deesidejambo Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 I know, I know, oil is shite, it's a just a burden on our economy. Nobody said that. I just posted a simple calculation that shows you are talking bollocks again. You believe everything the MSM tells you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Nobody said that. I just posted a simple calculation that shows you are talking bollocks again. You believe everything the MSM tells you. Fag packet accounts. Dunno why my mate studied 4 years at Aberdeen Uni to get where he is today. Fire over your CV and I'll get you 2 hooked up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Are you sure you aren't Derek Mackay? Saw a video of him saying the same thing in 2013 when people were asking why the Scottish gov estimates of oil price were so high compared to OBR. When campaigning does begin for indyref2 eventually, all these old videos are going to surface and show nationalists up for what they are - people that will say or do anything to get a vote no matter if true or not Right you are... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Fag packet accounts. Dunno why my mate studied 4 years at Aberdeen Uni to get where he is today. Fire over your CV and I'll get you 2 hooked up. Well if you could count then you would also know that to produce 600 million at 17 thousand a day will take 100 years. Even a 10-year old can see that. But you can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Well if you could count then you would also know that to produce 600 million at 17 thousand a day will take 100 years. Even a 10-year old can see that. But you can't. From a selfish point of view for work I take it the new Hurricane find will be developed? Clair Ridge has out there, Mariner this year and Culzean soon after. A quick google says ghe water is 160m so is that too deep for a platform? Much better for jobs than a FPSO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 From a selfish point of view for work I take it the new Hurricane find will be developed? Clair Ridge has out there, Mariner this year and Culzean soon after. A quick google says ghe water is 160m so is that too deep for a platform? Much better for jobs than a FPSO. Platform would be ok at 160m but like Clair it is likely to need more than one, maybe more than two platforms. With an FPSO the wells will all be subsea and scarily expensive so I'd estimate they will go the platform route like Clair Ridge. The issue may be the export route, either pipeline or shuttle tanker. I'd say at 50 per bbl development may be tricky in the short term and they will need to raise capital also. I think they may wait and see but either way the treasury won't get a penny at 50. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Platform would be ok at 160m but like Clair it is likely to need more than one, maybe more than two platforms. With an FPSO the wells will all be subsea and scarily expensive so I'd estimate they will go the platform route like Clair Ridge. The issue may be the export route, either pipeline or shuttle tanker. I'd say at 50 per bbl development may be tricky in the short term and they will need to raise capital also. I think they may wait and see but either way the treasury won't get a penny at 50. Cheers. I've read they've had no bother raising capital but are looking for big oil to partner up as guarantor. Either way I hope they get it up and running, get they platforms over and gives the trades some work putting them in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Cheers. I've read they've had no bother raising capital but are looking for big oil to partner up as guarantor. Either way I hope they get it up and running, get they platforms over and gives the trades some work putting them in. Yup. They won't get any buy in from big oil. Both Shell and BP are exiting the NS as they have far better places to invest in. However there is tons of private equity capital at the moment so I expect that's where they will be looking. There are also foreign investors who want into the NS so there may be investment from China or Malaysia. I think the development could proceed with fixed platforms but maybe at a slower pace than normal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Given oil is a reducing resource, even if we can't get it now, won't it become more valuable in the future? So in a long term way are we not sitting on a goldmine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Too wee, too poor, to win The Grand National Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroon Sailor Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Too wee, too poor, to win The Grand National Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro First time since when ? How old were you then ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Given oil is a reducing resource, even if we can't get it now, won't it become more valuable in the future? So in a long term way are we not sitting on a goldmine? That is a possibility but the problem is the fields are simply depleted and some produce at abut 98% water so the costs to produce and treat all the fluids are preclusive. Also there are increasing numbers of fields now being abandoned, such as Brent for example. When you abandon the fields and remove the facilities the option to tie-back new fields diminishes so it all gets more uneconomic. Added to that is the global oil glut that indeed one day will run out but with the increase of shale oil and gas it may be a long time before the NS becomes economic again, if ever. So far in 2017 only two exploration wells have been drilled (one interestingly named Sturgeon) and given the very low rig rates at present this must be extremely alarming to the OGA. The industry awaits the Sturgeon well results. The NS will keep going for a long time but at low rates and most new fields will have no tax and royalty takes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manaliveits105 Posted April 9, 2017 Share Posted April 9, 2017 Expect a photo shortly of Jimmy Krankie with One for Arthur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Lyon Posted April 9, 2017 Author Share Posted April 9, 2017 How will we tell which is which? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted April 9, 2017 Share Posted April 9, 2017 How will we tell which is which? The horse is the good looking one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted April 9, 2017 Share Posted April 9, 2017 The horse is the good looking one. Just imagine if we used FPTP for the Holyrood elections John. https://wingsoverscotland.com/what-they-wish-for/ Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted April 9, 2017 Share Posted April 9, 2017 'Imagine' and 'Wings' - highly appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted April 9, 2017 Share Posted April 9, 2017 'Imagine' and 'Wings' - highly appropriate. Murdo Fraser P 7 W 0 D 0 L 7 Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted April 9, 2017 Share Posted April 9, 2017 Just imagine if we used FPTP for the Holyrood elections John. https://wingsoverscotland.com/what-they-wish-for/ Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro This seems to ignore the fact that 73 of the 129 seats at Holyrood are FPTP and tge SNP won a majority of those 73. The reason, in part, we have a mixed system (FPTP and the List) is to ensure as many votes as possible count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted April 9, 2017 Share Posted April 9, 2017 Well if you could count then you would also know that to produce 600 million at 17 thousand a day will take 100 years. Even a 10-year old can see that. But you can't. More brutal news :-/ https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/13874/breaking-parkmead-doubles-stake-in-west-of-shetland-oil-block/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted April 9, 2017 Share Posted April 9, 2017 Absolutely incredible how much the British government has convinced us oil is just such a burden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted April 9, 2017 Share Posted April 9, 2017 More brutal news :-/ https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/13874/breaking-parkmead-doubles-stake-in-west-of-shetland-oil-block/ It certainly is brutal. For you. These are prospects i.e. they are undiscovered. No wells have been drilled and no oil proven to exist. All you see is a statement of prospect value which is yet to be drilled and discovered. But you are such a sucker for the MSM news you fall for the Conpany line. Again. For normal people - only two exploration wells have been drilled in 2017 and neither have been announced as discoveries. This is a major concern to the OGA as dozens of rigs are stacked in the Cromarty, Tay, and Forth estuaries. The rig rates for these are at an all time low so the fact that nobody is taking advantage of this and exploring is not encouraging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 Absolutely incredible how much the British government has convinced us oil is just such a burden. They've only convinced the die hard Yoonatics. And then you would have to to be so economic illiterate to actually believe it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 They've only convinced the die hard Yoonatics. And then you would have to to be so economic illiterate to actually believe it. As always you spout your yoonatic insults. Here's the facts - NS oil treasury revenues in 2016 were ?60 million. This is effectively zero. Production continues to drop and even with the addition of Clair 2, Mariner, and some other fields yet to come on stream, the production forecast continues to reduce as more fields are abandoned. Way more than are coming on stream. This is why the SNP themselves are removing oil revenue from future white paper. So as they are, in your words "economic illiterate" you better tell them at your next meeting, 24 billion barrel man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 As always you spout your yoonatic insults. Here's the facts - NS oil treasury revenues in 2016 were ?60 million. This is effectively zero. Production continues to drop and even with the addition of Clair 2, Mariner, and some other fields yet to come on stream, the production forecast continues to reduce as more fields are abandoned. Way more than are coming on stream. This is why the SNP themselves are removing oil revenue from future white paper. So as they are, in your words "economic illiterate" you better tell them at your next meeting, 24 billion barrel man. Tell you what, why don't you see the yields from the Norway sectors and the Scottish sectors over the last 12 months then explain the massive difference in tax take? This will be good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 Tell you what, why don't you see the yields from the Norway sectors and the Scottish sectors over the last 12 months then explain the massive difference in tax take? This will be good. Indeed it will. But not for you as you struggle to understand basic arithmetic such as 600 million divided by 17000. For others - The reason for the difference is the UK fields are far older in general than the Norwegian ones such that their operating costs are far higher on a per barrel basis, hence less tax. Secondly, many later UK fields needed tax concession in the first place otherwise they would not be developed at all. You have the UK Govt to thank for letting them go ahead. The Hurricane field will be no different. There is likely to be no tax take at $50 per barrel or the development will not proceed. Either way, the SNP themselves admit future treasury revenue will be excluded, leaving a ?14 billion gap in the White Paper revenue that needs to be addressed. But that's all MSM lies isn't it. In SM world there are 24 billion barrels still to come at $150 per barrel. In the real world it's 5 billion at $50 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 You've been brainwashed by the The S*n, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express and the BBC I'm afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 Indeed it will. But not for you as you struggle to understand basic arithmetic such as 600 million divided by 17000. For others - The reason for the difference is the UK fields are far older in general than the Norwegian ones such that their operating costs are far higher on a per barrel basis, hence less tax. Secondly, many later UK fields needed tax concession in the first place otherwise they would not be developed at all. You have the UK Govt to thank for letting them go ahead. The Hurricane field will be no different. There is likely to be no tax take at $50 per barrel or the development will not proceed. Either way, the SNP themselves admit future treasury revenue will be excluded, leaving a ?14 billion gap in the White Paper revenue that needs to be addressed. But that's all MSM lies isn't it. In SM world there are 24 billion barrels still to come at $150 per barrel. In the real world it's 5 billion at $50 More brutal news [emoji849] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 You've been brainwashed by the The S*n, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express and the BBC I'm afraid. Just giving facts. None of which you can dispute but mostly because you can't understand them. I don't read any of the papers you quote so you need to try harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Lyon Posted April 10, 2017 Author Share Posted April 10, 2017 Deeside when it comes to oil SM is like a fish out of water! You keep him straight! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff the Mince Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 Just giving facts. None of which you can dispute but mostly because you can't understand them. I don't read any of the papers you quote so you need to try harder. Fishmouth gets his news from Infowars . Says it all . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 Deeside when it comes to oil SM is like a fish out of water! You keep him straight! No point in debating with him: he is unable to understand and just posts yoonatic insults back. The reason I respond to his posts is so that others get info that they can decide upon one way or another. Spacey doesn't have that ability. But his missile full of corpses fired at the Pentagon is a cracker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawnrazor Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 No point in debating with him: he is unable to understand and just posts yoonatic insults back. The reason I respond to his posts is so that others get info that they can decide upon one way or another. Spacey doesn't have that ability. But his missile full of corpses fired at the Pentagon is a cracker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 Just giving facts. None of which you can dispute but mostly because you can't understand them. I don't read any of the papers you quote so you need to try harder. Deeside when it comes to oil SM is like a fish out of water! You keep him straight! Fishmouth gets his news from Infowars . Says it all . No point in debating with him: he is unable to understand and just posts yoonatic insults back. The reason I respond to his posts is so that others get info that they can decide upon one way or another. Spacey doesn't have that ability. But his missile full of corpses fired at the Pentagon is a cracker. Unlucky gents. How do you like these 2 air to ground laser designated filled with corpses below? http://www.taxjustice.net/2016/08/25/uks-north-sea-oil-revenues-giving-away/ http://www.chevrontax.info/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 Unlucky gents. How do you like these 2 air to ground laser designated filled with corpses below? http://www.taxjustice.net/2016/08/25/uks-north-sea-oil-revenues-giving-away/ http://www.chevrontax.info/ They confirm what I have been saying. The reason there is no tax take is because if there was, the NS would shut down tomorrow at $50 and new fields like Lancaster would not proceed. Spacey just doesn't understand and keeps posting material that shows why Indy Scotland would result in the NS shutting down as Indy Scotland can't afford to subsidise further loss. 24 billion barrels. Rubbish $150 per barrel. Rubbish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1874robbo Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 SM getting tore a new one on the oil argument here. Stick to what you know mate as it seems pretty obvious you're out your depth here. P.s I'm the same as you, I know feck all about it either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 They confirm what I have been saying. The reason there is no tax take is because if there was, the NS would shut down tomorrow at $50 and new fields like Lancaster would not proceed. Spacey just doesn't understand and keeps posting material that shows why Indy Scotland would result in the NS shutting down as Indy Scotland can't afford to subsidise further loss. 24 billion barrels. Rubbish $150 per barrel. Rubbish. But hud on, Isn't the price of oil the same around the world? http://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/economy/governments-revenues/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 SM getting tore a new one on the oil argument here. Stick to what you know mate as it seems pretty obvious you're out your depth here. P.s I'm the same as you, I know feck all about it either. But you admit it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 But hud on, Isn't the price of oil the same around the world? http://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/economy/governments-revenues/ Indeed it is. What's your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 They confirm what I have been saying. The reason there is no tax take is because if there was, the NS would shut down tomorrow at $50 and new fields like Lancaster would not proceed. Spacey just doesn't understand and keeps posting material that shows why Indy Scotland would result in the NS shutting down as Indy Scotland can't afford to subsidise further loss. 24 billion barrels. Rubbish $150 per barrel. Rubbish. So in other words, it is cheaper for the oil companies to extract oil from Norwegian waters than it is from UK waters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 So in other words, it is cheaper for the oil companies to extract oil from Norwegian waters than it is from UK waters? Deeside operates tuck shop accounting practices. Page 3 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/574507cde707eb332424b26a/t/57bd8b6d1b631b72531caed0/1472039836939/ITF+CHEVRON+UK+Long+Report+V13+Low+Res.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 So in other words, it is cheaper for the oil companies to extract oil from Norwegian waters than it is from UK waters? Yup. It's simple. Oil Companies get $50 for every barrel produced. For some mature fields it's costing 50 per barrel to produce. Production costs are the key indicators of ongoing profitability. Hence once a field starts losing money it goes to abandonment, The Brent field being a case in point. The question is - can the industry hang in until the price goes up again? That is where Govt support comes in by means of reduced taxation or other forms of subsidy. So instead of folks complaining about the UK govt subsidising the upstream industry, they should welcome it as a means to ensure survival until the price recovers. But if the price doesn't recover it's very bad news. More and more abandonment applications are being submitted to the OGA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Yup. It's simple. Oil Companies get $50 for every barrel produced. For some mature fields it's costing 50 per barrel to produce. Production costs are the key indicators of ongoing profitability. Hence once a field starts losing money it goes to abandonment, The Brent field being a case in point. The question is - can the industry hang in until the price goes up again? That is where Govt support comes in by means of reduced taxation or other forms of subsidy. So instead of folks complaining about the UK govt subsidising the upstream industry, they should welcome it as a means to ensure survival until the price recovers. But if the price doesn't recover it's very bad news. More and more abandonment applications are being submitted to the OGA. But but but some more smaller more efficient producers are taking over from the major players. https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/highlights/13925/serica-energy-eyes-bp-gas-assets-in-north-sea-hunt/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 But but but some more smaller more efficient producers are taking over from the major players. https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/highlights/13925/serica-energy-eyes-bp-gas-assets-in-north-sea-hunt/ They certainly are. BP and Shell are actively exiting and the new start companies like Chrysaor are buying in using private equity finance. This means even less revenue to the treasury as their acquisition costs can be written off against tax and I suspect they will also have negotiated further subsidies. But keep banging on. At $50 per barrel the revenue to the treasury is next to zero, whether that be UK or Indy Scotland. That is supported by the treasury data that you can ignore, but others may not. But if you and Nicola want to increase tax in the NS go right ahead. The response will be another 20 abandonment requests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 They certainly are. BP and Shell are actively exiting and the new start companies like Chrysaor are buying in using private equity finance. This means even less revenue to the treasury as their acquisition costs can be written off against tax and I suspect they will also have negotiated further subsidies. But keep banging on. At $50 per barrel the revenue to the treasury is next to zero, whether that be UK or Indy Scotland. That is supported by the treasury data that you can ignore, but others may not. But if you and Nicola want to increase tax in the NS go right ahead. The response will be another 20 abandonment requests. In other words... "Shite oil" [emoji23] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 In other words... "Shite oil" [emoji23] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Correct. If you get 50 for it but it costs you 50 to produce it for the mature fields then yes. Surprised you can't grasp that simple concept. To produce oil from Iraqi onshore fields can be done for 2-3 dollars per barrel. Hence the big boys exiting. So once Indy comes you will increase tax on NS fields? Nationalise them? Good luck with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Nationalise them? Should have been like that from the off! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coconut doug Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Correct. If you get 50 for it but it costs you 50 to produce it for the mature fields then yes. Surprised you can't grasp that simple concept. To produce oil from Iraqi onshore fields can be done for 2-3 dollars per barrel. Hence the big boys exiting. So once Indy comes you will increase tax on NS fields? Nationalise them? Good luck with that. Why are you not outraged at the U.K. tax take compared to that of Norway? Your notions that we would get almost nothing from revenues in the future are based on the U.K'S lenient tax regime and it is for that reason that Norway has been much more successful than the U.K. IMO.. "24 billion barrels. Rubbish" Ian Wood claims there is 24billion bbls when he wants to persuade governments to reduce taxes and only 12billion bbl when Salmond quotes his figure in support of indy. Salmond is the liar though according to the highly numerate experts on here. https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=sir+ian+wood+24+billion+barrels&spf=1 Lots of people have lots of different opinions to suit their agenda, most are badly informed. https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-oil-debate-for-busy-people/#more-31643 If as you say "The reason there is no tax take is because if there was, the NS would shut down tomorrow at $50 and new fields like Lancaster would not proceed." then leave it in the ground. Why should taxpayers subsidise oil companies? What is true is that Norway got almost 3 times the revenue for it's oil despite not producing as much. http://www.resourcegovernance.org/blog/did-uk-miss-out-%C2%A3400-billion-worth-oil-revenue How has this come about? Are our wells more costly to exploit? Are the wells deeper, smaller, more faulted or in areas with worse weather? Is U.K. oil of inferior quality or more contaminated? What i do know is that both Norwegian and U.K. oil recovery rates are around 46%. Is there some other reason you experts could share with us to explain how Norway got so muvh from it's oil? Maybe the oil companies, like the Wood group, are able to influence govt policy more easily in the U.K. http://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/north-sea-oil-tax-avoidance-schemes-exposed http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/North-Sea-Oil-Companies-Caught-in-Major-Tax-Avoidance-Scheme.html Apparently even Denmark got more than the U.K. in revenues last year. It seems to me conditions and resource in Norway and the U.K are broadly similar. Can you explain why Norway does so much better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Why are you not outraged at the U.K. tax take compared to that of Norway? Your notions that we would get almost nothing from revenues in the future are based on the U.K'S lenient tax regime and it is for that reason that Norway has been much more successful than the U.K. IMO.. "24 billion barrels. Rubbish" Ian Wood claims there is 24billion bbls when he wants to persuade governments to reduce taxes and only 12billion bbl when Salmond quotes his figure in support of indy. Salmond is the liar though according to the highly numerate experts on here. https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=sir+ian+wood+24+billion+barrels&spf=1 Lots of people have lots of different opinions to suit their agenda, most are badly informed. https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-oil-debate-for-busy-people/#more-31643 If as you say "The reason there is no tax take is because if there was, the NS would shut down tomorrow at $50 and new fields like Lancaster would not proceed." then leave it in the ground. Why should taxpayers subsidise oil companies? What is true is that Norway got almost 3 times the revenue for it's oil despite not producing as much. http://www.resourcegovernance.org/blog/did-uk-miss-out-%C2%A3400-billion-worth-oil-revenue How has this come about? Are our wells more costly to exploit? Are the wells deeper, smaller, more faulted or in areas with worse weather? Is U.K. oil of inferior quality or more contaminated? What i do know is that both Norwegian and U.K. oil recovery rates are around 46%. Is there some other reason you experts could share with us to explain how Norway got so muvh from it's oil? Maybe the oil companies, like the Wood group, are able to influence govt policy more easily in the U.K. http://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/north-sea-oil-tax-avoidance-schemes-exposed http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/North-Sea-Oil-Companies-Caught-in-Major-Tax-Avoidance-Scheme.html Apparently even Denmark got more than the U.K. in revenues last year. It seems to me conditions and resource in Norway and the U.K are broadly similar. Can you explain why Norway does so much better? I'll keep it simple for you. Current NS oil production is 900,000 barrels per day. Work out yourself how long, at current rates, with no production decline and no facilities degradation how long it will take to produce 24 billion barrels. Clue - it's 72 years. Add in the production decline of a natural resource like oil and add in the fact that the facilities will never last for 30 years, let alone 72, and you will hopefully accept that 24 billion is nonsense. Work it out for yourself. As for Norway again it's simple and no surprise. The UK fields are at a more advanced stage of depletion than Norway such that operating costs per barrel are higher as the facilities are older and field watercuts higher. But work it out for yourself. How come the UK tax take in 2016 is only 60 million? Are the oil companies all reporting huge profits while avoiding tax? No. Answer - At 50 per barrel the production costs are getting close to the oil price of 50 per barrel, leaving no money left to tax and little left for profit. But no doubt you and Spacey will try to increase tax and thereby sending more fields to abandonment. There is only one solution: the oil price needs to go up soon then all will be happy. In the meantime the U.K. govt is sensibly giving tax concessions to try and keep things going so companies can ride out the storm and return to profitability when the price recovers. But SM seems to also disagree with that approach. Silly SM. Why do you think your SNP are removing oil revenue from future White Paper calculations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Should have been like that from the off! Well they tried with BNOC. But on a go-forward basis it is an option but pointless. The only solution is to ride it out and hope the price goes up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.