How Will Labour Replace North Sea Oil Tax Revenues?
By Paul Homewood
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/06/06/the-madness-of-labours-oil-and-gas-ban/
There are many reasons why Labour’s proposed ban on new North Sea oil and gas development, but one of the most powerful is the loss of potential tax revenue.
According to the OBR, North Sea revenues will top £43 billion during the the next five years:
These revenues will inevitably fall away as production declines, but new developments will at least keep the money flowing into the Treasury’s coffers for a few years longer.
The biggest potential lies in the giant Rosebank field, near the Shetlands, which could supply 70,000 bpd, 8% of current North Sea output. It is estimated that it would generate £24 billion Gross Value Added over its lifetime of maybe 20 years.
Rosebank is due to for a decision on it licence this summer, but this could be overthrown by an incoming Labour government. There are mixed messages from labour at the moment, with the Scottish Labour lease vowing to let the field go ahead. On the other hand, Ed Miliband has made his position crystal clear in recent times, as being totally opposed to all new exploration.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
How? Use other peoples’ money, that’s how.
They’ve already ‘saved’ £28 billion of non-existent money…
https://news.sky.com/story/labours-rachel-reeves-backtracks-on-28bn-green-prosperity-scheme-12899279
Do you really think the Labour leadership has any clue of how to replace this income. Thick as two short planks the lot of them.
Maybe they should open a few open-cast coal sites?
Some form of Land Value Tax aka Garden Tax seems inevitable.
Labourland activists say “The campaign wants to see unearned land wealth taxed to tackle wealth inequality, solve the housing crisis, to make homes affordable and fund public services.”
Presses all the right buttons, you must admit.
One minor problem …. what does it actually MEAN?
It is unclear how much money would be raised, presumably valuation would be time consuming and expensive and the rate has not been forecast. It has been suggested that the LVT might replace an existing tax, but it seems more likely that it would just be yet another tax burden.
As all greens and socialists think oil companies are subsidised he probably thinks there’ll be money available for cheap clean green energy.
/sarc
There was an article in the Financial Times recently about how Labour were planning a compulsory land purchase , [ probably well below value ] , so that they could then sell the land on to developers to build on . [Possibly for the millions of extra homes needed for all of their illegal immigrants .]
But it is probably just a further step in the Marxist / socialist takeover .
And , as usual , socialism only works with other peoples money .
What is unearned land wealth? If someone pays £100,000 for a plot of land but borrows £50,000 to do so how wealthy are they, and what portion of that wealth is unearned? If someone paid £10,000 for that plot of land 50 years ago are they wealthier, or poorer because inflation is 12 times over the period? There already is tax on land value uplift through change of use: turning an agricultural field into a housing estate. It is of course the house buyers who get to pay it. The developer becomes merely a tax collector, much like a petrol station.
Along with the “Labour Land Grab ” article was some numbers which said that undeveloped land was worth about “£22,000 per hectare , and then with planning permission was worth over £6 million .
So they would be paying less than the £22,000 to be sure , and then making huge amounts by selling it on .
Which in the commercial world would be called corruption .
It is utter madness.
But even the Tories are not allowing fracking which would be a Godsend to our economy.
What about replacing the fuels derived from that oil? Transportation and the cost of the energy transition will become a bigger problem than it already is.
Several Factsheets just released today.
“Factsheets relating to the Energy Security Bill (now known as the Energy Bill) introduced to Parliament on 6 July 2022. Change made: Added new factsheet: Energy Security Bill factsheet: Ofgem net zero duty.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/energy-security-bill-factsheets?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications-topic&utm_source=8739c6f7-adae-44f2-8046-515220c65c7a&utm_content=daily
So giving Ofgem the duty to do pretty much anything to ensure net zero ‘for the benefit of consumers’.
Orwellian language , we are getting used to it, in fact there is so much of it its almost impossible to keep up with it, which is the aim of course.
From a co-author of the Climate Change Act
Ofgem chief executive Jonathan Brearley said: “Ofgem welcomes this mandate which brings us in line with the UK Government’s legal obligations and, for the first time, directly links consumers’ interests to specific net zero targets”
“The mandate sends a clear message we must end our historic dependency on fossil fuels and stop our exposure to volatile global markets. We’re laying the foundations for the energy system of the future. The net zero mandate has overwhelming backing from every part of the energy industry, consumer campaigners and climate activists,” Brearly added.
As usual, living in cloud cuckoo land. Meanwhile, who will stand up for consumers?
Abolishing the Non-Dom status seems to be their answer for all tax shortfalls.
So most Non-doms will up sticks and head for the bahamas taking their spending, vat payments, UK income tax payments and entreprenuerialism with them. Why are ALL our political parties competing to see who can make the UK poorer faster?
Ask not from whom the taxes will come.
A graduate with his first job riding a bicycle in London produces idiot ideas like this.
But what does it say for Labour trotting it out as serious policy ?
>
I’ve got the solution.
Re-institute the “Window Tax.”
It’s coming as part of the net zero building standards.
If Covid taught us anything, it’s that politicians are unable to perform the most basic cost/benefit analysis – not when there’s an opportunity to virtue signal – with the cover that ‘the science told us’ we had to lockdown / ban all fossil fuels.
It also proved they were even more stupid than we thought they were already.
In 2000 coal use worldwide was 4699 million tonnes (Mt). In 2022 coal use world wide was expected to be 8038Mt of which China, India, and the rest of Asia was 6251 Mt.
China, India and Indonesia are the world’s three largest producers of coal and with the rest of Asia the only way their consumption is going is up.
The energy sector is the source of about 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Virtue signalling by the Labour Party is going to have absolutely no effect emissions wise.
Good. As coal useage increases atmospheric CO2 may slowly rise leading to greater food production and greater world prosperity. It seems about 1000 ppm may be the optimum so there is a long way to go.
It’s just a matter of time before these exceptionally negligent decisions come back to bite us.
Energy security should be a pre-requisite, but delivering it is a lot more difficult than merely talking about it in cliches and soundbites.
Being dependent on the weather isn’t energy security.
Being dependent on foreign suppliers at international spot-market prices isn’t energy security either.
At some point there’ll be a weather-demand-supply pinch and the UK will be stuck up a particular creek without a paddle. Then what?
Instead of yellow vests and blocking roadways it will be body armor and AR15s. Oh, shoot, I forgot; you don’t live in a country with something like the 2nd Amendment to protect you against a tyrannical government.
Good luck, Britain; you’ll need it.
In the same time frame the tax revenue from cars – road fund licence and BiK income tax – will also decline as EVs are forced on us.
Surely it will come from windfall tax on the oil and gas industry – every other bit of Red Labour spending is coming from the same magic money tree.