Connect with us

Published

on

Some of the world’s biggest oil companies are currently paying negative tax on their fossil fuel extraction and production operations in the North Sea.

Official data published by the UK government-backed Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative shows that in the tax year 2019-20, ExxonMobil received £117m in total from HMRC, Shell got £110m, and BP received £39m.

But these organisations are not alone.

Shell oil company
Image:
Shell got £110m from HMRC in the 2019 to 2020 tax year

A third of all significant energy companies operating in the North Sea paid negative tax last year.

This is possible in large part because of a UK tax policy that was brought in just a few months after the Paris climate accord was agreed in 2015.

The policy allows oil and gas companies to claim back public money in order to help with decommissioning rigs and infrastructure as the UK progresses towards its net zero carbon emissions targets.

Since the Paris agreement, Exxon has received net tax repayments of £360m on its North Sea operations, BP £490m, and Shell £400m, rounded to the nearest 10 million.

More on Energy

Some of these sums relate to corporate tax arrangements, but significant portions relate to money for decommissioning.

The UK government’s Oil and Gas Authority has estimated that the total bill for decommissioning will be £51bn.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

The Daily Climate Show: can oil be green?

But because of the government’s tax policy, the British taxpayer will be responsible for nearly 40% of that over the coming decades.

HMRC has estimated that the cost to the exchequer will be £18.3bn between now and 2065.

This comes as total government income from taxes on oil revenue is decreasing, largely due to falling demand and the cost of decommissioning payments.

Energy Research company Rystad Energy recently named the UK as the country that offers oil and gas companies the “best profit conditions” in the world “to develop big offshore fields.”

Subscribe to ClimateCast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Spreaker.

This has been illustrated by researchers like Greg Muttitt, who is a senior policy adviser at the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

He has calculated that in 2019 the UK government took $1.72 (£1.24) in taxes per barrel of oil, while the Norwegian government took $21.35 (£15.44).

Campaign groups say the current tax policy effectively amounts to the British public subsidising fossil fuel extraction, even as they are being urged to make greener choices in their own lives.

FILE - In this April 23, 2018, file photo, the logo for ExxonMobil appears above a trading post on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange.  Exxon Mobil on Tuesday, March 3, 2020,  outlined how it is reducing the methane its operations release into the atmosphere, detailing its efforts as governments around the globe write new rules to regulate the harmful greenhouse gas. (AP Photo/Richard Drew, File)
Image:
ExxonMobil received £117m from HMRC in the 2019 to 2020 tax year. Pic: AP

Environmental lawyer and campaign group Uplift founder Tessa Khan told Sky News: “These companies are allowed to extract oil and gas for private gain, not the public’s benefit and certainly not the Treasury’s.

“They’re not helping to pay for our hospitals and schools, they’re taking public money and handing it to their executives and shareholders.

“The harm to the climate from their actions will be borne by us all, with the poorest hit the hardest.

“There can be no excuses for propping them up with subsidies in a climate emergency. That era is over.”

A section of the BP Eastern Trough Area Project (ETAP) oil platform is seen in the North Sea, around 100 miles east of Aberdeen in Scotland February 24, 2014. REUTERS/Andy Buchanan/pool/File Photo
Image:
A section of the BP Eastern Trough Area Project oil platform seen in the North Sea in 2014. File pic

A Treasury spokesperson told Sky News: “We’re leading the world in building back better and greener from the pandemic.

“We were the first major economy to commit to net zero by 2050 and one of the first to phase out petrol and diesel car sales by 2030.

“The UK oil and gas industry has paid around £375bn in production taxes to date.

“Relief for decommissioning costs is a fundamental part of the UK’s tax system, contributing to the safe removal of oil and gas infrastructure from our natural environment whilst ensuring companies are encouraged to invest in the UK.”

A spokesperson from ExxonMobil said: “The figures in the UK EITI report relate only to extractive operations (oil & gas production), several of which are nearing the end of their economic life.

“ExxonMobil also has downstream and chemical operations in the UK, and overall made a contribution to the UK of £5.2bn in direct and indirect taxes and duties in 2020.

“Over the lifetime of the North Sea, we have been a major, net contributor to the tax revenues generated by the basin and the recent refunds simply represent a repayment of some prior paid taxes as some of our older fields enter the decommissioning phase of their life.”

A spokesperson from Shell told Sky News: “We are open about our tax payments so that people can understand what we pay and why.

“We voluntarily disclose more information than we are required to and lead best practice in this area.

“The question you raise is whether it is right that companies get tax relief for decommissioning assets.

“Decommissioning is part of the lifecycle of oil fields.

“This phase of work is heavily regulated and subject to tax legislation that enables tax relief.

“The concept of granting tax relief for genuine business expenses is fundamental to regimes that tax profits and is applicable and available to all businesses in all industries with few exceptions.

“Decommissioning costs in the oil and gas industry are treated consistently as a business expense.”

A spokesperson for BP told Sky News: “The EITI’s data cover only the extractive part of our business in the UK, our North Sea business.

“All BP’s North Sea assets are owned by companies subject to UK tax in accordance with UK law.

“BP has contributed over £40bn in taxes to the UK government with respect to its North Sea business.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

April: Why has BP had such a successful quarter?

Sky News has launched the first daily prime time news show dedicated to climate change.

The Daily Climate Show is broadcast at 6.30pm and 9.30pm Monday to Friday on Sky News, the Sky News website and app, on YouTube and Twitter.

Hosted by Anna Jones, it follows Sky News correspondents as they investigate how global warming is changing our landscape and how we all live our lives.

The show also highlights solutions to the crisis and how small changes can make a big difference.

Continue Reading

Business

COVID schemes’ fraud and error cost taxpayers £11bn

Published

on

By

COVID schemes' fraud and error cost taxpayers £11bn

COVID-19 fraud and error cost the taxpayer nearly £11bn, a government watchdog has found.

Pandemic support programmes such as furlough, bounce-back loans, support grants and Eat Out to Help Out led to £10.9bn in fraud and error, COVID Counter-Fraud Commissioner Tom Hayhoe’s final report has concluded.

Lack of government data to target economic support made it “easy” for fraudsters to claim under more than one scheme and secure dual funding, the report said.

Weak accountability, bad quality data and poor contracting were identified as the primary causes of the loss.

The government has said the sum is enough to fund daily free school meals for the UK’s 2.7 million eligible children for eight years.

An earlier report from Mr Hayhoe for the Treasury in June found that failed personal protective equipment (PPE) contracts during the pandemic cost the British taxpayer £1.4 billion, with £762 million spent on unused protective equipment unlikely ever to be recovered.

Factors behind the lost money had included government over-ordering of PPE, and delays in checking it.

More on Covid-19

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the latest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

Continue Reading

Business

Magnum debut suffers a chill as Ben & Jerry’s row lingers

Published

on

By

Magnum debut suffers a chill as Ben & Jerry's row lingers

Shares in The Magnum Ice Cream Company (TMICC) have fallen slightly on debut after the completion of its spin-off from Unilever amid a continuing civil war with one of its best-known brands.

Shares in the Netherlands-based company are trading for the first time following the demerger.

It creates the world’s biggest ice cream company, controlling around one fifth of the global market.

Primary Magnum shares, in Amsterdam, opened at €12.20 – down on the €12.80 reference price set by the EuroNext exchange, though they later settled just above that level, implying a market value of €7.9bn – just below £7bn.

The company is also listed in London and New York.

Money latest: The cheapest days to travel by plane

Unilever stock was down 3.1% on the FTSE 100 in the wake of the spin off.

More from Money

The demerger allows London-headquartered Unilever to concentrate on its wider stable of consumer brands, including Marmite, Dove soap and Domestos.

The decision to hive off the ice cream division, made in early 2024, gives a greater focus on a market that is tipped to grow by up to 4% each year until 2029.

Ben & Jerry's accounts for a greater volume of group revenue now under TMICC. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Ben & Jerry’s accounts for a greater volume of group revenue now under TMICC. Pic: Reuters

But it has been dogged by a long-running spat with the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s, which now falls under the TMICC umbrella and accounts for 14% of group revenue.

Unilever bought the US brand in 2000, but the relationship has been sour since, despite the creation of an independent board at that time aimed at protecting the brand’s social mission.

The most high-profile spat came in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s took the decision not to sell ice cream in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories on the grounds that sales would be “inconsistent” with its values.

Unilever responded by selling the business to its licensee in Israel.

A series of rows have followed akin to a tug of war, with Magnum refusing repeated demands by the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s to sell the brand back.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Sept: ‘Free Ben & Jerry’s’

Magnum and Unilever argue its mission has strayed beyond what was acceptable back in 2000, with the brand evolving into one-sided advocacy on polarising topics that risk reputational and business damage.

TMICC is currently trying to remove the chair of Ben & Jerry’s independent board.

It said last month that Anuradha Mittal “no longer meets the criteria” to serve after internal investigations.

An audit of the separate Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, where she is also a trustee, found deficiencies in financial controls and governance. Magnum said the charitable arm risked having funding removed unless the alleged problems were addressed.

The Reuters news agency has since reported that Ms Mittal has no plans to quit her roles, and accused Magnum of attempts to “discredit” her and undermine the authority of the independent board.

Magnum boss Peter ter Kulve said on Monday: “Today is a proud milestone for everyone associated with TMICC. We became the global leader in ice cream as part of the Unilever family. Now, as an independent listed company, we will be more agile, more focused, and more ambitious than ever.”

Commenting on the demerger, Hargreaves Lansdown equity analyst Aarin Chiekrie said: “TMICC is already free cash flow positive, and profitable in its own right. The balance sheet is in decent shape, but dividends are off the cards until 2027 as the group finds its footing as a standalone business.

“That could cause some downward pressure on the share price in the near term, as dividend-focussed investment funds that hold Unilever will be handed TMICC shares, the latter of which they may be forced to sell to abide by their investment mandate.”

Continue Reading

Business

Netflix takeover of Warner Bros ‘could be a problem’, Donald Trump says

Published

on

By

Netflix takeover of Warner Bros 'could be a problem', Donald Trump says

Donald Trump has said he will be “involved” in the decision on whether Netflix should be allowed to buy Warner Bros, as the $72bn (£54bn) deal attracts a media industry backlash.

The US president acknowledged in remarks to reporters there “could be a problem”, acknowledging concerns over the streaming giant’s market dominance.

Crucially, he did not say where he stood on the issue.

Money latest: The cheapest days to travel by plane

It was revealed on Friday that Netflix, already the world’s biggest streaming service by market share, had agreed to buy Warner Bros Discovery’s TV, film studios and HBO Max streaming division.

The deal aims to complete late next year after the Discovery element of the business, mainly legacy TV channels showing cartoons, news and sport, has been spun off.

But the deal has attracted cross-party criticism on competition grounds, and there is also opposition in Hollywood.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Netflix agrees $72bn takeover of Warner Bros

The Writers Guild of America said: “The world’s largest streaming company swallowing one of its biggest competitors is what antitrust laws were designed to prevent.

“The outcome would eliminate jobs, push down wages, worsen conditions for all entertainment workers, raise prices for consumers, and reduce the volume and diversity of content for all viewers.”

File pic: Reuters
Image:
File pic: Reuters

Republican Senator, Roger Marshall, said in a statement: “Netflix’s attempt to buy Warner Bros would be the largest media takeover in history – and it raises serious red flags for consumers, creators, movie theaters, and local businesses alike.

“One company should not have full vertical control of the content and the distribution pipeline that delivers it. And combining two of the largest streaming platforms is a textbook horizontal Antitrust problem.

“Prices, choice, and creative freedom are at stake. Regulators need to take a hard look at this deal, and realize how harmful it would be for consumers and Western society.”

Paramount Skydance and Comcast, the parent company of Sky News, were two other bidders in the auction process that preceded the announcement.

The Reuters news agency, citing information from sources, said their bids were rejected in favour of Netflix for different reasons.

Paramount’s was seen as having funding concerns, they said, while Comcast’s was deemed not to offer so many earlier benefits.

Read more:
Why Netflix could yet get its way in Trump’s America
Netflix flexes its muscles – and could yet get its way

Paramount is run by David Ellison, the son of the Oracle tech billionaire Larry Ellison, who is a close ally of Mr Trump.

The president said of the Netflix deal’s path to regulatory clearance: “I’ll be involved in that decision”.

On the likely opposition to the deal. he added: “That’s going to be for some economists to tell. But it is a big market share. There’s no question it could be a problem.”

Continue Reading

Trending