Member Info for romaron

I've been googling OEUK to find out a bit more about them. I've a feeling that they have more than one source of revenue though I imagine membership fees are the biggest element and their biggest expenses are salaries and lobbying costs. They spent £15m a year on lobbying for 3 years around 2015 source: https://www.desmog.com/offshore-energies-uk/
Figures from the same report say the year ending 2019 they received a total income of £13,124,017 and had 418 members.
I had a quick count on their webpage and got:
55 Operators from Waldorf to BP
340 contractors from Bumi Armada Uk to Baker Hughes and Petrofac
31 Associates from University of Aberdeen to HSE
So membership is pretty static.

I have seen very little from them and these are quite serious numbers. I wrote to them on 12 Feb and got a short reply from Michael Tholen "Many thanks for your letter of 12 February. We will consider the points you raise and reflect on them." I accept that they have to treat random retail investors at arms length and I didn't expect any more. However, I raised points such as advance warning of the "slow marches" by protestors and the blatant lies at Davos and other popular platforms like BBC QT and have yet to see the 9 X quote rebuffed from any source. What are they afraid of?

Just what do they do with their members money?

I couldn't afford to be a member. Is there another organisation that represents the industry? I would check their history and any bias towards the Majors as they are the only companies that have come out of the EPL debacle almost untouched. The government can't touch their trading profits so slap on them an ASBO for making "obscene profits" elsewhere. The public believe that the industry is a money tree growing from a bed of windfall profits. Nobody corrects the narrative.

On the map. The Lib Dem areas are also where juststopoil are strongest and have the most members. They then tend to congregate and protest in London.
The closer to a General Election the more pressure on costings. There is now no excuse for EnQuest and other smaller oil companies to sit on the fence. BP and Shell have a different agenda and a minimal interest in the North Sea. Until now the majors could rely on the minnows to fight over and take on end-of-life fields. That doesn't appear to be an option now. Capital for a new project with the damage done to RBL through the EPL means that old fields have a values somewhere between a negative and zero. I say negative because of decommissioning liabilities.
Who in their right mind would expand into the North Sea if an intransigent government and and even more hostile opposition waiting in the wings - neither offer ANY succour?

Sorry to go on about this but the more I think about it the angrier I get. BP and Shell made a bucket load out of the oil & gas spike worldwide. The Tory government pressured by events and baying activist protests backed by Labour had to act. They could have tried to place a windfall tax on trading. These profits don't really have a jurisdiction or claims from other countries where they produce so they could have placed the windfall on them as UK companies. There would definitely have been pushback on this but BP and Shell thought a punitive tax on a small percentage of their production was bearable offset against the huge trading profits which seem more regular anyway and escape the climate change protestors and was the way to go. They stood by and watched the smaller companies that have enabled them to escape their legacy towards the North Sea. We among others were trapped. We've effectively been fined for getting caught in a yellow box junction that we couldn't possibly avoid. We can expect no help from the "oil giants".

Convince a dog to release a bone. Scavenger chancellors have the same attitude regarding taxes.

To some extent the Norwegians have nationalised their O&G industry with the large shareholding in Equinor
being 67% Norwegian Govt and 3.3% Folketrygdfondet. A pie chart shows 67% Norwegian state and 8% Norwegian private owners. There is even a 5% of UK shareholders who I assume are keeping their heads down.
They don't indulge in the nonsense we're going through.
BP and Shell are too big and powerful to be intimidated by the UK Government and the EPL really is a pinprick to them. Harbour only went halfway by focusing away from the North Sea. Judging by the French influence in the energy traders I wouldn't be surprised if they'd welcome Harbour with open arms; Ireland the same. If it's an EU thing then Switzerland or Norway look attractive. If you're not producing much from the North Sea you must surely question being domiciled in a nation hostile towards the industry?
I think that a pragmatic Scotland would also be a safer haven and whose to say that Independence isn't around the corner?

I think it wrong to give a free pass to Labour and Hunt because the so called "obscene profits" were fleeting and made a change from earlier years of losses. We have been selected as a convenient scapegoat to expediency. The amount of extra tax extracted is tiny compared to the ravages of Covid. We are presently left with the situation that old fields do not interest BP or Shell and it may be more expedient to plug and abandon. All that has happened is they've speeded up the transition; the transition towards 100% importers of fossil fuels. We must be the laughing stock of Europe.

If there was a protest group that supported an orderly transition towards Net Zero that included fossil fuels I'd join it in a heartbeat.

Vitol –Swiss Revenue $505bn
Trafigura - Singapore/French Revenue $231bn
Mercuria – Cypriot domiciled/French Revenue $174bn
Gunvor - Cypriot domiciled/French Revenue $135bn
Profits for these 4 in 2022 totaled c.$34bn.

Earnings from commodity trading 2022 before interest, tax, depreciation,and amortisation
Shell $16.6bn
BP 8.4bn
If you throw in Total $11.5bn these 3 energy majors made more than the 4 top commodity traders
source: today’s FT.

The impotence of the Tory party and the spitefulness of the Labour party attribute these “obscene profits” to the O&G giants and attack in the only area they have any influence or control and that is the North Sea and the windfall tax. Talk about “cut off your nose to spite your face”. Those that will suffer are the British public as the energy transition implodes and they have to pay the true price of renewables and emergency imports of fossil fuels.
It makes good headlines if your audience is climate activists and useful idiots (example juststopoil). I have no idea why there is no concerted pushback against the selective misinformation and crackpot economics put forward by the Labour party. None whatsoever. I’m no genius and I can see the blatant hypocrisy which they seem to have no intention of reining in.

The UK received an EPL contribution for 2022 from BP of $1bn and Shell of just $134mio

"That renewable energy isn’t green is a consequence of an unavoidable feature of wind and solar resources; they have very low energy density. That means, compared to using hydrocarbons, one must build machines that occupy roughly ten-times more of the earth’s surface to deliver the same amount of energy to society—whether it’s an hour of heat, or light, or computing time, or a mile of driving. Essentially all life occupies the thin, surface interface of our planet, whether it’s land or water. One of humanity’s greatest achievements has been the radical reduction in the amount of that interface we use to deliver increasing quantities of food and fuel. The inherent low-energy-density of renewables also means that far more machinery must be fabricated to deliver the same energy as now supplied by hydrocarbon machines."

Source: https://manhattan.institute/article/testimony-before-subcommittee-on-environment-manufacturing-and-critical-materials-u-s-house-committee-on-energy-and-commerce

You can download the PDF safe in the knowledge that nobody from the shadow cabinet will read it.

It is for a US audience who live on a very large continent. We live on a small densely populated island. Read the report. It gets worse.

Meanwhile, Ed Miliband, opposition Labour MP and Shadow Climate and Net Zero Secretary, criticized BP’s profits announced today, saying, “These enormous profits are the unearned windfalls of war. And every excess pound that the energy giants rake in is at the expense of British families.”
“Labour would be doing the fair thing and bring in a proper windfall tax on oil + gas giants to help freeze council tax this year,” said Miliband, whose Labour Party leads in polls ahead of the ruling Conservative Party.
Source: https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/BP-Has-Paid-1-Billion-In-UK-Windfall-Taxes.html

There are, according to google, 24.10 million dwellings in UK liable to council tax and 46,560,452 electoral registrations.
If I divide the £1bn by dwellings you get £41.49 per dwelling courtesy of BP + £5.93 from EnQuest
divide it by voters and you get £21.48. Then chip in the EnQuest contribution (say) £3.07
So to get a true figure we need to add up all the O&G producers profit made in the UK. BP (and Shell) are good at shuffling profits around so it is always difficult to be accurate but I imagine it would be useful to find out just how much money Red Ed is talking about. For me it would be less than the inflationary effect on my council tax and is a Peter, Paul transaction to a large extent as it is actually us retail shareholders and pension funds suffering/compensating but that's fair enough as these profits are obscene and we are capitalist pigs after all. My worry though is if I get ill. Didn't one of them say the money would be used for funding the NHS and giving nurses and doctors a rise?

Not so WeirdPal on BP message board:

"A beauty from his bbc breakfast interview:

"These are profits they didn't expect to make" - well F*** me sideways, Keir, on this logic is labours position to ask all FTSE co's to submit profit guidance at the start of the year and use this as a yardstick for their taxation? The man is an utter blanket - I'm seriously concerned for the already weakened FTSE should labour get in."

Thanks for that M - I'm even more confused but I think I got the gist. We're so wrong we must be right! Am I warm?

One bit of gobbledygook from the article "“trusting in common myths is what makes you human. But learning not to is what will make you a successful investor.” I kinda get it and we are certainly outliers and not with the herd here. Most have left the sector - investors and funds. On that basis it makes us right.

There is no way that the West can exist without fossil fuels. And as for security can you imagine a battery driven tank? How much would it weigh? There seems to be a bit of Putin threats involved in the BP drop today and it may not be all about earnings. I was watching the situation in Sudan and along with Aleppo and Mariupol I think EV's may be a little delayed there. Just read that the French are about to penalise the Chinese airlines as they can offer cheaper fares because they don't have to take the long way around Russia.
We have a similar energy advantage over Europe with the North Sea giving us cheaper energy but have decided to close it to the O&G industry and open it up for wind power. Renewables have made advances but it will be years before transport and heating has switched to renewables.

Stevo12 - assuming debt is where the management want it what dividend do you think the company could pay next year? Use (say) $80.

On face of it decent profits. I don't understand it?

I suppose the next step is whether it is a "commercial" discovery which is increasingly problematic with the restrictions from the windfall tax and zealous activism. Then you have Labour and their "go it alone policy". By that I mean to tackle the transition to renewables without fossil fuels.
The article makes pretty dismal reading for the future of the North Sea: https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/498745/uk-well-slot-all-about-the-bens/
Still, not a problem. We can import from Norway, U.S. and Qatar. I do hope the rest of Europe doesn't bid up for Norway's production as I'll be using fossil fuels for a long time to come.

Hi Jeffrey - I can understand your friends thinking and our position is indefensible if oil is trading at (say) $120 with gas through the roof but currently we have a WFT and no floor for the inevitable gyrations in supply/demand and progress of renewables. Most intelligent commentators accept that there is a role for fossil fuels in the "transition".
I almost lost friends during Brexit and was accused of being a Leftie wine-bar intellectual (in a pub actually) which is the usual retort of a "Little Englander" [facile and cheap I know but they started it]
I now find that I have been pushed towards the Right on this particular topic which the Tories insisted on calling the EPL but is clearly a WFT. So am I now a "beer swilling fascist?" Possibly but like a hangover I'll soon feel better again.
I decided to keep with these particular friends as I've known them for over 50 years. They're just not perfect like me.
Things will have a different hue on Friday when the Local Election results are in.
Hang on to your friends - they could blackmail you and tell the wife.

*I didn't completely finish my earlier post. The Watt-Logic post and others are excellent but they'll never be read by the public or have a great distribution. That is why the Telegraph article is more valuable and maybe the tide really is turning. We need other popular commentators to start outlining the risks of abandoning fossil fuels in the NS too soon.

I find Harbour message board almost impossible to read because of an infestation of trolls so is usually green with filtered and I don't know if they mentioned the author. It is Liam Halligan and he is a bit of a firebrand. He may not be "everybody's cup of tea" and will incense the Far Left and be discounted by them and produced by climate activists as evidence of a Tory plot. On Harbour someone wrote that they will email their MP. You only get one shot at that and I would use a letter which is still very cheap but stands a far better chance of being read.
It is warming up (pun intended) and I think there will be some clearer understanding of the importance and cheapness of fossil fuels. Activists and Labour have got carried away with their success and the appeasement of the Tories towards their aims.
I spent time yesterday with a guy who worked in the Press Office of Priti Patel and Barry Gardiner and now works in a PR company that helps other companies and charities get media attention. He was scathing about QT and Andrew Marr. They do not pinion an MP in the same way that an Andrew Neill or Nick Ferrari do. That means that mainly B team politicians are risked for AN or NF if at all. If you want your ego polished or be attacked with a feather duster go to Andrew Marr. Stay away from Andrew and Nick. They're proper journalists and attack dogs. Their questions are narrow and simple, such as "and what would you do Sir Keir?" if they ever get the chance. They always have a stiletto up their sleeve.
It follows that the programmes are made by the quality of the "guest" and not necessarily the presenter and the more important or in the public eye the "guest" the bigger the viewing figures. MPs and the like want the biggest exposure in a friendly setting. QT is slightly different and is really an entertainment show and possibly behind 'Loose Women' for honest appraisal of situations. You'll get opposition MPs on it and from the Tory side it will always be a boring "safe pair of hands".
Th situation is complex and I guess we won't see 9 X cheaper again but some damage was done by it and I'm sure that juststopoil still use it as "proof". If we struggle at times with understanding the industry what chance the general public?
We just need to keep plugging away. I will write to Liam Halligan presenting the Watt-Logic article. It is dangerous to assume that he has read it. The only difference with a letter to an email is the stamp and posting it. You'll already have spent time typing your missive and a better chance of it being read.

Be Lucky

Telegraph article - If you go on to HBR at 18:20 dan222 explains how to avoid the paywall. Press escape quickly as it is down loading. It worked for me.
It finishes with this:
"North Sea operators have been lobbying the Treasury to set a “price floor” – so this eye-watering tax rate only applies when crude is above a certain level. They’ve been firmly rebuffed.
But Hunt needs to understand that unless this 75pc tax rate is slashed, North Sea production will drop very significantly – and perhaps fizzle out altogether.
That will make a nonsense of the OBR’s jacked-up oil and gas revenue projections and could even cost the Exchequer money.
If this is truly a “windfall tax”, Chancellor, why does it still apply now – when the price of the Brent crude pumped from British waters is 20pc lower than before Putin invaded Ukraine?
And why has this preposterous tax rate on so-called excess profits been extended until 2028 – when no one knows where the oil price will go?"

Personally I prefer the Watt-Logic that Modestus found but for our purposes the Telegraph article is more valuable. I'll explain why in next post.

M - the article does explain the comment from AB that they will be increasing the production of gas as a percentage of production in the future.

In the article under "How do interest rates impact renewables" they make a simple fact very complicated. Renewables are capital intensive/expensive (capex) but cheap once running. Gas is much more sensitive to operating costs and have been frozen out of getting cheap capex for some time effectively. The problem is we had a decade of shale and almost negative interest rates. They ignored the true economics and then Putin spoiled their carefully crafted renewables ponzi plans.

*off the record. Jesus is actually a bit p*ssed off that the "climate change" religion has more acolytes than him.

They're only 9 X cheaper in the UK? I mean, Sir Keir and Ed are responsible people, they wouldn't lie.

This is the problem, from the article: "On their Q4 earnings call, CEO Bernard Looney admitted that his renewable portfolio generated only a 6-8% margin compared with 20% for oil and gas investments. Shell made similar comments shortly after." It follows that it is the greedy "oil and gas giants" that are the guilty party. We need to attack, penalise and tax them to the limit. I suppose now you'll tell me that Shell and BP have more or less stopped producing in the North Sea? It is very frustrating after attending a juststopoil meeting and recently joining the Labour Party. You lot just don't get it!

*Renewables are a religion which reminds me; I bumped into Jesus yesterday. He's moved along to preach outside Iceland. I asked about the "rapture" and its delay. He blamed the delay on energy prices and the oil giants too.

Carrot - £91.40 back for every £100 spent on investment (£109.25 if includes electrification)
Stick - 35% EPL making tax 75% on profits from NS to 2028

Released today "Decarbonisation of the power sector" by BEIS

I did an L7 and read it, well kinda, there is nothing new in it and you can taste the input of the Labour contingent; 6 Tory, 4 Labour, 1 SNP.
Highlights (for me)
No surprises that the renewable sector are whingeing and want the carrot that O&G have but not the stick.
'A decarbonised electricity system, with a high penetration of renewables, will come with challenges' - blimey, I thought it was an arcadian heaven over there.
'generators will need to be paid to reduce output, which would add to customers’ bills' - that's too much electricity so they turn it off (about a third of output)
'We reiterate the calls of both the Climate Change Committee and National Audit Office for the Government to publish a comprehensive, long-term delivery plan for a decarbonised power system by 2035' - fair enough but the way things are going that is also a question for Labour. I haven't heard or read anything specific from them either.
Apart from minimal investment by Shell and BP 'Other operators in the North Sea such as Harbour Energy, invest nothing in renewables' - well done Linda
'After accounting for all reliefs available to it, it was reported that Shell paid just £6.5 million in tax on its UK operations in 2022—a fraction of its £40 billion global profits'
Then accusations of O&G industry prioritizing profits over emissions. I'm so old fashioned, I thought profit was the no. 1 priority.
Accusations against O&G for buy-backs instead of investing in renewables. Eh? The renewable industry is cutting back and whingeing about rising costs. You make buy-backs when you cannot see a viable alternative or fear further attacks.

*They cannot legislate against buy-backs because that would further drive capital and investment across the UK. The feeling I got reading it was that the elephant in the room is the O&G industry who weren't invited to contribute (OK BP Hydrogen then). Offshore wind is mentioned but not for offshore rigs or FPSO's. No norway or Equinor but some written evidence from Orsted that wasn't complimentary towards the UK. All the report did for me was emphasise the ostracization of the O&G industry. If we're angry and frustrated how do you think EnQuest feel; especially AB. We know how Linda Cook feels.

The top four things voters care about according to the poll released by Ipsos Mori on Thursday are:

Inflation – 40%
Economy – 33%
NHS – 29%
Immigration – 20%

Already out of date/touch. Lisa Nandy Shadow Secretary of State for levelling Up, Housing and Communities for the Labour Party. Last night on BBC QT (c.20:00)):
"The truth is it's all about political choices. We could have a windfall tax on the profits of big oil and gas producers. We could help people with energy costs and rising council tax costs - NHS frontline workers, non-dom .....blah blah etc.etc."

It is relentless misinformation. They follow the script from central casting and drill into people's minds by repetition. Nobody there says "but we've had a windfall tax for almost a year". BBC QT has deteriorated and is probably not taken to seriously. I find Newsnight far more accurate but I suppose QT is our equivalent of a juststopoil meeting. Labour refuse to put figures on anything and the scripted quote is "we {Labour} will never make a promise that we don't know that we can keep" followed by "but what we'll never do is give a billion pounds in tax cuts to the richest 1 per cent". Well most will leave due to non-dom abolition.
In a strange way I find it encouraging. It is an open goal in some ways. All the Tories need is a striker.

As at 30 Sept 2022 BP is their 78th largest holding at £34m (3/100ths of 1 per cent) - Shell 36th at £51m

I'd guess that anyone who went or sent a child to University has paid intro it indirectly with student fees.
The Universities Superannuation Scheme is a pension scheme in the United Kingdom with £89.6 billion under management as of August 2021. It has over 400,000 members, made up of active and retired academic and academic-related staff mostly from those universities established prior to 1992. Wikipedia

Just noticed. The holdings were at the end of December 2022. In the Sharia fund - does anyone know what Exxon Mobil do?