Member Info for SharkSaber

It's more like selective designation of net zero objectives while excludes factors that are relevant to the existence of carbon footprints such as international air travel, shipping and biomass burning for energy. Which is hypocritical imo. Realistically too even if Britain is carbon free within its own airspace, net zero by 2050 is not a reality if other developing countries, the poor ones especially are lacking in strong national budgets necessary to promote spending on renewables infrastructure and having adequate skilled labor in operating them.

As of current Britain is the only G7 country to rid of coal usage altogether, so go figure lol. If it takes so many passing decades just to wean off coal consumption alone for only one developed country like the UK, with crude oil on the list to be rid off next followed by natural gas thereafter while most other developing or poor nations are still dependent on it for power, net zero by 2050 is still a long way to go for the entire world to achieve.

A net ZERO on national budgets are more likely to happen sooner than achieving carbon free net zero by 2050 if every nation were to ditch away all available oil infrastructure and build a multitude of windmills, blue panels and battery storage systems worldwide in a hurry. Is the Paris Agreement even feasible even in half a century's time?

So let's see where else can Labour get their much needed tax revenue from if they've promised the UK people not to hike personal taxes then? Pensions balked at it, wealth management gets into an uproar about such with rich people threatening to move their business elsewhere if they're ever subjected to a wealthy tax. How about raising current corporate taxes higher by another 10% possibly on every business sector aside from the O@G industry? Nope not going to happen in a UK economy that's still struggling to get back on it's feet after being in the doldrums for a long time, and doing that would certainly make local and international investors headed for the exits, of which the UK can't afford to withstand another exodus of investment funds once more. So most likely they will be heavily dependent on the O@G industry as their golden goose tax revenue here. Now will Labour be wise enough to keep it alive by implementing sensible policies to sustain the industry, or are they just going to strangle the golden goose to a slow painful death with their stupidity? And that will be the million dollar question here in focus on the upcoming October speech.

Thanks to all who've contributed advanced notifications about upcoming company info, and also to those who put in a thought or two for a clearer viewpoint about the likely prospects of a smooth rapid UK energy transition into renewables , which most likely wouldn't happen in Labour's wildest fantasies reaching net zero in just five years time. Thus hopefully the Cabinet in charge will finally start seeing the light of things and relent on their stance against the O@G industry, at the very least by allowing local oil independents to retain their allowances...and that's quite a long shot to hope for given their green wokeness here.

Couerdelion, is there a Labour agenda for pensions to be taxed at a certain rate to finance the green energy or something? Thought I've heard some news that RR might slash tax relief there. And I'm anticipating a backlash from the sector if she's going to do so.

Yea the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters were really haunting and disrupted many lives indeed. It's another reason why nuclear power development is slow to take on in an economic scale as well. It's kind of like, it's very helpful to tap into its inherently huge baseload power , but the safety risks are still there. Imo I think that unless the 'development safetiness' can be enhanced further, nuclear energy's widespread utilization potential is much impeded progress wise. Factor in too the tight supply and reluctant demand economics, and that reality potentially hinders the UK from tapping hard into this renewable source of energy unless it's willing to blow a big hole in the budget to make it happen. Seems like all form of renewables development will hurt the govt's wallet a lot either way. Would be wise for Labour to consider thoughtfully about pursuing green energy hard and fast and not saddle the UK with a budget deficit burden that would cripple it's economy badly.

Sounds like nuclear power is the biggest laggard amongst renewables to become cheap for scaled up industrial use as it seems. I've heard that China is ramping up on it's nuclear power generation by building more plants within the country, And most probably they are procuring uranium from their ally Russia here. The commies will have a huge leg up advantage over their Western counterparts in terms of supply in the atomic theater, but how much of that is available currently in the US I'm not sure for uranium stockpile wise within the country. They have nuclear powered subs, aircraft carriers, probably a small to moderate amount of nuclear ballistic missiles and some power plants yes. But I think even that consists of a tiny fraction of radioactive material held within domestic grounds as compared to what Russia and China have in total. Ditto that for North Korea too as well.

Hence if the nuclear supply situation is pretty tight for many years to come, a huge swath of UK land and seas will be primarily dotted with windmills and blue panels all over to replace current fossil fuel energy demand, and to meet an ever growing demand for power in the future, which will put a tremendous strain on the national budget for sure.

If you have a little moment to spare Terry, can you elaborate further on Uranium's structural defect and enrichment here? Would the former be like due to its chemical atom instability by it's very nature being radioactive material? And what sort of problems are anticipated in the enrichment process? According to news sources, Iran and North Korea were able to develop further on the enrichment process enough to cause jitters in the West to impose sanctions on these two countries. And how many years would the current enrichment process take before it's enhanced enough for power generation? Now I would understand that it would take a longer time to produce enriched uranium that's lethal enough to destroy a quarter of say the Asia continent, but shouldn't nuclear energy for power generation purposes would take lesser enrichment time to make it happen? I would like to hear your feedback on it thanks.

According to someone's mention before, SQZ is waiting for greater clarification from hmg on October's speech before making their move to decide. They got a window of time of 3 years best period before their FCF is more affected adversely by the EPL/WFT moving forward once the tax losses are used up.

If they can secure a good investment in Norway, that's closer to home and that'll be great. Even if a European country is moving to shift itself into renewables,but is pragmatic enough to keep fossil fuels powering the country while slowly making the transition years down the line, then it's still alright imo. Ditto that for developing countries doing likewise as well. Britain is sailing too far ahead full steam towards the renewables promised land without a viable plan to sustain its own energy security while getting there. The skies forbid if it gets even halfway there with power blackouts happening in the near future because the UK runs out of national money paying for energy imports down the line as it struggles to rein in it's tremendous budget deficit.

Sasa, the most important subject mandatory to be included in UK higher education for political science majors will be "Common Sense and Critical Thinking " for aspiring students who wants to be in the political arena in the future, no matter which party they choose to be in career wise. Britain needs more sensible brains in charge to run the country more effectively and efficiently. Decades of poor fiscal management and badly managed national policies have let down too many citizens with nothing but curses, sarcasms and widespread pessimism over the UK's future. It's high time for Oxford and Cambridge to churn out better political candidates in the future moving forward.

Dennis, the 10-15 years construction timeline could probably even be cut much shorter with the help of Chinese construction companies well known for building mega-infrastructure projects back home and abroad, and for even much of a cheaper price too in fact. Since UK energy security is already foreseen to be compromised by more fossil fuel imports into the country, Labour might as well lower down national security standards and accept foreign help from China to realize their net zero ambitions faster and more cost effectively.

Now that would be hundreds of billion pounds well spent into the renewables cost of nuclear power. And with the high forex differential between Sterling and the Yuan, UK may realize billions of savings left in the coffers enough to pursue national priority agendas like the public healthcare programme, food security and more. Perhaps it's something that Kier Starmer and his gang might want to look into if their common sense isn't common sense enough lol.

The quickest way for Miliband to achieve his net zero target by 2040-45 would be to focus on nuclear energy, but will have to rely on fossil fuels for the next five to ten years in the meantime while the nuclear plants takes time for construction completion and full operational readiness. It trumps all other renewable sources that are inherently intermittent and takes up less land space for each nuclear power plant erected. Land space will get too scarce planting solar panels and wind turbines all over UK soil and even more of an eyesore installed in bunches in the North Sea. And its cheaper too in the long run for the national budget although its expensive to build upfront cost wise at the start.

So if they're going to spend hundreds of billions in pounds just to cover the UK seas and landscape with windmills and blue panels, they may spend the limited tax revenue much better on nuclear power plants instead and take up less land space to achieve their net zero goals while generating more than enough baseload power for the nation itself.

I see. Well basically Zee man puts the blame on the Tories a lot for the EPL/WFT apparently from the way it sounds, and thinks that Labour isn't that bad compared to them. Am speculating that the bloke had probably bought at a much higher SP when the Tories' start hitting the O@G industry hard with the tax levy, and unfortunately the market didn't like it big time and sending SPs of local oil independents down the drain ov. And Labour is just continuing the tax legacy with more pain added to the equation of things.

Now to be realistic, both sides of the aisle suck equally in their own way. But as we know if O@G were to stand a chance for survival, then the WFT under the former party is much more bearable than the sharper poison of Labour's version. Yet as far as I know, most of the vitriol in this thread was levelled against Labour by the majority of people here. I have yet to see a passionate discourse of hate against Rishi and his gang by most SQZ stockholders recently thus far during my duration in the ongoing share chat here, well maybe some did rant against them years back who knows.

Anyways hoping for SQZ to move forward in strength and prosperity despite weathering the nasty taxation storm coming from both sides of the aisle.

Did Labour really pushed the Tories' to implement the EPL/WFT agenda for real? Wow that really makes them worse than the other party for sure. If there's any facts mentioned in regards to them I would definitely want to look into it if what is alleged is true.

Here's a fun fact that you might have overlooked here. David Latin, SQZ's chairman himself is more concerned about the capital allowances given to the oil industry than the EPL/WFT policy. That was mentioned sometime ago in an online article before. This is coming from the company insider himself there.

Cool. Hope the positives will move up the SP pretty soon.

Well bloke you got either the Tories' or Labour to choose from unless Reform can gather the votes and win and move away from the policies that either the first two had implemented. The Tories' poison is a little less than what Labour is trying to implement, but nevertheless their oil taxing regime is a little much better tolerated than Labour's with at least some allowances given to the O@G industry rather than Labour who's trying to rid of ALL allowances that would certainly kill the local oil independents. Are you such a fool not to realize the lesser of two poisons really? Someone had already posted that if the current tax regime ( under Tories') was kept , it's much better results than those of Labour's. Geez, everyone is in the clue of how severe the taxing regime under Labour is except for you son.

Rats1066:

It's crazy that some research houses are not seeing much of the positives as listed by you here, and they are betting on the decline of AGR thinking that their debt level is too blown up at a high level here even when their debt interest rate is 3% or much below locked in for at least half a decade or slightly more. Do they really miss the signs of a turnaround within the healthcare REIT industry in light of lower interest rates moving forward ? Or do they know something much more than we do on the contrary I wonder? Yea it's a good accumulation opportunity as the SP dips lower and closer to the seabed lol.

Anybody had an idea what's causing the SP to drop from a 42.50p ++ down below 41p apart from shorts increasing positions?

Also the windfall tax, although scheduled only to last till 2030 at most, it's still under the discretion of the govt ( whoever that's in office by then ) whether to stop it altogether or to continue it on. You can see from how during the Tories' tenure that they impose the tax from 2022 till they got ousted by Labour in the most recent elections, where originally under the Tories' term the tax was only to run till like 2028 or 2029? But when Labour came in, they pushed it one or two more years ahead, AND wanted to kill off all allowances for the O@G industry altogether. Hence it seems like both sides of the aisle wanted to tax the local oil industry punitively, but given their policy stances about UKCS drilling, there's more relief somewhat on the Tory side than Labour in terms of allowances granted as it seems.

So imo, the EPL/windfall tax levy really isn't a sure thing on it's duration date , and the bod should anticipate that factor into consideration if they want to stay put in the UK. Especially so once the tax losses are used up in a few years coming.

Sekforde:

SQZ will be earning good for a number of years yes, no doubt. But can their current profit pipelines be sustained over the long term over 10 years and above? Remember that hmg has stopped further drilling exploration in the North Sea aside from honoring the ones that were approved during the Tories' tenure. So the reserves left for local oil companies are finite unless they look elsewhere to acquire further reserves in an oil drilling friendly jurisdiction, or they remake themselves to position their future profits from renewables as far as Labour energy policy is concerned. They might make some concessions here and there this coming October, or possibly not at all. My hope is that they will at least realize their error of zealous thinking and be more pragmatic and realistic to the energy transition timeline, but I'm not going to bet my hopes on them having a fossil fuel friendly concession in the speech, if yes that'll be a welcome surprise to all SQZ shareholders.

But if they are really pushing to go green energy wise in the long run, they wouldn't be prolonging allowances long term for the cause of further O@G drilling as that would contradict their renewables stance and drawing much heavy flak from the environmentalists. If any, probably more generous allowances would be given if the O@G industry decarbonizes their operational activities and invest their profits into renewables.

Hence that's why some of us wanted SQZ to diversify overseas as they can prolong their main business for longer and not too hurried by UK's desperate push into green energy while possibly positioning themselves overtime into renewables decades down the line. And I'm curious to know how did you perceive that foreign O@G company acquisitions are too expensive at the moment, given of how the entire O@G industry worldwide is battered by declining oil prices and their profits are equally being hammered down just as bad like their US and UK counterparts. It's only the UK O@G thunderstorm was made worser by hmg's unrealistic energy policy that local oil independents are suffering more than worldwide compatriots in the industry. I would like to hear your rebuttal viewpoint to get your perception of the matter in your optimism about things here.

And I'm aware what I'm saying here might not be pleasant to the ears of some who wanted to hear only positivity and optimism about SQZ, but I'll rather consider the future potential obstacles to their bottom line ahead in advance and be prepared for an adverse outcome possibly if the govt doesn't want to come to a compromise here despite the warnings sounded by the local O@G industry about the energy security issue.

Lol at least we knew how loyal they are to the Union Jack flag here. Will their 'national piety' (for lack of a better term) be rewarded on October's speech? If not, they'd better save up those hydrocarbons from oil production to make wind turbines and plant them all around the North Sea if they are staying in UK waters. The shipping lanes near local territory might be heavily congested with renewable windmills by 2050 onwards.