Member Info for Dumbly

Rookie, I don’t disagree with you, but for the sake of “Security” at some point it is logical defence and energy policy will need to align more. Today’s announcement about defence could pave the way for a later change to energy policy, and fiscal policy would also, in turn, need to align with a change in energy policy. Being logical, of course… does not mean it will happen.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-sets-out-biggest-sustained-increase-in-defence-spending-since-the-cold-war-protecting-british-people-in-new-era-for-national-security

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Europes-Defence-Plans-Clash-With-Energy-Transition-Strategy.html

"The world has changed. The Big Bad Wolf is no longer global warming but the military threat at Europe’s borders. If European leaders do not reassess their low-carbon agenda, they risk jeopardizing the continent’s security."

"The world has changed. The Big Bad Wolf is no longer global warming but the military threat at Europe’s borders. If European leaders do not reassess their low-carbon agenda, they risk jeopardizing the continent’s security."

Sir Keir, will a change in energy policy be next?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-sets-out-biggest-sustained-increase-in-defence-spending-since-the-cold-war-protecting-british-people-in-new-era-for-national-security

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Europes-Defence-Plans-Clash-With-Energy-Transition-Strategy.html

Aberdee, yes, those are other completely valid reasons why offloading some NS assets could be a good move for Harbour.

(EnQuest could pay more than most due to their current $1.9bn of tax losses rising next year to $3.1 of losses, and they are experts in late-life assets and decommissioning. Of course, I know nothing more, and I declare an EnQuest-bias in my somewhat wishful thinking comments.)

Miliband is on X spouting his misinformation about why energy bills will go up by pinning the blame on gas wholesale prices. He also states that the markets which control the gas prices are controlled by petrostates and dictators and in doing so wants to create in people’s minds the connection between gas and dependence on dictators. The UK gas consumption comes from 30% domestic production, 40% from Norway, and 20% from the US. Markets are controlled by supply and demand. The UK has the ability to vastly increase supply, but due to Labour’s policies has decided not to.

Egremont, I’d be very happy if there was a change to fiscal policy to encourage investment in the NS, but I fear the best we can hope for is knowing the successor regime to the EPL after it ends in 2030. Of course, Labour may well not be in power then.

Nav_Mike, a sale of some NS assets maybe to EnQuest to help accelerate the use of their tax assets?

Https://youtu.be/7j7jU3cwDQw?si=FtrlFzntRwtf5TTj

“Ideological zeal is making us sacrifice prosperity and livelihood for fractional changes in CO2 in atmosphere...

Its a collective action problem - if only some countries make sacrifices and others don't, then we just wipe out our prosperity."

In his speech at ARC, Paul Marshall laid out a scathing analysis of UK and European energy policies, and warned of the dangers of continuing the current trajectory. “

Low trades yesterday. At 12 for a very long time. Today no trades from 0811 until 1130, then 2 £30k buys. Why so few trades. Algobots sleeping? No available of shares to buy?

Meoryou, dispose of all/most UKCS assets and exit the North Sea/UK?

“Tessa Khan, founder of Uplift, the group which brought the successful court case against Rosebank, said: “As our courts have recognised, it is inevitable that the oil and gas in projects like Rosebank will be burned and that this will create carbon emissions.” https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/fossil-fuel-industry-accused-of-seeking-special-treatment-over-oilfield-emissions/ar-AA1zfRWA?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=465639100b224f36abc238035318d4dc&ei=8

No, Ms Khan, it is not “… INEVITABLE that oil and gas in projects like Rosebank will be burned…”. The “projects” only extract oil and gas from licenced fields if they believe there is calculated probability of an economic return because there are customers and consumers who want the oil and gas extracted at the market price. And, customers and consumers want the oil and gas because of a mix of it being the cheapest, and/or only form of energy to meet their needs. If there was not the demand, the oil and gas would either not be extracted or, therefore, burned. The emphasis, including for the Scope 3 emissions reporting, must be at the consumption end of the chain, not at production. Why should oil produced in the UK but then exported be subject to Scope 3 emissions reporting and go against the UK’s carbon budget, when… imported oil is let in scot-free of reporting and going towards the UK’s carbon budget?

Aim, whether Starmer watches the video or not he will have to listen to what Reform are saying. Reform may be getting ahead of themselves, but they have laid out their stall and doubts will have been sewn in the renewables camp’s investors (and hope given to the oilers). The Battle lines are being set, and “energy” and the economy (in many ways the same thing) will be the key issue, likely bigger than everything else.

That should have had as subject “Reform Party Press Conference on Net Zero”.

(This is a must watch. It should out the cat amongst the pigeons. Nasty to do while Ed is in India preaching about clean energy as they build coal-fired power stations)

Https://x.com/reformparty_uk/status/1889714494420423029?s=46&t=3icqiBhgmGSnUo8L1GVnng

Slightly O/T.

The Weald Action Group (WAG) is behind the Horse Hill case which led to the Supreme Court decision re Scope 3 emissions reporting. Their mission is stated as “Communities fighting ONSHORE oil and gas”. Uplift, whose only and main aim is a RAPID transition from oil and gas production in the UK, and Greenpeace, used the SC decision to go to the Scottish Court of Session. You know the rest.

The chain of correspondence in the comments section below the article about the CoS ruling may be of interest https://www.wealdactiongroup.org.uk/2025/01/rosebank-and-jackdaw-unlawful/

This discussion with the WAG highlights that their activities have gone beyond their declared scope. These activities are harmful to the UK.

The discussion with the WAG may also be a way to communicate with Uplift. Considering Uplift’s only main aim, a RAPID transition from oil and gas production in the UK, they may as well be funded by bad actors wishing to weaken the UK. Getting into conspiracy theory territory maybe, but the logic is sound. Uplift also appears to comfortably feed many mouths judging by their 32 member core-team list at https://www.upliftuk.org/about. Uplift needs to be challenged and called out more.

“To demonstrate international leadership on climate change the UK government needs to take ­responsibility not just for its ­territorial emissions but also for how its actions might affect actions by others,” the report says. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/09/keir-starmer-urged-to-resist-pressure-to-permit-rosebank-north-sea-oilfield

What is the real agenda of these people? Do they not understand the projections of the UK’s oil and gas needs? Do they not see the new hydrocarbon production planned by China, India, Saudi, Indonesia, the US and many others? Has their love for self-aggrandizing “leadership-signaling” blinded them to the needs of their fellow citizens? In whose name are they speaking? For whose benefit? A 5th Column?

1. The government has confirmed it will not issue new licences but will respect existing licences.

2. Applications for production re-consent and new consent for existing licences can resume once the guidelines for environmental assessment impact are published. Expected in April.

3. The government confirms the UK will need for decades more oil and gas than it can produce.

4. The government confirms indigenous oil and gas is preferable, also on a net basis, to imported oil and gas - this confirmation is still more tacit than explicit.

5. It is highly likely most companies will only be able to source capital and be willing to employ it and take the risk of new production if the fiscal regime is suitable and stable.

If Starmer wants to show real “growth-leadership” he should fast track both the new guidance for environmental impact analysis and a new fiscal policy. This could be done in weeks if really wanted. Plus, it is better for Labour not to let this drag on, with all the associated debate and resistance, and probably better for them also to do it while it’s still cold and some of the related issues closer to home for many people.

Come on Keir!

Another voice for reason. Its three aims are to protect jobs, support the energy transition, and secure the long-term future of the North Sea as a vital national asset. 

Unsurprisingly, it supports hydrocarbon production from the NS where it is economically viable and meets the environmental and regulatory requirements.

https://www.britishchambers.org.uk/news/2025/01/taskforce-meets-to-shape-north-seas-energy-future/

Thanks, oxygen.

Badenoch knows there is an almighty row going on within Labour over Rosebank and Jackdaw, and that Starmer will most likely give the order to re-consent. It's in Starmer's interest to get this issue out of the way soonest as the longer it goes on the more division within the party and the weaker he looks, Plus, it will look like he has bowed to pressure from Badenoch. Could Miliband pull some rabbit out of the hat to stop re-consent? Seems more likely the rabbit out of the hat will be how he explains the unexplainable, how he can accept R&J progressing, given all he has said and stands for.

The best is to first get the R&B drilling licences re-consented to set the precedent that 1) Labour will honour existing licences (including, therefore, B&B) and 2) Acceptance by Labour that, as the stuff will be needed in any case, home-extracted hydrocarbons are better, for multiple reasons, than imported. Then, at the right time, will be when to attack harder on a change to the fiscal conditions as given 1) and 2) it would be illogical if other opportunities to reduce the demand v consumption deficit in the interests of the economic wealth and security of the country were not taken up because of a punitive fiscal regime.

(Who is the "Lizbet Rowsey" Badenoch in PMQ's said donated 400k to Labour?)

Mod, the UK will be OK. You omitted to consider the energy in the hot gasses emanating from Miliband’s two primary intake and output orifices.