You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Apologies if this has been covered in the masses of other threads but listening to Radio 4 this morning and learning about the UK Continental Shelf Act they were talking about the international law and the subsequent negative knock on impacts to other countries should Scotland think it owns 100% of North Sea oil.
In reality, the 8 per cent of Britons who live in Scotland are between them entitled to an 8 per cent share of the proceeds from the British oil that has already been discovered, some of it in Scotland – no more, no less. If, after independence, new natural resources were discovered in Scotland, it would be exclusively Scottish. Conversely, if it were discovered in the rest of the UK, the Scottish would miss out.
If the Scottish were allowed to retrospectively change the rules of ownership, the implications would be serious. Most developing nations are still in the early stages of resource discovery. If it is established as a principle that local populations that turn out to be resource rich can secede, there will be two consequences - one is inequality - it will create vast wealth and poverty divisions but the other which is the most serious is conflict as in a lot of African nations.
This would mean a significant re-think on revenue from "Scottish" oil as it would only equate to 8%.
Uh oh
They won't vote yes anyway, so why bother talking about it?
The bloke countering the assertion started every sentence with "I'm sure an agreement can be reached....".
Interesting discussion though I had been wondering who actually "owned" the remaining oil reserves.
In reality, the 8 per cent of Britons who live in Scotland
What a load of absolute crap, complete bulshit of the highest order. They live in Scotland, they would come under Scottish law. I live in Germany, and geuss what I am taxed in Germany, the UK is not entitled to tax my German earnings, or entitled to a percentage of my home, car or bikes.
The UK parliament has tried many times to re-write international law to create the impression that Scottish coastal waters would belong to the UK and not Scotland, it is just part of their fear campaign and has no legal standing at all.
Does this mean UK government will pay 8% if the earnings from gas, oil, wind, hydro etc for the past 60-80 years to Scotland if they are owed no less, no more?
Actually MSP there are plenty if examples were foreign nationals are taxed even while living and working outside of their home country. Then US tax their citizens living and working abroad if they have been doing it for more than five years I think. Similarly, if you live in France as a UK citizen but work in the UK, then after about five years the French will also start to tax you on your UK income.
Apparently, yes.
Yes, there are reciprocal tax agreements between the UK and the US if you live and work outside of your home nation.
Not British subjects though, and their still not entitled to a percentage of their assets.
Does the UK expect a percentage of Spanish state assets because of all the expats living in the sun? Of course not 🙄
Yes, there are reciprocal tax agreements between the UK and the US if you live and work outside of your home nation.
Only if on temporary assignment, not if you move permanently.
you're missing the point of before and after.
Currently, all the natural resources of the UK belong to all the UK. After, they can't just take what they want and leave.
The good analogy here would have been during the coal rush when Yorkshire was producing the majority of the UK coal. Under the same rules Yorkshire would secede and the rest of the UK would have no coal.
Imagine if every African nation did this. The wealth and poverty gap would be dangerous.
So what you are saying is is on teh 18/09 scotland votes for independence it is just the land that is now non UK? The coastal shelf and presumably the waters will stay UK? How far up rivers does that stretch? Have you spotted the irony of your last sentence?
All offshore resources are based in coastline length, not population. This has been set by international agreement for decades. This means that in the case if the UK around 90% of the oil fields would be Scottish with the bulk of of the Gas fields remaining with the rest if the UK. It doesn't matter what anyone on R4 says, this is how it actually works.
[quote=gonefishin said]All offshore resources are based in coastline length, not population. This has been set by international agreement for decades. This means that in the case if the UK around 90% of the oil fields would be Scottish with the bulk of of the Gas fields remaining with the rest if the UK. It doesn't matter what anyone on R4 says, this is how it actually works.
You should have been on the programme this morning as the guy countering the original assertion didn't mention anything about that.
I didn't hear the interview on R4 but it sounds like it was along the same lines as this opinion piece in the FT:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b609d594-97cc-11e3-ab60-00144feab7de.html
In Nigeria, Biafra, the region where oil was discovered, unilaterally seceded in 1967. The rest of Nigeria decided this was illegitimate; the result was a gruesome war.And so to Scotland. Britain’s rules on ownership of natural resources were clear well before oil was discovered; the UK Continental Shelf Act was passed in 1964. Before the discovery of oil in 1969, the Scots opted heavily against independence: in the 1966 general election the Scottish National party failed to win a single seat. The subsequent rise of Scottish nationalism, supported by the slogan “It’s Scotland’s oil”, is evidently in part an attempt at a retrospective resource grab. The 8 per cent of Britons who live in Scotland are between them entitled to an 8 per cent share of the proceeds from the British oil that has already been discovered, some of it in Scotland – no more, no less. If, after independence, some priceless new resource were discovered in the Highlands, it would be exclusively Scottish. Conversely, if it were discovered in Surrey, the Scots would miss out.
If the UK secedes from the UK, then the Scottish continental shelf would not be part of the UK, you know that's how independence works. It would be Scottish, as established by international law.
Unless you are suggesting that if Scotland does vote for independence than the UK government would wage a gruesome war on Scotland?
If I lived in Scotland the ignorance and fear tactics used by the no campaign would be enough to convince me to vote for independence.
Its ok lads , the russians are doing a good job of proving that **** salmond wrong that we dont need armed forces....
Raf leuchars had to send out planes yesterday to push back some russian survailance planes.
I think the comment is that existing law that currently governs the UK (including Scotland) makes it clear that UK resources for departing countries can be split according to population. Likewise I guess any shale gas etc that has already been discovered in, say, Blackpool, will have 8% assigned to Scotland as well.
So the rUK would annex the territory of another country? You know, I'd say that's completely out of the question, but you never know.
I don't think you can annex the sea. Hard to build checkpoints and bases on it
The pipelines terminate in Scotland - is the rUK going to occupy the rigs and build new pipelines to Berwick on Tweed?
It's such a stupid suggestion that it's hard to know where to start. The oil is in the ground under the North Sea. At the moment, that bit of the North Sea belongs to the UK. After independence it'll belong to Scotland. Geography doesn't depend on population.
It is a reasonable point though that if any region where significant natural resources were discovered was allowed to secede, it would cause chaos.
The 'it's our oil' argument for nationalism is also perhaps the most pathetic one.
Maybe it would force the londoncentric rulers to be more balanced in dealing with the whole nation if they realised that could happen.
The 'it's our oil' argument for nationalism is also perhaps the most pathetic one.
Works both ways, lets not lose sight of the premise this thread was started on, and that grasping the oil ownership seems to be the no campaigns hardest pushed tactic.
The 'it's our oil' argument for nationalism is also perhaps the most pathetic one.
I agree, what's past is past. However the argument that it won't be our oil after independence is equally pathetic.
Grum that happens all the time. Indeed was there not an attempt in the 70s by Westminster to play down the actual estimated oil reserves precisely to stop Scotland becoming I dependant and taking the oil?
Didn't hear the programme but there is an important point about the benefit of the oil and how this is represented in national income. NS Oil woiuld show up in Scottish GDP irrespective of who actually gets it out of the sea as GDP measures output. But if this was a foreign company doing the drilling etc generally yes) this will not result in the same level of national income as measured by NI.
Of course dont expect yS to explain this or why in all probability NS Oil revenues will be less that under the current Barnett transfers or that the Oil Fund vision is a wee but optimistic. But if they fail to understand national accounting with currencies, "getting" the concept of national income is even more challenging and even duller.
TBF, the Scottish Government is starting to produce analysis on this, but is doubt the conclusions will be rapidly forthcoming.
Aren't the oil fields outside territorial waters and only in the exclusive economic zone? That means it is an agreement rather than simple geography.
Aren't the oil fields outside territorial waters and only in the exclusive economic zone? That means it is an agreement rather than simple geography.
Well, all international law is about agreement. There's no difference between the rUK annexing Scottish oil and the rUK annexing Norwegian oil. Both would be taking over the exclusive economic areas of another country.
Given the Falklands situation, the rUK really has no leg to stand on with this.
They would be in an independent Scotlands exclusive economic zone.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20042070
I think professor collier has focused on one aspect of international law and ignored others raised in the article above
bencooper - MemberAren't the oil fields outside territorial waters and only in the exclusive economic zone? That means it is an agreement rather than simple geography.
Well, all international law is about agreement. There's no difference between the rUK annexing Scottish oil and the rUK annexing Norwegian oil. Both would be taking over the exclusive economic areas of another country.
Given the Falklands situation, the rUK really has no leg to stand on with this.
Well if you read the article I linked, the writer is saying that according to international law it never was Scotland's oil, but rather was the UK's from discovery hence it is not being annexed.
Here's the [url= http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3zCqHn9-EbgJ:www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b609d594-97cc-11e3-ab60-00144feab7de.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a#axzz2zmsVfvcA ]google cache[/url] to avoid the paywall.
Though given that the author is an expert on 'African Economies' rather than international law I wouldn't place too much confidence in it!
Grum that happens all the time. Indeed was there not an attempt in the 70s by Westminster to play down the actual estimated oil reserves precisely to stop Scotland becoming I dependant and taking the oil?
Or, if you read the linked article, the rule was created before the deposits were discovered (arguably against that time) and when Scotland was overwhelmingly unionist.
But oil in Scotland is a dying and shrinking resource? It's like a divorcing couple arguing about who should keep the dog that's already 12 years old? and anyway isn't most of the oil extracted by UK based companies based in England rather than Scotland, so the UK will still retain a lot of oil revenue in any case. Plus Scotland will miss out on the benefits of all that English fracking that's about to take place.
The ownership doesn't really matter. Two thirds of NS oil and gas is produced by international companies. Hence the difference between NI and GDP.
So tax revenue accrues to Scotland but after-tax profits flow overseas and are not re-invested (other than capital investment in rigs etc) in Scotland.
So scrutinise the "we will automatically be better off" arguments with care before voting.
From the 1964 act quoted
[i]Exploration and exploitation of continental shelf.
(1)Any rights exercisable by the United Kingdom outside territorial waters with respect to the sea bed and subsoil and their natural resources, except so far as they are exercisable in relation to coal, are hereby vested in Her Majesty.[/i]
So, technically its not the UK's oil, its the Crowns oil - I seem to recall from the white paper that Alex had decided that the Queen would continue to be head of state, correct Ben?
So, technically its not the UK's oil, its the Crowns oil - I seem to recall from the white paper that Alex had decided that the Queen would continue to be head of state, correct Ben?
Until a referendum or other decision is made. The Queens position is up for grabs at the moment. Default is we keep her though.
Not sure if the 1964 act trumps the accepted International law though? Thought that 90% of the oil being Scottish and most of the gas being rUK was pretty much the accepted outcome.
There's actualy some far more relavent points being missed.
[b](this isn't true, its a straw man to ilustrate the futility of the 'yes' default position of the oil being Scotish) [/b]If as the 'yes' posters are saying Scotland would get everything within it's teritorial waters, then why wouldn't Shetland declare independance, they'd all be millionairs! You could also include Abberdeen in that, why would they not declare themselves a city state? Seeing as it's a large 'ex-pat' comunity it's hard to see them feeling many ties to the rest ot Scotland.
[b](this bit is true)[/b] The Scottish adjacent waters act 1987 draws a line roughly north east from the border. The Scotish area of Civil Juristiction as defined by a 1999 act extends East from the border. Thats where the argument really get's interesting, there is no defined sea border between England and Scotland!
Not entirely sure where this suddenly came from, nobody and I do mean nobody has ever seriously claimed that all british oil will belong to Scotland. Some of it is in England for one thing!
But it's not really disputed that the huge majority of "british" oil will fall into Scotland's exclusive economic area and so yes will be Scotland's, the rUK has no convincing claim to them. Even the No campaign hasn't made any noticable attempts to challenge that because international law is so clearcut. Scotland won't have any claims to natural resources in the rUK either.
Incidentally,
trail_rat - MemberIts ok lads , the russians are doing a good job of proving that **** salmond wrong that we dont need armed forces....
The Yes campaign has never suggested we don't need or won't have armed forces. The tried and tested "make something up" debating technique 😉
thisisnotaspoon - Member
Thats where the argument really get's interesting, there is no defined sea border between England and Scotland!
But there is the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea which lays out rules for sea borders and offshore territory, and there's no reading of those which puts the north sea fields into any question (not so simple for gas)
If as someone said the pipelines come ashore on Scotland, wee Alex will just tax the oil there (as a customs and excise duty) while reducing corporation tax for oil companies. Result? Base your oil company in London and get taxed twice, base your oil company in Scotland and get taxed once. He has previous on this.
And if England, Wales and Northern Ireland try the same trick, companies will just sell to into Europe.
He's a git, but he's a smart git.
I'm puzzled at all worry of African nations splitting along the lines of resources, I'm pretty sure that is geographically almost exactly what you've got with Sudan/south Sudan, there oil revenue was a huge problem with agreeing the bifurcation.
I'd be interested to see how the international law was enforced in that case (I'm genuinely unsure) and whilst I know this isn't Africa it's the best precedent I can think of, (unless you count the carving up of Arabia).
As far as EEZs go, feel free to wait on the Chinese/Korean/Japanese (or fishing around Gibraltar) one to look like having some sort of conclusion before debating their impaction in enforceable law.
The problem as far as law goes is historically states don't separate, and where in they have they imploded first, Sudan, yugoslavia are two examples, peaceful secessionis few and far between, modern examples extend to east and west ****stan, there in you have no issues of what falls where since there is a large chunk of India separating the two's borders. Legally the whole thing is uncharted territory.
Actually a fair number of pipelines come ashore in England, not Scotland. Doesn't matter though as production is measured on the individual installations and taxed according. It has nothing to do with where it lands.
There is Norwegian Production that currently lands in the UK, we don't get tax revenue for it!
Silly point alert: I can't help wondering if the agreement that'll be reached that the yes campaign keeps mentioning will go something like "keep the pound, share the UK military, have a parliament in Edinburgh, keep the Queen as Hos, pay your taxes to Westminster but have limited control over them, oh and have a notionally separate country."
I see the source of this is an opinion piece in the ft, does anyone know who the author actually is and their background? Their opinion may not be grounded in facts any more than the guff spouted by politicians.
Aren't the oil fields outside territorial waters and only in the exclusive economic zone? That means it is an agreement rather than simple geography.
there is no defined sea border between England and Scotland!
No they are not in scottish territorial waters, and I'm not sure where this border that has been used to show a divide in scottish/english waters comes from. I think people may have been using what is called the renewable energy zone border beyond the territorial waters border, which I don't think is correct("boundary line for application of English and Scottish civil and criminal law to offshore renewable energy installations")
Actually a fair number of pipelines come ashore in England, not Scotland.
Almost entirely gas though
But oil in Scotland is a dying and shrinking resource?
Yes all the easy oil is gone, its now the resources that were too expensive/difficult to tackle previously that are being targeted, as well as more challenging areas like atlantic frontier and west of shetland. However if you look what happened to chevron's rosebank, these locations maybe still aren't economically viable to extract from.
But there is the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea which lays out rules for sea borders and offshore territory, and there's no reading of those which puts the north sea fields into any question (not so simple for gas)
Well it does, the area of uncertainty covers between those two laws which 'Scotland' (as part of the UK and it's own parliment for the 1999 act)covers several fields, the act signed upto in 1999 (i.e. after the Scotish parliment was set up in 1998) puts the Fife, Argyle, Auk and Clyde fields very definately on the England side of the border. Regardless of the UN's position (I suspect it would agree with the 1999 act anyway), the Scottish parliment is signed upto it.
No they are not in scottish territorial waters, and I'm not sure where this border that has been used to show a divide in scottish/english waters comes from. I think people may have been using what is called the renewable energy zone border beyond the territorial waters border, which I don't think is correct.
Did you read the rest of the paragraph?
Scottish Adjacent waters boundary order 1999 (extends north east from Berwick upon Tweed)
Scottish area civil jusistiction order 1987 (extends East from B-uo-T)
dangeourbrain - Member
Silly point alert: I can't help wondering if the agreement that'll be reached that the yes campaign keeps mentioning will go something like "keep the pound, share the UK military, have a parliament in Edinburgh, keep the Queen as Hos, pay your taxes to Westminster but have limited control over them, oh and have a notionally separate country."
so the status quo then?
There's also the important fact that oil taxes are hugely volitile.
You could go for the Dutch system of fixing taxes over the duration of the opperators licence. Gives stability, but removes flexibility. The UK's method thus far has been to tax when the oil price is high (eg the 12% windfall tax in 2011), but cut it in periods of low demands, creates a double whammy on HMRC, lower tax rates on low revenue, but does encourage more consistent investment in production, whereas the Dutch method leads to highly cyclical investment and production. Would an independant Scotland, highly dependant on oil revenues be able to control the market in the same way?
The scottish adjacent waters order 1999 doesn't apply to oil whilst the 87 jurisdiction order does.
http://www.mms.co.uk/MMSKnowledge/email-news.aspx?pageid=76783
This seems to (imo) give a future independent Scotland a strong position to negotiate from with the 99 boundaries as the minimum acceptable
Since the yes campaign is run by moronic, Bravehearted fantasists and the no campaign by fearmongering tittle-tattlers I am no longer paying any attention.
YerNawMaybe.
Just for clarity as someone has already mentioned it above the metering of oil and gas is done on the platform, so it's irrelevant where you land it.
Decommissioning costs are going to start hitting companies soon, currently there is tax relief on this, under iScotland this would change. It could be a positive one or could be negative, we won't know.
Decommissioning costs are going to start hitting companies soon
yeah the decommissioning industry is really gearing up now, company I used to work for has now spawned a whole new aberdeen office almost entirely focused on decom, I was really surprised how quickly it had escalated.
This seems to (imo) give a future independent Scotland a strong position to negotiate from with the 99 boundaries as the minimum acceptable
It also seems to be written by one of the braveheart-lite.
Slightly less biassed reporting (the industry likley doesn't overly care who owns the oil, just as long as it doesn't stop flowing):
Great thread.
A+
Will read again
One thing worth remembering. Every time there's a review of existing reserves, the total goes up, not down.
There's an awful lot more oil out there in northern and west of Shetland areas than we currently exploit. As the price continues to rise on the international markets, investment in marginal fields, previously worked fields, deeper drilling in current areas and moving into harsher new environments will continue. The oil isn't going to run out within any of our lifetimes. It may instead just get quite expensive... In thirty years time, we'll probably still be arguing about who can take their sea bed drilling robots out to the deep water Rockall fields.
There is a reason reserves keep going up.
[url= http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/opec-believed-to-overstate-oil-reserves-by-70-reserves-depleted-sooner-2012-10-04 ]Overstated oil reserves[/url]
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jul/23/alex-salmond-north-sea-oil ]Salmond struggles with the truth again[/url]
The UK govt would never knowingly under estimate how much oil there is would they? 😉
Using the logic of the bloke on radio 4 this morning the UK owes the republic of Ireland a massive amount of cash for coal we've mined since Irish independence.
I doubt that UK government ministers are responsible for the oil reserve estimates, I suspect that the figures are the result of geological surveys. Nor do I believe that it would be in the UK government's interests to release false figures - whether they underestimate or overestimate.
But then of course I'm not desperate to whip up petty nationalism so I guess suggestions of conspiracy theories have little appeal to me.
And can I add a 😉 to show that I don't necessarily believe what I'm saying and merely making
"a suggestion"
😉
What a load of absolute crap, complete bulshit of the highest order. They live in Scotland, they would come under Scottish law. I live in Germany, and geuss what I am taxed in Germany, the UK is not entitled to tax my German earnings, or entitled to a percentage of my home, car or bikes.
@MSP actually the uk could tax you on your foreign earnings if it wanted to by changing the uk tax laws, that's exactly what the US does. No matter where in the world you live you have to fill in a US tax return, basically if the taxes there are lower than the US equivalent you have to pay tax to the US government. The only way to opt out is to renounce your US passport but you still have to pay US taxes for a further 10 years
With regard to the oil there are a few possibilities, oil revenue divided by population, by land area or by some other mechanism. Any method has to be agreed, there isn't a "default" option as Scotland must negotiate its exit. The UK will some things it wants so it will be a genuine negotiation
Find me one case in history, ever, where one country has had a valid claim over the natural resources of another country.
If this principle was correct, then the UK would have claimed a share of Canadian shale oil, Australian uranium, South African gold and diamonds, and New Zealand LOTR revenues.
It also seems to be written by one of the braveheart-lite.Slightly less biassed reporting (the industry likley doesn't overly care who owns the oil, just as long as it doesn't stop flowing):
Don't just waltz in here with actual unbiased facts, this is politics being discussed!
Only if on temporary assignment, not if you move permanently.
It's off-topic now but - FATCA.
Find me one case in history, ever, where one country has had a valid claim over the natural resources of another country.
Two things,
1) Scotland is not yet a 'country', we're talking about dividing up existing assets of the UK between a hypothetical Scotland and RUK.
2) Germans took a shine to the coal in Alsace and Loraine, it didn't end well (kinda like braveheart).
Goodwins Law and it only took 2 pages.
Find me one case in history, ever, where one country has had a valid claim over the natural resources of another country.
@bencooper exactly as @thisisnotaspoon says Scotland isn't yet a country, it is voting whether to neogtiate it's exit from the Uk. I suppose you can think of it a bit like when you buy a house, you own the land but not the mineral rights (natural resources) below ground. You buy it on that basis. So the comparison is that Scotland leaves on the basis it doesn't take the rights to the resources. Now we are not saying this would happen but it could. It's comparable to the misplaced belief that Scotland is already a member of the EU and as such an independent Scotland would be automatically an EU member.
Ernie the UK govt didn't think the general public should have access to Mccrones 1974 report on this very issue.
[url= http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrone_report ]wiki on mccrone report 74[/url]
Scotland is not yet a 'country', we're talking about dividing up existing assets of the UK between a hypothetical Scotland and RUK
So how did it work out when the assets of the Empire were divided up? Was there a suggestion that the UK should retain a share of Canada's coal?
on this very issue
I can't see any mention in your link which claims that the UK government knowingly underestimated North Sea oil reserves. Deliberately falsifying the estimated oil reserve figures would, I imagine, cause huge problems for any government as it would seriously affect their energy policy - planning and securing future energy requirements is no trivial matter for governments and requires years of advanced planning.
So have you any proof that UK governments knowingly underestimated North Sea oil reserves ? In fact is there any evidence at all that North Sea oil reserves have been underestimated, even if it wasn't deliberate? I have no knowledge of the accuracy of past estimates.
So how did it work out when the assets of the Empire were divided up? Was there a suggestion that the UK should retain a share of Canada's coal?
I think we're back to the argument that Scotland is just a British colony.
At least repeatedly suggesting that it is, but then strongly denying that that is what is being implied.
Present Scotland as if it's no different to any other colony in the former British Empire, and then deny that you have done so. Why don't you ?
So Scotland is more than a colony, but less than a country, it's in some unique inbetween state which allows the rUK to pinch it's natural resources?
Scotland isn't anything remotely like a colony. In the same way that England isn't either.
And the term "country" in the context which it has been used on this thread refers to an independent sovereign state - Scotland isn't one of those. Nor is England of course.
HTH
Ernie is right, Mccrone found mismanagement in just about every element of the management of north sea oil, [i]except[/i] for reserve estimation. Then obviously colluded with the government to hide that, and the true value of north sea oil, in order to deceive scottish voters and influence the result of the referendum. Yay democracy!
So I think you can probably see why people are so quick to doubt UK government claims on oil, they've been caught lying before and people think "fool me once..."
Reserves as any fule no are just plain difficult, because it's hard to take into account improvements in extraction, changes in the economics of extraction, and outright new discoveries. Frinstance, Alma didn't figure in most reserve estimates until recently. Certainly not the last time that'll happen.
So there's a wide range of estimates and people choose the ones that fit their arguments.
Reserves as any fule no are just plain difficult, because it's hard to take into account improvements in extraction, changes in the economics of extraction, and outright new discoveries.
Which presumably explains why oil reserve estimates aren't just dependent on geological surveys but also on engineering surveys ?
And I would have thought that companies such as BP need to have a reasonably accurate idea of likely oil reserves before pumping mega bucks into an extraction project, no ?
ernie_lynch - MemberAnd I would have thought that companies such as BP need to have a reasonably accurate idea of likely oil reserves before pumping mega bucks into an extraction project, no ?
Absolutely right. Which is also why reserve estimates aren't generally optimistic- they're making forecasts of minimum required returns on huge investments. Alma frinstance has an official forecast of 20 million barrels with the new development, which is what justifies spending the best part of a billion dollars on it- but a high recovery forecast of 34 million. A massive variation there because one is what they hope they can get, the other is what they're confident they'll get. (some mistake this for an average expectation and a high hope, it's not- it's a minimum expectation and a high hope, the likely outcome will be somewhere inbetween)
So that's yet another reason that reserve figures vary so much- when you're dealing with a single field or project, you want to be pessimistic but when you're dealing with the whole north sea, you can assume that some of the more optimistic estimates will be proved correct- so the question is, how many, how high?
In the words of Donald Rumsfeld, there are known unknowns...
HTH
Not really - you seem to be trying to contrive a special case which has never existed before in the world ever, where a country splits up but one part retains mineral rights that are in the territory of another part. Lots of countries have split up or had regions declare independence, none of them ever divided mineral resources on anything other than geographic lines.
Remind me again where exactly these particular mineral rights are, ben, and can you provide an example of the split of a country or a declaration of independence involving a similar location of mineral rights?
Not really - you seem to be trying to contrive a special case which has never existed before in the world ever, where a country splits up but one part retains mineral rights that are in the territory of another part.
I'm fairly sure I haven't done that. Whose posts have you been reading ?
Apologies Ernie and thanks Northwind I stand corrected on the issue of estimating reserves , rather Mccrone and both governments of the day colluded to keep information about the real value of oil from the voters. Dennis Healey said on the wiki page.
"I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country because of the threat of [Scottish] nationalism... I think they [Westminster politicians] are concerned about Scotland taking the oil, I think they are worried stiff about it." [9]
Mccrone also referred to" taking the wind out of the SNP sails" in a covering letter he sent to the newly elected labour govt.
Full text of both the letter and the report are available from oilofscotland
I may grow a very long beard while I wait for Ernie to accept there was a deliberate attempt to misinform potential voters,based on McCrone's own advice when the pros outweighed the cons for indy. THM linked to him as well in the currency thread,including amazon reviews,I suppose once the SNP had got it in the open under a foi McCrone saw an opportunity to make more money,cheeky barsteward.
To use an example of pessimistic estimates on single field revenues and how far off they can be you have to look at Ekofisk, being one of the first oil producing fields in the NS in 1971 it had pretty much dried up in the 90's with decommissioning being predicted mid 2000. But now they are saying with the investment the Ekofisk complex has seen in the last few years production continuing to at least 2050 and that being a conservative estimate with possibility of production hitting 100 years.
So that's one field, how wrong could they be on the other 300 odd producing installations?
You have to be a little desperate to keep twisting the old McCrone report and then use as a reason why you should dismiss what he says. That requires a pretty impressive mis-reading of the report (beyond the obvious tagline) and a misunderstanding of his role and what secret means.
In the meantime, if you want to look at misinformation try the bare faced lies coming from Salmond re reserves etc.
At best, estimating the value of reserves is a difficult process unless you are the deceitful one and then it's easy - just one (inflated) figure - £1.5 trillion take it or leave it. So since he is clearly lying now, do we also dismiss everything he says in the same way that you would like to dismiss McCrone - actually that is not a bad idea.