Member Info for Dumbly

And the rest of the article:
"Our recent Business Outlook report found more than 90% of UK offshore oil and gas operators are cutting back investment in the North Sea because of the windfall tax and its associated challenges.
The total tax rate is now 75%, over three times that of other UK businesses and one of the highest in the world.
OEUK has repeatedly told the government that the new taxes risk driving investment out of the UK.
It suggests that when prices fall, as they likely will, and the windfalls disappear – so should the tax. That warning seems to be falling flat.
The same applies to offshore wind operators who face a similar windfall levy. Together these levies risk turning the North Sea, which should be the bedrock of the UK’s energy security, into a place that’s bad for business.
Our industry has shown what collaboration and long-term planning can achieve.
In 2021 we signed the North Sea Transition Deal, an agreement with
the UK Government to help industry transform for a net-zero future. We committed to that target.
In return, the government committed to support domestic energy, a stable fiscal regime for the sector, and encourage continued investment.
We want to see both partners upholding those commitments. [Indeed we do; Dumbly]
Our report shows that there is no simple choice between oil and gas on the one hand and renewables on the other. The reality is that to keep the lights on and grow our economy, we need both.
The report points out that last year’s energy imports cost the UK £117 billion – more than double the 2021 total of £54bn.
The more the UK relies on other countries for its energy, the greater the risk from global supply shocks.
There is every reason to believe the UK’s offshore sector will continue to be a bedrock of our economy and society for decades to come. But for that to happen, there must be recognition that support for wind, hydrogen and carbon capture and storage must go hand in hand with support for UK oil and gas production.
We’ve powered the UK’s homes and businesses and fuelled the economy for 50 years. Now we’re ready to power the future too. But that depends on fostering a fair, balanced,
and predictable fiscal landscape that stimulates growth instead of squandering it."

From Energy Voice today: https://www.energyvoice.com/promoted/496300/oil-and-gas-sector-still-has-vital-role-for-uk/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Energy%20Voice%20-%20Daily%20Newsletter%202023-04-14&utm_term=Energy%20Voice%20-%20Newsletter
An extract below:

"Picture this: It’s 2050, and the UK relies on other countries for all its oil and gas supplies.

Our associated emissions have skyrocketed because of our reliance on higher carbon imported energy and LNG.

Over 200,000 oil and gas jobs across Scotland and the UK have disintegrated, and the Treasury no longer benefits from the billions of pounds of tax paid by the offshore oil and gas sector.

The country has missed its net-zero targets, and extra emissions have been offshored.

We’ve also only scratched the surface of the country’s potential for renewables, carbon capture and hydrogen production.

That’s because investors picked up their portfolios and funnelled their capital into more attractive basins elsewhere in the world.

Now the UK must spend billions of pounds a year importing energy from those very same basins.

That picture might once have sounded far-fetched, but it could become reality if the UK loses the global race for energy investment.

The Office for Budget Responsibility has costed net zero at £1.4 trillion – 70% of which needs to come from the private sector. But the UK’s windfall taxes are driving those investors away.

The size of the prize is substantial. We can get to net zero without cutting corners–remaining responsible for our own production and emissions and making sure that our workforce has transitioned with us.

That would get us to net zero by 2050 – while also making the UK richer in resource and talent, and with more clean, secure, and affordable energy. But that pathway hangs in the balance."

A week of replies. I just received a reply from the BBC to my complaint sent on 28/3/23 (copied below for ease of reference). I consider the BBC's justification extremely weak. Next steps?

BBC's reply:
Thank you for getting in touch about this BBC News Online article:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-65093274.amp

We felt it was appropriate to refer to BP’s profits as this gives our audience the wider context for this story. While the report by Offshore Energies UK is focused on North Sea investment, the overall financial health of companies like BP is relevant to its decisions on future investments. This is something which is not limited to its UK operations.

We hope this is helpful and thanks again for your feedback. We’ve included your comments in our overnight reports, which are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC, ensuring that complaints are seen quickly by the right people.

Kind regards
BBC Scotland Complaints Team

My complaint of 28/3/23:
"As the report is about the UK, it is misleading to report BP recording record profits of $27.7bn (£23bn) in 2022 as said profits are on its WORLDWIDE ACTIVITIES. For the UK only BP’s UK activities are relevant because only profits from these activities can be taxed by the UK government. To avoid mal-informing, either just profits from BP’s UK hydrocarbon production activities should be stated or both UK and Worldwide profits could be shown but with an explanation that only UK profits are relevant for UK purposes.

I would appreciate your view on this."

romaron et al, surprisingly I just received a reply from Dr Simon Evans at Carbon Brief:
Hi xxxx
Thanks for your email and the information you shared. As you can imagine, we get lots of pitches and proposals for topics that we should or might like to cover. We do appreciate receiving ideas, but obviously have to make our own editorial decisions.
Best wishes”

Decent of him to reply, although I was not making a “pitch or proposal” on a topic to cover, but a request to amend an article which is being misused to misinform. And he will know this. Comes across as disingenuous. I’ll hold on replying to him for a day or two so all suggestions welcome on what i could say.

Appropriate weight has to be given to both energy security and climate security, and it needs to be appreciated that neither can be achieved in the absence of the other. As the transition to a net-zero world proceeds, it needs to be explained that the bigger danger to the climate will be insufficient attention to energy security. This is because if things don’t go smoothly (and as there are so many variables, hiccoughs are inevitable) and there is an energy deficit, then the fallback solution will be to call on good ole energy-dense fossil fuels. And if the UK does not have its own oil and gas production this would mean, on a net basis, importing even more. It would be better the UK continues the transition well by ensuring sufficient oil and gas is available in the most difficult period of the transition, the next… 15-20 years. Parallel, overlapping and diversified energy sources need to be available. And… if it turns out there is more oil and gas than needed because a renewables miracle of availability, distribution, and price occurs sooner than expected, then great, the market will take care of things and oil and gas production will drop. What absolutely needs to be avoided is to be caught short of renewable energy and not have the fossil fuel back-up, as this would be very dangerous and would push back the transition maybe by decades.

I repeat, I fail to see any real correlation between reducing oil and gas production from the UK and reducing the UK's consumption of oil and gas.

Thanks, BattleFIS.

The question becomes can explaining all this to the public have a net gain of sufficient votes in the right places to justify the politicians risking to do it? Sorry to be so cynical, but… And, only the Conservatives could do this. Is oil and gas just so toxic and the renewable energy religion so strong (and skewed) that explaining things as they are is just too risky? Then, how to explain it to the public in a way it would be understood? I think this could be done. The messaging would need to be simple and straightforward. The first message would need to be that to have any chance of achieving the energy transition targets we need, for a period, to produce more oil and gas. Although counterintuitive, this is not so hard to understand. The key is that by supporting more O&G production people need to know they are supporting the move to renewables at the same time as putting first the UK’s economic growth and security interests.

Labour’s policy towards O&G will make net zero/transition targets less unachievable, hinder economic growth, and make the country poorer and less secure. The Conservatives policy would do the opposite of all these things. (Imagine a Nord Stream II type explosion on the Langeled and/or Vesterled pipelines. Also, there will still be dependence on China for critical minerals and other clean energy components and technologies for many years to come, which creates vulnerabilities also to Chinese-induced shocks). It really does seem utter madness for the UK, given it can, not to enrich and protect itself by producing as much as possible of the oil and gas it needs.

Of course… such a policy and communication would have to be supported pronto (after the local elections?) by a modified fiscal regime to really encourage investment to create new O&G production in the UK. It would then be for the O&G companies to decide whether to increase investment based, in part, on whether the proposition put to the public was likely to be a big vote-winner or not at the next General Election. My guess is if all was communicated effectively, even if Labour won the next election they could modify their policy.

Who knows whether in Number 10/11 there are any similar thoughts of “turning the tables” on Labour on this subject. The Cons need something big and bold and it does not get bigger than a policy covering security, a smooth transition to renewables, and economic growth.

Starmer needs to define what an "oil and gas GIANT" is, explain what a "proper Windfall tax", especially when the conditions for a Windfall tax have gone, and how they would tax revenues from outside the UK. This really is misinforming. Or, is it just politics?
https://mobile.twitter.com/TwitDinosaur/status/1645678963832782850

Sir Keir “I stand by every word” (in regards to the current attacks on Sunak) Starmer is showing he’s not so nice (actually rather nasty) and is not against a dollop or two of misinformation if it supports his objective.

As we know, in mid January 23 Starmer told Davos delegates here that “renewables are CURRENTLY 9 times cheaper than oil and gas in the UK”. At that time the Natural gas price in the UK was 80% lower than in August 22 when Carbon Brief came up with the “9 times cheaper” calculation.

Having said that Johnson was also quick (maybe pushed by Carrie?) to jump on the 9Xs quote https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1663237/Energy-crisis-UK-Boris-Johnson-speech-today-wind-power-Vladimir-Putin-gas . At least this was in September 22 when gas prices were still high, but maybe this is also why the Conservatives are not keen to attack Labour over their use of the quote? To remember, Sunak initially resisted a Windfall Tax and the EPL was first brought in in good part to divert attention from Partygate and try to save Big Dog.

Back to Starmer, will this Pinocchioesque behaviour and Gutter-level politicking backfire on him? One hopes this style has gone the way of Johnson and the public is tired of it and now wants more sober and grown up debate.

The relevance to UK oil producers is that if Labour win the next election and follow through with their declared policy, then the O&G industry is doomed.

Thanks, comeonvog, dickupha, kind of you to say that.
I wonder, could it be a vote winner for The Conservatives to turn the tables on Labour and explain the folly of their policy towards O&G production in the UK? Such a move would need to be accompanied very soon by a change to the fiscal policy for O&G. on this later maybe.

I fail to see any real correlation between reducing oil and gas production from the UK and reducing the UK's consumption of oil and gas. Making this point is not in conflict with the desired transition to renewable energy production. It is simply a logical statement.

On a net basis, the UK imports around 33% of the oil it consumes, and 70% of these imports come from Norway. Nothing against the frequently environmentally-lauded country of Norway, but why is it deemed acceptable for the UK to import and consume oil and gas from Norway's North Sea but not acceptable to produce and consume oil and gas from the UK's North Sea? To be consistent, those campaigning to halt new fossil fuel licensing and production in the UK should also campaign to halt additional oil and gas imports. But, how to know about oil imports, and where and when to protest; in Southampton when more than 5 oil tankers offshore, when the pipelines from Norway bulge?

Framing the argument as above, and highlighting what the impact would be of both no new UK production and no additional imports (hello 1950s standard of living), should help people understand the economic folly of not producing in the UK, where economically viable, as much oil and gas as possible for its own consumption. The rest of the world; the US, Saudi, Norway, Qatar, Guyana, Brazil, Uganda etc., is sanctioning new oil and gas projects in a big way and will gladly sell the output to the UK. On top of this but, as a separate point to the economic point, is the "energy security" aspect.

The UK is in the fortunate position of having oil and gas reserves yet appears hell-bent on squandering this advantage which, ironically, will also disadvantage the UK in the energy transition. The government's fiscal policy towards oil and gas production, Labour's declared position, and the inconsistent and illogical action of activists, have all the hallmarks of another Great British act of self-harm. Our leaders are yet again pushing us in the direction which suits their populist political interests and it seems we, The People, do not learn how to recognise this.

Mansardman, thanks for pointing that out.
For those who have not read the article:
“One such episode was in the late 2000s and early 2010s when the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), the predecessor to the Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), dogmatically persisted with forecasts of future gas prices that were between three and four times the actual prices.

The error made by DECC at that time – and its refusal to change course – is the fundamental reason why we are paying such a high price for electricity today. Rather than underwrite the replacement of older gas-fired power plants, to improve fleet efficiency and reduce costs, they pretended that onshore and offshore wind would fill the gap. Further, they resisted making a commitment to long term contracts to buy liquefied natural gas (LNG), and exposed the U.K. to the more volatile short term markets. As a result, generators are paying much higher prices for gas and using it in power plants that operate at much lower levels of efficiency – and much higher levels of carbon dioxide emissions than is necessary. But for DECC’s errors in the 2010s we would not be facing such a severe crisis this winter and the longer term cost of operating the U.K.’s gas-fired generation fleet would be much cheaper than it is today.“

For full article see: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/29/the-fantasy-world-of-renewable-energy/?highlight=carbon%20brief

Agreed, Bacchusii. I fail to see any real correlation between reducing oil and gas production from the UK and reducing the UK's consumption of oil and gas. Making this point is not in conflict with the desired transition to renewable energy production. It is simply a logical statement.

On a net basis, the UK imports around 33% of the oil it consumes, and 70% of these imports come from Norway. Nothing against the frequently environmentally-lauded country of Norway, but why is it deemed acceptable for the UK to import and consume oil and gas from Norway's North Sea but not acceptable to produce and consume oil and gas from the UK's North Sea? To be consistent, those campaigning to halt new fossil fuel licensing and production in the UK should also campaign to halt additional oil and gas imports. But, how to know about oil imports, and where and when to protest; in Southampton when more than 5 oil tankers offshore, when the pipelines from Norway bulge?

Framing the argument as above, and highlighting what the impact would be of both no new UK production and no additional imports (hello 1950s standard of living), should help people understand the economic folly of not producing in the UK, where economically viable, as much oil and gas as possible for its own consumption. The rest of the world; the US, Saudi, Norway, Qatar, Guyana, Brazil, Uganda etc., is sanctioning new oil and gas projects in a big way and will gladly sell the output to the UK. On top of this, but as a separate point to the economic point, is the "energy security" aspect.

The UK is in the fortunate position of having oil and gas reserves yet appears hell-bent on squandering this advantage which, ironically, will also disadvantage the UK in the energy transition. The government's fiscal policy towards oil and gas production, Labour's declared position, and the inconsistent and illogical action of activists, have all the hallmarks of another Great British act of self-harm. Our leaders are yet again pushing us in the direction which suits their populist political interests and it seems we, The People, do not learn how to recognise this.

It is clear that Simon Evans, deputy editor at Carbon Brief (the renewable lobby group funded by the far-left European Climate Foundation) is a serial mis-informer:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/03/gas-power-is-cheaper-than-wind-despite-carbon-briefs-claims/
He and those jumping on his bandwagon of misinformation need to be exposed. But how and who will do this? Our politicians? :) :) :)

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/29/the-fantasy-world-of-renewable-energy/?highlight=carbon%20brief

Seems the Daily Sceptic was already on Carbon Brief's "9 times cheaper" case since August last year.
The whole article above is worth reading, but in the meantime see this extract "Carbon Brief’s approach is a classic case of bad analysis resulting from a narrow view of the data record. This matters because, prompted by the arguments presented by Carbon Brief, politicians and lobbyists for renewable energy would have us repeat all of the errors made by DECC, plus a few more into the bargain. Rather than cherry-picking odd weeks of data in the middle of a crisis we should consider what we can learn from the period up to the end of 2019."

romaron, I just sent this to Dr Simon Evans at Carbon Brief:
Dear Dr Evans,
Further to my email below of 28th March 2023, please could you inform me whether you intend to recalculate using current gas prices the comparison in your article: Analysis: Record-low price for UK offshore wind is nine times cheaper than gas - Carbon Brief, and publish an update to the article with an accompanying explanation?

I assume you did not get a reply either.

The government's fiscal policy towards oil and gas production, Labour's declared position, and the inconsistent and illogical action of activists, have all the hallmarks of another Great British act of self-harm. Why is it acceptable for the UK to import and consume oil and gas from Norway's North Sea but not acceptable to produce and consume oil and gas from the UK's North Sea? Our leaders are yet again pushing us in the direction which suits their interests. Seems we, The People, don't learn.

The rest of the world is more than happy to invest in new oil and gas projects and sell the output to the UK:
https://www.ekathimerini.com/nytimes/1208319/its-not-just-willow-oil-and-gas-projects-are-back-in-a-big-way/

Does reducing hydrocarbon production in the UKCS reduce the UK’s consumption of hydrocarbons?
I don’t see any real connection between these two things. (Reducing UK production will reduce related jobs, companies ability to invest in renewables, and tax income etc. Therefore, reducing production and increasing the need for imports, in turn, effectively increases the cost of hydrocarbons for the UK.)

Considering this, the lack of correlation between hydrocarbon production and consumption in the UK, those campaigning against new UK fields etc, to be consistent should also campaign against…additional hydrocarbon imports. Framing the argument like this, and highlighting the impact of both no new production and no additional imports, should help people understand the folly of not producing in the UK, where economically viable, as much hydrocarbons as possible for its own consumption.

Then, on top of this but a separate point, is the “energy security” aspect.

Ignore the bit about tax on private schools

Yes, Herman, because Labour continue to say this in yesterday’s Times:
“Top of Labour’s revenue-raiser list is a plan to increase the windfall tax on energy companies to 78 per cent and backdate it to January 2022, which the party says would raise £13 billion.“
Does Labour’s tax plan for private schools add up?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0a9ebb80-d542-11ed-9f4d-c5bd4b89feab?shareToken=430cef3be21486a4829a4bf645b0f71d
My understanding is backdating tax as they propose would be open to legal challenge, and even proposing it sets a worrying precedent. Why is this not being jumped on by the Cons? Because it involves the toxic subject of hydrocarbons?

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/North-Sea-Oil-Production-Could-Fall-By-80-By-2030.html