Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/08/evs-electric-cars-green-energy-transport-failure/
Nothing to do with management, simply with the fact this is a London listed stock. Compare FRES share price movement to that of Mexico-focused silver miners listed on Toronto/New York such as Endeavour Silver, First Majestic Silver, Avino Gold and Silver Mines....You see the same huge difference between London listed and New York listed oil companies by the way.
When oil jumped above $90 a barrel just days ago, military tensions between Israel and Iran were the immediate trigger. But the rally’s foundations went deeper — to global supply shocks that are intensifying fears of a commodity-driven inflation resurgence...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-07/are-oil-prices-heading-to-100-this-summer-as-a-global-shortage-takes-hold?srnd=homepage-europe
"Mass closures are not the result of eco-protests, nor because of a lack of demand.
Supply isn’t dwindling either. Over the last five decades oil and gas equivalent to 47 billion barrels of oil have been extracted, but seismic surveys suggest another 25 billion remain.
Instead, operators blame punitive taxes for the rapid pullback, with some facing levies of more than 100pc on their profits."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/04/07/death-of-north-sea-oil-disaster-for-britain/
Falling production has left us exposed to volatile energy prices and the whims of dictators .
Long article....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/04/07/death-of-north-sea-oil-disaster-for-britain/
Hi Romaron, the Thames Water story -interesting article about it in Telegraph- MUST make politicians from both sides aware it is never a good idea to be completely dependent from overseas instances, be it lenders or shareholders, when it is about critical infrastructure/resources. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/04/05/we-are-all-at-the-mercy-of-thames-waters-foreign-ownership/
Https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/04/04/electric-car-demand-slows-petrol-vehicles/
This will have a negative impact on the wider supply chain, and, in the absence of further Government support, potentially also the energy transition and the UK’s net zero ambitions as a result of both the impact on the service sector and workers.
In the upstream acquisition and disposals market, even before the recent announcements buyers and sellers were struggling to agree on valuations.
Valuations of oil and gas fields (and companies) depend on forward views of costs and income, and a key feature of recent transactions has been the presence of significant contingent consideration in deal structures – for example, the buyer paying a premium at a further point in time once profits have become clear, or potentially a payment made to the buyer if circumstances change.
For some transactions – particularly those with high anticipated capital commitments – the potential impact of the different tax scenarios is significant, in some cases turning an “asset” into a “liability”.
Buyers and sellers will, together with their advisors, require to find further imaginative solutions to these valuation difficulties, which is no easy task given the increasing number of variables to such valuations. As ever, creativity will therefore be critical.
https://www.energyvoice.com/promoted/550643/labours-epl-plans-to-have-negative-impact-on-the-wider-supply/
There has been significant attention paid over the past few months to oil and gas taxation in the UK, following Labour’s announcement regarding its intentions for oil and gas taxation, should it form the next UK government.
In summary, Labour has announced plans to: (a) extend the Energy Profits Levy (EPL) the ‘windfall tax’ introduced in 2022 on UK upstream oil and gas producers to 2029; (b) increase the rate from 35% to 38% (taking the headline tax rate to 78%, the same as Norway); and (c) remove what it sees as ‘loopholes’ in the application of EPL, to increase the tax take.
Since the Labour announcement, the current Conservative UK Government has announced an extension of the existing EPL regime by one year to March 2029, the second extension to the original EPL tax.
The ‘temporary windfall tax’ will thus be applying for at (at least) 7 years, long after the windfall price conditions arising from the outbreak of war in Ukraine have abated.
The additional tax rate was also previously increased from 25% to 35%, the cumulative effect of which has been the perception of significant fiscal instability in the UK and a resultant lack of investor confidence.
In March Harbour Energy, the UK’s biggest producer of oil and gas, announced its results for 2023.
As a result of EPL (and the manner in which it treats decommissioning costs) Harbour announced that it was subject to an effective tax rate of 95%. Anecdotally, we are aware that some UK production companies have an effective tax rate of over 100%.
Oil and gas projects often take several years to get from discovery, through to project sanction and then first oil.
To take Rosebank as an example, the field was first discovered in 2004, was approved for development late last year and first oil is expected in late 2026.
Oil and gas investments – whether developments of new fields, or acquisitions of existing assets or production companies – are ultimately valued based on the estimated post-tax cash flows.
The UK was once viewed as a stable and predictable jurisdiction for oil and gas investors.
However, investors are currently faced with uncertainties over the duration of EPL, the tax rate, the availability of investment allowances and the treatment of costs in the calculation of EPL (which will impact the effective tax rate).
Labour’s lead over the Conservatives in opinion polls is averaging around 19%. The perceived high likelihood that Labour will form the next government, and thus that Labour’s announced policies will become law, means that Labour’s proposals are already being ‘priced-in’ to North Sea investment decisions.
In this political environment, it is likely that new projects will be postponed or cancelled and previously announced investments will be reviewed.
Even green campaigners fear they are damaging the planet, consuming land that could be left to nature.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/03/solar-power-tracey-ward-planning-net-zero/
Https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/02/green-energy-net-zero-heat-pumps-national-grid/
Labour will keep beating the dead horse of the "proper windfall tax" no matter if Brent is trading @ $75 or $90/bl.....
Politicians got us by the balls. I fully agree with Romaron : it is not even about environment, it is about taking the money where you easily can take it without causing national anger.
Oil companies in "banana" states of Africa and Latin America are trading at higher valuation metrics than UK oil companies.
Ithaca -planning for growth- is even down over 4% and trading near all-time-lows with a strongly rising Brent price.
Reform UK has pledged to hold a referendum on net zero in a fresh challenge to Rishi Sunak.
Richard Tice, the leader of Reform, said his insurgent party will support a Brexit-style national poll on the 2050 climate target, which he has argued is damaging the economy and voters’ lives.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/01/reform-net-zero-referendum-richard-tice-tories-policies/
Energy Security Secretary Claire Coutinho is quite right: Labour’s promise to decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030 is “dangerous”. It threatens to plunge UK households and businesses into the dark while boosting the Chinese companies on which we will be mainly reliant for supplying all the cables, batteries and other kit we will need to get anywhere close to achieving the target.
But why does she think it will be much different to the Government’s own policy of decarbonising the gird by 2035? Coutinho seems to be asserting that between the years 2030 and 2035 will magically spring up a UK-based steel, copper and battery industry which will somehow undercut the Chinese. Dream on.
The Chinese have already built an insurmountable competitive advantage in building batteries. They have bought up a lot of the mines in Africa and elsewhere which supply the rare metals required to manufacture them. They, along with India, have expanded their steel industries where we have run ours down. Where’s all that steel going to come from, now that the Tory Government has handed the owners of Port Talbot a bung to close down both their blast furnaces and build in their place – eventually – an electric arc furnace which will only be able to do half the job of making the metal?
As for the assertion that the Government’s policy of decarbonising the grid by 2035 will, unlike Labour’s policy, keep the lights on, I wouldn’t count on it if I were you. True, it gives us an extra five years to build the hydrogen plants or other forms of mass electricity storage which would be necessary to support a grid which is fed mainly by intermittent wind and solar.
But given that hydrogen electrolysis plants don’t yet exist at commercial scale, and that battery storage is still horrendously expensive, it doesn’t bode well for the cliff edge the Government has created for itself in 2035. The same is true of the carbon capture and storage plants which the Government has touted as an alternative means of decarbonising the grid – the plan being to fit it to gas power stations. That technology doesn’t yet exist at scale in Britain, either. As with energy storage, it promises to add huge costs and lower efficiency even if it can be rushed through by 2035.
Maybe our Energy Security Secretary has calculated that the Government’s plans don’t really matter because the Conservatives are highly unlikely to win the election anyway. Decarbonising the grid will become Labour’s millstone, so why shouldn’t the Tories spin the conceit that their slightly more relaxed decarbonisation policy would have succeeded where Labour’s is destined to fail?
I’ll tell you why not: because voters are not stupid, and they can work out that what is totally unachievable by 2030 is not much more achievable by 2035. They can see that all these net zero targets are going to push up bills and threaten Britain’s Britain’s energy security.
The Energy Secretary has warned Labour is moving too quickly. But Tory plans are hardly much better.
Labour and the Conservatives are both doomed if they think they can magic an entirely decarbonised grid into existence over the next few years without imposing huge cost penalties on homes and businesses.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/01/net-zero-threatens-our-national-security/
A Canadian example...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/31/liberal-allies-turn-on-justin-trudeau-over-net-zero-tax/
We don't need to worry if UKCS-oil goes the way of the dodo. They will supply us as much as we want.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-31/american-oil-is-muscling-into-opec-markets-all-over-the-world?srnd=homepage-europe
Evidence continues to mount that British politicians have rushed into an immensely significant policy agenda with little detailed idea of its practical implications. Whilst Rishi Sunak has, during his premiership, taken welcome steps towards loosening some restrictive energy targets by, for instance, delaying the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars, Labour politicians appear too willing to meet the scale of the decarbonisation challenge by plucking yet more deadlines from thin air with scant prospect of success. Politicians of all stripes will need to be much more honest about the ramifications of their policies – not least the gift they may hand to Xi Jinping’s China.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2024/03/30/a-net-zero-threat-we-can-no-longer-ignore/
Critics of net zero have long worried that the project will have consequences beyond the financial. That while decarbonisation might be a worthy ambition, moving too quickly towards a zero-emissions future would undermine our security and supply.
In a Sunday Telegraph interview today the Energy Security Secretary has drawn attention to the nature of this threat, warning that Labour’s plan to bring forward decarbonisation of the power network to 2030 will leave Britain at China’s mercy. It would be complacent, however, to believe that this is not already a serious risk under the current framework.
China has funnelled vast sums into manufacturing the cheap electric vehicles which politicians consider central to lowering emissions from road transport. It is already the world’s largest producer of copper – a vital substance not just in EVs but the wires that carry electricity and solar panels.
Despite its dominance in green technologies, however, Beijing remains the world’s largest polluter. While the UK is responsible for less than 1 per cent of emissions, China is belching out more carbon than the US and EU combined. Voters would be forgiven for questioning the logic of meeting net zero targets by compromising our self-sufficiency in order to consolidate Beijing’s supremacy.
It is feared that these products may also contain a digital Trojan horse. A single compromised device somewhere in the wider network could be used for cyber attacks. Moreover, the risks of relying on an autocracy for energy were laid bare in 2022, when our security was threatened by Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. One study indicated it had cost UK energy suppliers an additional £1,000 per adult while the Government also spent £23 billion subsidising bills. Would our attitude towards Beijing’s aggression, for instance in the South China Sea, be inhibited in the future were we heavily reliant on them to power our “green” economy? How might it shape our response to China’s growing “soft power”, or instances of state-sponsored cyber espionage such as those uncovered this week? Even setting aside geopolitics it would be unwise for Britain to become dependent on a monopoly supplier, particularly one which is being subsidised in order to gain market dominance. What will happen, sooner or later, is that prices will go up.