us make a tiny bit of profit in the good years". Waste of space. They should unite as an industry and tell her they'll bring the country to an abrupt halt by restricting supply until sense prevails. If they don't, she, Stoma and Milibrain will kill our economy. 6,000 everyday products made using oil will disappear, and/ or the price will rocket if there's an oil shortage? These include tattoo ink. Tell the masses.

all imo/dyor

Contd..........

I read somewhere that Labour reps were in the middle of discussions with industry reps that were still ongoing when Reeves stood up in the House and announced the 3% EPL rate increase (but not much more) saying the details would be in the Budget. A lot more was slipped into an online announcement by Gov.uk about 2 hours later. This caused rage among those in the industry who had thought nothing was settled. Treasury staff “rang around” that night to try to placate industry leaders. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/july-statement-2024-changes-to-the-energy-oil-and-gas-profits-levy/changes-to-the-energy-oil-and-gas-profits-levy#:~:text=The%20levy%20is%20currently%20set,the%2080%25%20decarbonisation%20investment%20allowance.

Devious doesn't do her justice. As for the £20bn black hole left by Hunt she allegedly knew nothing about, at least half of the £20bn was caused by what she was about to pay to “junior” doctors, GPs and a general above inflation pay rise for the whole of the public sector. Pensioners struggling to get by on their miserly old age pensions, many in their 80s and 90s, were chosen to plug £1.4bn of the “hole”, presumably because many don’t vote Labour and a lot will be dead (some from hypothermia) by the next election. Unbelievably low behaviour. Born without morals.

To the point (must finish before dawn or who knows what will happen). What might the options be for JOG if CAs are materially reduced or removed altogether on 30 Oct and the Buchan project were to be frozen??

1. Batten down the hatches until Labour comes to its senses (unlikely) or the EPL is lifted in 2030;

2. Acquire a cash producing working interest in an existing producer outside the UK and build from there;

3. Invest in a carbon friendly something or other that’s cash positive and offers tax breaks – if you can’t beat them, join them etc;

4. Come to some sort of deal with the JV partners to perhaps vary percentages in return for cash advances or similar? wdik?

5. Sell the Company if a realistic price was offered

I don’t see insolvency anywhere in my crystal ball and JOG’s assets are such that the present market cap of £27m looks too low to me. The low number of shares in issue can lead to big under/over-reactions to a share price plucked from the air by who knows who. Brokers' guides to fair value are the best thing we have to go on. Apart from NPV, which demands assumptions, some involving the future.

It’s easy to see a few scenarios in which if things at last begin to fall in place, in the reasonably near future the shares trade at multiples of where they are today. A much lesser number at much below. But markets are fickle and prices are determined only by supply and demand. Truth (fundamentals) will out. It/they always do.

But we all know the risks.

I’ll be taking a break after this, as I have other things I must concentrate on for a while

GLAL

The point of last night's post was to get to a worst-case value of the shares in the event Labour’s tax proposals in the Oct Budget make investment in the North Sea pointless. As Reeves is only projecting EPL revenue of £6bn by 2029 (vs Hunt’s £20bn) it’s hard to see how she’s expecting anything other than declining UKCS production over this Parliament.

A while back, I ran a number of DCF models to get to NPV10 for Buchan, from both JOG’s and its JV partners’ perspectives in different tax scenarios. These showed that whilst there was a positive NPV for JOG under Hunt’s regime, in which there were some practical ways of avoiding EPL on new investment in the NS, the case for NEO and SQZ proceeding was a lot less compelling, although there was still a positive NPV under the assumptions I made, which were reasonably conservative.

Under Labour’s initial proposals (those factored into JOG’s value by Dan Slater at Zeus) JOG’s numbers still just about worked (because JOG has no capex to lose CAs relief on). My numbers came out lower than his – I made slightly different assumptions and focused on NPV; he focused on NAV.

Some value was lost via the 3% hike in EPL rate to 38% from 35%, based on Reeves’s dishonest comparison with Norway, where there are many Govt concessions that makes that rate a lot less punitive. The withdrawal of the 29% investment relief (but not the 100% capital allowance against the so called “extraordinary” profits that triggered the temporary, but probably now permanent EPL, although at a more reasonable rate after 2030) when coupled with the value to NEO of having a positive commercial option for the FPSO vessel, Western Isles, might still make Buchan marginally positive. This would not be the case for Serica, which isn’t a 23% owner of a vessel that cost $2bn eight years ago, for which the scrap yard might be the only alternative to deployment to Buchan.

A significant reduction, perhaps to nil, of the 100% capital allowances on new investment available to offset against the “extraordinary” element of profits, however, would in all probability make any UKCS project non-viable. This is based only on my NPV10 assumptions and calcs. Other factors come into play however, mostly around “freezing” the project (assuming this is permissible under the licence terms) until either Labour comes to its senses, is forced to by legal action from O&G cos to recover costs and lost profits due to Govt (the licensor) making it impossible to make profits after leading it up the garden path for years, or a strong enough investment case can be made when the levy is lifted in 2030.

As it’s clear Reeves is not to be trusted, further discussions with her seem to me to be pointless. Who’s to say she won’t change the rules again after developers have committed? I’d tell her to p*** off and go straight for legal action (equitable compensation?) based on a litany of Govt dishonesty since ear

One thing that puzzles me is: “If Reeves expects these projects to go ahead, would she not be anticipating tax revenues from the EPL (I’m guessing, but I’d have thought at least some of the projects would get to first oil by 2027/28) to be ahead of those projected by her predecessor, the rhyming Hunt, when he increased the EPL to 35% from 25% in his Nov 2022 Autumn Budget?”. Hunt showed projected EPL revenues of close to £20bn in the period from now to 2029: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes-to-the-energy-oil-and-gas-profits-levy/energy-oil-and-gas-profits-levy .

Yet Labour, in its manifesto, projects only £1.2bn pa of the £4.7bn pa earmarked for GBE (ie £6bn over the same period) to come from the EPL, which truthful and honest Labour describes as: “a time-limited windfall tax on the oil and gas giants making record profits”. Labour is either thick or dishonest – more likely both: https://labour.org.uk/change/labours-fiscal-plan/ It’s under “Green Prosperity Plan”.

It’s not all bad news as I see things. Certain types who’ve arrived recently on the blog to give holders the benefit of their wisdom (which appears to come by presenting situations one-dimensionally only, with a strange bias towards scaring people into selling in a panic so that they can gain.

Investing in the UK becomes increasingly unappealing. I successfully factored in all the risks where my investment in JOG is concerned – as no doubt did others. I bought the bulk of my holding at between about 10p and 30p, back in the day (my lowest ‘buy’ price was 8.79p and have done a certain amount of top-slicing without reducing my holding along the way. So JOG owes me nothing. It doesn’t feel like that, however!! How does one factor into risk the dishonesty of Governments that decide all the rewards of countless years of enterprise, risk, worry and constant hard work should belong to them, presenting lies and falsehoods in support of their heists, just as these investments are set to reward those who have been supportive and patient throughout. I close in the hope that a lethal strain of Monkeypox virus or worse, affecting certain politicians and political parties only, jets in from The Congo.

All imoo

dyor

I’ll be making a separate post about the headlong dash towards renewables only. Not sure when I’ll have the energy but hopefully over the weekend. One comment in a detailed independent study I’ve read, which the king cretin Miliband (as opposed to the other more ‘run of the mill’ Labour cretins) of course ignores, although I doubt very much he’s read it is: “Not much is known about the induced changes of coastal energy-generating infrastructures on beach characteristics, water quality, and species. This lack of knowledge creates a high degree of uncertainty that affects the actions of regulatory agencies, opinions and concerns of stakeholder groups, commitment of energy project developers and investors, and ultimately, the solvency of the industry (Ward et al., 2010). There is a gap in the investigation of the impacts of marine energy harvesting tools on different trophic levels of the food webs during the different phases of these marine energy devices (Gillis et al., 2017, Halpern et al., 2015, Ward et al., 2010)”.

Back to JOG and Buchan. One thing is in JOG’s favour. The NTSA appears to like it. Possibly this is because JOG – as an absolute minnow with very little cash - completed the first farm out in the North Sea for three and a half years, when it signed up Equinor (then called Statoil) as 70% licensee and operator of Licence P2170, which at the time was known as “Cortina” (it later became “Verbier”) in 2016. The NSTA (then called OGA – Oil & Gas Authority - a UK Govt quango) was formed in response to the almost 100% loss (over about 9 years from 2006 to about 2015) of tax revenues from NS upstream operators. Brown had increased the rate to 60% from 40%, then Osborne increased it to 62% when Labour got kicked out in 2010. On formation, the OGA’s motto was MER: “Maximise Economic Recovery” – ie increase the tax take for the Exchequer from North Sea Oil & Gas. Because only the name has been changed (to something more woke) the NSTA’s brief should be the same – and I expect it would claim it is. The jury’s out on this but the impression I get (from JOG) it’s onside, possibly partly at least because the oil will come out to very low carbon effect vs the rest.

The $64k question (a bit more than this for Jim, me and a few other LTHs) is: will Labour make investing in the NS worthwhile for owners of projects awaiting FID pending clarity on the full extent of Labour’s destructive tax plans for the NS? All will be revealed in the 30 Oct Budget. I’m talking Cambo, Rosebank and Buchan, plus a few other projects similarly awaiting FID, but a lot smaller than the 3 big ones, with Cambo & Rosebank being a lot bigger than Buchan (assuming it gets FDP approval).

TBC

I guess what I’ve written will take about 3 posts. Apologies, but it’s the weekend and no-one is forced to read them. Hope most of what I've written makes sense.

I pointed out in a recent post JOG’s estimated present cash balance (£10m – maybe a bit less?). I also mentioned the £16m in cash it will collect from NEO and Serica if the FDP is approved by the NSTA when It’s submitted in Q4 2024 or Q1 2025. And I referred to the fact JOG has an annual cash burn of c. £3m pa, which could be reduced if the board and senior management team was reduced by half or more – I can only think they’re all still in place because JOG has a “Plan B” in the event of the JV partners not sanctioning the GBA project come FID Day and they’re working on it pending more clarity on Labour’s destructive plans. In the ‘Plan B’ event (maybe acquiring a small WI in a non-UK field or a CC-type one in the UK, although I’d be against anything the particularly dishonest present Govt had any influence over at all?) JOG’s tax losses (c.£70m – cash value £28m) would come into play.

The elephant in the room is the 25mmboe (out of 150mmboe) of what could soon be 2P reserves of 33° API sweet light crude in one of the UKNS’s best postcodes that JOG also owns. This is worth multiple times everything else combined, although JOG is distanced from access to this value by time and its ability to bring the 25mmboe to the surface. This is all down to politics. One thing is certain: oil of this quality, especially given Buchan is an existing licence, the EPL won’t go on forever and demand for oil continues to outstrip supply – and will do for a long time despite the eco-zealots’ wish it wouldn’t.

A constant that every LT investor has to keep in mind, given the circumstances JOG and a lot of other UK oil & gas cos are presently facing is: “will the Labour Govt be able to render JOG bankrupt, making all UK citizens (even the zealots) a lot worse off (financially and otherwise) as it ruins the countryside and causes death to millions of birds and marine creatures, with wind turbines and solar panels, all to no purpose because, whatever the UK does, any CO2 savings here will be meaningless, before JOG and others are able to access the value of the major asset they own?

Access to this wealth will be gained when either sense prevails in Govt, or the EPL comes to an end in 2030. That’s my point in looking at JOG’s net cash and annual cash burn. Crucially, it has no borrowings. In a worst-case scenario JOG, with cash of a min £7m (end 2024) possibly increasing by £16m when/if the FDP is approved, JOG would have sufficient cash to keep it going until 2027 at least. And if things got tight post FID but pre first oil, it should not present problems, because JOG’s JV partners are financially strong and short- term cash advances repaid out of first year’s production are not beyond the wit of man to contemplate.

TBC

This is worth watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZlICdawHRA

It's about 6 years old but nothing has really changed, except that the level of hysteria has increased. As has the besmirchment and "cancellation" of anyone in the scientific community who dares even to question the invented threats. It's immaterial that the unbiased data produced is not behaving itself by following the predictions made by the 'climatistas' at various recent times since the movement began. Sensible people who understand the scam are universally labeled "climate deniers" ("change" is commonly omitted by those addicted to the Kool Aid) and the fervour continues. Governments like the UK's love it, because whoever controls energy has the power it craves.

Step by step your ability to choose how you live will disapear - it's already happening. Think about it. What cars you can buy, how you heat your home, what you're allowed to say - even to people you know won't be offended. Sunak has graciously told everyone who smokes they can carry on, but as soon as his no-smoking bill is passed (Labour has said it will present it) that's it; no-one will be able to buy tobacco products. He know what's good for us. That the NHS will be a big loser because taxes and duties charged on tobacco are huge - what's collected dwarfs the cost of treating the illnesses, is irrelevant. OK, smoking is a risk to health. So is drinking alcohol. So is playing rugby. Life itself is a risk.

EVERYTHING now has to do with climate change. When it's warmer than usual it's a case of "told you - see?". When it's colder? "This is changes in ocean flows that are caused by global warming". I always ask whoever it is if they would explain why. Silence or utter c.rap invariably follows.

Who wants to live in a country where politicians know what's best for you and you'll do as they say because otherwise you'll be fined or sent to prison. '1984' looks liberal (in its true sense) by comparison. History (Roald Dahl etc) is already being rewritten. Newspeak and Groupspeak are here.

If you don't have the stamina (or inclination) to watch the whole lecture, just tune in between 20 and 26 mins in. It's difficult to argue with.

Here's one to contemplate. It goes straight to the core of his (dis)honesty. If you'd been Sunak in May 2022 and looking at ways to tax the above normal profits made by UKNS oil & gas cos, what's the first thing you'd have sought to establish before setting a rate of tax to apply?

Whilst I'm here, JOG has tax losses of c.£70m. Cash value to anyone acquiring the Company is 40% of this; ie £28m. It probably has c.£10m in the bank. £16m is due from NEO & SQZ on FDP approval. Cash burn is c.£3m pa but could be cut. It owns c.25mboe of SLC categorised as 2C resources, which become 2P reserves when/if the FDP gains approval (Q4 24/ Q1 25).

Market cap? £20m

For the masochists among you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDWq7-eP5sE

dyor

Ref your 08.16hrs post y'day, Zorba, what Conservatives? We haven't had any since Margaret Thatcher.

Sunak and Hunt - I call them "Sunakhunt" or "Sushi and the rhyming Hunt" - are mainly responsible for the fix we're in, with their dishonest and deviously presented "Energy Profits Levy". Labour's just being Labour: take whatever taxes they inherit , then feed them steroids. Ravishing Rachel's leading this one. Forget Miliband; they can control him anytime - he's useful in foxing people into thinking Stoma (as in Stoma bag - the same substance emerges from each) and Rover (Reeves) are moderates who have the Nation's best interests at heart. "B.ollox they do" springs to mind

Did YOU know that in January 2022, when Labour was banging on about the "Conservatives" failing to impose a WFT on "energy giants" (none in the top 10 UK producers afaict) who were coining it in, whilst poor folk couldn't pay their heating bills. Labour said they'd bring in a WFT of 10% of the windfall gains until prices returned to normal. Not that excessive, thought I. Sushi said he wouldn't do it. Trouble is, he did a U Turn in May22 for popularity and killed a whole industry.

I'd have set up something that helped the genuinely poor to pay their bills. They'd worked hard all their lives and were now expected to live off the stingy pensions the DWP offers. But Sushi threw a blanket trillion or so at everyone. Idiotic.

Why is the OAP so stingy? Because current taxpayers are now burdened by the unfunded (and kept "off balance sheet") liability for pensions payable to retired former workers entitled to them as a result of paying NI all their working lives. NI contributions were until sometime in the 1960s paid directly into a fund (or funds) specifically set up to make pension payments to those who'd made NI contributions when they were working - ie the pensions were "vested". Then a chancellor decided it would be ok to borrow from the fund/s - temporarily only of course - enough to cover a modest shortfall in his Budget (these had to balance in those days). Incurring capital debt to fund revenue overspend was definitely "non de riguer". The temporary loan was never repaid and successive chancellors thereafter then did the same thing, resulting in the entirety of the fund/s (effectively in escrow to meet pension obligations of those who'd made the NI contributions) being stripped out to cover revenue overspend. Makes what Maxwell did to Mirror Group pensioners piffling by comparison. That's politicians for you. What do you call rounding up about 400 politicians, chaining them below deck in a boat, towing it 6 miles out to sea and scuttling it? Ans? "A good start".

I had a major rant on the HBR blog y'day (c.8am onwards). Bit OTT but you'll get where I'm coming from if you read the posts.

GL - we need it more than ever in the face of Labour's further assault on our savings

Contd........

Anyway, if you were asked to come up with a fair way for companies benefiting from windfall conditions to share the extraordinary (or "above normal") profits they were enjoying as a result of oil price increases outside their control, how would you approach the task? The stated aim being to help pay the bills of those adversely affected by those increases. It is stated that it is only those profits you are looking to tax - of course recognising all the efforts you make to get the oil to the refineries etc - ie the increase in profits wouldn't have been possible at all but for all the money you'd spent on oil exploration, infrastructure on the commercial discoveries and ongoing management of all the necessary resources. Let's say 35% of the profits arising from above normal prices to help out the people whose bills were higher as a result is agreed as fair. Right – take a pause.

I won’t go into who actually made the vast majority of the profits from the increased oil prices (for this, read oil AND gas). These were made by the downstream operators – the retail energy suppliers – Centrica and the rest - plus the forecourt operators who slammed up prices immediately and kept them there. Who gets to benefit here? Is there something called excise duty on pump prices? And VAT? Oh, we forgot about that: it ha nothing to do with it. If a WFT were to be slapped on the down-streamers they’d have increased their prices even more and that wouldn’t do, because it would mean Govt having to pay even higher bills for its “hard working” voting targets. Besides, oil was about as popular as a STD thanks to its dirty role in Climate change and easy pickings – don’t start me: just listen from 20 mins in to 26 mins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZlICdawHRA)

Cut to the chase. You first work out what’s normal, then tax at the agreed rate everything made as a result of oil trading above that figure (get the auditors to work it out in each company).

Sunak and Hunt picked an amount they wanted to raise and then sought to justify it by telling a pack of lies and half-truths that don’t stand up to scrutiny and then, when they could avoid it no longer, they concocted a formula that meant the dishonestly constructed tax would be impossible to escape paying for 6 (now 8) years.

Reeves is already talking about the regime post 2030 so as to avoid “price shocks” (upwards only of course). IE: We get 100% of your profits made when the oil price is above “normal” and you can pay 40% of anything you make when its normal of below because that’s the rate that’s paid in our dreamland of a truly socialist republic.

TBC

Https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes-to-the-energy-oil-and-gas-profits-levy/energy-oil-and-gas-profits-levy

"There are not expected to be impacts on individuals as this measure only affects businesses".

"Victoria Atkins MP, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, has read this tax information and impact note and is satisfied that, given the available evidence, it represents a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impacts of the measure".

That's ok then.

Just to prove the dishonesty (3 chancellors so far) I have worked up a set of excel spreadsheets that show it's virtually impossible for any UKCS operator to pay tax that amounts to less than 100% of the "extraordinary" profits caused by events beyond the control of operators. In one of the scenarios I profiled (a company that recorded a profit of $100m in a year when BC was a constant $10pb above Hunt's contrived "normal" price in the (unfunny) joke called the "Energy Security Investment Mechanism", which will never apply.

HBR's numbers last year and today confirm the con. 40% tax (normal regime) plus 35% (supposed tax on "extraordinary - or above normal profits) doesn't equal 85% effective rate - and that's before the Beirut - Hiroshima even - carnage around notional investment and other Capex allowances designed with obfuscation in mind. Simple fact. No UKCS project will work on NPV10 (based on discounted cash flow projections) which is the standard measure of return that applies across the industry. The fact UKCS players have existing infrastructure that's cost them billions and there is no scope to move overseas confuses the issue. You know you can't make a profit but the cost and effects of ceasing worthless operations is frightening to contemplate. Well done, Linda for giving them the finger - happily you had options and guts. Some (most) others don't. The pain of continuing to limp along for no real purpose is eased by the salaries that will continue to be paid until they aren't.

Here's one to contemplate in an assessment of the truth and fairness of (respectively) Sunak, Hunt & Reeves. Reeves has taken over the Conservatives' heist and put it on steroids so has to be included. "True & fair" are the buzz words of the once-revered accounting profession as represented by the once revered ICAEW (but now like all the rest: "integrity?" "Quaint, but where's the money?).

TBC

Thanks NSS - I saw they'd excluded the effects of the acquisition (and Ravishing Rachel's increases to turn the EPL into a "proper windfall tax") but hadn't factored them in. If I'm right in the German vendors being expected to be left holding 48% of the enlarged enterprise, do you or anyone else who's well researched have any thoughts on what the post acquisition value of combined 2P reserves might be and what broad price level (HBR shares) this might support?

I'm not being lazy - I've had to focus all my research these past 2+ years on my large (to me - would be to most people too) stakes in 2 other UKCS operators (JOG since 2015 and SQZ since before the BKR deal). I was critically injured by Sunak in May 2022, killed by Hunt in Nov and my body's presently being stripped by Reeves. Portfolio down 80% since Sunak (Jan 2022: " the Conservatives don't believe in windfall taxes", in response to Labour saying they'd impose a 10% WFT on the w/f gains until prices returned to normal). More fool me for being taken in.

Gone. Everything I'd worked to regain in the 17 years since a brutal divorce (financial and otherwise - years spent upside down having my pockets shaken out) left me with SFA, in an effort to restore some wealth to pass on to my kids to help them educate their kids, who'll become the next targets to provide the means to buy the votes of the feckless, the idle and the plain dim . I'd resigned my partnership in one of the big accounting firms halfway through to avoid an "order for life" (award of income to my ex - that would have chained me to my desk forever, but in practice would have killed me a lot earlier - death by lunch) which was fashionable at the time. My main aim was to recover enough to leave my kids something decent.

Then along came the politicians. So much for my risk assessment. Could or should I have factored in dishonesty? I know the answer now, but it's a bit late.

Don't let my story spoil what should be a good day for all HBR holders. I haven't looked at the price yet but it doesn't matter that much because HBR's future looks pretty safe to me (as a Johnny Come Lately - c. 3 years). Sadly I don't have that many HBR shares and way too many JOG. Wish the rest of the UK industry was as smart as Linda Cook. I'd appoint her to represent the industry in any discussions with Reeves. She'd wipe the floor with the socialist sixth former devoid of nous. Anyone who had a framed photo of Gordon Brown on her desk from the age of 18 onwards has have screw loose. Pity she's in charge of the Nation's finances.

Where there's life.........and all that. It'll all be over for me soon anyway (PCa -Gl 4+5 - I'm fighting the fight). I'm starting to quite look forward to losing it in actual fact. I'm tired. Every way I look I see dishonesty. I guess it's called progress?

GLAL

........."Yesterday, Latin said the company had expected tax rises but aired his concerns around investment. ‘Capital allowances mean that businesses can offset investment against tax. And if the ability to do this is reduced, then companies like Serica just won’t invest.

‘What is going to happen if we don’t invest is that there will less tax revenues and a lot of job losses.

‘There will be reduced security, and it will be worse for the environment,’ the Serica chairman added".............

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-13711475/Labours-North-Sea-squeeze-risks-huge-job-losses-Serica-Energy-boss-warns.html

There's only one thing that makes any sense for the the UK's oil & gas industry to do (as a united body - or as close to united as it's possible to get - I'll call it "the industry") and that is for the industry to decline to enter into discussions with either Rachel Reeves or any of the other SFSS ("sixth form socialist students" - where the economics of reality are concerned) the thick majority of voters who bothered to vote chose to govern what's become a haven for the idle and uneducated, plus anyone else who wants to come here, regardless of culture or beliefs - many just for the benefits. I and millions like me (sadly not enough to enable us to stem the tide) are further disenfranchised, following 14 years of cuckoos taking over the nest of "Conservatism".

Ravishing Rachel might shyly say: "I was very good at chess when I was 14 and worked HBOS in Leeds for a while after Uni, before I graced politics with my presence. No-one will ever be able to check it, but I was offered a job by Goldman Sachs which would have made me incredibly rich, but I turned it down and went to Leeds instead and worked for HBOS behind the counter. I have always been able help people who don't understand, about (what's good for them and this, combined with my comprehensive experience in the world of finance made me a natural choice to control the nation's finances, which I'm already making an incredible fist of. I haven't even need to ask anyone if anything I've said or done isn't totally necessary and good for everyone - even contemptible people who have savings. They don't really deserve anything - except to pay at least half of what they get to others who aren't as fortunate because they don't go to work. Get it?? Not many people are able to understand this, but I do. In fairness Keir and Ed also understand, but there's not many of us. The easiest way to help others who aren't as clever or experienced as me to understand? A simple (to me) example .......take the UKO&G industry. Companies in it make loads of dosh when oil and gas prices are high. Do they need all of it? No they don't, so you charge them a lot more in tax and my Treasury can then use it to pay poor people's bills (plus 10-25% more to the loyal 9.5m public servants who run my country). Proof I'm not just a pretty face, eh?

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