Member Info for Dumbly

Thanks for the post, Mod.

Will Starmer continue to be practical and pragmatic by announcing an Energy Policy re-set involving encouraging investment in the NS? A boost to the economy and deflating Reform’s anti-Net Zero balloon. It would be a double-positive for Labour.

Growing the economy, protecting working people, and protecting Great Britain!

AIM, Reeves has confirmed recently the EPL will stay as it is. But.. the government is investing in Hydrogen and Carbon Capture and Storage. Completely illogical, irrational, uneconomic.

https://news.stv.tv/politics/north-sea-windfall-tax-and-winter-fuel-payment-stand-despite-lost-votes-says-chancellor

Smart move by the Cardinals to avoid The Vatican being subjected to Trump Tariffs 😂 .

Https://x.com/stvnews/status/1920164464541725069?s=46

Have we reached peak “Comical Ali-ness”? Of course it was a “commercial decision” by Harbour. Why does Reeves think giving that label somehow exonerates her and her decisions from any culpability? Does she not understand that distorting the market with windfall taxes always ends badly. Especially when… any windfall conditions long since disappeared. Was she dozing when the “Laffer curve” was covered in GCSE Business Studies?

They, Starmer, Reeves, Miliband, all sound like a mix between AI-controlled robots and junior call-centre staff following “objection scripts”. Two frequently repeated “scripts” in our area are “massive profits following Putin’s invasion” and “78% tax in Norway”. They are so pathetic and out of their depth that they almost engender sympathy.

I cannot see “Faster and further“ Starmer being able to decouple from either Reeves or Miliband. They have become their own personal Cerberus, guarding indefensible policies. And so this madness, this economic irrationality, this gaslighting, this delusional detachment from reality (hello! oil prices are $60, there is a war in Europe, a US in withdrawal) will continue. Cracks are appearing all over the place, externally and internally. And the reaction from the cotton-wool Premier is…“faster and further”. A classic cloth-eared stubborn reaction. (If one is going in the wrong direction, it is better, maybe, to go faster?)

It is not going to end well for party or country. Things will get worse before, ultimately, changes will be forced on this tragic-comic threesome. When will this happen, what will be the trigger or the final straw? Only afterwards we will know this, but happen it will. And in the meantime… Reform’s leadership are rubbing their hands.

P.S. Megla, excellent reasoned response to Jack.

Have we reached peak “Comical Ali-ness”? Of course it was a “commercial decision” by Harbour. Why does Reeves think giving that label somehow exonerates her and her decisions from any culpability? Does she not understand that distorting the market with windfall taxes always ends badly. Especially when… any windfall conditions long since disappeared. Was she dozing when the “Laffer curve” was covered in GCSE Business Studies?

They, Starmer, Reeves, Miliband, all sound like a mix between AI-controlled robots and junior call-centre staff following “objection scripts”. Two frequently repeated “scripts” in our area are “massive profits following Putin’s invasion” and “78% tax in Norway”. They are so pathetic and out of their depth that they almost engender sympathy.

I cannot see “Faster and further“ Starmer being able to decouple from either Reeves or Miliband. They have become their own personal Cerberus, guarding indefensible policies. And so this madness, this economic irrationality, this gaslighting, this delusional detachment from reality (hello! oil prices are $60, there is a war in Europe, a US in withdrawal) will continue. Cracks are appearing all over the place, externally and internally. And the reaction from the cotton-wool Premier is…“faster and further”. A classic cloth-eared stubborn reaction. (If one is going in the wrong direction, it is better, maybe, to go faster?)

It is not going to end well for party or country. Things will get worse before, ultimately, changes will be forced on this tragic-comic threesome. When will this happen, what will be the trigger or the final straw? Only afterwards we will know this, but happen it will. And in the meantime… Reform’s leadership are rubbing their hands.

NewKOTB, scary to think tax losses could not be allowed under a new fiscal regime. It is highly unlikely, tho, as it would in effect be retroactive taxation and that is a big no-no. It would scare all investment away from the UK. The EPL is different, it was implemented going forward and as technically a Levy, not corporation tax or supplementary tax, it was possible to exclude the use of past CT/ST tax losses.

Kamrat, for Harbour to be confident to proceed a deal would have required both EnQuest’s decom capabilities and the scale a merger would have provided. It’s also possible the market turbulence caused Harbour to withdraw and cause the merger to no longer work.

NewKOTB, the benefits would be less should Serica buy EnQuest, as in this case EnQuest's tax losses could not be used to offset some of Serica's profits in the same way EnQuest's losses could be utilised in a RTO scenario. With Brent where it is unfortunately probably a mute point anyway.

New KOTB, I agree with your 18:09 post. UK emissions targets have been met by switching electricity generation from coal to gas, and will be met thanks to outsourcing manufacturing to China and reducing domestic oil and gas production. Imports of goods and. As you said, hydrocarbons are not considered in calculating the UK’s carbon emissions. Achieving emissions targets is being “gamed” for personal ambition and desires of relevance and legacy to the detriment of the economy, jobs, supply chains, security, and…(unconsidered) emissions. Personal gain is being put above the interests of “working people”. The methodology of calculating emissions and the associated “gaming” of the system needs to be exposed and changed to be made fit-for-purpose. Better still, scrap the whole Net Zero programme.

With Brent below 60 there will be no investment in the NS, earlier decommissioning, and little to no tax for the state to collect. No investment, no economic growth, no tax revenue, earlier decommissioning, supply chain loss, higher imports and emissions, reduced national security. At the time the Tories gave into Labour pressure, and Labour appealed to the “green” sentiment. The politicians thought they were being clever putting a windfall tax and then following up with an ESIM structured never to be triggered. What an absolute FU. It could have been oh so different now had they not played with the market. Whatever is done it is too late now for oil and gas in the NS. Forget scrapping the EPL, it’s too late for even that to change things. At these oil prices there should be subsidies to the UK’s independent O&G producers. The government will dither, and the companies will not invest. As AB says, “ the writing is on the wall for the North Sea”.

Those imports of oil and gas now cost the UK about £120 billion a year — equivalent to about 4 per cent of UK GDP. No sane country would place a 78 per cent tax on domestic production and 0 per cent on imports. It is like a Trump tariff on ourselves. The US, Qatar and Saudi Arabia must be punching the air.

Rarely has a government managed to unite industry, unions, academia, investors and scientists. There is now a wall of opposition to Labour’s ill-judged oil and gas policies. That includes former prime minister Sir Tony Blair, Professor Dieter Helm of Oxford University, Gary Smith, general secretary of the GMB union, and Jim Ratcliffe of Ineos.

Gesture politics have trumped science and economics. It is a sad tale of inept policymaking from which there is no swift redemption — the UK has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted by global energy investors.

The government is currently running two consultations and these present a final opportunity for a shift in direction. Without a hard reset, Labour — alongside the Conservatives, who introduced the windfall tax — will have become responsible for the UK’s biggest industrial policy own goal since the 1970s.

Yet the oil and gas industry remains by far the largest economic lever the UK has to kick-start growth, and pulling down hard on just two areas would align with all stated policy objectives.

First, the lunatic 78 per cent tariff on our own energy must go now, and there should be no “successor regime”. Corporation tax at 25 per cent is more than adequate when we tax imports at 0 per cent. This will save carbon emissions by avoiding distant imports and give a massive boost to the UK economy.

Second, domestic drilling licences should be granted until the UK does not need to import oil or gas. This will reduce total carbon emissions, create UK jobs, pay UK taxes, secure energy supplies and strengthen the supply chain of engineering and offshore service companies to build the thousands of wind turbines in the ocean required to meet our vital gigawatt-scale objectives from 2025 to 2050.

A level playing field with imports on tax and licensing is a modest objective and one in our vital national interest.

Https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/labour-is-gaslighting-us-on-energy-and-runcorn-is-the-result-8gkgj5zpz

The government is responsible for the UK’s biggest industrial policy own goal since the 1970s – the US, Qatar and Saudi Arabia must be punching the air

The UK government’s industrial-scale gaslighting of the public on energy is damaging the climate and deindustrialising our economy at an unprecedented pace.

It is destroying domestic jobs, energy security, our tax base and the engineering capability. In the past few days, two energy services companies in Aberdeen have fallen into administration, Grangemouth has ceased processing North Sea oil, and industry giants Wood and Petrofac have suspended shares amid their respective financial worries.

Over the course of this week, that ripple has wiped out nearly 1,000 jobs — and many fear far bigger waves are coming our way. The by-election result in Runcorn — a constituency full of energy workers — is therefore not a surprise and should serve as a wake-up call to Sir Keir Starmer.

As a climate technology venture studio, our mission is to create economic value and accelerate the energy transition through sustainable, profitable, technology-led businesses. On the face of it, we are completely aligned with government objectives. But Labour is getting the transition badly wrong.

The ramp-up in renewable energy production, particularly gigawatt-scale offshore wind, is a laudable objective and should be supported. But the policies towards domestic oil and gas are economically illiterate, bad for the climate, bad for our tax base, bad for energy security, bad for jobs and bad for the supply chain needed to build those wind farms.

The government needs lessons in both climate science and energy economics. For it is consumption, not production, of fossil fuels that drives carbon emissions. This simple fact seems to be ignored.

As things stand in the UK, oil and gas production is taxed at 78 per cent, new drilling licences are banned and all activity subjected to the highest of regulatory standards. Unsurprisingly, this is driving down our domestic production to the point where the UK now produces only half of what it consumes.

We are replacing that production with imported oil and gas which is taxed at 0 per cent, with zero control over how it is produced or regulated. Imports by liquefied natural gas tanker carry up to four times the carbon emissions of the domestic production they displace, as the gas is frozen to minus 160 degrees and shipped halfway round the world.

In essence, energy companies are actively encouraged to favour imports by the UK tax and licensing regime, and it is starting to send a chill through our economy. Those imports of oil and gas now cost the UK about £120 billion...

Those imports of oil and gas now cost the UK about £120 billion a year — equivalent to about 4 per cent of UK GDP. No sane country would place a 78 per cent tax on domestic production and 0 per cent on imports. It is like a Trump tariff on ourselves. The US, Qatar and Saudi Arabia must be punching the air.

Rarely has a government managed to unite industry, unions, academia, investors and scientists. There is now a wall of opposition to Labour’s ill-judged oil and gas policies. That includes former prime minister Sir Tony Blair, Professor Dieter Helm of Oxford University, Gary Smith, general secretary of the GMB union, and Jim Ratcliffe of Ineos.

Advertisement

Gesture politics have trumped science and economics. It is a sad tale of inept policymaking from which there is no swift redemption — the UK has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted by global energy investors.

The government is currently running two consultations and these present a final opportunity for a shift in direction. Without a hard reset, Labour — alongside the Conservatives, who introduced the windfall tax — will have become responsible for the UK’s biggest industrial policy own goal since the 1970s.

Yet the oil and gas industry remains by far the largest economic lever the UK has to kick-start growth, and pulling down hard on just two areas would align with all stated policy objectives.

First, the lunatic 78 per cent tariff on our own energy must go now, and there should be no “successor regime”. Corporation tax at 25 per cent is more than adequate when we tax imports at 0 per cent. This will save carbon emissions by avoiding distant imports and give a massive boost to the UK economy.

Second, domestic drilling licences should be granted until the UK does not need to import oil or gas. This will reduce total carbon emissions, create UK jobs, pay UK taxes, secure energy supplies and strengthen the supply chain of engineering and offshore service companies to build the thousands of wind turbines in the ocean required to meet our vital gigawatt-scale objectives from 2025 to 2050.

A level playing field with imports on tax and licensing is a modest objective and one in our vital national interest.

Https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/labour-is-gaslighting-us-on-energy-and-runcorn-is-the-result-8gkgj5zpz

The government is responsible for the UK’s biggest industrial policy own goal since the 1970s – the US, Qatar and Saudi Arabia must be punching the air

The UK government’s industrial-scale gaslighting of the public on energy is damaging the climate and deindustrialising our economy at an unprecedented pace.

It is destroying domestic jobs, energy security, our tax base and the engineering capability. In the past few days, two energy services companies in Aberdeen have fallen into administration, Grangemouth has ceased processing North Sea oil, and industry giants Wood and Petrofac have suspended shares amid their respective financial worries.

Over the course of this week, that ripple has wiped out nearly 1,000 jobs — and many fear far bigger waves are coming our way. The by-election result in Runcorn — a constituency full of energy workers — is therefore not a surprise and should serve as a wake-up call to Sir Keir Starmer.

As a climate technology venture studio, our mission is to create economic value and accelerate the energy transition through sustainable, profitable, technology-led businesses. On the face of it, we are completely aligned with government objectives. But Labour is getting the transition badly wrong.

The ramp-up in renewable energy production, particularly gigawatt-scale offshore wind, is a laudable objective and should be supported. But the policies towards domestic oil and gas are economically illiterate, bad for the climate, bad for our tax base, bad for energy security, bad for jobs and bad for the supply chain needed to build those wind farms.

The government needs lessons in both climate science and energy economics. For it is consumption, not production, of fossil fuels that drives carbon emissions. This simple fact seems to be ignored.

As things stand in the UK, oil and gas production is taxed at 78 per cent, new drilling licences are banned and all activity subjected to the highest of regulatory standards. Unsurprisingly, this is driving down our domestic production to the point where the UK now produces only half of what it consumes.

We are replacing that production with imported oil and gas which is taxed at 0 per cent, with zero control over how it is produced or regulated. Imports by liquefied natural gas tanker carry up to four times the carbon emissions of the domestic production they displace, as the gas is frozen to minus 160 degrees and shipped halfway round the world.

In essence, energy companies are actively encouraged to favour imports by the UK tax and licensing regime, and it is starting to send a chill through our economy. Those imports of oil and gas now cost the UK about £120 billion...

The RNS on the previous deadline date was issued at 1254.

Plus, out, the prices used over that 20 year period were not inflation adjusted. Work that one out… If they had bern inflation adjusted, the average price for Brent would have been $91. It has been State theft, pure and simple.

Modestus, thanks for posting this article. This feels like a major moment, as Blair's intervention and comments cannot be ignored. Miliband must be livid.

This part particularly struck me:

Sir Tony accused political leaders of being scared to wade into the net zero debate, saying: “Political leaders by and large know that the debate has become irrational.

“But they’re terrified of saying so, for fear of being accused of being ‘climate deniers’.

“As ever, when sensible people don’t speak up about the way a campaign is being conducted, the campaign stays in the hands of those who end up alienating the very opinion on which consent for action depends.”

Farage recently said "Net Zero is the new Brexit". He meant this in a wider context, but it is also the case that they are both subjects Labour politicians, and many others, will not discuss; one is viewed as toxic the other as dogma.

Pete640, I believe that contingent on the RTO going through a deal has been reached to potentially acquire Harbour’s NS assets currently scheduled for decom by 2030. I also believe that EnQuest was aiming to acquire Waldorf’s Kraken interest before agreeing terms for the RTO deal but that this will likely not now happen - it could still happen after an eventual RTO.

Https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/vessels-rigs/571639/unite-government-action-gryphon-fpso/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Energy%20Voice%20Daily%20Newsletter%202025-04-28&utm_term=Energy%20Voice%20-%20Newsletter

The UK government should take action to help restart the Gryphon floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel, Unite has said.

The trade union wrote a letter to energy minister Michael Shanks calling operator TotalEnergies’ decision to shut down production from the vessel at the start of the year ‘premature’.

It added that the move puts around 200 jobs at immediate risk.

TotalEnergies filed its decommissioning plan in 2023, which called for stopping production from Gryphon on 31 December 2024 ahead of decommissioning activities taking place from 2025.

Nobel Upstream, which owns stakes in two fields tied back to the vessel, has previously voiced its opposition to the decision and has filed a lawsuit to stop its decommissioning.

Unite said the ongoing lawsuits, with a judicial review likely to begin early this summer, have put the Gryphon FPSO in legal and regulatory limbo – not producing, but unable to undergo decommissioning.

Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said: “Unite has been demanding the UK government produces a concrete plan with real jobs for the transition of North Sea workers.”

“The Gryphon case just like at Grangemouth underscores what Unite has been saying about preventing viable oil and gas assets from being prematurely decommissioned or closed down years ahead of schedule without a plan in place.”

In addition, the union said that it believes the Gryphon case is undermining UK energy security as the NSTA and UK government jointly fail to prevent premature decommissioning plans by operators while economically viable licences remain in place.

Unite Scottish secretary Derek Thomson said: “The NSTA has shown itself to be toothless in the case of the Gryphon. It is supposed to ensure that oil and gas fields deliver maximum economic recovery in a way consistent with UK law. That is clearly not happening with the Gryphon.”

“If TotalEnergies premature decommissioning plan gets approval, it could have a devastating domino effect across the North Sea. Thousands of jobs in the oil and gas sector are under threat and that’s why re-starting the Gryphon is key to stabilising the sector.”

The Gryphon FPSO is connected to five fields, including Gryphon North and South along with subsea tiebacks to the Maclure, Tullich and Ballindaloch fields.

The Gryphon Alpha was the North Sea’s first purpose built permanently moored FPSO, based around 100 miles southeast of Shetland. It has been continuously operating for over 30 years since being installed in 1993.

TotalEnergies inherited the asset through its 2018 of takeover Maersk.

Nobel Upstream has previously offered to buy the Gryphon FPSO to continue production from the asset.

Romaron, listen from 2:25 and specifically at 2:45, and then again from 4:05.

My point, my understanding but happy to understand differently, is that both the EPL and the amount of the UK's net imports of oil and gas has little to no impact on the price paid by and within the UK for oil and gas as their prices is set by international prices. (LNG could be more expensive for the liquidification and transport.)