Member Info for Dumbly

londener7, re your reply to me "The UK will derive little if any economic benefit from Norway, or any other country, developing their assets to supply our demand." I could have been clearer. The "they" I was referring to was the Norwegian state not the UK. This is because Equinor is the majority shareholder in Rosebank, and the Norwegian state is the majority shareholder of Equinor. How would the Norwegian state benefit the most - by Rosebank being developed or other assets in Norway being developed (per Modestus post) and selling the production to the UK? It's clear which outcome is economically the worst for the UK.

TimTimebomb, or anyone else, re your post Tuesday 1515:
"The Finance Bill is in committee stage hearings on 16th, 18th and 23rd May. If i understand it, amendments can be proposed then."
How does it work; any amendment regarding EPL mods would have to be presented already on 16th May or could it be slipped in later?

romaron, today 0629, I was thinking similar things as you re Sudan/Sudanese, but I started to wonder if I was a "bad person" even just letting such thoughts enter my mind.
On the UK relying on imports, the main exporter of hydrocarbons to the UK is... Norway. I wonder whether they would get more economic benefit by developing Rosebank or developing more in Norway (see article yesterday, I think from Modestus) and exporting that to the UK

Somebody should tell Sharon about the EPL, and that profits outside the UK cannot in any way be claimed by the UK's Treasury. Sharon should then tell Unite's members about this and that their jobs are at risk because of the EPL.

"Unite general secretary, Sharon Graham, said: “Oil and gas companies in the offshore sector are enjoying record windfall profits. There’s no question that contractors and operators can easily afford to give Unite members a decent pay rise. The scale of corporate greed in the offshore sector has to be challenged."

"Unite recently blasted the UK Government's inaction on taxing oil firms as BP posted the biggest profits in its history as it doubled to £23 billion in 2022. BP’s bonanza profits come after Shell reports earnings of £32 billion, bringing the combined total profits of the top two energy companies in Britain to a record £55 billion."

Modestus, that's the most encouraging comment on the subject from Hunt. It confirms the government's intention to encourage NS investment and its acceptance investment has been blocked... by the EPL "Dialogue" alone won't unblock investment, so the inference is that the dialogue is a precursor for remedial action.
Something will have to announced soon or it will be too late. After the local elections?

romaron. I am not at all convinced by Shapps. This based on his past and statements in current position. Seems more in it for himself than genuine public serviced, and will therefore say and do what he thinks makes him more popular. Seems a lightweight, except in the matter of self-promotion and job-jumping.

Sounds like they were expecting just a slap on the wrist: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-65263650

Agreed, Sekforde, the theoretical Net Present Value of the tax credits is from zero (if never actually used) to close to $1B (if a suitable massive deal was made now). With inflation eating away at the value, and for many other reasons, the sooner the credits are used in a value-increasing way the better. Estimating the "actual" NPV depends on too many unknown variables, but using the finger-in-air method my guess is that the likely range is probably... $400-700M.

Kraken, the $2.4B is tax LOSSES, the tax CREDITS should be 40% of those losses. If you or others disagree, pls advise.

AIMOilking, I agree with your point that the opportunity now is with the losses/tax credits and to accelerate their use. (I am right that the use of Enquest's tax losses/credits is NOT ring-fenced to the area where the losses/tax credits were generated?) More likely, I'd expect, an acquisition rather than being acquired or a merger. There must be companies or fields which with the EPL will go under or be uneconomical? Better a fire-sale type deal with an Enquest than going belly-up or producing at as good as a loss.

Not sure the “moron” name-calling by Piers Morgan helped https://www.google.com/search?q=james+skeet+juststopoil&rlz=1C1GGRV_enGB751GB751&oq=james+skeet+juststopoil&aqs=chrome..69i57.6568j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:ed98b914
Looked like he got really riled by the Skeet guy’s accusations at 10:12. The smirking Skeet comes across as a frustrated boy who thinks he’s the only one who understands things but nobody listens to him.

In the GMB interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c4iFUpXD7w from 12:30 the ER woman said there will be 2m, possibly 4m, possibly 10m sea-level rise. As she was talking about 2040 the inference is that’s the period she was referring to. If the sea-level is going to increase 10m by 2040 then… it’s already too late as forces so strong to do this will not be stopped by the UK producing less oil and gas or a few more EVs on the road and heat-pumps in houses. They are all over the place and come across like unhinged conspiracy theorists using unsubstantiated scare tactics which should be thrown back at them. The wider environmental/renewables movement needs to reign these people in as, ironically and as PM said, they risk to damage the saner parts of the movement and push back their cause.

Is there a class-struggle agenda behind a lot of this, trying to make poor people rich by making rick people poor and all that. It would not surprise me if the JSO and ER leaders have hijacked the environmental/renewables movement and are actually… Marxists in renewable clothing?

Not that large a deal, but further underlines companies are voting with the wallets:
https://www.oedigital.com/news/504483-kistos-expands-into-norway-with-deal-to-acquire-mime-petroleum
"Commenting on the proposed acquisition, Andrew Austin, Kistos' Executive Chairman, said: "After a period during which commodity price volatility and fiscal uncertainty has made it difficult to agree deals in the UK and the Netherlands, I am very pleased to be able to announce Kistos’ expansion into Norway. Kistos has evaluated several transactions in the UK and Dutch sectors, but the imposition of punitive windfall taxes and a lack of fiscal certainty have meant that both countries remain difficult places to commit capital and ensure continuity of shareholder returns.”"

I am all for different views, and I have time too for idealism, but I don’t like a very small minority fringe group forcing their views on and impacting the vast majority. This starts to smell of vigilantism https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/apr/19/extinction-rebellion-pledges-to-help-guard-london-marathon-from-protests . What, these people in advancing their agenda get to decide what can and cannot be disrupted, which activities they deem acceptable and therefore not “targetable” and which activities it is fair game to target? The London Marathon organisers are also on dangerous territory co-operating with them in this way, somewhat aligning themselves with the activists and giving their actions some legitimacy. A very tricky situation and politically-charged situation for sure, but the government cannot be passive and allow these groups to dictate to them and the general public. The government needs to act.

...and with regards to energy security: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65309687

Below just sent too the BBC about my complaint about the article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-65093274.amp

Thank you for getting back to me about my complaint.

To really give your readers the wider context of this story you need to be more precise. I do not agree with your reasoning that it was appropriate in this article about the UK’s North Sea and UK taxation to refer to BP’s WORLDWIDE profits. To be consistent the same areas/jurisdictions need to be used. This especially when you used the figures for BP’s WORLDWIDE profits but did not even state they were for BP’s WORLDWIDE profits. I will explain my reasoning further. The article states: “The Energy Profits Levy - which the industry opposes - saw headline tax rates increase last year from 40% to 75%.”, immediately followed by: “But companies have still been recording record profits with BP making $27.7bn (£23bn) in 2022.”. The “but” and the “still” in the second sentence conveys the meaning that notwithstanding the UK’s Energy Profits Levy BP still made the profits stated. And, by not clarifying said profits were on BP’s worldwide operations the inference is that said profits are within the UK’s Treasury ability to claim further tax and, thereby, benefit the taxpayers of the UK. The message given is there is plenty of further scope for the UK to extract tax payments from BP (and other Oil and Gas companies). This is a message many people will be very happy to hear, assuming the oil and gas companies are “profiteering”, when in reality the UK’s fiscal regime for oil and gas companies is resulting in reduced investment which in turn will result in the need to import more oil and gas. The article should have either given just BP’s post-tax profit from its UK hydrocarbon production activities, or stated clearly that the profit given was based on BP’s WORLDWIDE activities and therefore beyond the ability of the UK Treasury to make a tax claim.

What is the escalation process for me to submit a further complaint about your response? Is this email already sufficient or does a new complaint have to be submitted?

Kind regards,

690, Modestus: https://www.cityam.com/north-sea-industry-push-for-windfall-tax-price-floor-in-bid-to-boost-bank-lending/

On Saturday I wrote "I wonder how much other stuff we hear and read, assuming it is from a reliable source/person, is actually misinforming us." This afternoon I listened to the BBC’s hour long interview with Musk https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-65249139 (What a car-crash for the BBC, maybe the interviewer was the best available at short notice, but it needed a different type and more experienced journo. His attitude was all wrong too, poor fellow was completely out of his depth and Musk ate him for Brekkie.) At a certain point Musk argued that the average citizen knows more than many journos. He explained that when he sees an article he knows a lot about he finds the journos get a lot wrong. He said the best interpretation of this is that the journo has just a few facts to play with and has to come up with an article. He concluded by saying if all articles were written like that, then when the topic was something he knew little about he would not know he was being misinformed, and this made him wonder how accurate many article are.

In the case of the Carbon Brief “9 times cheaper” article, and given they won’t further update the article, there is clearly a deliberate intent to deceive and mislead. With Ms Zing Tsjeng and her “9 times cheaper” comment on QT a couple weeks ago I don’t know, maybe she was behaving as Musk explained.

(Incidentally, in the BBC’s 90 second summary of the interview, the part where Musk said the interviewer lied was, rather strangely, left out. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-65249138
My faith in the BBC’s objectivity is waning.)

A couple of relevant articles posted on the Harbour board:

https://www.cityam.com/banks-reduce-support-for-north-sea-oil-firms-as-windfall-tax-becomes-embedded/

https://order-order.com/2023/03/30/10-repeat-spending-pledges-funded-by-labours-fantasy-windfall/

Thanks, Mansardman. romaron, AIMOilking, please re-use as needed.

I wonder how much other stuff we hear and read, assuming it is from a reliable source/person, is actually misinforming us.

(Mansardman, I am from the UK but live elsewhere in Europe now so I don't have a UK MP to write to. I grew up near you, went to school in Chipping Campden and lived in a village between Evesham and Cheltenham.)

Just sent:
Dear Dr Evans,

Thank you for taking the time to reply to me.

I was not making a pitch or proposal for a new topic to cover, but rather an update to amend and correct a previous article. I am sure you know this.

You were able to update the article before, on 24/8/22, “with the latest power prices, which have risen significantly.” I suspect it suited your agenda to do that then.

One cannot be held responsible for what others do with one’s articles, but if one becomes aware an article is being misused and is misleading, whether unintentionally or as deliberate misinformation, then one has a professional duty to intervene and correct matters. Doing this is essential when the topic is such an important one as that covered, and considering the prominence of the organisations and people quoting in 2023 your “nine times cheaper” conclusion from August 2022.

In addition, the “nine tines cheaper” conclusion in your article came from a very narrow view of the relevant data record. Using this technique, amending the conclusion when the data supported a certain outcome, not making a further amendment when the data swung enormously in the other direction, is tantamount to contrived mal-information. Contrived mal-information is something no serious scientist or journalist of integrity would want, even remotely, to be associated with, and surely would take at least minimal appropriate steps to disassociate themselves from.

I look forward to reading “The article was updated with the latest power prices, which have fallen significantly”, but I appreciate, as you said, you have to make your own editorial decisions. Please could you again confirm you will not be issuing a further update to the article using current data, so allowing me to decide how to progress the matter elsewhere.

Kind regards,