Stephan Bernstein, CEO of GreenRoc, details the PFS results for the new graphite processing plant. Watch the video here.
Exploration,
Your argument might have some weight were it not for the fact that there is no symmetry of treatment!
You are suggesting that when the oil and gas contractors have extraordinary luck, they should pay windfall taxes to the owners of the commodity! I see no reason whatsoever why that should be the case, but let us run with that insanity. The problem is that when they have extraordinary bad luck, like a pandemic cutting demand, or incidents like Deep Water Horizon or international sanctions meaning that a company like BP cannot take dividends and is forced to write off 100% of its Russian investments, I do not see the commodity owners rushing in to help out, seeing it as normal business risk. How convenient that the commodity owners can only benefit from upsides but does not share in any downsides!
There is therefore no moral case or business case from a windfall tax.
Exploration,
Your argument might have some weight were it not for the fact that there is no symmetry of treatment!
You are suggesting that when the oil and gas contractors have extraordinary luck, they should pay windfall taxes to the owners of the commodity! I see no reason whatsoever why that should be the case, but let us run with that insanity. The problem is that when they have extraordinary bad luck, like a pandemic cutting demand, or incidents like Deep Water Horizon or international sanctions meaning that a company like BP cannot
Moniman,
The trouble is that it would likely not be a "one-off" as it would set a terrible precedent for the future.
Should the Conservative Government impose such a tax, it would stand accused of abandoning any free market principles that it may still have left.
Gary59,
I really cannot see a Conservative Government imposing a windfall tax, so long as the individual oil companies keep investing in projects to secure energy supplies for the UK and makes moves towards greening energy production for the future.
"Now Rishi warms to energy windfall tax plan".
Getting Civil Servants to look at the numbers for a possible windfall tax dies NOT make it inevitable! It could well be a ruse to be able to come up with a detailed response the next time opposition politicians start piping up in the subject.
The PM has said no already.
meoryou,
Yes, it makes little sense to pay off all debts if fixed at very low levels.
I need to look at the balance sheet, but I suspect that BP could easily keep making repayments for at least a couple of years. The good news is that as debts are paid off , interest payable falls, taking the strain off the cashflow and helping to boost profits.
If the only people calling for it are opposition party members, then I am not worried. The next General Election is way off.
meoryou,
Why invest more? To use spare cash flows to invest in future streams of income! If BP does not invest when it has plenty of excess cash, then when will it?
Yes, BP already pays an enhanced level of Corporation Tax, so there is no need for a windfall tax being imposed and definitely no need to make voluntary excess payments to the UK Treasury/HMRC.
meoryou,
BP can reduce debts for years yet, it has that much.
It can continue share buybacks, even increasing them.
But, even without any of the above, BP could increase capital expenditure in new projects e.g. wind farms on land and in the Irish Sea or North Sea, hydrogen production, greater numbers of electric charging points for cars, or dare I say, even new oil fields since BP has lost loads of Rosneft reserves.
There is always need for capital funds for investment, even before thinking about increases in dividends, which will come...I hope!
As for a windfall tax, under a Johnson Government, it will not happen. Why should BP set a terrible precedent by making a voluntary donation to the state? Madness! People would say that if BP can offer to volunteer it, then it is not being taxed highly enough!
Meoryou,
Typically, a recession is defined as two contiguous quarters of decline in GDP. Whilst, at a push, I can foresee one bad quarter, I see nothing in the near future that it would hit two consecutive quarters. Clearly, another round of lockdowns could do that, so hoping that does not pass.
The Governor of the Bank of England was at pains in a press conference to say he thought that a recession was coming, but that it would not meet that technical definition of one! Go figure!
Good try, but no.
"If" being the operative word. Even before today's announcement of £18bn to be spent just in the UK alone, nowhere was it suggested by Sunak or any other member of the UK Government that BP was not investing "enough in the UK's energy supply".
Mr. SMITH,
Sorry, but ENTIRELY wrong!
Where or when has the UK Government said that it was definitely going to impose a windfall tax? Nowhere.
On the other hand, Sir Keir Starmer can be heard on FiveLive banging on about a one-off wimdfall tax to help the more needy up to £600 each. The last time that I looked, the Labour Party was not part of the present Government of the UK.
As I type this, Brent crude is down about $4.50 per barrel and yet BP, thank goodness, is up almost 2%, with Shell by even more!
How is this disconnect possible given that BP still relies on crude oil for much of its revenues and profits?
Invstrat,
Not sure why you think that the Ukraine war will be over soon? The Russians, short of a coup, cannot be seen to walk away. Zelensky, today, said that he hates the Russians, so why would he stop? So long as the West keeps supplying the Ukraine with arms, the war will go on.
EmeraldCarrots,
Why would the Russians destroy the pipework that has earned them around £38bn from the rest of Europe since the war began? If the Ukrainians have not blown it up, then why should the Russians?
Mind you, if the West were to stop arms supplies to the Ukraine government, then it could yet happen that the Ukrainians will stop the flow as they will have nothing to lose.
I was not, unlike you, trying to be insulting. If it came across as such, I apologise.
That you felt you had to answer with an ad hominem attack says a lot about you, alas.
Thanks for the link which answers my question perfectly; I just wish you had done so without the needless personal attack.