Member Info for Dumbly

Mod, is was putting the additional comment in between quotation marks which threw me. A laughing emoji or :) would have helped. Maybe was the “seriousness” of the day and matter which caused by sense of humour bypass.

AA, the hope that Labour could post-election relax their position on the sector was dashed by your comment but thanks to your clarification my state of likely delusion has now been restored.

AA, maybe best you avoid stand-up comedy. Was not clear was a joke and sort of shocked me when i understood that RR said that today as would have been sending a very specific message. No

damage, except to my mood.

AA, that addition by RR sure ain't good. No need to emphasise it like that, unless she... wanted to emphasise it. Looks like maximising current production and M&A will be the only real way forward. Maybe Veri could pull some renewables-related rabbit out of the hat. Forget B&B, except for the Bressay for its gas.

Oxygen, by "opposition" I assume you mean the political party/ies. Let's see the election outcome, but I can't see this opposition being either that strong or willing to fight this battle. Rather than positioning the argument as "opposition" I would prefer to see the pitch as "co-operation". Oil and gas will be needed, the energy-transition needs the skills and supply-chain to dove-tail, etc etc, The key stakeholders; the relevant companies, the unions, trade bodies and chamber of commerce etc, need to co-operate and work together to show what would be the best outcome for the country/people. More likely this way Labour will see, will be given, a way to massage their policy to turn a confrontation into a economy-growth win for them, the other stakeholders, and the country. Well... that's the hope.

Teacher did the right thing. Afterwards, tho, he/she should have, and may have, asked the kids why they accepted what they were told without questioning the source of the assertion. This way the kids learn to question, question, question.

Starmer yesterday said the below:

“The most important thing is growing the economy and wealth creation,” he says. “I do think that’s been the Achilles’ heel for 13 years now.”

“You can talk about public services but if you haven’t got your economy working then you can’t do that. If you haven’t settled the planning, the infrastructure challenges, then you can’t get your economy going.”

How can this be compatible with driving investment away from O&G production in the UK?

Seems almost all countries with hydrocarbon reserves are encouraging investment to maintain or increase production. Yet the UK wants to drive investment away.

I can’t believe (don’t want to…) Starmer and Reaves won’t conjure up some justification to create the fiscal conditions to, at the very least, encourage investment to develop the existing licences.

Loch, that's a possibility too (why Red Ed's been missing in the campaign). Another one is the PTSD caused from when he was campaigning to be PM, so maybe it was more comfortable for him (and Starmer) to stay in the shadows. This was in the press 2 weeks ago "Ed Miliband, the former Labour leader, admitted that he felt PTSD while watching the recent debates ahead of next month’s UK general election.".

Oxygen, for me the bigger questions are what was offered to Miliband to stay in the shadows, and to what degree the deal made with him will be honored?

Thanks, Stevo. I have similar question as Redbuffet. Although, if you’re sure you’ve got the facts right I can live without the details.

mod, if it was not for my inability to forget and forgive farage for brex****, i could easily vote for reform.

This is getting towards as bad as during COVID.

Presumably the existing production they would like to acquire would come with little or no associated tax losses. Why be prepared to pay that much for more of what they already have? This, tho, brings back to the question about the conditions required for purchased production to be allowable against EnQuest’s historical tax losses. Stevo, I think you posted something about this, but if I recall it was just a general comment. Anyone know more on the specifics? (Waldorf Production I understand has significant tax losses.)

“The popular idea that fossil fuels can be, and are being, replaced by renewable energy is false. There is no energy transition or green revolution. Wind and solar accounted for 2.4% of world energy consumption in 2022 – a zero-rounding error. There has never been replacement of one energy source by another. No energy source has ever been substantially reduced.”

“It is delusional to imagine that humans will voluntarily trade fossil fuel prosperity for a much poorer renewable energy world.”

Except in the UK, where Ed and the other eco-zealots are seemingly selling this delusion successfully.

https://www.artberman.com/blog/metacrisis-getting-honest-about-the-human-predicament/

Mod, could you post the article pls?

Indeed, “Labour don’t want to ban oil and gas, just British oil and gas. They would rather virtue signal to eco zealots than protect jobs here at home.” Repeat ad infinitum!

Labour say they will respect existing licences but not allow new ones. They prefer to give a climate-leadership signal (AKA virtue-signalling and vote-harvesting) even tho economically harmful for the UK and with greater emissions. Logically, therefore, to be consistent with their position... if they could stop existing licences progressing, without the risk of legal challenges, they should want to do this too. They could (will?) try to stop them with fiscal policy. However, perhaps the recent Supreme Court ruling could give them the foil, the cover, to try and stop the existing licences moving to production and place the blame elsewhere. For Labour to do anything to reduce the potential impact of the SC ruling in stopping existing licences would be inconsistent with their climate-leadership signalling policy.

On a separate but related point, I don’t have clear the conditions required so that purchase of existing production would qualify to allow the buyer to use their historical tax losses. But any purchased production which otherwise would have been subject to the 30+10% tax (EPL is payable in any case unless allowed investments can be used to reduce), would cause a net loss to HMRC.

Imagine a scenario where tax receipts from existing production is reduced because companies with historical tax losses purchase some of this production, and new licences are stopped through fiscal policy and/or using the SC ruling? HMRC would be well out of pocket, imports and emissions would spike, and jobs and supply chain capability would be lost. The unions would go 'nanas.

Labour's policy re UK oil and gas is all over the place. Which is their priority - climate-leadership (together with... greater emissions, if you can get your head round that) or the UK economy?

This should all become clearer after the election and before an autumn budget.

“Labour don’t want to ban oil and gas, just British oil and gas. They would rather virtue signal to eco zealots than protect jobs here at home.” Repeat ad infinitum!

Are the licences for the Bressay and Rosebank oil fields at the same “stage”? I ask this with particular reference to the potential impact of last week’s Supreme Court ruling. Is the Bressay license somehow “ahead” of Rosebank, or are they both effectively at the same stage and would be impacted, or not, in the same way by the ruling?

(Accepted, all probably rather academic if Labour significantly worsens the investment allowances part of the fiscal regime.)

Angela Rayner on Radio 4 today: "...the licences which are currently applicable, will continue and oil and gas will be part of the mix...". The "continue" was intended to mean both to remain valid and to continue to production. Oh no they won't, Dear Angela, if the fiscal conditions mean the private investors do not consider the projects viable.

To listen it's around 2:15 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00208ns

I just heard Angela Rayner, commenting with regards to the Supreme Court decision, as good as actively supporting the need for the current licences to progress to production. I could even hear an implied door left open even for new/additional licences.

What have they unleashed here…

Logically, imports of hydrocarbons should also undergo a similar evaluation and imports only allowed once a suitable licence issued.