Scotland's Oil

[git-intae-thum]

we don't actually have enough of that type of exploration rig to do the job.

Now there is a potential growth area. That could provide huge new contracts at Methil and the re opened Ardersier.

[git-intae-thum]

This is all such a silly BBC no thanks spun argument. Its clearly just a tactic to deflect folk away from the social media buzz stories on the Clare ridge finds and Cameron's secret visit. The bias is now ridiculously blatent.

On the one hand, the Beeb promote the co-ordinated interventions by a NE Tory billionaire and the former chairman of the pro no CBI.

All this whilst virtually ignoring Donald MacKay. Where was his exclusive interview on reporting Scotland when he repudiated the Wood nonsense.

When the oil runs out. It runs out.

What matters is that we in Scotland make the most of what is left.

[Blaven]

I read a comment from a guy in the industry who reckons Clair Ridge will still be producing in 100 years. It's such a liability.

My brothers pal has worked offshore on UK and Norwegian rigs, he has been saying for ages now that they will still be extracting fae the North Sea even after his son retires. His son just turned 19.

When over in Norway, I went on a bus tour round Oslo and the commentary on the bus was saying pretty much the same.

However I'm sure that someone with a vested interest in the union who has just changed his version of how much oil there is left, is the one to TRUST.

This was before Clair Ridge.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

OH NO, THE OIL IS RUNNING OUT!! Obviously oil is a finite resource. No one is pretending otherwise, but to suggest that oil fields will suddenly dwindle after 5 years is, in MY opinion, garbage. The Tories have been telling us for decades it's running out.

New oil fields will be discovered in addition to the current projections which go beyond 2050. Don't you worry about it, petal.

Do you actually read?

I'm talking about development of existing oilfields.

4 fields will come on stream later this decade - others that should have been taken up for development beyond 2020 are not being taken up.

There are still reserves potentially to be discovered - and that's from Wood's own report - but again there is a capacity issue in terms of exploration.

Production and exploration is an issue that seems to be ignored by both sides obsession with reserves.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Now there is a potential growth area. That could provide huge new contracts at Methil and the re opened Ardersier.

I actually agree with that.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

So no one can either predict or know for sure?

It could be even more?

I'm talking actual revenues for the financial year not the value of overall recoverable reserves.

But you know that and are being deliberately obtuse.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

My brothers pal has worked offshore on UK and Norwegian rigs, he has been saying for ages now that they will still be extracting fae the North Sea even after his son retires. His son just turned 19.

When over in Norway, I went on a bus tour round Oslo and the commentary on the bus was saying pretty much the same.

However I'm sure that someone with a vested interest in the union who has just changed his version of how much oil there is left, is the one to TRUST.

This was before Clair Ridge.

Wood himself says that reserves are not the issue.

[Blaven]

Wood himself says that reserves are not the issue.

What's the issue?

[DeeTillEhDeh]

What are you No voters not getting?

I'll make it simple for you, as swathes of you keep spectacularly missing the point.

1) We don't "need" oil. Even without factoring in a drop of oil, an iScotland would be a richer country than rUK, France, Italy and Japan. Indeed. we'd be the 14th richest country.

2) There's a massive difference between predicting lottery numbers and knowing how much oil we can withdraw from the North Sea. Current estimates take us well beyond 2050 and there are more fields being discovered. OIL IS NOT RUNNING OUT. THERE'S FUCKING HUNNERS OF IT.

I'm getting fed up of quoting Donald Mackay, but it's just not sinking into all you oil deniers..

Responding to comments by Sir Ian Wood on the subject of independence and North Sea oil and gas, Professor Sir Donald MacKay said tonight:

“In forecasting output, the first source I looked at was the Wood review in which Ian Wood states that "a number of larger new fields are about to come on stream in the next two or three years and that could take production back to the level of two to three years ago". Similar forecasts have been made by Oil and Gas UK and by Professor Alex Kemp and I have taken the former forward through my calculations.

“The result in output in the first five years from 2014-15 is much greater than that anticipated by OBR who, contrary to the views of the industry, predict a continuing fall in output right through to 2018-2020.

“Therefore that is a major factor in predicting much more substantial oil tax revenues than those predicted by OBR.

“The point is that Scotland will begin life as an independent nation in a better fiscal position relative to the UK. An independent Scotland should use that financial advantage to invest in re-engineering our economy towards industrial, manufacturing and trade-able services development.

“Within this fiscal framework the Scottish Government should be able to deliver the major economic programmes contained in their White Paper.”

Sheesh.

I agree that we don't need oil - Scotland could be an economic success given the right policies.

However, the SG do seem to be banking on and overstating oil revenues to make what is a potentially successful economy look like a fait accomplit - it isn't.

Proof?

Well the SG predicted oil revenues of between £7.1 billion to £8.3 billion for 2013/14.

The actual figure was just over £4 billion - a drop of £1.5 billion on the previous year.

Now that may not be an issue if NS Oil revenue was going to be kept back and invested. However , the SG government's own figures state they want to spend an additional 3% per annum for the first 3 years after independence.on current expenditure. According to John Swinney's own figures this would mean borrowing £2.4 billion in 2018/19. If they can't even predict accurately one year in advance then there is potentially not a £2.4 billion deficit but a £5.5 to £6.7 billion deficit based on the accuracy of their current estimates. Obviously the additional 100 million barrels a year that the new fields will generate will reduce this deficit but not to the extent of covering the shortfall.

This overestimation is partly due to the Scottish Government using the $110 per barrel figure for Brent Crude - oil prices have fallen significantly below that and are now sitting around the $102 mark. But it is also due to overestimating production itself.

Obviously the OBR got it wrong too - it overestimated production but underestimated oil prices (at $87 per barrel) - an overall overestimation of oil revenues.

It's a dangerous game banking on revenues that may not necessarily be achieved in a fiscal year to cover planned expenditure. Better to underestimate and take advantage of extra unexpected revenue than deal with an unexpected shortfall.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

What's the issue?

Falling production, falling exploration investment, no take-up yet of fields beyond 2020 and falling oil prices.

[Baxter Parp]

Its achievable that I could win the lottery tonight

Which professor produced a report on that?

[Blaven]

Falling production, falling exploration investment, no take-up yet of fields beyond 2020 and falling oil prices.

Is this why you think we should not become an independent country?

You really do want milk and honey, don't you?

At least with a YES you will get the cows and the bees.

With NO, you MAY get raspberries.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Is this why you think we should not become an independent country?

You really do want milk and honey, don't you?

At least with a YES you will get the cows and the bees.

With NO, you MAY get raspberries.

Wrong again. My opening line is the giveaway. I have issues with the SNP's own economics but not the economics in principle of an iScotland. I also believe that the issues need to be tackled no matter the result of the referendum.

My main issues with the referendum are political (which is true for Westminster as well).

That being said, I don't think the Scottish Government helps their case by getting it so wrong with their estimates in 2013/14. It leaves themselves too easily open to criticism.

[Blaven]

Wrong again. My opening line is the giveaway. I have issues with the SNP's own economics but not the economics in principle of an iScotland. I also believe that the issues need to be tackled no matter the result of the referendum.

My main issues with the referendum are political (which is true for Westminster as well).

That being said, I don't think the Scottish Government helps their case by getting it so wrong with their estimates in 2013/14. It leaves themselves too easily open to criticism.

So Scotland should be independent? We just shouldn't trust the SNPs figures over an industry who since it's very creation the people of Scotland have been told is days away from running out and that no one else is capable of giving an accurate figure on? Gotcha.

[Tubbs]

The yes obsession with painting everything rosy and with certainty when it isn't is their downfall.

They are asking people to make a massive irreversible change and trust should have been their priority instead they thought people expect politicians to deceive so we will just continue doing that, we can point at the factual shortcomings of the UK and they cant point at what we are proposing and slag it in the same and if they do we will just say its fear.

Academics are painted as always right (certain ones obviously) - but if the SG get the right advice why was the most recent revenue figures so wrong? How would the oil industry get on after the financial suicide of walking away from liabilities ? what does the Prof. have to say on that? Will that provide the economic conditions to extract 24bn barrels?

[Confidemus]

The yes obsession with painting everything rosy and with certainty when it isn't is their downfall.

They are asking people to make a massive irreversible change and trust should have been their priority instead they thought people expect politicians to deceive so we will just continue doing that, we can point at the factual shortcomings of the UK and they cant point at what we are proposing and slag it in the same and if they do we will just say its fear.

Academics are painted as always right (certain ones obviously) - but if the SG get the right advice why was the most recent revenue figures so wrong? How would the oil industry get on after the financial suicide of walking away from liabilities ? what does the Prof. have to say on that? Will that provide the economic conditions to extract 24bn barrels?

You're getting a bit desperate Tubbs.

I'm struggling to see what point you're making in amongst all your huffing and puffing. So let me help you out.

Labour's Devolution Commission stated that without factoring in a single drop of oil, well be the 14th richest country in the world. Richer than rUk, France, Italy and even Japan

So whether it's 15bn barrels or 24bn barrels, it's all fucking gravy.

Oh and as for choosing to believe certain people, that's precisely what you're doing in listening to Sir Ian Wood while roundly ignoring the comments of Professor Sir Donald Mackay.

[Wee Bully]

Falling production, falling exploration investment, no take-up yet of fields beyond 2020 and falling oil prices.

Genuine question. Would this lack of take up of fields post 2020 allow the establishment of a state owned producer like Statoil?

[MarkoRaj]

No voters are embarrassing on this subject. There's really no point in debating with people who have only negative things to say about something that is so useful to the economy

[DeeTillEhDeh]

So Scotland should be independent? We just shouldn't trust the SNPs figures over an industry who since it's very creation the people of Scotland have been told is days away from running out and that no one else is capable of giving an accurate figure on? Gotcha.

Nice try but wrong again.

[Confidemus]

Nice try but wrong again.

Why are you so desperate for Scotland to be proved wrong on this? It will run out one day, but for the moment there's a gargantuan shitload there.

What's the issue?