DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Genuine question. Would this lack of take up of fields post 2020 allow the establishment of a state owned producer like Statoil? You could create a new nationalised oil company - but then the SG would have to find the billions for development costs. Sort of defeats the purpose - that ship sailed when the Tories privatised BP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 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? Jesus wept.Oil is not being extracted at anywhere as fast a rate as it was 15 years ago. Oil prices are not as high as were predicted. Oil income substantially overestimated. SG wants to increase spending based on overestimated oil income. It's like having a vat of beer where the tap is stuck on a dribble. The SG is trying to have a party but are struggling to get everyone a drink. The oil income is there but will be spread over a longer time - assuming it is developed and not left like our coal reserves with 200 million tonnes of untouched reserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 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? He sounds like JoLo saying " we don't want the Nationalists ". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Its so bad things having oil http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/business/business-property/20-year-lease-agreement-take-three-4038759 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 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 It's useful only if you don't spend more than you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 It's useful only if you don't spend more than you get. Who says we will? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Its so bad things having oil http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/business/business-property/20-year-lease-agreement-take-three-4038759 No-one is saying there is. But relying on income estimates that have been shown to overoptimistic is daft in the extreme. The problem with the debate is that it is so polarised because the SG paints everything as overly rosy and BT paint it as shit. Things are someway in between - the NS oil industry does still bring in substantial income to the exchequer but has structural problems that need addressed if this flow of income is to continue. The SG also need to make the hard decisions instead if planning to spend they don't have. If they choose to spend more, and have to borrow more, then be honest about it - it's not as if governments don't do that already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Who says we will? John Swinney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Jesus wept. Oil is not being extracted at anywhere as fast a rate as it was 15 years ago. Oil prices are not as high as were predicted. Oil income substantially overestimated. SG wants to increase spending based on overestimated oil income. It's like having a vat of beer where the tap is stuck on a dribble. The SG is trying to have a party but are struggling to get everyone a drink. The oil income is there but will be spread over a longer time - assuming it is developed and not left like our coal reserves with 200 million tonnes of untouched reserves. On which field are you basing this on? SG want to spend based on oil income. Is this the same SG who have yet to spend more than they have been given? A SG who hasn't run up £1.3 trillion in debt and still rising? Are you really trying to say that the SG is going to just go wasting our resources in the same way the UKG have done for decades? The price of oil will never be less than the cost of producing a barrel. And the spread over a longer period is like saying to a lottery winner " do you want £5 million now or £250 thousand a year for the rest of your life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 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. If Mackay is the oracle why was he not used in the last set of oil revenue predictions - the ones that were so widely wrong ? Or maybe we was? Back of a fag packet economics seems to be the order of the day - and the kind of '15bn or 24 bn lets not quibble' attitude does not lend any credibility to the yes camp. Even with oil we run at a deficit so this 'we can just forget about oil and we will still be fine' stuff is laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Even with oil we run at a deficit so this 'we can just forget about oil and we will still be fine' stuff is laughable. Laughable stuff from the Britnats here. Even without oil, according to Labour's (you know, that pro union shower) Devolution Commission, we are still the 14th richest country in the world. Ahead of the rUK and many other countries. We also won't have Trident, HS1&2 and a massive defence budget to prop up.. Most countries would give their eye teeth for the oil we have. And the renewable energy resources we have. http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/4341-a-unionist-lexicon-an-a-z-of-unionist-scare-stories-myths-and-misinformation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Laughable stuff from the Britnats here. Even without oil, according to Labour's (you know, that pro union shower) Devolution Commission, we are still the 14th richest country in the world. Ahead of the rUK and many other countries. We also won't have Trident, HS1&2 and a massive defence budget to prop up.. Most countries would give their eye teeth for the oil we have. And the renewable energy resources we have. http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/4341-a-unionist-lexicon-an-a-z-of-unionist-scare-stories-myths-and-misinformation They just dont get it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Laughable stuff from the Britnats here. Even without oil, according to Labour's (you know, that pro union shower) Devolution Commission, we are still the 14th richest country in the world. Ahead of the rUK and many other countries. We also won't have Trident, HS1&2 and a massive defence budget to prop up.. Most countries would give their eye teeth for the oil we have. And the renewable energy resources we have. http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/4341-a-unionist-lexicon-an-a-z-of-unionist-scare-stories-myths-and-misinformation So without oil, defence etc we have no deficit ? no matter how the markets react to the no liability policy and the impact that may have on stability and borrowing costs ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 So without oil, defence etc we have no deficit ? no matter how the markets react to the no liability policy and the impact that may have on stability and borrowing costs ? Well, we won't be without oil, will we? Who knows the exact figures? One thing I can tell you is we'll be better off than we are under Westminster. Unless you can give me figures based on no trident, removal of huge defence costs, no londoncentric infrastructure costs, and factoring in oil and renewables and all other figures? Do you genuinely believe we'll be worse off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Well, we won't be without oil, will we? Who knows the exact figures? One thing I can tell you is we'll be better off than we are under Westminster. Unless you can give me figures based on no trident, removal of huge defence costs, no londoncentric infrastructure costs, and factoring in oil and renewables and all other figures? Do you genuinely believe we'll be worse off? Well it was not me who introduced the 'without oil' concept was it? Like many I do believe we will be worse off in iScotland. With attitudes of 15bn ? 24 bn ? who cares? its not giving an impression of fully thinking out a new country and delivering it in 18 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Its amazing that the unionists now take sir ians figures as gospel yet dont question westminsters obr figures,amazing but not surprising Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Well it was not me who introduced the 'without oil' concept was it? Like many I do believe we will be worse off in iScotland. With attitudes of 15bn ? 24 bn ? who cares? its not giving an impression of fully thinking out a new country and delivering it in 18 months. It was clear that the "without oil" concept was used to demonstrate how we will be a succesful country even before oil is taken into account. But by all means, obfuscate away. Again, obfuscation abounds in your post. 15bn is a quoted figure, as is 24bn. Whatever it is, it's all gravy. OIly gravy. But by all means, go on believing we'll be better off in a United Kingdom where record levels of kids are in poverty, where we have an obscene rich poor divide and where people are dying because they are so poor while we have an aircraft carrier with no aircraft and a £100bn pile of useless scrap metal disguised as a nuclear programme. Your opinion, like BetterTogether's vision, is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabinoban Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Nice try but wrong again. What do you make of Dennis Healey's assertion that we have been deceived by successive governments over the amount of wealth generated by North Sea oil? And if it is true, why should we continue to put trust in Westminster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Nice try but wrong again. Or trust Ian Wood? He said he was wrong in Feb, why is he right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.