Jump to content

BP invests in North Sea


Mr Rational

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I haven't seen the details behind the new licenses, do these licenses become less expensive given the low oil price?

Regardless, the North Sea will continue attract investment & produce revenue for decades to come, as others have said, it's a real bad thing for a small, already strong economically country to have hanging round it's neck!

Can't understand why the Norwegians haven't given up all their oil fields.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BP will be investing a further £670m in the North Sea.

50 odd new licenses have been granted to companies and China is looking to get in on the action.

Views?

Nationalist lies.

We were told by Westminster during indyref that Scottish oil was shite and nothing has changed.

Scottish oil, like the rest of Scotland is shite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More pollution, more fossil fuels.

It's not my idea of good news.

I'd rather they spent that money on renewables and moved their business model to something more ethical.

Whst's the name of your horse? Also which model cart do you have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BP will be investing a further £670m in the North Sea.

50 odd new licenses have been granted to companies and China is looking to get in on the action.

Views?

Oil is $50 a barrel. This is about $1000 million dollars, so about 20 million barrels, the UK produces about 1 million barrels a day. This is about 20 days of production income worth of investment.

In 1999 the UK produced 2.8 million barrels a day. In 2005 it was down to about 1.5 million barrels a day. In 2010 it was down to about 1.2 million barrels a day.

An independent Scotland cannot rely on oil income. This level of investment would need to be repeated every 3 weeks to be expected to maintain current production. We have peaked, oil is over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oil is $50 a barrel. This is about $1000 million dollars, so about 20 million barrels, the UK produces about 1 million barrels a day. This is about 20 days of production income worth of investment.

In 1999 the UK produced 2.8 million barrels a day. In 2005 it was down to about 1.5 million barrels a day. In 2010 it was down to about 1.2 million barrels a day.

An independent Scotland cannot rely on oil income. This level of investment would need to be repeated every 3 weeks to be expected to maintain current production. We have peaked, oil is over.

How many independent countries do rely on oil income though? Oil is just part of the Scottish economy. Do we just just leave it under the sea now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oil is $50 a barrel. This is about $1000 million dollars, so about 20 million barrels, the UK produces about 1 million barrels a day. This is about 20 days of production income worth of investment.

In 1999 the UK produced 2.8 million barrels a day. In 2005 it was down to about 1.5 million barrels a day. In 2010 it was down to about 1.2 million barrels a day.

An independent Scotland cannot rely on oil income. This level of investment would need to be repeated every 3 weeks to be expected to maintain current production. We have peaked, oil is over.

No one ever said an iScotland would rely on oil income?

How many independent nations rely on oil?

It's such a pity you have such disdain for your own country you feel it's uniquely the only country in the world that can't make a go of it on it's own.

I would hate to despise my own country that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oil is $50 a barrel. This is about $1000 million dollars, so about 20 million barrels, the UK produces about 1 million barrels a day. This is about 20 days of production income worth of investment.

In 1999 the UK produced 2.8 million barrels a day. In 2005 it was down to about 1.5 million barrels a day. In 2010 it was down to about 1.2 million barrels a day.

An independent Scotland cannot rely on oil income. This level of investment would need to be repeated every 3 weeks to be expected to maintain current production. We have peaked, oil is over.

You do realise that BP aren't the only oil producers in the North Sea?

If you are going to mathematically approach a question ( and show us your working for an extra mark). At least use factual base data.

Add into that BP, and more importantly it's shareholders expect to turn a profit, and suddenly your figures seem way off.

Not that any of that's important when you have such little faith in Scotland's ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the feeling that dorlomin is trying to say 'just because BP have invested doesn't necessarily mean that the North Sea still has huge potential'. It is indeed just a small drop in the ocean when you consider the overall costs of maintaining current levels of production' across the whole of the UKCS, which will require significant investment for additional wells, infrastructure etc from the other operators if they wish to maintain current production for years to come.

However, the logic behind his far too simplistic (so called) calculation, notably assuming that all this investment is simply to maintain current levels rather than BP's actual plan to partly increase present production with investment in new developments, is seriously flawed.

The idea that "oil is finished" just because the North Sea is a mature basin with a falling production curve is nothing but laughable, also highlighting the weakness of the Unionist's 'trump card' from a group who will seemingly never get the 'oil is a bonus' message through their skulls regardless of how many times it's highlighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully with London in charge they can see to it that any extra revenue generated is duly squandered so that we don't have to deal with any of it. Just wish it would all go away.

oil is over.

It's ok now VI, That oil cant hurt us any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the feeling that dorlomin is trying to say 'just because BP have invested doesn't necessarily mean that the North Sea still has huge potential'. It is indeed just a small drop in the ocean when you consider the overall costs of maintaining current levels of production' across the whole of the UKCS, which will require significant investment for additional wells, infrastructure etc from the other operators if they wish to maintain current production for years to come.

However, the logic behind his far too simplistic (so called) calculation, notably assuming that all this investment is simply to maintain current levels rather than BP's actual plan to increase present production with investment in new developments, is seriously flawed.

The idea that "oil is finished" just because the North Sea is a mature basin with a falling production curve is nothing but laughable, also highlighting the weakness of the Unionist's 'trump card' from a group who will seemingly never get the 'oil is a bonus' message through their skulls regardless of how many times it's highlighted.

If that's what Dorlomin was trying to say, why didn't he say it?

Any negative oil news ( i.e. global price) which is mainly outwith SG control is seized upon.

The positives are picked to the bones to try and conjur up a negative.

Facts are, we have a mature oil industry, whose skills and innovations are exported world wide, and due to the relatively harsh conditions in the North Sea, will continue to be focused upon as the producers continue to explore harsher environments.

The North Sea is far from finished, and even when it is, the personnel, equipment and skills learned will be a lucrative export for decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the feeling that dorlomin is trying to say 'just because BP have invested doesn't necessarily mean that the North Sea still has huge potential'. It is indeed just a small drop in the ocean when you consider the overall costs of maintaining current levels of production' across the whole of the UKCS, which will require significant investment for additional wells, infrastructure etc from the other operators if they wish to maintain current production for years to come.

However, the logic behind his far too simplistic (so called) calculation, notably assuming that all this investment is simply to maintain current levels rather than BP's actual plan to partly increase present production with investment in new developments, is seriously flawed.

The idea that "oil is finished" just because the North Sea is a mature basin with a falling production curve is nothing but laughable, also highlighting the weakness of the Unionist's 'trump card' from a group who will seemingly never get the 'oil is a bonus' message through their skulls regardless of how many times it's highlighted.

If memory serves from the referendum, Hedgecutter is P&B's resident oil expert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...