Member Info for Modestus1

Juergen Maier joins voices calling for more domestic production after Iran shock

https://www.ft.com/content/32be1246-687a-446d-93d2-8a867a4372da

The chair of Britain’s state-owned clean energy company has come out in favour of producing more North Sea oil and gas, adding to pressure on the energy secretary Ed Miliband over his policy of banning new exploration licences.

Juergen Maier, chair of Great British Energy, said that, although more domestic production would not bring down energy costs, it would boost jobs and tax revenues. It could also entail lower carbon emissions than imported fossil fuels, he said.

His remarks on LinkedIn come as Miliband faces pressure to shift course in response to the Middle Eastern energy shock.

The Conservatives are using an opposition day debate on Tuesday to try to force a vote on ending Labour’s ban on new drilling licences in the North Sea and approving two major oil and gasfields — Rosebank and Jackdaw.

Greg Jackson, chief executive of the UK’s largest household energy supplier, Octopus Energy, has also backed increased North Sea production, saying that liquefied natural gas shipped from around the world was a “lot dirtier” than locally produced gas.

Tara Singh, the recently appointed chief executive of renewable energy industry lobby group RenewableUK, wrote in an editorial for the Daily Telegraph last week that Britain should produce more energy “of every kind” and it was time “to take energy out of the culture wars”.

The Labour government said last year it would allow developers to drill “tiebacks” to existing fields, but has yet to introduce legislation to do so.

Miliband gave a speech on Monday night to the Parliamentary Labour Party at its weekly meeting where he defended the government’s existing policy.

“Anyone who tells you that new licences in the North Sea will make any difference to price is not telling you the truth,” the energy secretary said, pointing out that oil and gas are both traded on international markets.

But Miliband was challenged by one backbench MP, Henry Tufnell, who has claimed that allowing more North Sea drilling will be a “boon for tax revenue” and boost Britain’s manufacturing sector.

Writing last week in Linkedin, GB Energy’s Maier set out what he said were the arguments in favour of more North Sea production, including slowing down job losses and supporting tax revenues.

“I am a supporter of this being an all energy and managed energy transition, with the end game being mostly renewable energy generation,” he said.

He added: “I am fully supportive [of more domestic production], as long as the end game is clear — clean power, leading to mass electrification . . . I, however, reject the argument that more oil and gas from the [N]orth [S]ea brings down energy costs. It doesn’t; indeed, energy costs are rising at this very moment because of fossil fuels.”

.......................

(continued)

to extend their lives and reduce import dependence.

Third, secure long-term gas supply through fixed-price agreements with key exporters such as Norway, the US and Qatar. At present, the UK relies heavily on floating price contracts, leaving consumers fully exposed to price volatility. A sensible risk management strategy would lock in a portion of supply over the next 15-20 years, reducing exposure to future shocks.

Fourth, cut fuel duty. More than half the pump price of petrol is tax with the fuel duty itself being subject to VAT. Reducing this burden would have an immediate impact on the cost of living and provide a direct boost to the economy.

Finally, we must reform the way we pay for the energy transition. We should abolish expensive legacy subsidy schemes such as the “Renewables Obligation”, which requires suppliers to source a growing proportion of electricity from renewable sources.

The Government must also halt new subsidy commitments under the Contracts for Difference – under which officials agree to buy electricity for a fixed price – at least until costs are brought under control. And, crucially, they have to move existing policy costs off electricity bills and into general taxation. If electrification is the goal, electricity must not remain artificially expensive.

The UK needs cheap, reliable energy, and it needs it now, not at some distant point in the future. Miliband’s refusal to confront the reality of continued oil and gas dependence, combined with the absence of a credible transition plan, poses a serious risk to both energy security and economic performance.

Labour has made so many U-turns since the general election, so sticking to this particular set of policies looks perverse and is very clearly not in the country’s best interests. As backbench Labour MP Henry Tufnell wrote this week: “The Labour Party is the party of industry and the unions…Now is the time to act like it.” I agree.

Even net zero’s champions are realising we can’t do without oil and gas

War with Iran is making the Government’s goal of ‘clean power’ by 2030 look increasingly ridiculous

As the war in Iran enters its fourth week, even die-hard net zero champions are beginning to rethink the UK’s approach to its North Sea resources. Everyone, it seems – amongst them trade unionists, environmentalists and even Labour’s own backbenchers – is urging a more pragmatic approach. Everyone, that is, apart from Energy Secretary Ed Miliband.

He insists that, despite events, including an actual war bringing fresh turbulence to global energy markets, Labour’s pledge not to expand domestic oil and gas production must be upheld. Instead, Miliband argues that the crisis underlines the need to “get off gas”.

Let us examine that strategy. The Government is targeting “clean power” by 2030, meaning unabated gas generation would run only around five per cent of the time. At the same time, it wants to electrify heating, transport and industry, increasing electricity’s share of total energy demand from under 20 per cent today to something much higher, although no specific target has been set. The delivery plan is strikingly thin.

The headline policy is to install 600,000 heat pumps per year. At that rate, it would take roughly 47 years to electrify domestic heating, and we’re not even close to achieving that pace today. In transport, there is no comprehensive electrification strategy, merely a ban on new petrol and diesel cars from 2030. For industry, there is no meaningful timeline at all. In other words, we have an ambition to electrify the economy, but no credible plan to achieve it.

Even if the 2030 clean power target were met – which few in the industry believe is realistic – electricity would still account for only around a fifth of total UK energy consumption. The vast majority of our energy needs would continue to be met by oil and gas. Yet astonishingly, the Government has no serious strategy to secure those supplies during the transition. The implicit assumption appears to be that nothing will go wrong. That’s not a strategy, it’s wishful thinking.

So what should the Government do instead? First, scrap the windfall tax on UK oil and gas production and lift the ban on new drilling. We should then go further by introducing targeted tax incentives to accelerate new developments, alongside regulatory reform. Regulators should be tasked with maximising production while focusing enforcement on genuine environmental harm, rather than box-ticking exercises that delay investment.

Second, abandon the current carbon taxation regime, which is driving up electricity prices and undermining domestic industry. The UK’s four remaining refineries are particularly exposed, as imported refined products are not subject to equivalent costs. If we are serious about energy security, these facilities should be supported through tax incentives and targeted investment

Ed Miliband’s North Sea crackdown will leave Britain three times more reliant on foreign gas than it is today, a new report warns.

The share of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in national supplies is expected to jump from 14pc today to 46pc by 2035 as domestic oil production suffers from the Energy Secretary’s policies, according to Offshore Energy UK (OEUK).

This would leave the UK more dependent on countries such as the US, Qatar, Norway and Australia, which produce significant quantities of LNG.

OEUK, which represents oil and gas companies, blamed the sharp drop on the windfall tax and ban on new drilling licences imposed by Labour, which are expected to crush domestic production.

It said “policy, not geology” was hampering investment and damaging the UK’s ability to produce energy as it urged the Government to change course.

The trade body said LNG’s share of national supply could be cut to just 6pc if more North Sea licences were granted and the windfall tax was reformed.

Today, Britain produces roughly 43pc of its own gas with another 43pc coming from Norway via pipeline.

The intervention comes as Mr Miliband rejects calls to change course despite the crisis in the Middle East, which has reignited a debate about Britain’s exposure to foreign oil and gas imports.

He is under growing pressure from political opponents and top energy executives, including the bosses of household supplier Octopus Energy and trade body RenewableUK, to boost domestic production.

..........................

The OEUK report says LNG provided around 14pc of Britain’s gas supply last year, much of which was exported for onward consumption in Europe.

However, that figure is expected to rise to around 25pc by 2030 and then 46pc by 2035 as the North Sea’s resources are depleted and Labour’s policies accelerate a flight of investment from the basin.

The report argues this level of decline is “not inevitable” and there are 111 projects worth £25bn that could be developed under more favourable conditions, potentially unlocking around 230 billion cubic metres of extra gas.

In that scenario, the UK could cut its reliance on LNG to just 4pc of supplies in 2030 and 6pc in 2035, it says.

David Whitehouse, OEUK’s chief executive, said this would require a “stable, competitive and predictable fiscal and regulatory policy framework”.

He added: “Every barrel and every cubic metre produced here supports the economy, pays taxes, sustains jobs and supply chains and reduces reliance on imports that carry higher emissions and are vulnerable to global disruption.”

.............................

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/03/24/north-sea-shutdown-leaves-uk-more-reliant-on-foreign-gas/

(continued)

This is net zero irrationality in a nutshell. Fewer jobs in Britain for more carbon in the atmosphere – and yet to the religiously fervent, they will argue that this is Britain’s example of climate success.

This is fantasy thinking we cannot afford. We must fast-track Rosebank and Jackdaw and lift the onerous bans and taxes on the North Sea to back Britain’s energy security. Kemi Badenoch knows it and Keir Starmer knows it. Unfortunately, so far, only one of them has had the courage to say so.

Ed Miliband has a cult-like conviction in his own climate ideology. He is incapable of admitting that he is wrong – even with mountains of evidence stacking up against him. As the world gets more dangerous, his anti-North Sea fanaticism is making Britain weaker and poorer. Unfortunately, as more and more people sound the alarm, Miliband only becomes more convinced by his own righteousness.

On Tuesday, the Conservatives will force a vote in Parliament calling for the emergency approval of the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields in the North Sea – two fields that could be up and running by the end of the year. Turning our backs on domestic gas that could heat millions of homes would be madness in normal times, but it is sheer lunacy in the midst of a gas supply crisis.

Doing so at a time when the Exchequer cannot afford to lose the £25bn in extra tax revenue the North Sea could generate is worse still. Doing so in the name of climate change when our own gas has four times fewer emissions than the liquefied natural gas (LNG) we’ll need to import instead? Unforgivable.

In government, I legislated to protect North Sea oil and gas licences and I approved Rosebank, even though I was told it would have put my own personal security at risk from climate extremists. It was controversial at the time, but to say times have changed would be an understatement.

From the wind lobbyists at RenewableUK to the chair of Great British Energy (Miliband’s “clean energy” propaganda outfit), the head honchos of the green lobby say we should drill. The great and good of the Labour Left, from the Tony Blair Institute to the unions and Ed Balls, say so, too.

The relative geopolitical stability we have had for most of my adult life is not something we can bank on in the years ahead. We need to pass on a country to the next generation that is strong and prosperous, that means making economic decisions based on rationality, not ideology.

The North Sea is a blessing for our economy. When gilt markets are charging you a premium because they think we’re borrowing too much and earning too little, it is incumbent on the Exchequer to make the most of all growth opportunities we have.

It is a blessing for our energy security, with the gas making up half of our domestic supply. But it is also a blessing for our environment, as the North Sea is much cleaner than importing LNG from abroad. However, for Miliband to admit this would expose the intellectual fraud at the heart of our net zero climate policy.

Miliband’s agenda rests on the absurdity that carbon emissions only matter if they happen domestically. It incentivises the replacement of British industry with dirtier imports from abroad. The fact that North Sea gas displaces dirtier LNG doesn’t matter to our climate bean counters because foreign LNG imports aren’t counted in our domestic emissions targets.

North Sea could deliver billions of cubic metres of gas to secure our future

OEUK urges government to ‘see the world as it is’ and avoid both an energy price and supply crisis.

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/594415/north-sea-could-deliver-billions-of-cubic-metres-of-gas-to-secure-our-future/

..........................

UK operators have already identified real, near‑term projects that could add 112 bcm (bullion cubic metres) of domestic gas by 2035 with the right investment climate – enough to reduce LNG dependence from nearly half of supply to as little as 6%.

............................

The UK now has a choice about the kind of energy system it wants for the next decade. One path leads to deeper import dependence, higher global emissions and greater vulnerability to geopolitical shocks. The other backs the capabilities we already have: world‑class people and infrastructure, and one of the most advanced offshore sectors anywhere in the world.

Https://archive.md/R4qan

(continued)

However, it’s the investment bank’s adverse and “severely adverse” scenarios about which we should really worry.

In both Goldman scenarios, oil flows through the Hormuz remain at only 5 per cent of their normal levels for 10 weeks. In the very bad one, there is also a persistent loss of 2mn barrels of oils a day from the Middle East from damage to energy infrastructure.

However, in either case, Goldman Sachs reckons that the price of a barrel of Brent is likely to spike above the $147 record set in 2008. Which is starting to feel increasingly probable.

On Sunday, the investment bank’s oil analysts jacked up their forecast for Brent oil in April from $85 (lol) to $115, and say the peak in early April is likely to be even higher. They also lifted their forecasts for the year as a whole, as well as for 2027.

The main reasons are that Goldman now expects a much longer and more severe disruption to oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz, and that a subsequent rebuild of strategic reserves in many developed countries will bake a “security premium” into longer-term oil prices.

Here’s what Goldman’s co-head of commodities research and chief oil analyst Daan Struyven and his colleagues wrote on Sunday:

Price upgrade. We upgrade our price forecast for two reasons. First, we now assume that Hormuz flows remain at only 5% of normal levels for a longer 6-week period before a gradual 1-month recovery. Second, a recognition of the risks from the high concentration of production and spare capacity is likely to lead to structurally higher strategic stockpiling and long-dated prices.

Prices drift higher during disruption with risk premium. Due to uncertainty around the duration of the shock and assuming that Hormuz flows remain at 5% through April 10, prices are likely to trend higher over that period until the market gains confidence that a lengthy disruption is unlikely and converges to our “after the shock” model. In the short-run, the market is likely to require a growing risk premium to generate precautionary demand destruction to hedge against shortages in longer disruptions risk scenarios. We now expect Brent to average $110 in March-April (vs. $98 prior) — up 62% from the 2025 annual average.

However, it’s the investment bank’s adverse and “severely adverse” scenarios about which we should really worry.

In both Goldman scenarios, oil flows through the Hormuz remain at only 5 per cent of their normal levels for 10 weeks. In the very bad one, there is also a persistent loss of 2mn barrels of oils a day from the Middle East from damage to energy infrastructure.

However, in either case, Goldman Sachs reckons that the price of a barrel of Brent is likely to spike above the $147 record set in 2008. Which is starting to feel increasingly probable.

High prices for longer. We now expect 2026 averages for Brent of $85 (vs. $77 prior) and $79 for WTI (vs. $72). We upgrade Brent/WTI 2026Q4 to $80/75 (vs. $71/67 prior) with roughly equal contributions from a larger hit to commercial oil inventories and from higher long-dated prices as the market risk-adjusts effective spare capacity. This larger hit to global commercial oil stocks (~510mb) takes into account a longer disruption, strategic inventory rebuilding from 2026Q4, and the response of policy, demand, and supply. We forecast Brent/WTI 2027 averages of $80/75.

Wait till Trump halts exports

War and the US president’s need to win back voters expose the folly of Westminster’s reluctance to support domestic energy

https://archive.md/pGnDe

Hey Dumbly, in Profitaker's second post 9:29 you could have read : "— Impact on cash flow forecasts and sum-of-parts valuation: Inputting our updated near-term oil price assumptions increases EBITDA by 14% in FY26E and 13% in FY27E. Core NAV rises to 32.3p and total NAV to 41.3p, increasing our target price by 24% to 41p (implying 100% upside from current levels). Buy Ticker ENQ:MAIN"

So target price of 41 p was indicated indeed.

@Krak : Profitaker posted that 20th of March @ 09.29

Miliband is wrong: reopening the North Sea would lower bills

An important takeaway from 2022 is that we should maximise our domestic resources

"The Government says its top priority is addressing the cost of living, yet it refuses to compromise on its net zero policies. It can’t have it both ways."

https://archive.md/uD7gR

Iran war leaves Energy Secretary increasingly isolated on his ‘holy’ crusade against oil and gas

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/03/22/milibands-north-sea-crackdown-seems-more-senseless/

Without paywall : https://archive.md/eJcLn

Without paywall : https://archive.md/g5IYA

"Drilling the North Sea is the answer to the energy crisis"

The Conservatives would scrap green taxes that are rapidly deindustrialising Britain

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/21/drilling-north-sea-answer-energy-crisis/

The North Sea can save Britain from oil shocks – if Miliband would just let it

A country which is energy self-sufficient is effectively insulated against crippling price rises caused by international crises

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/21/iran-war-north-sea-drilling-restart-save-the-uk/

Without paywall : https://archive.md/abdgP

This is the interview i just mentioned, Minute 6 Seconds 45 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54Jt9NdGz1o

In the interview with Jeff Currie i posted yesterday or 2 days ago, Jeff said the big institutional investors were/are still mostly short energy and energy stocks, long stock market, picking up pennies in front of a steamroller....That's why the majors Suncor, Chevron, Exxon have done so much more incredibly better than E&P's....