Scotland's Oil

[Blaven]

I already posted this yesterday.

24 hours is a long time in politics.

[strichener]

24 hours is a long time in politics.

[Confidemus]

Is Sir Ian Woods reputation to be trusted ?

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28926369

Nope.

[Homer Thompson]

Interesting article

[Phantom Bud]

Interesting article

Shit! How are we going to cope with all this volatility??

[Confidemus]

But... but.. it's volatile! It's running out!

[Hedgecutter]

This image is quite possibly the biggest load of misinformed guff which I've seen from either side in this debate.

[Hedgecutter]

Interesting article

I'll simply copy over what I stuck on another thread in relation to that same article (which I should point out has been written by a recruitment agency):

This is despite strong geological evidence for oil and gas reserves, including that the major basins in the area are filled with thick sedimentary successions – which helps produce and then reservoir oil and gas. These geological conditions support the formation of gigantic, or ‘supermassive’ oil reserves.

Extensive use of the word 'could' throughout that report and it reeks of chinese whispers from upstream analysts --> management --> report --> reporters.

I've got a serious issue with this part about the Atlantic Margin upon which everything else is based (note that's a different province to 'West Coast'). Only a limited number of wells giving hard evidence have been drilled there but much more regional work has been carried out on this. The article is correct in that thick successions exist and there are proven oil source quality, sealing and reservoir rocks with oil shows (i.e. oil has indeed been generated and has passed through the reservoir at some point) and I do think that there are some decent oil fields to be found out there West of the Hebrides. However, those geological conditions mean nothing when it comes to supermassive reserves as that article claims, it's the size of the localised trap which controls and limits that. Also ...

Yet the area – off the west coast of Scotland and Outer Hebrides and Shetland –has remained largely untapped due to deep waters and difficult geological conditions.

They've got that right. Work has been done to map what they call 'play fairways' where all the components of a petroleum system must be in the correct place for oil to be generated, stored and then kept down there. The vast majority of the area has been judged to have a high / very high fairway risk (i.e. one / two or more components being highly dodgy) but some areas are indeed low risk... but are restricted to small areas. This then relies on a decent geological structure / trap in those exact spots to create the final piece in the petroleum system.

To me, throwing out the word 'trillions' obviously implies that they're including the high risk areas as these haven't been entirely written off, hence reporters can get away with could to make a good story. The North Sea is completely anomalous in that it has one of the world's highest quality source rocks in economical shallow water which simply don't exist in the same numbers along the Atlantic Margin based on the current evidence. I think that the general public are pretty bad at thinking that because there's so much been produced from the North Sea that there's probably something else of huge significance in our other waters which have a completely different geological history.

The investigation also found that the industry had evidence of a large and significant oil field off the West coast of Lewis that could dwarf many of the larger finds around the world. Surveys have already proven that thick Permo-Triassic sandstones exist in the area, a key indicator that oil is present in large quantities.

Again, play fairways come into it here as the presence of sandstone is not an indicator of oil. In fact, that sentence alone makes the article lose all credibility. Permo-Triassic reservoirs here also tend to be quite poor (i.e. lower volumes stored even if there is a large structure) with the majority of them elsewhere being gas fields (think fart gas vs diarrhea getting through your pants for the difference in getting gas and oil through tight sandstone pores). Less buried Jurassic and younger reservoirs in the North Sea on the other hand are fantastic. So it's not a surprise to see...

That there is a working petroleum system in at least parts of the UK Atlantic Frontier areas can be demonstrated by finds such as the Benbecula gas discovery in the NE Rockall Basin.”

... just like the East Irish Basin and Southern North Sea gas provinces which are also Permo-Trias. Gas of course has a much lower price bonanza associated with it.

I've written enough about the West Coast stuff on the 'Scotland's Oil' thread so won't repeat all that.

"This activity is supported by the Bank of Scotland’s recent report predicting the need for 37,000 new jobs over the next two years in support of the current Scottish oil boom."

I find this one interesting. At the moment a sizeable chunk of the upstream staff on UK developments are based down in London. I wonder what will happen to these roles in the case of an iScotland? Will these roles be relocated to Scotland or will they stay down there where other team members work on international projects (of which Scotland would then be one of those)? I'm guessing the latter. Midstream jobs (which would be the majority of these I guess) would need to be based in Scotland though.

In summary: Overall positive for the Atlantic margin, but these guys in the article seem to be getting carried away a fair bit.

[Confidemus]

I'll simply copy over what I stuck on another thread in relation to that same article:

Extensive use of the word 'could' throughout that report and it reeks of chinese whispers from upstream analysts --> management --> report --> reporters.

I've got a serious issue with this part about the Atlantic Margin upon which everything else is based (note that's a different province to 'West Coast'). Only a limited number of wells giving hard evidence have been drilled there but much more regional work has been carried out on this. The article is correct in that thick successions exist and there are proven oil source quality, sealing and reservoir rocks with oil shows (i.e. oil has indeed been generated and has passed through the reservoir at some point) and I do think that there are some decent oil fields to be found out there West of the Hebrides. However, those geological conditions mean nothing when it comes to supermassive reserves as that article claims, it's the size of the localised trap which controls and limits that. Also ...

They've got that right. Work has been done to map what they call 'play fairways' where all the components of a petroleum system must be in the correct place for oil to be generated, stored and then kept down there. The vast majority of the area has been judged to have a high / very high fairway risk (i.e. one / two or more components being highly dodgy) but some areas are indeed low risk... but are restricted to small areas. This then relies on a decent geological structure / trap in those exact spots to create the final piece in the petroleum system.

To me, throwing out the word 'trillions' obviously implies that they're including the high risk areas as these haven't been entirely written off, hence reporters can get away with could to make a good story. The North Sea is completely anomalous in that it has one of the world's highest quality source rocks in economical shallow water which simply don't exist in the same numbers along the Atlantic Margin based on the current evidence. I think that the general public are pretty bad at thinking that because there's so much been produced from the North Sea that there's probably something else of huge significance in our other waters which have a completely different geological history.

Again, play fairways come into it here as the presence of sandstone is not an indicator of oil. In fact, that sentence alone makes the report lose all credibility. Permo-Triassic reservoirs here also tend to be quite poor (i.e. lower volumes stored even if there is a large structure) with the majority of them elsewhere being gas fields (think fart gas vs diarrhea getting through your pants for the difference in getting gas and oil through tight sandstone pores). Less buried Jurassic and younger reservoirs in the North Sea on the other hand are fantastic. So it's not a surprise to see...

... just like the East Irish Basin and Southern North Sea gas provinces which are also Permo-Trias. Gas of course has a much lower price bonanza associated with it.

I've written enough about the West Coast stuff on the 'Scotland's Oil' thread so won't repeat all that.

"This activity is supported by the Bank of Scotland’s recent report predicting the need for 37,000 new jobs over the next two years in support of the current Scottish oil boom."

I find this one interesting. At the moment a sizeable chunk of the upstream staff on UK developments are based down in London. I wonder what will happen to these roles in the case of an iScotland? Will these roles be relocated to Scotland or will they stay down there where other team members work on international projects (of which Scotland would then be one of those)? I'm guessing the latter. Midstream jobs (which would be the majority of these I guess) would need to be based in Scotland though.

In summary: Overall positive for the Atlantic margin, but these guys in the article seem to be getting carried away a fair bit.

I know you're more of an oil expert than anyone else on here, so I'll ask you. Impartially, who is more correct in their opinion between Sir Ian Wood and Professor Sir Donald Mackay?

[doulikefish]

I know you're more of an oil expert than anyone else on here,

Is he?? he is a shitbagger (only joking hegde im sure you get the joke)

[Hedgecutter]

I know you're more of an oil expert than anyone else on here, so I'll ask you. Impartially, who is more correct in their opinion between Sir Ian Wood and Professor Sir Donald Mackay?

I honestly couldn't say tbh, other than neither seem to have much (if any) experience of the upstream sector and how it works.

The geological work which goes on in oil companies is absolutely full of uncertainty and models. Change one parameter in a model on a large field and the numbers it pumps out can be significantly different (hence you get geomodellers who can spend years constantly updating and tweaking the same asset model).

People such as economists want absolute numbers and get pissed off when companies keep changing evaluations and numbers and say "well, it could be this but it also could be this" - the whole P10 / P50 / P90 thing. Multiply that +/- across all the fields and you're looking at a nightmare trying to inform the public about exactly how much is out there.

I'm personally quite sceptical about Sir John Ian Wood as an industry expert as although he built an 'oil empire' as the media put it, it's essentially just a big engineering company. How much info he was given to produce his report and recommendations I'll never know hence why I can't really give you an answer (just like an oil company ).

[Homer Thompson]

In summary: Overall positive for the Atlantic margin, but these guys in the article seem to be getting carried away a fair bit.

Which is why I described it as interesting. Thanks for the detailed response. It looks like, from a laymans point of view, that their is some oil off the west coast. It could turn out to be a little, it could turn out to be a lot.

[Fudge]

My friend is a geophysicist for an oil company in Aberdeen and part of his job is mapping current oil fields as well as potential sites. He said that he's certain there is at least 28 billion barrels left in areas where (with current technology) it is comercially viable to drill for.

[Hedgecutter]

Which is why I described it as interesting. Thanks for the detailed response. It looks like, from a laymans point of view, that their is some oil off the west coast. It could turn out to be a little, it could turn out to be a lot.

Oi! Atlantic Margin, not 'West Coast' (although the former is technically offshore of the latter, I know).

May seem trivial but that sort of confusion is what gets folk all up in arms about Trident blocking a Clyde oil boom bonanza etc when they see estimates given for the Atlantic Margin basins.

He said that he's certain...

Then he's doing it wrong.

My friend is a geophysicist for an oil company in Aberdeen and part of his job is mapping current oil fields as well as potential sites. He said that he's certain there is at least 28 billion barrels left in areas where (with current technology) it is comercially viable to drill for.

Probably an oil in place rather than a recoverable figure mind. Still significant but you can't do what a lot of folk seem to be doing and go (X billion out there * $Y )* tax rate = Z profit for treasury.

[Blaven]

Who the *uck wiz wee Duggie talking too on Scotland 2014?

[Bar78]

The amount of oil left has never really been the issue for me. The lies to hide the wealth. The convoluted way it's hidden and not reported accurately and attitude towards Scotland not being able to exploit (squander) to the same degree as the uk has always been the main issue for me.

I'd never believe what Westminster told me about the oil and this was enough for me to make up my mind about independance years ago.

It's a finite resource that many other successful countries manage without so shouldn't be what the decision is based on for most people.

[Hedgecutter]

I personally think that swathes of No supporters could be converted if they were shown proper evidence that oil is genuinely a bonus.

Too many people still believe the argument for an iScotland is "we have the oil so let's get greedy, go independent and get a much bigger cut of it to fund our services". Alexander certainly seemed to be playing on that in the last debate.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I personally think that swathes of No supporters could be converted if they were shown proper evidence that oil is genuinely a bonus.

Too many people still believe the argument for an iScotland is "we have the oil so let's get greedy, go independent and get a much bigger cut of it to fund our services". Alexander certainly seemed to be playing on that in the last debate.

Unfortunately not helped by a Finance Minister who plans to do just that in the first 3 years of an independent administration.

I personally feel that oil revenues shouldn't be used to cover shortfalls in government current expenditure. Capital expenditure is a different matter.

[strichener]

Unfortunately not helped by a Finance Minister who plans to do just that in the first 3 years of an independent administration.

I personally feel that oil revenues shouldn't be used to cover shortfalls in government current expenditure. Capital expenditure is a different matter.

Is it OK to do it though with the broader shoulders of the UK.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Is it OK to do it though with the broader shoulders of the UK.

I don't agree with that either.