strichener Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 So did Glasgow. Taxpayer as in me and you. You also contributed to the Manchester Games and the London Olympics. The same cannot be said for those residing in England and Wales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 The London Olympics were a UK nationwide event. Where everybody contributed. The Glasgow Commonwealth games were a Scottish National event, similar to the Manchester Commonwealth Games. Which if memory serves me right...let me think. .that's right... Scotland contributed the sum total of bugger all. That's like someone from Inverness complaining about having to fork out because the games were in Glasgow. So please don't play the hard done to card. You need to go and do some research about the funding for Manchester. It has already been discussed on here and your myth proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 What has Trident to do with oil exploration ? Are you suggesting that a future Scottish government would be doing it themselves or nationalising the oil companies ? The only other option would be that you're just throwing in as many 'Freedum' cliche's as you can and I'm sure that's not the case. The MOD won't allow exploration on the West coast because they don't want it interfering with subs. So aye, it has everything to do with Trident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-lost-treasure-of-the-deep/#more-60260 The lost treasure of the deep Sir Ian Wood quoted in the Scotsman late last year: “A radical overhaul of the North Sea oil industry can deliver a £200 billion injection to the economy over the next 20 years, a major report has concluded. Oil tycoon Sir Ian Wood has led the biggest independent review of the North Sea oil and gas industry in its history, and said yesterday that production could increase by four billion barrels over coming years if major changes to the operation of the oil and gas sector are made. Such changes would put the UK in a ‘stronger position’ to extract nearly all of the estimated 24 billion barrels still remaining underneath the North Sea.” Unfortunately, since then there’s been a cataclysm. “A leading oil industry figure has claimed that the Scottish government’s predictions for North Sea oil recovery are up to 60% too high. The figure of 24bn barrels is quoted in the White Paper as an estimate from industry body Oil and Gas UK. But Sir Ian Wood [...] claimed there are about 15bn to 16.5bn barrels of recoverable oil left, and that the figure from the White Paper is 45% to 60% too high.” Wait, what? Sir Ian Wood’s report in February can be read in full here. It references the 24bn figure at least six times. In itself that seems rather conservative, because a footnote on page 5 of the document says that the UK government’s own Department of Energy and Climate Change puts the “high case expectation outcome” at 35bn barrels: We know the oil industry – which cares solely about profits, not politics – thinks the future is bright, because it’s just undertaken record investment of billions and billions of pounds in the North Sea. Just days ago even the staid Sunday Post was talking of a “new oil boom” as the equally-Unionist Press & Journal enthused breathlessly about spectacular new discoveries, and the potential for more in areas that are currently off-limits due to UK government policy. So we’re a little mystified about how Sir Ian has suddenly managed to not only arrive at such a gloomy assessment, but also misplace a whopping 8 billion barrels of oil between his own report in February (which he’s disingenuously trying to pretend was actually the Scottish Government’s) and now – coincidentally at the exact same time he’s decided that he needs to come out in favour of a No vote. None of this is really the point, of course. Everyone knows oil is a finite resource, and that a plan is needed for the day when it does run out, even if that day is still 40 or 50 years off. Other oil-rich countries have dealt with the issue by creating huge oil funds, something the UK government (almost uniquely in the world) chose not to do. “Thanks to petroleum riches, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is minting money. The challenge? How to spend it all.” But Scotland has been given a second chance. It’s well-placed to cope despite that UK failure, being blessed with enormous renewables resources and decades in which to use oil money to exploit them. We can see the problem coming a long way down the road, and we have all the tools needed to address it, but they’re currently in the hands of incompetents who are interested only in bleeding the oceans dry and blowing the proceeds on weapons and wars and more tax cuts for the rich. Westminster has wasted the last 40 years of oil money with nothing to show for it, but it doesn’t have to be allowed to waste the next 40 as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 The MOD won't allow exploration on the West coast because they don't want it interfering with subs. So aye, it has everything to do with Trident. Thats not quite right. For starters, even going with your scenario, not all our submarines are Trident boats but secondly the submarines are very restricted on when and where they can operate due to fishing taking a priority. The MOD does have areas where they exercise (both at sea and on or over land) but if there were huge resources to be exploited the MOD would be told to wind their necks in and use other areas, there are plenty of them and the whole west coast is 'available' barring fishing etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Thats not quite right. For starters, even going with your scenario, not all our submarines are Trident boats but secondly the submarines are very restricted on when and where they can operate due to fishing taking a priority. The MOD does have areas where they exercise (both at sea and on or over land) but if there were huge resources to be exploited the MOD would be told to wind their necks in and use other areas, there are plenty of them and the whole west coast is 'available' barring fishing etc. BP applied for production licences and the MOD blocked it. That's what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 BP applied for production licences and the MOD blocked it. That's what happened. MOD does not equal Trident. While Trident will influence MOD plans that's not their only concern. Its the Royal Navy's only real base outwith the south of England which will also have a bearing on their objections (I'll have to take your word for this) but if there were discoveries adjacent to the exercise areas on the west coast then barring the channels (which would be used by commercial vessels as well) to and from the Clyde then they would be up for grabs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 MOD does not equal Trident. While Trident will influence MOD plans that's not their only concern. Its the Royal Navy's only real base outwith the south of England which will also have a bearing on their objections (I'll have to take your word for this) but if there were discoveries adjacent to the exercise areas on the west coast then barring the channels (which would be used by commercial vessels as well) to and from the Clyde then they would be up for grabs. But MoD bosses objected to energy giant BP installing drilling rigs in the seas just south of Arran because of fears it would interfere with a vital training and exercise area for nuclear submarines.Documents from 1983 show how the MoD’s “blanket refusal” to allow test drilling effectively ruled out establishing the full scale of any reserves in the Firth of Clyde Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 MOD does not equal Trident. While Trident will influence MOD plans that's not their only concern. Its the Royal Navy's only real base outwith the south of England which will also have a bearing on their objections (I'll have to take your word for this) but if there were discoveries adjacent to the exercise areas on the west coast then barring the channels (which would be used by commercial vessels as well) to and from the Clyde then they would be up for grabs. With regards to west coast oil it does mean Trident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 http://www.oilandgasuk.co.uk/news/news.cfm/newsid/933 "Tuesday 25 February 2014 Oil & Gas UK Activity Survey highlights Industry Paradox Oil & Gas UK publishes its Activity Survey 2014 today (25 February), highlighting the contradictions currently at play in the UK offshore oil and gas sector. The industry trade body’s annual report on oil and gas exploration, production and investment activities forecasts capital expenditure of around £13 billion in 2014, the second highest year for investment on record with spending likely to remain above £10 billion next year, following a record £14.4 billion in 2013. The report also points to better than expected production last year. New developments and an increased focus on production efficiency saw an average of 1.43 million barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd) produced in 2013, eight per cent lower than in 2012 but a significant improvement on the average yearly decline of 15 per cent experienced between 2010 and 2012. Production is expected to pick up further in 2014 and, with 25 new fields expected to come on-stream over the next two years, production is projected to rise gradually to around 1.7 million boepd by 2018. By then, however, 40 per cent of production will come from new field developments, underlining the continued importance of finding new reserves and bringing them into production. In contrast, with exploration, the industry is facing its biggest challenge in 50 years. Only 15 exploration wells were drilled in 2013, according to figures from the Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC), continuing a steep downward trend since 2008 when 44 exploration wells were drilled. Exploration over the past three years has been at its lowest in the history of the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) and in 2013 replaced just 80 million barrels. Oil & Gas UK chief executive, Malcolm Webb, reflects widespread concern on exploration: “Even if currently planned wells proceed, the rate of drilling is still too low to recover even a fraction of the estimated 6-9 billion barrels yet to be found. Britain’s waters contain an abundance of oil and gas yet to be found and it is critical we find the means to turn the current state of exploration around. Rig availability and access to capital are the two main barriers noted by our members.” This is just one of the apparent contradictions in the UKCS today. There is record investment, a quarter of which is accounted for by just four large fields. The production outlook, boosted by the introduction of field tax allowances, looks encouraging, yet the survey finds fewer barrels in production, under development or being considered for investment than last year. Of the 10.7 billion boe currently in company plans, four billion boe of these have yet to secure investment and proven reserves have fallen sharply from 7.1 billion boe in 2013 to 6.6 billion boe in 2014. Unless the rate of maturing new developments increases, investment is expected to fall from £13 billion in 2014 to around £7 billion by 2016 to 2017." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabinoban Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 I'm not sure about the validity of this: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/trident-removal-may-allow-oil-and-gas-exploration-1-3241185 I think the poster called hedgecutter claimed it was difficult or not in the interests to try to get oil from the Arran basin. Check a few pages back for quite a detailed post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 I'm not sure about the validity of this: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/trident-removal-may-allow-oil-and-gas-exploration-1-3241185 I think the poster called hedgecutter claimed it was difficult or not in the interests to try to get oil from the Arran basin. Check a few pages back for quite a detailed post. He did. But no one knows. The point is that we are being prevented from finding out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabinoban Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 I realise that and I'm certainly not happy with the Trident situation to put it mildly. One of my primary reasons for voting Yes is to get the nukes oot. I still can't believe that a majority of people in Scotland are happy to have these WMDs only 25 miles from the largest city in Scotland, and if there was to be a bad accident a large part of the Scottish population would be at risk. How can anyone think this is ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 I realise that and I'm certainly not happy with the Trident situation to put it mildly. One of my primary reasons for voting Yes is to get the nukes oot. I still can't believe that a majority of people in Scotland are happy to have these WMDs only 25 miles from the largest city in Scotland, and if there was to be a bad accident a large part of the Scottish population would be at risk. How can anyone think this is ok? I'm with you all the way. Plenty of people only care about their wallets though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabinoban Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Yep. I've definitely encountered an 'I'm alright Jack' mentality with a lot of No voters where their short term gain is what's most important to them, and not the welfare and future of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Oh no! More oil! http://www.energyvoice.com/2014/08/new-faroe-field-good-30-years/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Oh no! More oil! http://www.energyvoice.com/2014/08/new-faroe-field-good-30-years/ Its all bad news http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-28879158?SThisFB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Oh no! More oil! http://www.energyvoice.com/2014/08/new-faroe-field-good-30-years/ Could it be that the industry is getting a different message to that which is being passed out to the public through the BBC and the rest of the mainstream media? I would be shocked by that level of deceit. What with less than a month before the referendum.???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 I haven't seen FMQs. I trust the questions from the three stooges were all regarding Ian Wood's comments yesterday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Oh no! More oil! http://www.energyvoice.com/2014/08/new-faroe-field-good-30-years/ "The news that a major field in the central North Sea will be producing in as little as four years comes as developments raise expectations about the longevity of North Sea oil and gas. Earlier this week, a think-tank claimed Scotland’s oil and gas revenues could be six times higher than currently forecast by the UK Government. N-56 said the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecasts were “woefully pessimistic” and that adopting plans like those devised by Sir Ian Wood could raise income to £365billion. This compares to OBR estimates that indicate oil and gas revenues will amount to £57billion between 2014 and 2040 Last week, Xcite Energy said its Bentley find could produce oil until 2050. The project east of Shetland is another of the North Sea’s largest untapped resources and could produce over 300million barrels of oil." It's such a burden having all this lucrative oil in Scottish waters. Let's all vote No. I'm quite sure Westminster will handle it all just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.