When will indyref2 happen?

[strichener]

33 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

The liability for decommissioning will rest with the asset owners.

In the same way as it did for Scottish Coal?  Remind me who ended up footing the bill?

[Detournement]

If there is no net benefit to the state then leave it in the ground.

[Tibbermoresaint]

6 minutes ago, strichener said:

In the same way as it did for Scottish Coal?  Remind me who ended up footing the bill?

The taxpayer footed the bill for nationalised industries. That's how nationalisation works.

[strichener]

2 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

The taxpayer footed the bill for nationalised industries. That's how nationalisation works.

Quite rightly too.  In the case of Scottish Coal this is not publicly owned company, rather they were a private enterprise.  It is far too simplistic to state that the asset owners will retain liability as we have seen time and time again instances where corporations enter insolvency proceedings leaving behind massive liabilities.

[Tibbermoresaint]

5 minutes ago, strichener said:

Quite rightly too.  In the case of Scottish Coal this is not publicly owned company, rather they were a private enterprise.  It is far too simplistic to state that the asset owners will retain liability as we have seen time and time again instances where corporations enter insolvency proceedings leaving behind massive liabilities.

I very much doubt global oil companies are going to liquidate themselves merely to avoid North Sea decommissioning costs. But if you need hysteria to get you through the night so be it.

[strichener]

1 minute ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

I very much doubt global oil companies are going to liquidate themselves merely to avoid North Sea decommissioning costs. But if you need hysteria to get you through the night so be it.

You obviously don't have much inkling about the operation of north sea platforms.  Most of the "global players" are selling their older assets to independents who may or may not have the resources for decommissioning.  There are similarities here with what happened with the coal mines although your previous posts on this would should that you didn't have muck knowledge about them either.  I would guess that you get through the night by keeping the light on and convincing yourself that it is still day time.

[Tibbermoresaint]

3 minutes ago, strichener said:

You obviously don't have much inkling about the operation of north sea platforms.  Most of the "global players" are selling their older assets to independents who may or may not have the resources for decommissioning.  There are similarities here with what happened with the coal mines although your previous posts on this would should that you didn't have muck knowledge about them either.  I would guess that you get through the night by keeping the light on and convincing yourself that it is still day time.

Clearly drilling licenses are going to be issued to cowboys. Clearly.

Clearly it would be beyond the wit of the Scottish Government to ensure decommissioning bonds are lodged before sanctioning deals. Clearly.

Governments have a lot of levers you pull to ensure they aren't lumbered with liabilities.

[strichener]

Just now, MixuFixit said:

Good question though, is there anything to stop Shell or whoever selling assets that will be a pain in the arse to decommission to some other LLC?

The transfer of the licence needs to be approved by the Government.  

However, the only time that I can think that there has been any objections was years ago when Velo attempted to transfer their interest into a subsidiary company and DECC refused to allow it based on technical rather than financial considerations.  I also remember some noises about stopping China from accessing the North Sea for reasons of National Security but CNOOC are now the either the  or one of the largest operators.

I'm not sure that the government's history in evaluating commercial transactions would give me confidence that they are actually being forensic in any examination of these transactions.  The government has actually made this process easier by allowing the transferring of tax breaks to the new owners whereas previously the tax allowances were non-transferable.

[strichener]

6 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

Clearly drilling licenses are going to be issued to cowboys. Clearly.

Clearly it would be beyond the wit of the Scottish Government to ensure decommissioning bonds are lodged before sanctioning deals. Clearly.

Governments have a lot of levers you pull to ensure they aren't lumbered with liabilities.

The Scottish Government will not be taking licences away from existing operators so the incumbents are who they are.  In terms of any new licences issued - I refer you back to Scottish Coal:

Extraction Licence - Tick
Bond - Tick
Government end up with liabilities - Tick

I would say your last point is laughable.  History shows that governments invariably end up with liabilities that they did not foresee or through poorly written or executed contracts.

[Tibbermoresaint]

2 minutes ago, strichener said:

The Scottish Government will not be taking licences away from existing operators so the incumbents are who they are.  In terms of any new licences issued - I refer you back to Scottish Coal:

Extraction Licence - Tick
Bond - Tick
Government end up with liabilities - Tick

I would say your last point is laughable.  History shows that governments invariably end up with liabilities that they did not foresee or through poorly written or executed contracts.

Of the assets decommissioned hitherto how many have had their decommissioning paid for by the taxpayer?

[strichener]

5 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

Of the assets decommissioned hitherto how many have had their decommissioning paid for by the taxpayer?

Your not getting this at all.  All the assets that have been decommissioned so far have had taxpayer finance but we are speaking about less than 0.1% of the North Sea infrastructure that has been taken out of the water. 

The issue is not one for the current time but where the industry is over the next 30 years.  Conoco is the latest major to sell their North Sea assets having sold them to Chyrsaor that famous, established Cayman Island based holding company.

[strichener]

12 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

Doesn't fill you with an enormous amount of optimism. Then again if this does begin to happen for some of them it strengthens the chop the top of, leave the rest argument if it means the government saves a bit.

Some environmental groups are already advocating this.  I would rather it were carried out based on the best environmental outcome but I can see it eventually becoming a question of costs.

[Tibbermoresaint]

1 minute ago, strichener said:

Your not getting this at all.  All the assets that have been decommissioned so far have had taxpayer finance but we are speaking about less than 0.1% of the North Sea infrastructure that has been taken out of the water. 

The issue is not one for the current time but where the industry is over the next 30 years.  Conoco is the latest major to sell their North Sea assets having sold them to Chyrsaor that famous, established Cayman Island based holding company.

So no assets have had to be decommissioned at the expense of the taxpayer. And no reason to believe any will. Glad you've got it.

[John Lambies Doos]

We have proportionately more nuclear sites than the rUK.

Sure Iran will take the equipment away for free

[strichener]

Just now, Tibbermoresaint said:

So no assets have had to be decommissioned at the expense of the taxpayer. And no reason to believe any will. Glad you've got it.

Yes, every asset that has been decommissioned so far has been an expense to the taxpayer.  I am not sure how you think otherwise.

[Tibbermoresaint]

Just now, strichener said:

Yes, every asset that has been decommissioned so far has been an expense to the taxpayer.  I am not sure how you think otherwise.

Which assets? How much has the taxpayer paid to decommission each one?

[strichener]

4 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

5 hours ago, strichener said:

We have proportionately more nuclear sites than the rUK.

Sure Iran will take the equipment away for free

.  Not sure that they would want the hassle of moving the equipment maybe a trade agreement with the Scottish Government.

[John Lambies Doos]

[emoji38].  Not sure that they would want the hassle of moving the equipment maybe a trade agreement with the Scottish Government.

North Korea then

[strichener]

9 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

Which assets? How much has the taxpayer paid to decommission each one?

Decommissioning allowances are categorised as capital allowances (see Chapter 13 of Part 2 of the CAA 2001) there is no obligation on the company to disclose these separately but I know that Endevour Energy's decommissioning submission for  included a section on costs that omitted the costs for commercial reasons whereas BP's listed them as £300m for the Miller.  Without knowing exactly how much expenditure was incurred, working out the taxpayer contribution is impossible but unless the companies managed to decommission for zero cost then we can safely say that there was a taxpayer contribution in every instance.

There are also legislation in place that guarantees the oil companies a payment from the government if the tax regime in place at the time of decommissioning is less attractive than the one in brought into force by the Finance Act 2013 and guarantees around another parties liability where if they default full tax relief would still be available.  Both of these measure were introduced to give certainty to the industry around decommissioning and may increase the taxpayer's liabilities.

[Tibbermoresaint]

4 minutes ago, strichener said:

Decommissioning allowances are categorised as capital allowances (see Chapter 13 of Part 2 of the CAA 2001) there is no obligation on the company to disclose these separately but I know that Endevour Energy's decommissioning submission for  included a section on costs that omitted the costs for commercial reasons whereas BP's listed them as £300m for the Miller.  Without knowing exactly how much expenditure was incurred, working out the taxpayer contribution is impossible but unless the companies managed to decommission for zero cost then we can safely say that there was a taxpayer contribution in every instance.

There are also legislation in place that guarantees the oil companies a payment from the government if the tax regime in place at the time of decommissioning is less attractive than the one in brought into force by the Finance Act 2013 and guarantees around another parties liability where if they default full tax relief would still be available.  Both of these measure were introduced to give certainty to the industry around decommissioning and may increase the taxpayer's liabilities.

Obviously companies have received capital allowances as a result of decommissioning assets. That's how capital allowances work. Your claim was that the taxpayer has paid to decommission assets, which is something very different. Can you say which assets the taxpayer has paid to decommission and how much they've paid to do so?