Member Info for Dumbly

Apache in November communicated they will cease NS operations by end 2029 because not economically viable to continue due mainly to the fiscal conditions. Their Q3 24 NS production was 25k boepd, 48% down on same period last year. Why not sell and avoid the hassle, deploy resources more effectively elsewhere, whilst making agreements to still maintain a similar or even better North Sea related financial outcome? EnQuest could better work and decom these end-of-life assets. Plus they have the advantaged tax position. Apache’s production plus the rest of Kraken, or more, from Waldorf would take EnQuest’s production into the 70ks boepd.

Aim, Miliband saw a procession and decided to plonk himself at the front and, as you said, use it as a platform to revive his political career. He will spin it as he will, but it is clear he is more concerned with attracting the positive views of other worldwide leaders than the interests of the majority of the people his party has been elected to represent, the UK population. He is a Globalist. Possibly, he is positioning himself for a role beyond the UK, maybe even with delusions to become the UN Secretary General, where Socialists-cum-Marxists are favoured. Beyond the ideology, for sure he wants to first continue the effective nationalisation of the UK’s oil and gas industry, and then end it as he considers it competition for resources; capital, people, equipment, and more. Plus, having more hydrocarbon imports will help reinforce the argument for more so-called home-grown energy. The damage he is doing to the UK is enormous and at some point it will be impossible to deny, but by then he hopes a point of no return for the UK oil and gas industry will have passed. He professes to be demonstrating leadership for the rest of the world, when instead his policies will make the UK poorer, less secure, and… create more emissions. He will end up a failed leader but, unless reined very soon, he will take a good part of the country down with him. As to what is really driving him… I’ll leave that to the professionals you suggest, but for sure something is warped.

Miliband this week in The Commons said “The ONLY FUTURE for the North Sea is in what this Government is doing – investing in carbon capture and storage, investing in offshore wind and investing in hydrogen. That is THE FUTURE.”

Given the UK is fortunate to have options, what about a future, in parallel with Miliband’s albeit economically illiterate plans above, where the oil and gas companies don’t have their investments stolen under false pretences (the EPL), and are instead encouraged to invest to extract the economically viable oil and gas from the North Sea? To meet demand, the UK would still have to import oil and gas, but longer-term this would give more tax receipts, jobs, growth, energy and general security, and lower emissions and consumer bills. It appears he is so ideologically driven and afraid of the “competition” to even entertain this scenario, preferring instead to handicap the UK. It has to questioned where and to whom his allegiances lie and what his motivation is? It certainly is not with the vast majority of the UK’s population or for their benefit.

https://www.independent.co.uk/business/miliband-logical-to-say-energy-bills-will-reduce-under-clean-energy-policies-b2665906.html

Surprisingly, not, many people want things they are not prepared to pay for.

Article behind a paywall, but key points copied below:

The report surveyed 16,800 residential energy consumers across 18 countries, including 800 living in the UK.

Nearly seven out of ten (69%) of British consumers are supportive of net-zero efforts, but only 33% are willing to pay higher energy premiums.

Accenture said its research highlights a potential disconnect between consumers and businesses when it comes to the UK energy transition, as well as distrust of the sector.

Ultimately, while much of the investment in the UK energy sector will come from the private sector, UK consumers will also contribute through their energy bills.

Accenture said providers will have to either raise electricity prices to help cover investments to meet net-zero goals, or slow down investment spend.

https://www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/564661/majority-of-brits-support-net-zero-transition-but-only-a-third-willing-to-pay-for-it/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Energy%20Voice%20Daily%20Newsletter%202024-12-19&utm_term=Energy%20Voice%20-%20Newsletter

Ed Miliband: I’d be happy living next to an electricity pylon or a wind turbine.

Saying this whilst living in North London reeks of insincerity.

The article also states: Miliband said that another flagship Labour energy policy, of banning licences for new North Sea oil and gas fields, would start to be implemented soon. He said that a consultation on the end to new licences would come later this year. “This policy was in our manifesto and we’re absolutely committed to it,” he said. But he would not be drawn on when the ban would take effect.

I thought new licenses were effectively already stopped, whereas this statement gives the impression the ban does not yet have a start date. Anyway, the fiscal policy there is already a de facto ban.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/f80db579-d77e-47bd-a09b-4c9c62ec3823?shareToken=ce81efc0dfd1f3f3e96eef779c3004c1

(note, from October 24)

Mod, Ed understands this but he is happy for fiscal and licencing policy to stop investment as he views killing the UK oil and gas industry as supporting somehow his green crusade.

Miliband is now putting the focus on reducing costs for the consumer and energy security. Emissions hardly covered on the R4 interview just now. Is this because it’s clear any emissions reduction in the UK would be minuscule compared with increased emissions elsewhere, and therefore using emissions as justification is flawed. On costs for the consumer he says the independent (yeah, right…) NESO says they will, when the CEO Fintan Slye 2 days ago said no such thing.

The country is going to be covered with solar farms, wind turbines, and pylons. Local costs and worldwide emissions will increase, energy security will weaken. This so called Clean Power plan is about Miliband’s ego, the desire for purpose and a legacy. When will the public cotton onto this?

Thanks, roma. I should have gone to a Spec Savers. Or, maybe DC has been on a trip to Turkey.

Taverham, have a look at yesterday's Energy Security and Net Zero Committee from 15:55:56. Fintan Slye claims no knowledge of the damage to the solar farm. (The question was about the farm's connection to the the Transmission or the Distribution network but, all the same, seems incredulous he was not aware of the damage). Note the questioner's comment about the Chinese suppliers will be happy to replace the damaged panels :) :) :) Also note Dominic Cummings, at least sure looks like him, lurking in the background. One wonders what he's up to in this regard,

Https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/6be7d09a-3a43-45c4-91f4-774934dc686b

Https://x.com/NetZeroWatch/status/1866790914640974189

Personally, I’d avoid too much arguing about climate change. Instead, I’d put the focus on the UK’s interests. Start by getting across the board knowledge and acceptance of the UK’s projected demand for oil and gas to 2050, and then ask… "what are the economic, environmental, geopolitical and social advantages of blocking UK oil and gas production? This way it’s less of an either or argument between renewables and hydrocarbons, and more about a more reasonable transition plan in the interests of UK citizens and companies. First and foremost, the interests of “working people”.

Nice one, Mod. Charles McAllister is appearing regularly in interviews. He comes across as well informed and delivers his thoughts in a clear way with humour and charisma. The accusation of a "conspiracy of silence" in Labour, with many against Miliband's policies but who don't want to rock the boat at this delicate time for the government, certainly rings true. His question "what are the economic, environmental, geopolitical and social advantages of blocking [UK] oil and gas production?", is right on the money and should be put to Starmer and Miliband.

And… what does “low carbon generation” mean? That it is accepted oil and gas was used to make and place the solar and wind equipment and create the means to transfer from point of generation to point of consumption?

And… how low is “low”.

All full of imprecisions generating lovely wiggle room.

I genuinely don’t understand what the below means. In the first paragraph what is meant by “power” (power = rate of transmission). The target in the second paragraph I assume refers back to power in the first paragraph. So, the target is 95%+ of energy transmission by 2030 from low carbon generation? What does that mean? If by “power” they mean electricity, why don’t they put electricity?

The government’s milestone this Parliament is to secure our energy supply with home-grown, clean power.

We will measure this by being on track to achieving at least 95% of low carbon generation by 2030 in line with advice from the National Energy System Operator (NESO).

https://www.gov.uk/missions/clean-energy#:~:text=Our%20milestone&text=The%20government's%20milestone%20this%20Parliament,Energy%20System%20Operator%20(NESO).

Energy is a measurement of the ability of something to do work. Power is the rate at which energy is transferred. How many of us use the two terms interchangeably? In many minds the two terms are the same. Labour’s revised target is "at least 95% “clean POWER" by 2030. The “power” here actually means electricity. Currently, electricity is only 20% of the UK’s energy demand. Oil and gas currently covers 75% of the energy consumed in the UK. Why do they use the term “power” and not “electricity”? Is it to create the idea in many minds that the target by 2030 is 95% of energy will come from sources in no way linked to hydrocarbons or in no way emitting any emissions? If such misleading terminology is used at such a basic level one can only guess at the linguistic spin used to mislead on more complex matters. Plus, this power/electricity is anyway not “clean” because of the energy sources used to manufacture and place the equipment needed to generate and distribute the electricity. It’s all a fraudulent misrepresentation on a massive scale, and it should be called out,

I would like to see how this 95% target is broken down year by year to 2030. Do such targets exist? Indeed, it would be good to know on a monthly basis progress versus the target at that date. I’d also like to see how much oil and gas was used to create the means to create this so called “clean” electricity (the amount of O&G used to create, place, operate and distribute the electricity divided by the total electricity estimated to be generated over the lifetime of the equipment). The O&G needed to cover the intermittency should also be factored in. Maybe the plan is for everything to ramp up exponentially towards 2030, allowing Labour in the run up to the next election in 2028/9 to use linguistic and statistical spin to claim the target will still be met in 2030, but for this to happen you first you have to... re-elect us.

JSO posted on X linking the recent storm in the UK to burning oil and gas. I don’t know if X presents comments based on some algorithm to pander to the viewer’s biases, but I was surprised that all the many comments were ridiculing JSO and this message. It seems they have become a comedy act.

And, I wonder whether as part of the agreement to pay Dolphin a $20.75-million cancellation fee for the work scheduled with Borgland Dolphin before the end of November EnQuest inserted some time-limited way to claw back part of this cancellation fee should a new drilling contract be entered into between the companies (something which could maybe happen once the “Waldorf impediment” is removed). Dolphin, as a result of the cancellation, will now put a planned class renewal of Borgland Dolphin on hold while assessing alternative opportunities.

Will December see Viaro taking another slice of Bressay and the EP?

Last year on 22/12 the announcement was: Steve Bowyer, GM North Sea for EnQuest said, "We continue to progress the development of the wider Kraken area, including a Bressay gas tie-back solution to reduce Kraken emissions, as well as an early production solution project at Bressay. We look forward to working with Rockrose, Waldorf (our Kraken JV partner) and the NSTA to move the project forward."

A year on, what’s the latest on the “gas tie-back solution and an early production solution at Bressay? Could doing this be connected with the recent cancellation of the Kraken infill wells now “rescheduled as part of a wider drilling campaign in the North Sea in 2026”? (Whatever, in on way or another, the “Waldorf impediment” has to be removed, and the sooner the better.)

I can’t comment on the EV aspect as, whilst I understand the formula to calculate and that it should represent the total value of a company, I don’t understand how to “value” really the EV. Debt is added in to get the EV, but debt in a barely solvent concern and debt in a prosperous company have two completely different real values i.e. what someone would be prepared to pay to buy the company.

No direct comment from EnQuest is surprising and strange. Maybe AB preferred just now not to raise the profile about the company’s situation and NS acquisition interests and let Pragma do the talking on the general situation. Who knows.

A message I get is there is probably more competition than we would like to think for existing production from companies with tax losses.

Haigh was elected to Parliament at 28, before which her only work experience was in a council's youth service, with Unite and in Parliament, and in the 3 years before she became an MP at Aviva responsible for corporate governance and responsible investment policy (during which time she accidently half inched a mobile phone or two). How can such career politicians have the experience needed to be little other than... politicians?

In other news... BP announces another major oil field development starting next year. I wonder how much production will end up in the UK? But... I don't wonder how much tax income the UK will receive from this new development. https://shafaq.com/en/Economy/BP-to-begin-major-oilfield-development-in-Kirkuk-by-early-2025

Once the government decided not to oppose the judicial review brought by the activist groups, I suppose the companies had no choice but to oppose the judicial review themselves. It was the government, the state, who issued the licences and really it should be them defending their decision and, if necessary, be the ones to implement a legal remedy (and incur the legal costs for an error the government of the time made). Maybe this matters little, but my question/point is whether it sends the wrong message to the government and others for the companies to be seen to still be keen to develop these fields notwithstanding the 78% tax fiscal regime? Again, probably the companies had no choice, but walking away from these licences would have been high risk but certainly would have given a strong message. An outcome from the judicial review which causes the companies to pause development could give them the grounds to "threaten" to abandon the fields and claim compensation from the government. As long as companies appear willing to develop existing or new fields, presumably because they consider such development economically viable, it is unlikely the government will take seriously the call for a change to the fiscal regime.

Thoughts?