Even More SNP Nonsense

[frankblack]

He recently won the vote to be Deputy Leader of the SNP.

 

He makes Theresa May squirm at PMQ's, it's wholly evident if you watch her. She's a flustering balloon watching her inwardly digest his points. He 5-1's her every time.

 

He became deputy leader under what circumstances exactly from the former deputy?  Not the SNP's finest moment.

 

He comes across as very bitter and gets firmly put into place by the PM every time. I can't see him pulling any kind of support from the swing voters as a party leader.

Edited April 12, 2017 by frankblack

[Hasselhoff]

Kevin Hague....FINALLY admitting defeat over his nonsense on GERS and saying the figures do not represent what an Indy Scotlands finances would be like. Well done son. You got there.

 

https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-consensus-is-reached/

Wondered how long it would take someone to mention today's debate.

 

Where you are wrong (as usual) is that nobody has ever said that GERS shows the finances of an Indy Scotland. Show one time Hague has ever suggested this? It tells us the starting point. What is the snp plan for filling the void caused by lack of Barnett and additional funding we get? If you can't fill that void, we have less to spend on public services. Tax people more and people won't want to work in Scotland when they could work down south and keep more money.

 

Murphy is a lone voice

[deesidejambo]

He would be an absolute gift for Scottish Labour. Smug and arrogant and a complete turn-off to voters.

 

I suspect Salmond would try and get back in as leader.

It's obvious who the next SNP leader should be.

 

 

 

Our very own Space Mackeral.

 

May need to drop the "yoonatic" vernacular a bit.

 

And a certain Antipodean poster could be Justice Minister to handle the Unionist execution plans and burning down of Balmoral.

[JamboX2]

Horrible thing oil...wish we didn't have any of it. Just causes conflict.

 

I hope we go back to having horses.

 

Awesome that EVERY SINGLE country on the face of this earth that has oil it's seen as a good thing but in the Scottish cringe it's SNP = Bad bad.

 

It will run out. But no the noo.

No one is saying that.

 

Its not a bonus. It's an intricate, but declining, part of it.

 

The discussion now needs to be what after oil? One we never have in this nation is future proofing our economy.

 

Oil and independence in the 70s/80s would've been a wonderful thing. Now it's not the be all and end all. That's all that's being said here.

 

It is valuable but in no way will it make us a European Kuwait or Abu Dhabi.

 

It's value in tax are declining. It's costs increasing.

[Space Mackerel]

He became deputy leader under what circumstances exactly from the former deputy? Not the SNP's finest moment.

 

He comes across as very bitter and gets firmly put into place by the PM every time. I can't see him pulling any kind of support from the swing voters as a party leader.

Wondered how long it would take someone to mention today's debate.

 

Where you are wrong (as usual) is that nobody has ever said that GERS shows the finances of an Indy Scotland. Show one time Hague has ever suggested this? It tells us the starting point. What is the snp plan for filling the void caused by lack of Barnett and additional funding we get? If you can't fill that void, we have less to spend on public services. Tax people more and people won't want to work in Scotland when they could work down south and keep more money.

 

Murphy is a lone voice

It's obvious who the next SNP leader should be.

 

 

 

Our very own Space Mackeral.

 

May need to drop the "yoonatic" vernacular a bit.

 

And a certain Antipodean poster could be Justice Minister to handle the Unionist execution plans and burning down of Balmoral.

No one is saying that.

 

Its not a bonus. It's an intricate, but declining, part of it.

 

The discussion now needs to be what after oil? One we never have in this nation is future proofing our economy.

 

Oil and independence in the 70s/80s would've been a wonderful thing. Now it's not the be all and end all. That's all that's being said here.

 

It is valuable but in no way will it make us a European Kuwait or Abu Dhabi.

 

It's value in tax are declining. It's costs increasing.

Multiple squirming...

 

Lovely

[JamboX2]

Well you know what. Its been squandered by Westminster for 40 odd years. Theres no way a small country like Scotland should be anywhere near the state its in with the oil it's had/yet to have. Regardless of how much is left.

Here's an idea, why dont we decide to enjoy whatever amount IS left? Naw, lets just keep sending the wealth south for our masters to enjoy in their corner of the South East.

Surely as an independent nation we could enjoy the tax benefit as Norway does. Why do they enjoy a large tax take but we dont? The answer is probably because the UK government is just looking after their pals and lots of brown envelopes are sloshing about. The companies in the North sea make MASSIVE profits unyet they are untouchable.

Are the britnats really saying they are happy with that? Or that they mock the pro-indy camp for wanting to ensure we take more control of our natural resources regardless of what amounts are left/recoverable? Sad really.

Repeatedly you have been told why the take is less. You have been repeatedly told why the costs in Scotland are more.

 

It's not hard to see.

 

If the state will not fund exploration and oil infrastructure then private firms will. They will accordingly look for a cut in tax to make exploration affordable and worth their investment.

 

On squandered oil money? Debatable. A mythology has grown up here. The idea a Scottish government would've spent it any better is just a myth. You will never know. Most of Norway's oil money is paid into a sovereign wealth fund. Norway's higher standards of living, infrastructure and quality of life is largely funded by higher personal taxation, increased local government power and responsibility and a much more proactive and interventionist state in the economy.

 

Oil's role has not made Norway a better nation. It's political choices have. Look at the history, the views and the attitudes of Scottish politicians and there is little to suggest a much different attitude to the rUK politicians exists except on a few issues.

 

If you want a better nation which you as a person may need to be prepared to pay for it.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

Multiple squirming...

 

Lovely

Where is there squirming?

 

Cotton was once king in Scotland's linen mills.

Tobacco built Glasgow and bankrolled highland clearances and the Scottish industrial revolution.

Heavy industry was a mass employer which lead to mass enfranchisement in Scotland for the poor into politics.

 

All have come and gone.

 

Oil is that next page which is steadily being turned.

 

The question isn't what oil can do for us but what we can do post oil as a nation.

[HaymarketJambo]

No she will be forced to resign as she simply called it too soon. Got too excited about the Brexit vote and went off before checking the public opinions. I suspect Eck pushed her.

 

Then who replaces her? She is a strong politician but the SNP have nobody credible to replace her.

 

SNP fecked.

 

My old school chum Angus Robertson  or  Callum McCaig? 

[deesidejambo]

My old school chum Angus Robertson or Callum McCaig?

McGaig is my MP and imo is doing a good job.

 

He engages spuds by means of questionnaires and addresses local issues.

 

Even as a Unionist I would happily vote for him at a GE.

 

But that doesn't mean I support Indy.

 

To me this is a challenge for the SNP - if they represent Scotland well at Westminster then why take the risk of Indy?

 

Should the SNP not adopt an Indy-only stance i.e. not stand for Westminster?

 

Your views?

[Boris]

McGaig is my MP and imo is doing a good job.

 

He engages spuds by means of questionnaires and addresses local issues.

 

Even as a Unionist I would happily vote for him at a GE.

 

But that doesn't mean I support Indy.

 

To me this is a challenge for the SNP - if they represent Scotland well at Westminster then why take the risk of Indy?

 

Should the SNP not adopt an Indy-only stance i.e. not stand for Westminster?

 

Your views?

 

 

Or stand for Westminster on an independence ticket.  Win the majority of Scottish seats and secede from the Union.

[HaymarketJambo]

McGaig is my MP and imo is doing a good job.

 

He engages spuds by means of questionnaires and addresses local issues.

 

Even as a Unionist I would happily vote for him at a GE.

 

But that doesn't mean I support Indy.

 

To me this is a challenge for the SNP - if they represent Scotland well at Westminster then why take the risk of Indy?

 

Should the SNP not adopt an Indy-only stance i.e. not stand for Westminster?

 

Your views?

 

A good post deeside.

 

That's the problem for the SNP they are doing really well and showing Labour up and others at Westminster and people like you who are Unionist and are considering voting for the SNP that's a big problem for the SNP because the hole point of the SNP is for an independent Scotland and not hang around Westminster?     

 

My view is that the SNP have to stand for Westminster elections because there are still a lot of issues at Westminster affect Scotland and we need a Scottish voice at Westminster and for the first time in long while we have party that is doing that sticking up for Scotland.        

Edited April 13, 2017 by HaymarketJambo

[Stuart Lyon]

HJ - you keep saying  the SNP are standing up for Scotland as if no other party does or ever has - get real.

[deesidejambo]

Or stand for Westminster on an independence ticket.  Win the majority of Scottish seats and secede from the Union.

Would that work constitutionally?

 

Would it not boil down to a vote at Westminster then?

 

If it is possible than the next GE could be done that way and would become an Indyref by proxy?

 

May be a good way to get the SNP firmly into Indy or nothing, which I think is what it should be.

[HaymarketJambo]

HJ - you keep saying  the SNP are standing up for Scotland as if no other party does or ever has - get real.

 

The other parties don't want to upset their paymasters in London. 

 

Maybe instead of slagging off the SNP and the First Minister at every go maybe you should look at the shambles of your own party?  

Edited April 13, 2017 by HaymarketJambo

[Boris]

Would that work constitutionally?

 

Would it not boil down to a vote at Westminster then?

 

If it is possible than the next GE could be done that way and would become an Indyref by proxy?

 

May be a good way to get the SNP firmly into Indy or nothing, which I think is what it should be.

 

That was the tactic in the 1970's.  It shows a democratic mandate for independence and Westminster can't really say no.

 

I think the idea is to go to the UN and say," look, we stood for indy, we got the most seats, can we have our country back please?"

 

And that would really focus minds - would the unionist parties all stand in the same seats?  Would there be a BT candidate rather than a party candidate?  How would they align/vote at Westminster if they won?

[Thunderstruck]

Or stand for Westminster on an independence ticket. Win the majority of Scottish seats and secede from the Union.

In an FPTP election? You do understand that you can win a majority of seats with a minority of the vote?

 

If you are basing your plan on 2015, you would secede in the back of the votes of 35% of the electorate - that seems sound.

 

Why don't we get Ant and Dec to have a phone-in.

[Boris]

In an FPTP election? You do understand that you can win a majority of seats with a minority of the vote?

 

If you are basing your plan on 2015, you would secede in the back of the votes of 35% of the electorate - that seems sound.

 

Why don't we get Ant and Dec to have a phone-in.

 

Ah, so it's OK to be ruled by a system that is elected in such a away, but not use that same system for self determination?

 

Seems legit...

[Thunderstruck]

Ah, so it's OK to be ruled by a system that is elected in such a away, but not use that same system for self determination?

 

Seems legit...

I'm afraid that I can't recall stating that FPTP is fair in Westminster elections or in the constituency portion of Holyrood elections.

 

However, turning your logic on its head - if it is good enough for UDI, surely it is good enough for electing governments.

[markphmfc]

We need to go it alone. Simple as that! **** the union. It only serves the most greedy and Westminster does t give a shit about anything passed the Midlands.

[Space Mackerel]

Even more brutal news, ?30 billion getting invested in the North Sea.

 

Where's Deeside today?

 

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/136365/north-sea-set-30bn-investment-new-projects-next-three-years/

 

But it's shite oil

[reaths17]

Ah, so it's OK to be ruled by a system that is elected in such a away, but not use that same system for self determination?

 

Seems legit...

the SNP didn't bother with either when they called for a referendum, they kinda just voted between themselves despite the PEOPLE saying they weren't interested

[reaths17]

We need to go it alone. Simple as that! **** the union. It only serves the most greedy and Westminster does t give a shit about anything passed the Midlands.

the SNP havn't shown they give a shit about anything bar having a go at Westminster. maybe they could try running the country properly, perhaps even better than Westminster instead of worse, I'm sure that would be a compelling argument than just keeping on telling us Westminster doesn't do anything for us, when their doing better with the undevolved parts of the UK than their doing here.

 

I'm sure it would get more yes votes.

 

glad we wont be burdened come independence with big business greed, and political greed, us being good honest caring Scottish politicians serving only the people. no sure where were all gonna work though.

Edited April 13, 2017 by reaths17

[Space Mackerel]

In an FPTP election? You do understand that you can win a majority of seats with a minority of the vote?

 

If you are basing your plan on 2015, you would secede in the back of the votes of 35% of the electorate - that seems sound.

 

Why don't we get Ant and Dec to have a phone-in.

[Thunderstruck]

the SNP didn't bother with either when they called for a referendum, they kinda just voted between themselves despite the PEOPLE saying they weren't interested

It's no longer the "will of the people", it's now the "will of parliament" - a parliament where they have largest block of seats thanks to, wait for it, FPTP.

[Boris]

I'm afraid that I can't recall stating that FPTP is fair in Westminster elections or in the constituency portion of Holyrood elections.

 

However, turning your logic on its head - if it is good enough for UDI, surely it is good enough for electing governments.

 

I never said you said it was!

 

Merely pointing out the inadequacies of the current British political system.

 

If needs be then those are the rules to be played by and should that be the case then the Westminster establishment has no-one to blame but themselves.

 

Hoist by their own petard, if you like.

[Boris]

It's no longer the "will of the people", it's now the "will of parliament" - a parliament where they have largest block of seats thanks to, wait for it, FPTP.

 

One part of the electoral process for Holyrood, but you know that.  

 

Oh, and for getting the will of the people to vote for them, thus giving them that parliamentary mandate.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Boris

[Thunderstruck]

 

In an FPTP election? You do understand that you can win a majority of seats with a minority of the vote?

 

If you are basing your plan on 2015, you would secede in the back of the votes of 35% of the electorate - that seems sound.

 

Why don't we get Ant and Dec to have a phone-in.

As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union

 

 

Margaret Thatcher

 

Written before the 2014 referendum but prophetic nonetheless.

[reaths17]

It's no longer the "will of the people", it's now the "will of parliament" - a parliament where they have largest block of seats thanks to, wait for it, FPTP.

when they don't respect the peoples vote and then vote between themselves despite the people, isn't the will of parliament it's more likened to a dictatorship.

[Thunderstruck]

when they don't respect the peoples vote and then vote between themselves despite the people, isn't the will of parliament it's more likened to a dictatorship.

Correct.

[Boris]

when they don't respect the peoples vote and then vote between themselves despite the people, isn't the will of parliament it's more likened to a dictatorship.

 

And when did this actually happen?

 

Are you referring to the 2014 referendum?

 

If you are, you do realise that the people then returned the SNP with a mandate to hold another referendum if there was material change, such as Scotland voting to remain in the UK but the UK leaving.

[Space Mackerel]

Margaret Thatcher

 

Written before the 2014 referendum but prophetic nonetheless.

Is 56 out of 59 a majority, I'm a bit crap at maths [emoji2]

[Thunderstruck]

Is 56 out of 59 a majority, I'm a bit crap at maths [emoji2]

Are the votes of 35% of the electorate a mandate in any set of circumstances. Particularly when the relevant question wasn't posed and a significant number of votes were for SNP and not for independence (some misguided souls believed a vote for SNP would keep the Tories out).

 

I am sure you don't need to be reminded (maybe you do) that the vote for deciding Scotland's constitutional future was held on 18 Sept 2014 and was a decisive vote to remain in the Union.

[Thunderstruck]

One part of the electoral process for Holyrood, but you know that.

 

Oh, and for getting the will of the people to vote for them, thus giving them that parliamentary mandate.

That'll be why I referred to "constituency portion of Holyrood elections".

 

Tiny flaw in you argument is that the SNP does not have a Parliamentary majority and only got over the line due to some tortured rationalisation by the Greens.

[Boris]

Are the votes of 35% of the electorate a mandate in any set of circumstances. Particularly when the relevant question wasn't posed and a significant number of votes were for SNP and not for independence (some misguided souls believed a vote for SNP would keep the Tories out).

 

I am sure you don't need to be reminded (maybe you do) that the vote for deciding Scotland's constitutional future was held on 18 Sept 2014 and was a decisive vote to remain in the Union.

 

It seems to be ok for Westminster to be decided that way.  The same Westminster that decides whether or not the will of the Scottish Parliament is allowed or not. 

 

Now, I would agree with you that a referendum is a better way of finding out if independence should happen, but then in the interests of fairness, and maybe even to put the nationalist gas at a peep, shouldn't Westminster introduce a fairer, more democratic electoral system?

 

Oh, and rgeards your use of the word "electorate", to use one of the late great James Sanderson's phrases, "if you don't go to the game, you can't criticise".  In other words if you don't use your vote then hard cheese if you don't like the result.

[Boris]

That'll be why I referred to "constituency portion of Holyrood elections".

 

Tiny flaw in you argument is that the SNP does not have a Parliamentary majority and only got over the line due to some tortured rationalisation by the Greens.

 

So in other owrds there is a parliamentary concensus?  Better together right enough! A topic that trancends party rivalry and unites the majority!

[Boris]

That'll be why I referred to "constituency portion of Holyrood elections".

 

Tiny flaw in you argument is that the SNP does not have a Parliamentary majority and only got over the line due to some tortured rationalisation by the Greens.

 

They are still the government though, albeit a minority. Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to govern?

[Thunderstruck]

They are still the government though, albeit a minority. Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to govern?

They are allowed to govern but show little inclination so to do. Preferring, instead, to tilt at constitutional windmills.

 

The SNP have demonstrated since the last

[deesidejambo]

Even more brutal news, ?30 billion getting invested in the North Sea.

 

Where's Deeside today?

 

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/136365/north-sea-set-30bn-investment-new-projects-next-three-years/

 

But it's shite oil

Was golfin.

 

Anyway as always you don't understand what you posted.

 

The investment is including Norway and Denmark.

 

The total investment will deliver 1.1 billion boes of which most is in Norway so let's say 0.5 billion for U.K.

 

Add that to the 5 billion from current production and you get to the 6 billion forecast by Woodmac.

 

Meanwhile decommissioning continues apace which should be of concern to folks on this forum for two reasons -

 

Once fields are recommend the oil is lost.

 

Decommissioning is tax deductible such that the taxpayer is footing the bill in some cases up to 70% of the decommissioning costs.

 

This is a reason why the Govt wants to defer it as much as possible by giving tax concessions to keep things going.

[Space Mackerel]

Are the votes of 35% of the electorate a mandate in any set of circumstances. Particularly when the relevant question wasn't posed and a significant number of votes were for SNP and not for independence (some misguided souls believed a vote for SNP would keep the Tories out).

 

I am sure you don't need to be reminded (maybe you do) that the vote for deciding Scotland's constitutional future was held on 18 Sept 2014 and was a decisive vote to remain in the Union.

I posted this earlier in the thread, maybe it missed your attention.

This would be the make up of Holyrood if it was a FPTP system up here.

 

[Space Mackerel]

Was golfin.

 

Anyway as always you don't understand what you posted.

 

The investment is including Norway and Denmark.

 

The total investment will deliver 1.1 billion boes of which most is in Norway so let's say 0.5 billion for U.K.

 

Add that to the 5 billion from current production and you get to the 6 billion forecast by Woodmac.

 

Meanwhile decommissioning continues apace which should be of concern to folks on this forum for two reasons -

 

Once fields are recommend the oil is lost.

 

Decommissioning is tax deductible such that the taxpayer is footing the bill in some cases up to 70% of the decommissioning costs.

 

This is a reason why the Govt wants to defer it as much as possible by giving tax concessions to keep things going.

"According to energy market researcher GlobalData, 30 North Sea projects are expected to start operations over the three years.

 

Twenty are planned for the UK sector, nine are in Norway, and one is in Denmark, GlobalData said in its latest forecast for the basin.

 

Despite the UK North Sea appearing to dominate, Norway won?t skimp on spending, accounting for ?15.4billion of the total outlay."

 

 

 

 

Twenty are planned for the UK sector.

Thought it was finished?

[deesidejambo]

"According to energy market researcher GlobalData, 30 North Sea projects are expected to start operations over the three years.

 

Twenty are planned for the UK sector, nine are in Norway, and one is in Denmark, GlobalData said in its latest forecast for the basin.

 

Despite the UK North Sea appearing to dominate, Norway won?t skimp on spending, accounting for ?15.4billion of the total outlay."

 

 

 

 

Twenty are planned for the UK sector.

Thought it was finished?

Nobody said it was finished. But as your link shows, the U.K. projects only develop about half a billion barrels. Which is about 15 months of production at current offrake rates. In other words peanuts.

 

Only 18 billion more to find to get to your 24.

 

Meanwhile more cessation of production notifications go to the OGA.

 

If you were a genuine supporter of Scottish industry you would be lobbying to stop the decline.

 

But you are not. You and the SNP are so hellbent in Indy you don't support the UK Govts attempts to keep things going until a price recovery.

 

People reading this should be very concerned about the future of the industry instead of slavering shite about an imaginary 24 billion barrels.

[Space Mackerel]

Nobody said it was finished. But as your link shows, the U.K. projects only develop about half a billion barrels. Which is about 15 months of production at current offrake rates. In other words peanuts.

 

Only 18 billion more to find to get to your 24.

 

Meanwhile more cessation of production notifications go to the OGA.

 

If you were a genuine supporter of Scottish industry you would be lobbying to stop the decline.

 

But you are not. You and the SNP are so hellbent in Indy you don't support the UK Govts attempts to keep things going until a price recovery.

 

People reading this should be very concerned about the future of the industry instead of slavering shite about an imaginary 24 billion barrels.

Here's another take on it from another article.

 

https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/13978/north-sea-to-see-45bn-invested-in-30-projects-by-2020/

 

 

 

"Around 30 new crude oil and natural gas projects are expected to start operating in the North Sea by 2020.

 

That?s according to research and consultancy firm GlobalData, which says the UK will lead the resurgence with 19 projects, followed by Norway with 10 and Denmark with a single installation.

 

A new report from the company suggests the downturn cycle witnessed in the region over the last few years is now easing slightly.

 

It states projects agreed upon in 2016 cost around half as much as projects finalised in 2013 and says this illustrates how companies have made clear improvements in cost efficiency.

 

That?s according to research and consultancy firm GlobalData, which says the UK will lead the resurgence with 19 projects, followed by Norway with 10 and Denmark with a single installation.

 

A new report from the company suggests the downturn cycle witnessed in the region over the last few years is now easing slightly.

 

It states projects agreed upon in 2016 cost around half as much as projects finalised in 2013 and says this illustrates how companies have made clear improvements in cost efficiency.

 

 

GlobalData also notes operating costs have halved from nearly $30 per barrel (?24) to just more than $15 per barrel (?12) and production forecasts are on the rise.

 

The projects are expected to contribute around 690,000 barrels of oil per day to global crude production and about 1,255 million cubic feet per day to global gas production.

 

They will require a total capital expenditure of $56.7 billion (?45.50), of which 54% is expected to be spent between 2017 and 2020.

 

Luis Pereira, Upstream Analyst for GlobalData, explains: ?Of the 30 upcoming North Sea projects, 22 are crude oil projects and eight are gas projects.

 

?Norway will dominate oil production, while the UK will dominate gas production.?

 

The Oil and Gas Authority says the vast majority of oil and gas projects in the UK North Sea have been delayed and delivered overbudget in the last five years."

 

 

[deesidejambo]

Here's another take on it from another article.

 

https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/13978/north-sea-to-see-45bn-invested-in-30-projects-by-2020/

 

 

 

"Around 30 new crude oil and natural gas projects are expected to start operating in the North Sea by 2020.

 

That?s according to research and consultancy firm GlobalData, which says the UK will lead the resurgence with 19 projects, followed by Norway with 10 and Denmark with a single installation.

 

A new report from the company suggests the downturn cycle witnessed in the region over the last few years is now easing slightly.

 

It states projects agreed upon in 2016 cost around half as much as projects finalised in 2013 and says this illustrates how companies have made clear improvements in cost efficiency.

 

That?s according to research and consultancy firm GlobalData, which says the UK will lead the resurgence with 19 projects, followed by Norway with 10 and Denmark with a single installation.

 

A new report from the company suggests the downturn cycle witnessed in the region over the last few years is now easing slightly.

 

It states projects agreed upon in 2016 cost around half as much as projects finalised in 2013 and says this illustrates how companies have made clear improvements in cost efficiency.

 

 

GlobalData also notes operating costs have halved from nearly $30 per barrel (?24) to just more than $15 per barrel (?12) and production forecasts are on the rise.

 

The projects are expected to contribute around 690,000 barrels of oil per day to global crude production and about 1,255 million cubic feet per day to global gas production.

 

They will require a total capital expenditure of $56.7 billion (?45.50), of which 54% is expected to be spent between 2017 and 2020.

 

Luis Pereira, Upstream Analyst for GlobalData, explains: ?Of the 30 upcoming North Sea projects, 22 are crude oil projects and eight are gas projects.

 

?Norway will dominate oil production, while the UK will dominate gas production.?

 

The Oil and Gas Authority says the vast majority of oil and gas projects in the UK North Sea have been delayed and delivered overbudget in the last five years."

 

 

You just keep posting links to the same report over and over again without understanding what it means.

 

Half a billion barrels. That's it. Tax take next to zero.

 

That's what the study shows but you can't comprehend it. Others can though.

 

Remember to post another link to this.

[Space Mackerel]

You just keep posting links to the same report over and over again without understanding what it means.

 

Half a billion barrels. That's it. Tax take next to zero.

 

That's what the study shows but you can't comprehend it. Others can though.

 

Remember to post another link to this.

Operating costs have halved to $15 a barrel, thus making it profitable.

 

$55-$15 = $40 per barrel profit

 

Norway taxes at 78% and has done for decades. Now explain to me why there won't be any tax take?

 

Oh, and I'm off for a weekend to my mates gaff in Switzerland thanks to this thread and particularly your input Deeside. Not only do you haver a lot of guff, Im to catch up with my pal of over 40 years, so cheers pal. He has an extensive collection of rare whiskies he thinks are an investment till I get there [emoji41]

[Thunderstruck]

I posted this earlier in the thread, maybe it missed your attention.

This would be the make up of Holyrood if it was a FPTP system up here.

 

No doubt Wings and another flight of fancy.

[deesidejambo]

Operating costs have halved to $15 a barrel, thus making it profitable.

 

$55-$15 = $40 per barrel profit

 

Norway taxes at 78% and has done for decades. Now explain to me why there won't be any tax take?

 

Oh, and I'm off for a weekend to my mates gaff in Switzerland thanks to this thread and particularly your input Deeside. Not only do you haver a lot of guff, Im to catch up with my pal of over 40 years, so cheers pal. He has an extensive collection of rare whiskies he thinks are an investment till I get there [emoji41]

Glad to hear I funded your visit.

 

Try the Ardbeg. In fact if I am somehow funding your trip then bring me a bottle back.

Edited April 13, 2017 by deesidejambo

[Space Mackerel]

Glad to hear I funded your visit.

 

Try the Ardbeg. In fact if I am somehow funding your trip then bring me a bottle back.

Quick calculation, UK produces currently 100,000 barrels per day and that's at its lowest.

 

40 x 365 x 100,000 = 1,460,000,000 x 0.78 = $1,138,800,000 in tax receipts.

 

That's a new Forth Bridge every year nearly.

[deesidejambo]

Quick calculation, UK produces currently 100,000 barrels per day and that's at its lowest.

 

40 x 365 x 100,000 = 1,460,000,000 x 0.78 = $1,138,800,000 in tax receipts.

 

That's a new Forth Bridge every year nearly.

Forgot to subtract the costs.

 

Silly SM

[Space Mackerel]

Forgot to subtract the costs.

 

Silly SM

Read the article, operating costs are down to $15 per barrel from $30.

 

Im guessing you got the boot from your spin doctor job in the local rag, you're not very good. [emoji2]

[deesidejambo]

Read the article, operating costs are down to $15 per barrel from $30.

 

Im guessing you got the boot from your spin doctor job in the local rag, you're not very good. [emoji2]

Silly SM. In Norway it may be 15 per barrel but not in U.K. Those figures are not UK ones.

 

Also the operating costs are the day to day running costs and don't include both the development costs and the decommissioning costs, both of which are massive and both of which are written off against tax.

 

as stated previously, per barrel operating costs are frequently understated in order to fool shareholders into thinking the companies are in good health. But at the same time those same companies are reporting audited financial losses on an increasing scale each year, as Wood confirms.

 

Finally even the SNP have removed oil from their forecasts to confirm the above is the real situation at the moment.

 

Apart from that your sums are fine

Edited April 13, 2017 by deesidejambo