In his latest vlog, Press and Journal Energy editor Jeremy Cresswell examines the influence the oil and gas sector has had on the Scottish Independence debate. Watch the video to hear more.
There are many reasons why it is a categorical imperative for Scots to vote yes on 18 September.
An Aberdeen University expert has dismissed claims from a colleague at the institution over the potential for an “oil boom” in the Firth of Clyde.
A North Sea trade union boss has dismissed fears over the impact of Scottish independence on future investment in the oil and gas sector.
As the referendum draws to a conclusion, every day a new forecast hits the news, complicating the thoughts of those voters who are intent on making a decision based upon reason and not just emotion. For many, but not everyone, the key issue is whether or not Scotland will be economically better off, or worse off, as an independent nation. Clearly, if we are better off the population can expect a better standard of living, and vice versa. So far, leaving the emotional rhetoric to one side, the independence debate has concentrated on the issues of EU membership and the future use of the pound but overall, the analysis of the key issue of Scotland's future financial well being has been long on speculation and short on facts. A key irrefutable fact is that the biggest source of revenue to an independent Scotland will come from our oil and gas resources. Consequently it's no surprise that there are many forecasters seeking to talk up or talk down the billions of barrels of oil reserves that lie in the North Sea. Is it 12 billion or 24 billion? Of course, all of these forecasts are based upon a variety of differing assumptions, the most important of which (oil price) nobody has any control over. But does it matter whether it’s 12 billion or 24 billion? To me, potential reserves is the wrong metric to focus on because irrespective of their size, these reserves are of no value if they are not brought into production and monetised. The important statistic is the amount of production that is extracted on an annual basis and its corresponding value to the economy. In that regard there is no escaping the fact that since 2010 UK oil production has fallen by more than a third, and that according to figures from HM Revenue and Customs, in the last tax year tax revenues from the North Sea fell from £6.1 billion to £4.7 billion. This was attributed to lower production and higher costs. Can these trends be reversed? I don't want to fall into the trap of forecasting, but the facts suggest that irrespective of whether the country separates or not, the UK’s offshore industry is facing considerable headwinds. The North Sea has always been one of the most expensive regions to operate but in recent years it's become even more difficult to bring on new production because service costs have risen significantly, the costs associated with increased regulation are biting, and taxation is high. That is why last year only 14 exploration wells were drilled compared with 44 in 2008 and why only 13 of the 21 new fields slated actually came on-stream. The others were delayed or put on hold because of spiralling costs. These included the multi billion dollar Chevron Rosebank project and the Statoil Bressay heavy oil project. A significant increase in oil prices would help significantly, but oil prices have been range bound at $100-120 a barrel for the last five years, and in fact have declined just below $100 a barrel in the last three months. A significant reduction in taxation of oil revenues would also make a positive difference to investment in the basin, but that would clearly push tax revenues in the wrong direction. It would therefore take an enormous leap of faith to anticipate any meaningful increase in revenues from North Sea oil to finance increased spending in an independent Scotland.
An Aberdeen University expert has argued that the removal of Trident nuclear weapons from an independent Scotland could lead to an new “oil boom” in the Firth of Clyde.
This article sets out to add further clarity to the subject of the ultimate potential recovery of oil and gas from the UK Continental Shelf.
It’s a story of Machiavellian political intrigue with oil companies, Scottish lochs, nuclear submarines and a government at war with the socialist industrial heartlands of its country. Chic Brodie, an SNP back bencher first broke the seemingly preposterous story that, in the mid 1980’s, the Tory government of Margret Thatcher intervened at the highest levels and stopped BP exploring for oil in the Clyde estuary for “national security” issues.
Political has-been Jim Sillars’ weekend remarks about nationalising BP should Scotland become independent verge on plain stupidity.
For many, the goal of independence itself overrides any fears of economic consequences. But faced with a vote that will have a huge impact on future generations, I believe that is a luxury we cannot afford. The key question has to be whether or not we will be better off or poorer as a separate country.
“We do we have a contract, don’t we?” The industry has been so hectic recently some have been overlooking basic document management. Now there is a little belt-tightening going on and contract termination and liability questions are being raised. When all was full speed ahead some didn’t seem to worry about the contract. Friends don’t need contracts do they?
North-east oil services tycoon Sir Ian Wood has claimed it would be "extraordinarily difficult" to establish an oil fund in an independent Scotland.
A former SNP deputy leader has claimed there will be a "day of reckoning" for major employers such as BP after a Yes vote.
Academic Alex Russell has backed a Yes vote in next week's referendum, it was announced today.
Economic and political dynamite is the only way to describe the new report by N-56, an admittedly pro-independence think tank, that suggests that the remaining tax revenue from North Sea oil and gas could be £300billion beyond its former upper estimate of £365billion that could be garnered to 2040.
It has been widely reported that in the near future, and possibly even this winter, the UK faces the possibility of blackouts due to electricity shortages.
Concerns over job security and future investment in the oil and gas sector are shaping the chemical engineering vote, a survey has suggested.
BP’s chief executive Bob Dudley has supported Sir Ian Wood’s call for realism in the Scottish Independence debate.
North-east oil services tycoon Sir Ian Wood has warned that Scots voters were being misled and influenced by highly inaccurate forecasts, false promises and misleading information about Scotland’s black gold reserves.
A leading oil economist has predicted a potential North Sea bonus of 99 new discoveries in the next 30 years.
Terra Valora is latest in a long of targets for industry giant Wood Group.
Genel Energy today confirmed it will restore a full headcount and resume all operations at its bases in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI).
A vote for independence in Scotland may halt work on renewable power projects that support £14billion ($23billion) of investment and 12,000 jobs by raising questions about how developers would get subsidies, an energy supplier said. Green Energy Plc, which sells electricity to almost 20,000 customers in the UK, said breaking up the union between England and Scotland in a referendum on Sept. 18 would force the two countries to negotiate how to divide payment for electricity.
The Scottish Sun had a double-page spread entitled “£600bn – that’s a fracking fortune”. This is based on a report by a pressure group called N-56 which claims that 21-42 billion barrels of oil equivalent could be extracted from unconventional hydrocarbon deposits in the North sea using fracking technology. The claimed tax take is £3-600 billion. It is an attractive idea – enough for one Sun journalist to switch his vote from No to Yes. Sadly, it is largely nonsense.
A leading petroleum geology academic has rubbished claims that offshore fracking represents a potential £600billion “black gold bonanza” for Scotland.