Member Info for Dumbly

Stevo, if you try in “private” mode you should be able to access. At least, it’s like that on an iPhone.

Looking at that link, romaron, made me think I agree that oil and gas should rightly be described as Hydrocarbons not Fossil Fuels.

According to the British Geological Survey “ Fossils are the preserved remains of plants and animals whose bodies were buried in sediments, such as sand and mud, under ancient seas, lakes and rivers. Fossils also include any preserved trace of life that is typically more than 10 000 years old.”

That’s a powerful statement/election manifesto from OEUK: https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/548551/oeuk-general-election-manifesto/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Energy%20Voice%20Daily%20Newsletter%20B%202024-02-26&utm_term=Energy%20Voice%20-%20Newsletter%20%28B%20Test%29

Is it delusional to think an improvement in the fiscal regime could be contained in the Spring Budget? Raise the stakes, go on the offensive and highlight the differences.

Yes, it is a global market so local production won’t directly reduce local prices. However, local production will… well, you know the rest.

And, if only very low or non profitable production is possible, soon there will be… no tax to collect.

Thanks, Spin, was worth a read. She seems a genuine type who quickly saw thru the awful batch/bunch of opportunistic politicians we have and are mainly looking out for number one.

Krak, I could not see an updated tax losses amount in last week’s update. Is it there and I just can’t find it?

Anyway, Schlem, the tax losses are around $2.6B, and the company needs to find a way soonest to use them.

“In response to the sector’s concerns, for example, Rachel Reeves has made clear that North Sea operators should only pay windfall rates of tax while prices are historically high."

Fair enough, but…

1. As would be done by for any product by any economist, to get a real/fair/correct current value/price historical prices should be… adjusted considering inflation.

2. A real “windfall” tax should only be applied on the cost/price element above this inflation adjusted historical price.

This is what one would expect to be the reasonable outcome from and the objectives of the recent Oil and Gas fiscal review.

Would be good to know what Ms Reeves says about this.

Https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/6378144/humza-yousaf-labour-windfall-tax/

One hopes and assumed EnQuest will be represented at this summit: https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/548041/oeuk-to-hold-crisis-talks-over-labour-windfall-tax-proposals/

Thanks, Londoner. The reason I insist is because AB used this big gas discovery as one of the main justifications for last year having been a good year for the company. I would not want that this is just talk and it fizzles out into next to nothing, as this would be a big downer for me in terms of AB’s credibility. I will continue to believe the words but i will also… continue to follow up about this.

Woof- woof 😂

Actually, Stevo, there is a little more info. IR informed as follows: “With regard the Indonesian gas discovery, we have entered into joint study agreements with this partner, much in the same way as we have joint venture partnerships in our UK operations which don’t involve any minority holding between partners.”

As I understand, a Joint Study (and Bid) Agreement is like an unincorporated JV, which I assume would be transformed into an incorporated entity/s depending on the outcome of the study.

Otherwise, and this is what I wondered, if a big discovery had been made by an incorporated entity part owned by EnQuest then a RNS would most likely be required. The hope is to hear more about this before too long.

Stevo, on point 5, the “very big gas discovery by an affiliated company”, the country is Indonesia. No further detail available.

Agreed, Stevo, about the Unions being our best ally in the fight for a fair tax.

Romaron, it's all part of the cunning plan. Think "rope a dope". 😊😊 😉

Mod, maybe good Labour keep up with this malinformation as this way will be harder for them to retreat from this policy and thereby allowing the Unions and Cons and others to attack them more and, should a u-turn happen, make the consequences bigger?

Https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/547888/increasing-comparisons-be-drawn-1980s-miner-strikes-and-epl-job-losses/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Energy%20Voice%20Daily%20Newsletter%20B%202024-02-16&utm_term=Energy%20Voice%20-%20Newsletter%20%28B%20Test%29

“Union officials have since hit out at the “madness” of the proposals.

Unite regional officer John Boland told Energy Voice: “There are more and more comparisons be drawn to the destruction of the UK mining industry, and we cannot let this happen for the UK oil and gas industry.

“Unite will do whatever is needed to protect its members’ jobs now and in the future.”

A member of Scotland’s Just Transition Commission and former regional organiser for trade union RMT, Jake Molloy, said the industry “cannot rule out” the potential for strike action by workers, like that taken by UK mining community in the 1980s.

“We shouldn’t be using the blunt instrument of taxation to address the process of transition,” Mr Molloy added.

“The blunt instrument of tax can only succeed if there is an operation to tax. The concept is therefore a conflicting approach, shortsighted and ill-conceived.”

A lot today in the media about the technical recession and the UK’s lack of economic growth being , surprise surprise, due to reduced public and private investment, with taxation being highlighted as a main cause. Not so much the level of taxation but more stability, or lack of rather, being further highlighted as the cause. The EPL/Windfall Tax is being given as a clear example of an unstable tax regime scaring investors away. The message here is the damage from the Tories policies and by announcements such as Labour’s this week goes well beyond the sector directly impacted. Politicians take good note! The oil and gas fiscal review aimed to make the fiscal regime “fair” and stable to give confidence to invest. Come on Sunky & Hunty pull out an oil and gas fiscal regime rabbit in the Spring Budget and help the country (and yourselves).

Romaron, agreed, of course, about the “Tory collusion”. The Johnson, caving into Labour and Carrie’s pressure, panicked and introduced the EPL. Sunky at the time put a spin on it by saying the investment allowances were there “because we are Conservatives”. Hunty then increased the rate from 25-35%.

The Conservatives would now need to weave a story saying something like the EPL was needed at the time, needs are now different, we are Conservatives, blahdy blahdy blah, and modify the ESIM or make other changes to the EPL. The economy, jobs, a realistic and achievable energy transition, climate change targets, security, all need to be woven together in an overall plan and message pretty much diametrically opposed to Labour’s. Can the public handle such a message? What have the Tories to lose?

The copy pasted part would not appear. I’ll try again:

Mr Crighton of the AGCC said: “If you wind down the North Sea too quickly, before jobs and opportunities are available at scale in the renewables sector, then you lose the world class workforce and supply chain.

“That will make what is already an enormous challenge even harder, perhaps impossible. We cannot allow that to happen.”

He added: “If Labour wants to win power, the party needs to prove to industry – and the public – that it can be trusted with our energy transition. The early signs are not good, and if we get this wrong the economic and social damage will be enormous.”

The final para I was referring to is here: