Will the end of tax breaks break the UK oil & gas industry?

Oct 29, 2009, 8:36AM EST
Will the end of tax breaks break the UK oil & gas industry?
The Treasury's decision to 'snub' the oil and gas industry has lead to concerns over job losses

 The UK oil and gas industry has reacted angrily to the Government’s rejection of wide-reaching cuts in corporation tax, with the opinion that the decision will swiftly lead to a loss of jobs in the sector. 

The historically-deep pockets of offshore investment and tax breaks look likely to become rather tightened after the Treasury stated that removing the supplementary charge on corporation tax would not, as the industry suggests, boost production, so is therefore unnecessary. 

This lead to vocal criticism that the Government has ‘snubbed’ the UK oil and gas industry, a rather foolhardy move given that it contributes over £150 million in taxes each year, provides around 380,000 jobs and creates 75 per cent of the country’s primary energy resources. 

Although Chancellor Alistair Darling was quick to point out that the Government was committed to supporting the industry in extracting as much UK oil and gas as possible while ensuring that taxpayers’ received a fair deal from the investment, industry representatives are fully aware that a failure to reduce the tax burden on current and potential projects will be damaging to the future of UK oil and gas production. 

Mr Mike Tholen, a spokesman from Oil and Gas UK pointed out, “Investment has declined over the last three years and will only begin to recover if significant steps are taken to ease the tax burden on UK oil and gas projects to restore their competitiveness on a worldwide stage.”

MPs from Aberdeen are keen to push the importance of the issue to their colleagues in London, with a clear message that vast numbers of oil and gas workers in their constituencies will quickly be affected by a lower rate of production. With a general election required to take place by June 2010 at the very latest and the Labour Party already a full 20 per cent lower than the Tories in most polls, these Scottish ministers are far more realistic about the impact oil and gas job losses would have on its chances of election success. 


 
Filed under: gas, government, investment, MP, oil, treasury, UK
Report abuse



Bookmark this page to:Add to Faves Add to MyAOL Add to Simpy Add to Delicious Add to Live Add to Digg Add to Newsvine Add to Reddit Add to Multiply Add to Blogmarks Add to Yahoo MyWeb Add to Slashdot Add to Mister Wong Add to Spurl Add to Furl Add to Link-a-Gogo Add to Yahoo Bookmarks Add to Twitter Add to Facebook Add to Diigo Add to Mixx Add to Segnalo Add to StumbleUpon Add to Magnolia Add to Ask Add to Backflip Add to Terchnorati Add to Google Bookmarks Add to MySpace

Comments
Jon Watson
For marine operators fuel costs represent a significant proportion of operating costs. As we all know, fuel costs have risen dramatically over recent years and the problem is likley to be compunded if environmental pressure groups such as Oceana and Friends of the Earth have their way. They are all quick to support the same sort of initiatives and one such is the call for a tax on bunker fuels.
In the US this is something Senator Boxer is/was pushing to have enacted unilaterally in the US.

Would it do any good or would be just another cash garb by governments?
Would it bring benefits or more pollution if encated unilaterally? There are those who say it could be a very bad move.
10/29/2009 4:25:55 PM
 
Jon Watson
For marine operators fuel costs represent a significant proportion of operating costs. As we all know, fuel costs have risen dramatically over recent years and the problem is likley to be compunded if environmental pressure groups such as Oceana and Friends of the Earth have their way. They are all quick to support the same sort of initiatives and one such is the call for a tax on bunker fuels.
In the US this is something Senator Boxer is/was pushing to have enacted unilaterally in the US.

Would it do any good or would be just another cash garb by governments?
Would it bring benefits or more pollution if encated unilaterally? There are those who say it could be a very bad move.
10/29/2009 4:25:55 PM
 

Sign in

Latest blog comments

2/4/2012

dilipan thomas
well there is no job for most people who has finished studi...

2/2/2012

Saunders Jones
Joe, You are right on regarding both GMATS and the Super...

1/25/2012

Joseph Keefe
Mark: You get the prize, indeed. Thanks for weighing in....

1/24/2012

Mark Sales
An apt and appropriate view of the situation. It also shou...

1/24/2012

Eric Goldring
I just wrote an article on my blog about the hype which has...

1/20/2012

Shiran Senanayake
I believe that Cruise Masters are fatigued with so many por...

1/19/2012

Alan Loynd
Absolutely correct. With the largest passenger ships now...

1/19/2012

James Lynch
Well stated. The need for regulation is obvious in any fie...

1/19/2012

Eugene (Gene) Horton
Dear Greg, I read your article on “size matters” and found...

1/19/2012

Laurie Thomas
Joe, to add to John's comment, here's another gem/bad news ...