[Closed] Tax cuts for oil companies....

Have you got anything made from plastic in your house? Do you use car/bus/train/airplane/whatever vehicle yo can think of? Just have a long hard look at why we need oil.
We are too dependent on it I agree but when we lose it (oil companies stopping trading) then we have to buy it externally. Vlad has quite a bit. I'm sure he'd love to sell us some.

much of the record profits have not come out of the north sea over the last x amount of years, truth is the cost of producing out of the north sea is sky high - some what 60% taxes and even 80% on older fields.

all thats going to happen is that the oil companies will go and invest in areas where its cheaper to get the oil much of the reason for this not happening already in many cases is that running at cost or a slight loss is better than the significant cost of decommissioning.

no oil co investing = no tax revenue at all = no jobs = no income tax revenue and alot more signing on.

but i guess you knew all that already.

Oil execs will still make money- hell they still are. - they will just withdraw from the north sea and go about their business.

same as the banks

The UK oil industry has very tax levels. Far more than other industries.

A tax cut will still leave them paying far more tax than the others.

At least we are not giving them money like the useless offshore wind projects, although all the hand wringers on here will think they are such an effective way to reduce carbon levels.

Have you got anything made from plastic in your house? Do you use car/bus/train/airplane/whatever vehicle yo can think of?

The big 5 made profit of $177,000 per minute last year, Corporate greed is why low level jobs will be threatened.

A necessary evil. If they don't do something then its unsustainable in the long term. And oil prices are so volatile, you have to take the long view. So getting a lower rate of tax (for the forceable future) makes a lot more economic sense than getting no tax at all from an industry that doesn't exist any more. With the associated additional headache of having lots of (highly skilled) unemployed people, with no highly skilled jobs to go too.

Alternatively they could always allow companies working in the North Sea to revert to the same environmental standards, and employment practices as the oil industry uses in Nigeria.

I doubt this would be a vote winner

At least we are not giving them money like the useless offshore wind projects, although all the hand wringers on here will think they are such an effective way to reduce carbon levels.

I fail to see how you can describe offshore wind as 'useless'. It may cost a lot at this point in time, and it obviously doesn't make up the shortfall if you stopped burning fossil fuels, but if CO2 emissions are to be cut even to the ineffectual levels the govt has committed to, then at some point the oil, coal and gas needs to be left in the ground, so why are we investing in oil instead of scaling it down? And by reducing tax, we are giving them money, just by a different mechanism.

To be fair to Osborne (christ! - this is the second time I've defended him recently! I feel violated!) he's just this very morning announced a [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/17/budget-2015-george-osborne-announce-uk-tidal-power-scheme ]£1bn Tidal power scheme[/url]

So its not like all the money is flowing in one direction. Someone has to pay the taxes to finance the initiatives like this. And the oil industry may be paying a lower rate, but thats still a hefty wedge

I fail to see how you can describe offshore wind as 'useless'.

Go and work on an offshore wind farm construction project, get to understand how much energy is required to build them and then compare that to how much energy they produce and how much energy is required to maintain them.

As one scientist put it "Offshore wind is the only thing that makes nuclear look cheap".

war for oil security is also pretty expensive.

so g5604 you believe that because they made heaps of money in other regions they should support the uk O&G sector at a loss ?

As one scientist put it "Offshore wind is the only thing that makes nuclear look cheap".

I keep reading stuff like this and it makes me laugh. Yes, I agree, preventing catastrophic climate change is very, very expensive (at the moment). And every barrel of oil and ton of coal burnt makes it more expensive. I can't really get my head around the argument that it's not worth it cos it's too expensive. Is a cheap apocalypse better than an expensive one?

I don't find it surprising that they are "making a loss" in a country with enforced tax laws, while making huge profits in countries with little to no tax liabilities. Sounds like standard global corporate structure to me.

I can't really get my head around the argument that it's not worth it cos it's too expensive.

It's not really the "expense" but the limitations of the technology. There is only a relatively low amount of power that can be generated and the offshore environment will always be a very expensive and difficult place to work.

IMO the time, skills and money would be better far better spent developing the next generation of modern nuclear power.

The energy payback time on a wind farm appears to be between 6 (Britain) and 9 (Denmark) months. Offshore turbines do cost more than onshore but also have a better load factor.

Let's assume these figures are horribly optimistic - it would still pay back the energy used in its manufacture and installation in a year or two - even at a optimism factor of ten it pays back inside 8 years.

And they should last 20 years and the bases ought to be reusable in some cases.

The offshore wind farms being installed now are a similar size to, say, Ferrybridge or Eggborough - typical standard sized coal plants. The load factor will be lower but there's quite a few of them.

Also UK electricity use is falling at the moment and has been for a bit. It will rise if transorg and heat are decarbonised but the underlying load does appear to be becoming more efficient.

We will need nuclear too, but wind has its place.

That might help address your (very valid) concerns gobuchul.

So can someone explain how these can possibly be justified given that they're in direct conflict with the govt's CO2 reduction targets, and the fact that oil companies have enjoyed record profits for the past 10 years due to sky-high oil prices

It's pretty simple really. The tax that is being referred to here is for the production from the UK sector of the North sea, that's all. The headline numbers that you see for OVERALL oil company profits is world wide and so not subject to UK tax in the same way. At the moment the tax paid by oil companies on their UK production can be as high as 81% for PRT paying fields and around 62% for the non PRT paying fields. The UK treasury and by implication the UK as a whole has done very very well out this arrangment but if it keeps up there won't be any investment as money is invested elsewhere for better returns and a lot of oil will simply be left in the ground.

It's not really the "expense" but the limitations of the technology.

And they can't be overcome with proper investment and long-term strategic planning? Funny how in the oil industry any technical problem can be overcome, but in renewables it's just too hard and expensive.

IMO the time, skills and money would be better far better spent developing the next generation of modern nuclear power.

I'm not against next-gen nuclear, but the lead times for rolling these out is too long to meet the immediate CO2 reduction requirements. We need to be doing everything, not just one or the other.

And they can't be overcome with proper investment and long-term strategic planning? Funny how in the oil industry any technical problem can be overcome, but in renewables it's just too hard and expensive.

You can make the wind blow constantly and harder?

Can I just note that on an individual basis each current offshore wind farm is a similar sized (or bigger than) each of the current UK nuclear plants with the probable exception of Heysham. Even then wind farms are getting bigger.

a lot of oil will simply be left in the ground.

You say that is if it's a bad thing. This is the very problem. Admittedly it's a long term problem that we collectively fail to recognise or do anything about, but it's not going away.

You can make the wind blow constantly and harder?

That's a silly comment. Like anyone is suggesting that the entire national grid will be fed solely from offshore wind. Something tells me the engineers will have though about that problem.

You can make the wind blow constantly and harder?

Funny you should ask that - there are some nice studies that show provided you space the wind farms out enough (round Britain or round Europe, not just a few metres further apart) the wind does blow pretty much constantly.

And it blows harder in winter when you need more power.

Do not discount one of the answers because it is not a total answer. None of the answers is a total answer.

Edit: I'm an engineer who gets paid to think about this sort of thing - at the distribution grid level rather than total energy balance level to be fair.

And now over to Binners.

You can make the wind blow constantly and harder?

[img] [/img]

You say that is if it's a bad thing. This is the very problem.

Well if the UK government make a concious decision to do that and accept all the consequences that will follow as a result then fair enough, but to simply have it as a side effect of short sighted taxation policy then yes it is a bad thing.

The [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_Price_Escalator ]fuel price escalator[/url] is a brillaint example of using tax to change peoples habits for the sake of the envrionment.
Unfortunatly all it did was prove that we are all prepared to spend a shiot load of money to keep driving and is probably responsible for the whole energy industry charging us lots more than they oughtto, as they realised that we would rather drive and have the central heating on than eat reasonably well or clothe the kids.

Life is non linear, increasing (or decreasing) taxes on the oil industry might not have the simplistic effect on the market that the OP expects.

no oil co investing = no tax revenue at all = no jobs = no income tax revenue and alot more signing on.

i dont like quoting my self but it seems as if it might be relevant here

Oh, oh economics and elasticity, dbcooper?

exactly.
This is the problem when the man in the street thinks he has an opinion on how to run the country..

If it was costing you $60 to produce something you could sell for $60 with the liabilities that come from running a rig, would you do it, plus a lot of companies out there have not been out there 40 years so to say how much a company is making is ridiculous (they are making that money elsewhere in the world).

Go and work on an offshore wind farm construction project, get to understand how much energy is required to build them and then compare that to how much energy they produce and how much energy is required to maintain them.

As one scientist put it "Offshore wind is the only thing that makes nuclear look cheap".

I know you're just trolling but this is just daily mail stuff, come on.

I've just spent 4 years working in O&G and from where I'm sitting it is a pretty strange industry. Not much time to write now as I'm off to ride by bike, but the human race really have got themselves into a ridiculous reliance on oil in the last few decades. It's such a short timescale in human history but it's made so many people so rich and able to influence the lives of the masses, when it's all over it'll be like waking up with a hangover and wondering what you did the night before and how you let it happen.

The tax cuts are to protect the jobs and industry here as it becomes uneconomical, which isn't a problem in the short term, but longer term things are only going to become more expensive. The industry has built themselves up this lovely cosy bubble of power, influence, wealth and crazy salaries and they will do anything they can to stop people bursting it.

If you didn't see this series it's really worth watching http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gzf5l

The big 5 made profit of $177,000 per minute last year,

They may have done however, that's global and the big 5 exposure to the North Sea is much reduced and falling. A lot of the North Sea is now run by Small to Medium operators, keeping the taps running on ancient, clapped-out fields.

The worst thing you can do with oil is burn it considering what else you can do with it.

The tax cuts are to protect the jobs and industry here as it becomes uneconomical

I've no problem with govt cushioning the impact in a planned scaling back but is that what these proposed tax cuts are about, or are they just a handout to a dysfunctional industry in the same vein as the banking bailouts? It rankles when you think that in the 80s entire industries were wiped out on the basis that the govt couldn't afford to support them so is this any different?

when the man in the street thinks he has an opinion on how to run the country

It rankles when you think that in the 80s entire industries were wiped out on the basis that the govt couldn't afford to support them so is this any different?

in the 80s entire industries were wiped out on the basis that the govt couldn't afford to support them so is this any different?

I don't think that reducing the tax from sky high levels to very high levels can really be called government support!

EDIT too late ...

Given what the "experts" achieve , and some of what they justify/ignire , its not hard to see why we question the "wisdom".

Or it is a lot harder to achieve what we want than a simple analysis can reveal and the experts are doing their damndest, but the man in the streets simplistic observations with no knowledge of the problem/process do not help.

A tax cut is not a subsidy

Is that not just an accounting technicality? The end result is the same, more money in the oil companies bank accounts, less in the govt's. And as for subsidies, one person's subsidy is another person's investment. And who's to say that the saved money from the tax cuts is going to be invested in the North Sea rather than used to maintain the shareholder dividend?

The tax cut means that they pay less tax on a barrel of oil produced. No oil, no tax. So they can't trouser the cash and bugger off. At present there is no profit to be made so there will be no further investment. That's a lose- lose situation.

To be fair to the oil industry, its not like its being subsidised for producing this ....

[img] [/img]

if the workers keep their jobs then the money gets back to the UK revenue in the end.

Is that not just an accounting technicality?

No, you are just changing the split of profits share because the profits have gone down. A subsidy means you give someone else's money to the company.

more money in the oil companies bank accounts, less in the govt's

Not necessarily, if you tax them till the bleed they'll just shut down and you'll get no tax take.

And who's to say that the saved money from the tax cuts is going to be invested in the North Sea rather than used to maintain the shareholder dividend?

Possibly, but you can also add incentive's for tax reduction such as Norway does with an offset against exploration costs.

Is that not just an accounting technicality?

No.

A subsidy is when the government gives a company some money.

A tax cut is when a company pays less money to the government than they did before. They are still paying money to the government.

A subsidy is when the government gives a company some money.

A tax cut is when a company pays less money to the government than they did before. They are still paying money to the government.

Yeah thanks for explaining that 🙄 My point was that the end result is still the same, a shift of revenue from the govt to the oil companies, with no guarantee that it's going to be used for the intended purpose. At least a direct subsidy could come with conditions attached, like saving jobs, investing in infrastructure etc.

The Shell CEO only took home 25million euros last year, probably does need a hand out.

The Shell CEO will probably take home 25M Euros with or without the North Sea.
If it looks unprofitable (or has low profitablity) then they may just decide to sack people as that seems to boost the share price. They already cut (or plan to) 250 from Aberdeen but compared to the 2-3000 they already cut in Nigeria (which is probably one of their most profitable locations) it could be much worse.

I guess for the short to medium term we need them more than they need us especially if we wish to retain a skilled workforce.

gobuchul - Member

It's not really the "expense" but the limitations of the technology.

It's really neither- it's largely that fossil fuel burners don't have to pay the true cost of the damage they cause and have caused, or the irreplacable resource they're using, so it's artificially cheap.

My point was that the end result is still the same, a shift of revenue from the govt to the oil companies, with no guarantee that it's going to be used for the intended purpose.

Well by that rather perverse logic, given that all other industries operating in the UK pay lower tax rate than Norths Sea production, they are all getting a bigger subsidy from the government than does the oil industry.

well it looks like we got a tax cut - with a snide dig at scottish independance thrown in.....

...and the potential for a lot of simplification around allowances which can only be a good thing too!

Yeah thanks for explaining that My point was that the end result is still the same, a shift of revenue from the govt to the oil companies, with no guarantee that it's going to be used for the intended purpose. At least a direct subsidy could come with conditions attached, like saving jobs, investing in infrastructure etc

For every £100 of 'profit' made on getting oil out of the ground (and a that point it's almost all profit) they pay £60 to £80 to the govenrment in tax, this is Ok because in the UK the government owns the mineral rights, so this 'tax' is just the oil companied buying the oil of the government (the remainder is the cost of getting it out of the ground and proffit). A tax cut in this case is just the government accepting a slightly lower price for the oil.

A subsidy would be what we had for the coal industry, where the govenrment was paying for the coal to be bought out of the ground.

Funny you should ask that - there are some nice studies that show provided you space the wind farms out enough (round Britain or round Europe, not just a few metres further apart) the wind does blow pretty much constantly.

No it doesn't. This graph shows wind generation for 9 European countries combined.

[img] [/img]

http://euanmearns.com/wind-blowing-nowhere/

No it doesn't. This graph shows wind generation for 9 European countries combined.

you forgot to mention the graph is for a short period coinciding with an unusually massive blocking high covering a massive area of europe, which don't happen very often. it's statistical nit-picking, or cherry picking even.

A subsidy would be what we had for the coal industry, where the govenrment was paying for the coal to be bought out of the ground.

It's still just semantics. The govt paid to take coal out of the ground because it was a nationalised industry. The same was true of oil before BP was privatised. The difference was that oil made a profit, coal didn't, and the govt had to make up the shortfall by way of subsidies. In the end it's still just a transfer of funds one way or the other, so if funds are transferred from govt to oil companies, as in this case, it's analogous to a subsidy.

Anyway, aside from bickering about semantics, the point is still that at a time when the oil industry should be scaling down and shifting it's focus away from selling it as a fuel, it would appear that it's government policy to ensure that they continue producing as much as possible and making as much profit as possible in direct contradiction to other government policies (and plain common sense) which require us to be emitting less CO2.

In what way do you imagine that funds are transferred from government to oil companies?

It's government policy to ensure that the UK has a secure energy supply. I imagine that there are folks in Kiev who wish they had a similar resource.

No it doesn't. This graph shows wind generation for 9 European countries combined.

you forgot to mention the graph is for a short period coinciding with an unusually massive blocking high covering a massive area of europe, which don't happen very often. it's statistical nit-picking, or cherry picking even.

It isn't nitpicking. It shows that even on a European scale wind can't be relied on and there needs to be near enough complete backup from predictable sources. So as well as paying for the windfarms we still need to pay for coal,gas, or nuclear plants. Building capacity twice.

As of right now the UK installed wind is supplying around 3% of current demand. We are importing more electricity (mainly nuclear) from France than we are getting from every UK windfarm combined.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

irc - Member

As of right now the UK installed wind is supplying around 3% of current demand. We are importing more electricity (mainly nuclear) from France than we are getting from every UK windfarm combined.

As of right now Scotland's biggest source of electricity is renewables, beating nuclear into a distant second and producing more than coal and gas combined. And we export electricity to the rest of the UK. The rest of the UK has failed to keep up; that doesn't mean it's impossible, we've proven it's not.

Oil companies are still making money. Its a lot of the well service companies that are being squeezed. All I can say is at least our economy is not as dependant on oil as Alberta's is. The job losses going on over there is horrific. Shops closing down all over the place.

Scotland has maasivly different population density to England as well as a different geography.

England has massively more coast, hill and empty space than it needs to match Scotland in renewables. The UK's biggest windfarm is just miles from Glasgow, in an area which has a population density higher than most of England. It's a red herring.

All I can say is at least our economy is not as dependant on oil as Alberta's is.

Shale oil has a high extraction cost, so will be very vulnerable to dips in oil prices. Personally I can't see this price dip lasting that long (so much so, I bought a load of cheap oil stocks last week). At some point it will go back up.

As of right now Scotland's biggest source of electricity is renewables, beating nuclear into a distant second and producing more than coal and gas combined. And we export electricity to the rest of the UK. The rest of the UK has failed to keep up; that doesn't mean it's impossible, we've proven it's not.

You are confusing installed capacity with actual output. The total UK wind output right now is about 1.8Gw Max demand in Scotland which is in weekday evenings is around 6Gw. So the whole UK wind output is meeting approx 1/3 of the demand in Scotland. Solar output is obviously zero right now. So the vast majority of demand is being met by coal, gas, and nuclear. As it always is when there is very little wind and it is dark.

An excellent piece of Scotland's crazy wind energy policy is

http://euanmearns.com/scotland-gagging-on-wind-power/

As I understand it the energy from renewables cannot be stored currently, example a wind turbine at night producing energy when there is low demand.

Are there any plans for large scale storage of renewable energy on the horizon?

Also without the nitrogen from fossil fuels we would not have fertilser and could not feed ourselves.

irc - Member

You are confusing installed capacity with actual output.

No, I am not. In 2014 renewables out-generated nuclear, 10.3 TWh to 7.8TWh (and just 5.6 for coal)

Also without the nitrogen from fossil fuels we would not have fertilser and could not feed ourselves.

You aren't a chemist then?

Haber Process

The Haber process uses Nitrogen and Hydrogen to produce Ammonia doesn't it?

As I understand it the energy from renewables cannot be stored currently, example a wind turbine at night producing energy when there is low demand.

Are there any plans for large scale storage of renewable energy on the horizon?

Hydroelectric schemes can store energy from renewables by pumping water back up during the night ready to be used again during peak demand.

Can I just note that on an individual basis each current offshore wind farm is a similar sized (or bigger than) each of the current UK nuclear plants with the probable exception of Heysham.

By Heysham do you mean Heysham 1, Heysham 2* or the two separate plants combined? They are two distinct and separate sites.

And besides which, you're very wrong. The only site which even comes close to matching a nuclear plant is the London Array at 630MW to 640MW design per reactor (all of our AGR's are twin reactor sites albeit working at reduced output in most cases) but even that gets dwarfed by Sizewell B which pumps out close to 1.2GW.

In fact, I'd be surprised if all offshore wind could match the combined Heysham sites.

*which is the exact same design as Torness

The Haber process uses Nitrogen and Hydrogen to produce Ammonia doesn't it?

Correct.

Where does the Nitrogen come from?

All the debates over whether wind can replace fossil fuels are silly. No one has ever suggested it could. It is however a key component in a future fossil fuel free energy infrastructure in combination with hydro, existing nuclear, next-gen nuclear and solar (on a small scale admittedly in this country). Yes in the short-medium term you'd need fossil fuels such as gas to be there to cover shortages when the wind isn't blowing etc but it's all do-able. If the billions that are spent on finding new ways of squeezing oil out of the earth's crust and tar sands were spent on things like research into more efficient storage mechanisms, smart grids, microgrids and energy efficiency then the problem would be solved. But no, in it's wisdom the govt decides to hand a tax cut to an already massively profitable industry whilst the developing renewables industry sees nowhere near the same level of investment.

There will always be peaks and troughs in both supply and demand.
Increased use of renewables will make supply even more erratic.
Changes in climate and increased uses for electricity will make demand more erratic.

So, why do we pay much the same for our electricity in the short term, rather than have a constantly varying price?
You could set your car to charge its battery when prices drop, whether that be because wind picks up, or demand drops etc.
When prices are exceptionally high, your home could draw power from your car battery to make your toast.

Change technology and behaviour patterns to fit around the peaks and troughs, and smooth them out.

It's still just semantics.

It's not though is it? If for some non-financial reason (climate change) we stopped oil extraction then the government would stop recieving money. When we stopped extracting coal they stopped having to pay out money.

A subsidy very definately implies the government is paying the oil companies, they're not, the oil companies are paying the government. All Osbourne has done is offer them our oil at a lower price than last year to keep things viable while the price is low.

Rough and incredibly over simplified example of whats happened:
$100 a barrel, $60 to HMRC, $20 cost to extract, $20 profit to the oil company.
$50 a barrel, $30 to HMRC, $20 to extract, no profit, platform closes, jobs lost, HMRC loses it's $30, and all the income tax, multipleier effects etc.

If the govrernment didn't cut the tax rate on oil, north sea oil would be uncompetative at the moment, what they're doing is modulating the tax to keep it as high as possible (thus keeping tax revenues as high as possible) without making it uneconomicaly viable (and getting zero).

Without the North Sea (and/or Fracking) places like Grangemouth and Teesside/Wilton will close, we're still trying to figure out what those people made redundant by pit closures are going to do for work, without colapsing another industry as well!

Where does the Nitrogen come from?

You need the hydrogen too (yes you can make it from water, but in the real world it comes from fossil fuels). You also need the energy to distill the nitrogen from the air.

If the billions that are spent on finding new ways of squeezing oil out of the earth's crust and tar sands were spent on things like research into more efficient storage mechanisms, smart grids, microgrids and energy efficiency then the problem would be solved. But no, in it's wisdom the govt decides to hand a tax cut to an already massively profitable industry whilst the developing renewables industry sees nowhere near the same level of investment.

The oil industry recieves no subsidy, they pay the government money.

If this tax cut didn't take place they'd pay less money, which means less money to [b]SUBSIDISE[/b] renewables (or pay for schools, hospitals, police).

Are there any plans for large scale storage of renewable energy on the horizon?

don't think anyones mentioned the supergrid concept of interconnecting generation across europe. I've worked on the Northconnect and Icelink HVDC interconnector projects, which are really interesting.

Northconnect aims to balance the electricity generation between Scotland and Norway, in the winter Norway suffer a shortfall of hydro power as the reservoirs freeze, but we have an excess of energy production from hydro and wind. In the summer it is vice versa, Norway has an excess of hydro production and we have a shortfall of wind and hydro. The HVDC interconnector allows these surpluses and shortfalls to be balanaced out by trading electricity as required either way.

Icelink is another interesting one - Iceland has a potentially massive geothermal energy resource, almost their entire electricity generation is from geothermal and they have the potential for a load more, so by using a gert big HVDC interconnector they can export this cheap renewable energy source to us. The National Grid are very interested in these interconnectors as the supply is predictable and it helps smooth everything out so to speak. Existing HVDC connectors to Europe have been superbly successful.

It shows that even on a European scale wind can't be relied on and there needs to be near enough complete backup from predictable sources.

I think the only people discussing the suggestion that wind alone needs to be relied on are you, the daily mail and that quack website you link to.

TINAS gets it !

Dazh is in some parallel universe , and only reads headline numbers.

using your logic the north sea oil industry will shut up shop.

But no, in it's wisdom the govt decides to hand a tax cut to an already massively profitable industry

One more time - North Sea oil is not massively profitable, and the oil industry in general makes quite modest returns on the enormous, incredibly risky investments that it makes.

no oil co investing = no tax revenue at all = no jobs = no income tax revenue and alot more signing on.

The above equation is wrong. The correct version is:

no oil co investing = [ reduced tax revenues + rapid loss of critical team that take years to rebuild + higher unemployment over the long term + less energy security + more UK engineers working abroad + loss of jobs in the direct supply chains. ]

footflaps - Member
Shale oil has a high extraction cost, so will be very vulnerable to dips in oil prices. Personally I can't see this price dip lasting that long (so much so, I bought a load of cheap oil stocks last week). At some point it will go back up.

North sea oil is a long way from cheap to extract!

same as the banks

This. Poor planning for a rainy day, greedy profit taking and high wages all round, then asking for help when the rain comes. Grrrr.

Equally, they are in the UK being shafted by OPEC it seems who are keeping the price low...edit: and shafted u extra and unique taxes.