Serica Energy Share Discussion Threads

[stemis] 12/6/2024 08:06

Except you…. See your previous posts on the matter.

You said they had backtracked from their more egregious plans and it was true because it was reported in the papers

I said that they'd backtracked on their plans to backdate the changes (post 6029). Of course, if you are referring to another post, please feel free to specify it..

[sawney] 12/6/2024 07:58

This is, believe it or not, an investment board...

Perhaps..but when such profound fundamental changes in the Energy industry are about to take place...it's difficult to avoid it...

Suffice to say...both Parties have trashed the North Sea including SQZ...

Prediction...with Labour's GB Energy Plan...I can see regular blackouts in the future, and energy will never be cheap....or even cheaper...

[oilinvestoral] 12/6/2024 07:49

I thought everybody expected them to do away with the supplementary charge investment allowance---------Except you.... See your previous posts on the matter.You said they had backtracked from their more egregious plans and it was true because it was reported in the papers ...

[stemis] 12/6/2024 07:47

But as a staunch and committed supporter of the Starmer brigade, you oft defend the indefensible strategies laid out by Liebour.

This is, believe it or not, an investment board so I try not to spend 'too' much time discussing politics. However I don't think I've ever defended Labour's windfall tax strategy. I'm actually (still, for the moment anyway) a member of the Conservative Party but after Brexit and the years of lies, corruption, incompetence and nepotism it's time for change. But don't let the truth get in the way of your usual misrepresentations and lies...

[sawney] 12/6/2024 07:07

Clearly someone who is not following the Party line...
.....to be scooted off to a re-educational facility soon...

[bountyhunter] 11/6/2024 18:27

Yes yas you are quite right, but again the change re offsetting has been known for some time so nothing new here as we all know Sunak will (with near certainty) not be in power on 5/7!

[yasx] 11/6/2024 17:47

"Labour's policy on 'windfall tax' has been known for a while. I've never denied that it existed."

But as a staunch and committed supporter of the Starmer brigade, you oft defend the indefensible strategies laid out by Liebour.

Starmer is more anti-business than even Vince Cable and that takes some doing, Not only have they increased the WFT, they have deliberately stayed silent on the allowances, thereby creating uncertainty and instability for those operating in the sector.


I really can't get my head around the fact that some of their supporters even cling to the lie that Labour are being supportive of these Co's when they say they are committed to UK energy security and want NS to flourish.

People like Starmer need people like Stemis to get elected - and, regrettably, they have them in their droves - partly because of the abject Govt and also because there is no alternative, less still a credible alternative.

[stemis] 11/6/2024 16:30

I thought everybody expected them to do away with the supplementary charge investment alowance

[sawney] 11/6/2024 15:59

As yasX points out...it's the capital allowances(93%?) that Labour have been vague about...
Labour publish their fiasco on Thursday but I doubt they'll commit to anything energy wise beyond their already published GB Energy Plan.
Things are so dire, Starmer could well waltz in to No 10 without really committing to anything...then the fun will start...
IF they strip out the allowances that'll be pretty much the death of the NS...
Shell could well sell up and move to the Nasdaq...(I believe they've already hinted at moving)
Ironically, the Unions are fighting a rear guard action to stop the decimation of the NS but I suspect Net Zero Loony, Ed, will win the day...
BTW, re the GB Energy Plan...they also intend to remove £5 Billion from food production...eat ze bugs....

[stemis] 11/6/2024 15:33

This one is for the attention of Mr Stemis!!

Labour's policy on 'windfall tax' has been known for a while. I've never denied that it existed.

[yasx] 11/6/2024 14:07

BH,

It is offsetting the allowances (or not) that will be key - there was never any prospect of overturning existing licences.

[bountyhunter] 11/6/2024 13:05

The additional 3% planned rise from 75% to 78% should be pretty much baked in by now and at least Labour have said:

"the party has pledged not to overturn existing licences and says that oil and gas would still be part of the energy mix for decades to come."

[oilinvestoral] 11/6/2024 12:50

This one is for the attention of Mr Stemis!! I seem to have underestimated the depth of Labour ... other posters have been far naiver than myself (for background: refer to previous exchanges on here re potential Labour policies towards energy companies)! https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labour-party-tax-policy-how-we-will-make-the-tax-system-fairer/Labour talking about "introducing a proper windfall tax on energy companies" When someone/ some party tells you who they are , believe them the first time ! Sometimes it's best to exercise some critical thinking before believing everything you read in the local rag...

[yasx] 08/6/2024 11:45

It is the laffer curve - raise taxes too high and you essentially reduce or in this case destroy tax revenues from NS.

[bountyhunter] 08/6/2024 10:51

Spot on there Ww!

[wallywoo] 08/6/2024 06:04

It is an easy cash solution for politicians. They need tax cash to fund their ideas. I know let's tax the oil companies!! The general public believe that all oil companies are swimming in cash. Therefore, everyone is happy. Only problem is, oil companies are not swimming in cash, and the ones that have cash are rapidly moving it out of UK tax domicile areas. In addition, banker's are refusing to fund oil exploration in UK.Result will be, much lower UK oil and gas production, less UK energy security, less tax receipts (in the long term). It is a extremely short minded policy.

[creditcrunchies] 08/6/2024 00:14

Sure does look like it's going to sit in the range of 100-150 until this company adapts to this anti British oil and gas assets. They need to be investing outside the UK. The reality is that the UK needs enormous quantities of oil and gas for decades to come, it's just politicians are forcing business to import it all instead.

[bountyhunter] 07/6/2024 17:33

Kibes, I hope it works out as you suggest, certainly Starmer is not daft and more sensible than some of the others. Milliband and Raynor of course could be dangerous. The trouble is I've got no time for Sunak either who was unelected by Tory members and just seems to be out for himself, changing policy at the drop of a hat, e.g. the windfall tax which was Labour's policy but executed by Sunak and co. The choice facing the country is not a great one.

[llef] 07/6/2024 14:59

it doesn't sound as though Millband has changed his mind re new licences.

this snip is from the FT today:

"However his, (Lord Browne, ex-CEO BP), position on ending new licences is in line with that set out by Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, and his shadow energy minister Ed Miliband.  ;

Responding to Browne’s piece, Miliband said: “Lord Browne’s intervention adds his voice to the chorus of energy experts, including the International Energy Agency and the Climate Change Committee, who make clear that new oil and gas licences are not the right choice for Britain."

[melton john] 07/6/2024 10:12

Not a lot to chose between them. I was born in the constituency of the first Labour PM, cheered when Labour won in 1966 i think it was but I was to young to vote. Soon found out that when you vote for Labour you get all the rag bag loonies coming out of the shadows. We had them all pre Thatcher; killing off the car industry, ship building and then obviously the steel industry, miners, rail workers, council workers. Orchestrated by union bosses getting unsustainable pay deals almost as if some foreign power was pulling the strings to weaken the country. Kruschev said he didn't need to fight the West he'd hollow it out from the inside. Sorry to go on.

[melton john] 07/6/2024 09:20

To be fair CB7 it should be taken in context with the previous 13 years of Labour's turn. Not a great record of fixing what ails the country then, Blairs building up of almost a university in every city and huge inefficient hospitals both with huge grateful unionised workforces. Gordon Brown's selling gold reserves and killing pensions business. Bankrupt councils. Uncontrolled immigration. More off-shoring of UK LTD to the far east as companies were taxed to pay for it all. Was there a plus side, I don't remember it.

[cb7] 07/6/2024 08:54

yasX "Raynor left school without passing a single exam..... to think she will be deputy PM is a woeful reflection of the state of the country".
Perhaps you should look out of your window and see what 14 years of bungling government by the educated political elite has delivered.

[davethehorse] 06/6/2024 13:10

150p on the cards here, crazy but it's got no support