This oil find.

[CropleyWasGod]

So, 2.3b barrels, they say.

What do we do?

1. Keep it in the ground, and save the planet.

Or

2. Exploit the hell out of it.

And please try to keep the political partisanship stuff to a minimum.

I'm genuinely interested to hear folks' views.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

It will be harvested.

[Slavers]

In an ideal world keep it in the ground and use electric motors.

In the realistic world exploit the hell out of it and get some money for it.

[snooky]

In an ideal world keep it in the ground and use electric motors.

In the realistic world exploit the hell out of it and get some money for it.

:shhhsh!: Don't tell the peasants, FFS.
Let's just keep kidding on the oil's gonna run out soon.

[speedy_gonzales]

It's an asset that should be used responsibly.
In a long time from now, oil will be very difficult to extract/recover, it may no longer be used for suck-squeeze-push-bang purposes but will still be required for plastics and ether,,,,who ever controls/has the last reserves will be either very powerful or under severe threat from more powerful entities.

[ano hibby]

It'll be brought up I'd think.
In 10-20 years time when we have far more renewables at economic non-subsidised prices in our energy mix maybe then there's a debate but now now.
Been looking in tidal energy recently. As a country we have a lot of potential here and tidal due to its reliability can be considered 'base load'. It's embryonic but with the right support there could be an emerging industry both domestic & export here.

[marinello59]

It's good news for Aberdeen and it was needed. The City has been hurt badly over the past three years with incomes slashed and thousands of jobs lost. Hopefully things will at least stabilise now. If the Greens had their way we would be decommissioning every rig now. Thankfully they don't.

[ronaldo7]

Keep it in the ground, until WE need it.

[marinello59]

Keep it in the ground, until WE need it.

Brilliant.
Aberdeen needs the work it brings now.

[snooky]

It's an asset that should be used responsibly.
In a long time from now, oil will be very difficult to extract/recover, it may no longer be used for suck-squeeze-push-bang purposes but will still be required for plastics and ether,,,,who ever controls/has the last reserves will be either very powerful or under severe threat from more powerful entities.
This is the most likely I think.

[ronaldo7]

Brilliant.
Aberdeen needs the work it brings now.

Uk broad shoulders not happen then?

[stoneyburn hibs]

Brilliant.
Aberdeen needs the work it brings now.

Should there be a special case for Aberdeen?

[marinello59]

Uk broad shoulders not happen then?

You really aren't making sense on this one R. You might need to expand on that one. Unless you are saying that you are happy to see the oil industry remain in decline until we gain Independence?

[northstandhibby]

Keep it in the ground, until WE need it.

Isn't 'Queen' Nicola against fossil fuels? After all these single or was it double digit renewable type jobs loudly proclaimed from her US celeb tour.

glory glory

[marinello59]

Should there be a special case for Aberdeen?

Nope. It's simply where the oil industry is based. Thousands of jobs lost, directly and indirectly. Pubs, restauruants and hotels laying off staff and wages slashed.
A few hundred steel workers were given deserved concern when their jobs were at risk. Anything wrong with oil workers getting the same sympathy?

[CropleyWasGod]

Isn't 'Queen' Nicola against fossil fuels? After all these single or was it double digit renewable type jobs loudly proclaimed from her US celeb tour.

glory glory
Did you read the bit about keeping partisanship out of it? 🙄

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

You really aren't making sense on this one R. You might need to expand on that one. Unless you are saying that you are happy to see the oil industry remain in decline until we gain Independence?

Oil and Gas are the UK Gov's jurisdiction isn't it. They'll decide for us anyway.

[marinello59]

Oil and Gas are the UK Gov's jurisdiction isn't it. They'll decide for us anyway.

It up to the companies whether it is profitable or not. It looks like it will be very profitable. This is a good news story for Scotland. Isn't it? :confused:

[northstandhibby]

Did you read the bit about keeping partisanship out of it? 🙄

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Fair dos.

:aok:

glory glory

[ronaldo7]

It up to the companies whether it is profitable or not. It looks like it will be very profitable. This is a good news story for Scotland. Isn't it? :confused:

If this is the same field they found in 2013 then yes, it's a good story for Scotland. More to come too.

I get that the North East has been shafted, when they were promised a £200Billion oil investment, and then the UK never delivered.

Let's keep some for ourselves and our oil fund.:wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

Fair dos.

:aok:

glory glory
No worries.

I kind of expected the thread to veer off in that direction at some point. It's difficult to balance economic and moral issues on their own, but one's political views muddy the waters even more.



Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[marinello59]

If this is the same field they found in 2013 then yes, it's a good story for Scotland. More to come too.

I get that the North East has been shafted, when they were promised a £200Billion oil investment, and then the UK never delivered.

Let's keep some for ourselves and our oil fund.:wink:

2013? You have lost me again.

[ronaldo7]

2013? You have lost me again.

Hurricane said they'd made estimates on the Lancaster field in 2013, and they were at 200Million barrels. This was subsequently increased to 593Million barrels. I thought this was the same field, but it's not.:greengrin

The new one is the Halifax field with the Billions in it.

[northstandhibby]

No worries.

I kind of expected the thread to veer off in that direction at some point. It's difficult to balance economic and moral issues on their own, but one's political views muddy the waters even more.



Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

You make a very fair point bud. One will always normally take the opportunity to make a vested interest point :agree:.

On a completely unbiased point of view its brilliant news for the Scottish economy and particularly for the North East which relies upon the industry and feeds into the local community.

glory glory

[marinello59]

Hurricane said they'd made estimates on the Lancaster field in 2013, and they were at 200Million barrels. This was subsequently increased to 593Million barrels. I thought this was the same field, but it's not.:greengrin

The new one is the Halifax field with the Billions in it.

Ah, got you. A:aok:

[Moulin Yarns]

Much rather it stayed in the ground for environmental reasons but understand it will be extracted. The jobs will likely be in Shetland rather than Aberdeen though.

[Hibrandenburg]

I would love to say keep it in the ground but that's just idealistic. Reality is you posed a hypothetical question because we'll have no say either way.

[Speedy]

So, 2.3b barrels, they say.

What do we do?

1. Keep it in the ground, and save the planet.

Or

2. Exploit the hell out of it.

And please try to keep the political partisanship stuff to a minimum.

I'm genuinely interested to hear folks' views.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Forgive my ignorance but how does keeping it in the ground benefit the planet?

[CropleyWasGod]

Forgive my ignorance but how does keeping it in the ground benefit the planet?
I'm assuming that the environmental lobby would prefer not to harvest it in order to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[HiBremian]

Much rather it stayed in the ground for environmental reasons but understand it will be extracted. The jobs will likely be in Shetland rather than Aberdeen though.

That's about how I see it. Though as long as the tax take on the oil in the UK is so low we won't benefit much beyond the jobs.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[marinello59]

That's about how I see it. Though as long as the tax take on the oil in the UK is so low we won't benefit much beyond the jobs.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You could say that about any industry . Again, this is really good news for Scotland. I'll leave it to No voters to talk this one down.

[The Baldmans Comb]

I was honestly told at school 45 years ago and have heard a million times since that "the oil in the North Sea is running out".

Scottish people are truly the most gullible and thickest people on the planet.

It should be harvested in a responsible manner.

[Colr]

I was honestly told at school 45 years ago and have heard a million times since that "the oil in the North Sea is running out".

Scottish people are truly the most gullible and thickest people on the planet.

It should be harvested in a responsible manner.

...and not pissed up the wall pluggging the Tory economic mismanagement this time!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

So, 2.3b barrels, they say.

What do we do?

1. Keep it in the ground, and save the planet.

Or

2. Exploit the hell out of it.

And please try to keep the political partisanship stuff to a minimum.

I'm genuinely interested to hear folks' views.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Keeping it in the ground will never happen, so we will bring it up.

So exploit the hell out of it!

[snooky]

The only trouble with keeping it in the ground is this ... (if I can use a football analogy).
You win the toss and choose to kick against a strong wind for the first half thinking that the second half will be a piece of cake. Alas the wind drops at half time and you've blown your advantage. Ergo, if the price of oil is high you cash in at that moment. Let's not wait till there's another form of energy discovered or WW3 ends it all anyways.

[Just Alf]

On one hand, it should be exploited gradually, I can see a time where oil based fuels will only be for propulsion in classic vehicles, cars/planes etc, similar to the discussions that go around re helium being banned from party balloons as its running out. That's the reason that despite the Edinburgh tram debacle, if we were gonna start it we should do it properly, other cities seem to be marching on into the future by expanding their networks (for a different thread maybe!)

Reality is it will be exploited as soon as economics dictate and as a result will be good for employment and the government of the day.

[RyeSloan]

So, 2.3b barrels, they say.

What do we do?

1. Keep it in the ground, and save the planet.

Or

2. Exploit the hell out of it.

And please try to keep the political partisanship stuff to a minimum.

I'm genuinely interested to hear folks' views.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Well first off I wish I held some Hurricane Oil shares! About 10p this time last year now 55p...that's a proper return!

As for what's to be done with it. Well I assume Hurricane will pump it asap as they will have spent millions upon millions developing the field so will need to sell the oil to get that back (or at least some of it...these companies don't tend to stop pumping even if they are making a nominal loss on the oil as the up front capex costs mean they will take any cash flow)

I'm not up to speed on the tax regime in the North Sea but can only assume that as the North Sea is one of the most expensive places to explore and extract oil from that at $55 a barrel the amount that will end up at the Treasury directly from the oil may not be hugely significant. Indeed the stated flow rates of 17,000 barrels a day, while sounding good on first reading and pale into insignificance when you see that peak production from the UK North Sea was 3 million barrels per day and is still running around the million mark.

Still it's clearly good for the industry overall and therefore Scotland which has quite a reliance on the industry so I don't see how this can be bad news, unless you are Patrick Harvie of course.

[Glory Lurker]

It'll run out by the 1990s.

[beensaidbefore]

Brilliant.
Aberdeen needs the work it brings now.

Not at any expense though. Aberdeen may benefit slightly but it will be private companies. Let's keep a hold of it until it's value brings benefit to the masses not the few. False economy in Aberdeen, paying cleaner's 30k plus and electricians 70k plus because they work in oil doesn't benefit those that don't.

[beensaidbefore]

The only trouble with keeping it in the ground is this ... (if I can use a football analogy).
You win the toss and choose to kick against a strong wind for the first half thinking that the second half will be a piece of cake. Alas the wind drops at half time and you've blown your advantage. Ergo, if the price of oil is high you cash in at that moment. Let's not wait till there's another form of energy discovered or WW3 ends it all anyways.

I agree, so let's wait til there is some cash to be made. Prices at the moment are not much more than the price to get it out the ground.

[RyeSloan]

Not at any expense though. Aberdeen may benefit slightly but it will be private companies. Let's keep a hold of it until it's value brings benefit to the masses not the few. False economy in Aberdeen, paying cleaner's 30k plus and electricians 70k plus because they work in oil doesn't benefit those that don't.

Apart from it's the private companies that have spent the money proving the resource...are you proposing to nationalise the whole of the North Sea oil industry?!?

[snooky]

Uk broad shoulders not happen then?

:aok:

[beensaidbefore]

Apart from it's the private companies that have spent the money proving the resource...are you proposing to nationalise the whole of the North Sea oil industry?!?

I'd rather hold onto it and figure out a better deal for society rather than shell or whoever getting the go-ahead now based on a poor barrel price. It costs the same to get it out regardless of what you sell it for. If there is a larger profit to be made everyone should benefit.

[HiBremian]

Well first off I wish I held some Hurricane Oil shares! About 10p this time last year now 55p...that's a proper return!

As for what's to be done with it. Well I assume Hurricane will pump it asap as they will have spent millions upon millions developing the field so will need to sell the oil to get that back (or at least some of it...these companies don't tend to stop pumping even if they are making a nominal loss on the oil as the up front capex costs mean they will take any cash flow)

I'm not up to speed on the tax regime in the North Sea but can only assume that as the North Sea is one of the most expensive places to explore and extract oil from that at $55 a barrel the amount that will end up at the Treasury directly from the oil may not be hugely significant. Indeed the stated flow rates of 17,000 barrels a day, while sounding good on first reading and pale into insignificance when you see that peak production from the UK North Sea was 3 million barrels per day and is still running around the million mark.

Still it's clearly good for the industry overall and therefore Scotland which has quite a reliance on the industry so I don't see how this can be bad news, unless you are Patrick Harvie of course.

Well having done a bit of research, it seems that there are only 40,000 people directly employed by North Sea Oil. Yes, there are many more indirectly benefitting, figures suggest 290,000, but these are spread across Europe, and include both supply chain employment and induced employment, from supermarket checkout monkeys to cafe baristas. How many of these indirect jobs are based in Scotland is not clear, but given the wider de-industrialisation of the country I suspect many are down south or on mainland Europe.


To be clear about the Greens’ position, it’s not just “leave it in the ground”. To quote:


“Oil and gas resources could be focussed on non-fuel use such as plastics, electronics, medicines, fertilizers and green chemistry. First-mover advantage could enable Scotland to recalibrate itself as the world centre of decommissioning the fossil fuel industry. A just transition is possible, in which comparable jobs are created in the new energy and industrial sectors to those lost in fossil fuels. Important infrastructure sites like Grangemouth can be retooled and maintained, and reinvigorated around models of workplace democracy.”


Whilst I doubt it’ll happen any day soon, I do believe that a planned transition away from using fossil fuel is possible, and unlike the current unplanned decimation of the oil industry, could result in more sustainable long-term jobs. So I guess I’m saying yes, extract the oil for non-fuel use, and meanwhile build an industry around transitioning.

[offshorehibby]

As long as there's oil & gas in the ground the companies will be extracting it. I would imagine it'll be a few years down the line before this latest find is flowing.

The platform or floating vessel will likely be built in Singapore or Dubai so very little UK labour. Aberdeen will likely house the management team that's about all.

The oil & gas will be piped or shipped to Sullem Voe or Flotta so keeping the workforce there gainfully employed.

West of Shetland and down the west coast is classed as deep water and it is only now they're developing ways of extracting from deep water. They're already test drilling along the North coast as far as the island of Lewis. They recon there's massive massive reservoirs off the Clyde coast and heading towards Rockall.

The Scottish government insistence on renewable energy should be applauded, Scotland should be self sufficient in Hydro, wind and wave energy.

As you'll guess by the user name my money is on extraction and further development.

[marinello59]

Not at any expense though. Aberdeen may benefit slightly but it will be private companies. Let's keep a hold of it until it's value brings benefit to the masses not the few. False economy in Aberdeen, paying cleaner's 30k plus and electricians 70k plus because they work in oil doesn't benefit those that don't.

Benefit Aberdeen slightly? It's rather more than slightly but I'll ignore that bit. You seem to be suggesting nationalising the oil industry? Seriously?

[beensaidbefore]

Benefit Aberdeen slightly? It's rather more than slightly but I'll ignore that bit. You seem to be suggesting nationalising the oil industry? Seriously?

Where is the benefit to Aberdeen directly? I have spent quite a bit time up there well before the oil fell and the place is a coup. It's manky, poor bus service, quite a lot of poverty too, so whilst a few oil workers get hugely inflated salaries, the general man in Aberdeen doesn't see a proportionate benefit to the profit. I would far rather keep it rather than selling the family silver at the cheapest price.

[RyeSloan]

Where is the benefit to Aberdeen directly? I have spent quite a bit time up there well before the oil fell and the place is a coup. It's manky, poor bus service, quite a lot of poverty too, so whilst a few oil workers get hugely inflated salaries, the general man in Aberdeen doesn't see a proportionate benefit to the profit. I would far rather keep it rather than selling the family silver at the cheapest price.

You are not making much sense to be honest. What would you consider a proportionate benefit and who's profit? The profit from the field owner? The fields operator? The profit from the helicopter company that takes the workers on and off? The profit from the airstrip owners who charge the helicopter companies for its use? The profit from the ground crew provider? The profit from the supplier of food to the ground crew?

But you want to keep it rather than sell it. Keep it to do what and when? Wait until it's a stranded reserve and worthless?

Then there is the thought that If you are not going to let the companies who found the oil sell the oil what are you going to do regarding their costs? And what will happen to the work forces and all the ancillary support work...should we just send them all home and shut up shop until some unspecified point in the future when 'everyone' can benefit?

And Aberdeen might not be the most beautiful place in their world but it's the only area in Scotland outside of Edinburgh to have a GVA in the top 10 in the U.K. So there is clearly some economic benefit being had. Of course not every person in Aberdeen makes a mint out of the oil but I find it hard to believe that the region as a whole doesn't benefit significantly directly and indirectly from the offshore industry.

[RyeSloan]

As long as there's oil & gas in the ground the companies will be extracting it. I would imagine it'll be a few years down the line before this latest find is flowing.

The platform or floating vessel will likely be built in Singapore or Dubai so very little UK labour. Aberdeen will likely house the management team that's about all.

The oil & gas will be piped or shipped to Sullem Voe or Flotta so keeping the workforce there gainfully employed.

West of Shetland and down the west coast is classed as deep water and it is only now they're developing ways of extracting from deep water. They're already test drilling along the North coast as far as the island of Lewis. They recon there's massive massive reservoirs off the Clyde coast and heading towards Rockall.

The Scottish government insistence on renewable energy should be applauded, Scotland should be self sufficient in Hydro, wind and wave energy.

As you'll guess by the user name my money is on extraction and further development.

Who's doing the west coast exploration? And what's your thoughts on the chances for success and it being commercial costs wise?

Not that I'm searching for another Hurricane honest ;-)

It's all about balance I think. Renewables are the future for sure but without significant investment and development in grid storage and transmission there is simply no way to be self sufficient on renewables just now. And that's before we get into the joys of marginal costs and how renewables distorts the market in some rather unforeseen ways.

I'm also not sold on wave or tidal technology, it just seems too expensive and unlikely ever to get to the scale needed to bring down costs. Wind and solar seem the most sensible routes.

That said there will be significant demand for oil for a long time but I can easily see that demand being much lower than now, esp. if transportation is electrified so as ever it will come down to cost of production and I doubt that's good news for the offshore industry in Scotland over the medium / long term.

That said there is plenty decomm work to be done as well so you should be able to keep your username relevant for a long time yet [emoji106][emoji57]

[offshorehibby]

Who's doing the west coast exploration? And what's your thoughts on the chances for success and it being commercial costs wise?

Not that I'm searching for another Hurricane honest ;-)

It's all about balance I think. Renewables are the future for sure but without significant investment and development in grid storage and transmission there is simply no way to be self sufficient on renewables just now. And that's before we get into the joys of marginal costs and how renewables distorts the market in some rather unforeseen ways.

I'm also not sold on wave or tidal technology, it just seems too expensive and unlikely ever to get to the scale needed to bring down costs. Wind and solar seem the most sensible routes.

That said there will be significant demand for oil for a long time but I can easily see that demand being much lower than now, esp. if transportation is electrified so as ever it will come down to cost of production and I doubt that's good news for the offshore industry in Scotland over the medium / long term.

That said there is plenty decomm work to be done as well so you should be able to keep your username relevant for a long time yet [emoji106][emoji57]

There were exploration licences handed out very recently and one of the areas was round about Rockall. There was exploration done about 30 years ago of the Clyde coast. Michael Hesaltine, defence secretary at the time put the kibosh on it as it would disrupt the movement of the trident submarines. I vaguely remember Ronaldo7 maybe linking an article on a thread a couple of years back on that one.

[RyeSloan]

There were exploration licences handed out very recently and one of the areas was round about Rockall. There was exploration done about 30 years ago of the Clyde coast. Michael Hesaltine, defence secretary at the time put the kibosh on it as it would disrupt the movement of the trident submarines. I vaguely remember Ronaldo7 maybe linking an article on a thread a couple of years back on that one.

Thanks...a quick bit of research shows Rockall to be a duster so far so quickly reassessing my desire to be tempted tempted to risk my capital on that [emoji23]

Although I did find a piece on new geology analysis that suggests the wells may have been aimed at the wrong spots it still it sounds risky even for oil exploration.

Think I'll stick to the onshore stuff down south for my UK oil punts after reading that [emoji12]

[ano hibby]

I'm also not sold on wave or tidal technology, it just seems too expensive and unlikely ever to get to the scale needed to bring down costs. Wind and solar seem the most sensible routes.

[/QUOTE]

I'm far from an expert but I think tidal has more potential than solar or wind. The main advantage is reliability meaning it can be considered base load (I think) unlike the other 2. Studies show we can generate 10-20% of our needs from the tides.

(Nb tidal is subsea, pictures wind turbine on seabed, whereas wave is on the surface. There have been some high profile wave failures, Pelamis & Acquamarine I think)

For sure now its uncompetitive but it's at the same stage wind/solar were 20 years ago. I.e. Needs subsidy to help prove economies of scale. I think Atlantis who operate the Meygen project in the Pentlands Firth are operating at £300/MWh but this is before they scale up properly.

As mentioned above the shipyards and supply chains in Scotland have a chance to grab a foothold in a nascent but very promising industry if they 1. Recognise the opportunity and 2. get right level of government support.

[RyeSloan]

I'm also not sold on wave or tidal technology, it just seems too expensive and unlikely ever to get to the scale needed to bring down costs. Wind and solar seem the most sensible routes.



I'm far from an expert but I think tidal has more potential than solar or wind. The main advantage is reliability meaning it can be considered base load (I think) unlike the other 2. Studies show we can generate 10-20% of our needs from the tides.

(Nb tidal is subsea, pictures wind turbine on seabed, whereas wave is on the surface. There have been some high profile wave failures, Pelamis & Acquamarine I think)

For sure now its uncompetitive but it's at the same stage wind/solar were 20 years ago. I.e. Needs subsidy to help prove economies of scale. I think Atlantis who operate the Meygen project in the Pentlands Firth are operating at £300/MWh but this is before they scale up properly.

As mentioned above the shipyards and supply chains in Scotland have a chance to grab a foothold in a nascent but very promising industry if they 1. Recognise the opportunity and 2. get right level of government support.[/QUOTE]

Well I'm no expert either that's for sure but what I have read suggests to me that overall tidal is actually quite a difficult and expensive way to generate electricity. It also can have significant potential environmental impacts which somewhat negates there use in the first place.

They may well have a place in the mix at some point but at £300/MWh they are miles away from being genuinely commercial and I just don't see the scale being achieved to bring that price down significantly enough or indeed the benefits being great enough compared to other renewables to justify lavish subsidy.

Maybe in time it will but I reckon wave and tidal will remain outliers for a long time to come and I certainly wouldn't be basing any industrial or economic strategy on them that's for sure.

Not a dig at renewables per se just my thoughts that these particular routes are not overly viable or cost effective and I've not seen any real evidence, despite the substantial research that has been applied and the few examples that have actually been deployed or approved, to suggest otherwise.

[southfieldhibby]

I've got limited knowledge of the oil industry, but why couldn't it be ran by an arms length government owned company?

I think at the moment we sell drilling rights to big oil companies and then tax oil extracted, yes? But in recent times-and given the value of oil-instead of taxing the oil companies we've been subsidising them to make sure Aberdeen doesn't become like Motherwell post Ravenscraig so there's been zero tax take I think?

So why not create ( or buy) an oil company and do it all ourselves. The Forties pipeline was sold for some crazy money recently.Why? Why is that a privately owned thing?

It's an easy ( and lazy) comparison, but Statoil in Norway is government owned and seems to do well enough, why couldn't these new fields, west of Shetland, be owned by government?

I'd drill it for all it's worth, cover costs and put the rest in the renationalised central bank of Scotland.I'd do the same with tidal,wind,wave and nuclear.

[Lucius Apuleius]

As long as there's oil & gas in the ground the companies will be extracting it. I would imagine it'll be a few years down the line before this latest find is flowing.

The platform or floating vessel will likely be built in Singapore or Dubai so very little UK labour. Aberdeen will likely house the management team that's about all.

The oil & gas will be piped or shipped to Sullem Voe or Flotta so keeping the workforce there gainfully employed.

West of Shetland and down the west coast is classed as deep water and it is only now they're developing ways of extracting from deep water. They're already test drilling along the North coast as far as the island of Lewis. They recon there's massive massive reservoirs off the Clyde coast and heading towards Rockall.

The Scottish government insistence on renewable energy should be applauded, Scotland should be self sufficient in Hydro, wind and wave energy.

As you'll guess by the user name my money is on extraction and further development.

😁

And let's not forget the conditions west of Shetland. Horrendous.

[offshorehibby]

😁

And let's not forget the conditions west of Shetland. Horrendous.

True, not the best for getting guys on and off

[ronaldo7]

30 new Oil and Gas projects by 2020

https://t.co/LcqiDhpdHc

[ronaldo7]

I've got limited knowledge of the oil industry, but why couldn't it be ran by an arms length government owned company?

I think at the moment we sell drilling rights to big oil companies and then tax oil extracted, yes? But in recent times-and given the value of oil-instead of taxing the oil companies we've been subsidising them to make sure Aberdeen doesn't become like Motherwell post Ravenscraig so there's been zero tax take I think?

So why not create ( or buy) an oil company and do it all ourselves. The Forties pipeline was sold for some crazy money recently.Why? Why is that a privately owned thing?

It's an easy ( and lazy) comparison, but Statoil in Norway is government owned and seems to do well enough, why couldn't these new fields, west of Shetland, be owned by government?

I'd drill it for all it's worth, cover costs and put the rest in the renationalised central bank of Scotland.I'd do the same with tidal,wind,wave and nuclear.


Norway's revenue from Oil and gas in 2015 was £17.684Billion, the uk made £43 Million. If the UK gov were as competent as the Norwegian gov, Scotland would have run a Multi Billion pound surplus.

[southfieldhibby]

Norway's revenue from Oil and gas in 2015 was £17.684Billion, the uk made £43 Million. If the UK gov were as competent as the Norwegian gov, Scotland would have run a Multi Billion pound surplus.

That can't be accurate. Really? [emoji15]

[ronaldo7]

That can't be accurate. Really? [emoji15]


http://www.businessforscotland.com/norway-still-getting-much-tax-oil/

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Norway's revenue from Oil and gas in 2015 was £17.684Billion, the uk made £43 Million. If the UK gov were as competent as the Norwegian gov, Scotland would have run a Multi Billion pound surplus.

Revenue or profit?

I agree though, a state-owned commercially operatdd company, along the lines of Lothian busses, would seem lile at least examining?

[ronaldo7]

Revenue or profit?

I agree though, a state-owned commercially operatdd company, along the lines of Lothian busses, would seem lile at least examining?

More info here for you to peruse.:wink:

http://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/economy/governments-revenues/

http://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/economy/management-of-revenues/

[RyeSloan]

I would suggest it's rather too late for the UK government to be owning the fields and the assets directly.

But it's pretty damn clear that they should have retained an equity stake in the North Sea even if they didn't want to manage the exploration and production themselves...a rather expensive mistake, to put it mildly.

There is some mitigating factors re the difference in revenue that Norway has gained v the U.K. but none the less the Norwegians have shown how it should have been done, there is no denying that fact!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

If we had done it properly, Scotland could habe bought a peremier league club with our sovereign wealth fund!

[AgentDaleCooper]

does the question of climate change not bother the folk who are worried about jobs and the oil industry? i'm not saying it's a bad news story for scotland - other than that it puts us in further jeopardy of not having a country/habitable planet to care about, let alone jobs (which i fully realise are utterly vital, but surely it's trivial to say that these jobs aren't more important than the environment?)

this said, if there was some way in which oil could be used in a way that wasn't sending us on our way to a long, protracted and miserable death, it would be great...but surely once renewables have kicked in economically, it'll be worth a lot less anyway?

i'm a yes voter, by the way - i just can't ignore the very real concern that life on planet earth may become genuinely awful for everyone within my lifetime because if this sort of short sightedness.

[ano hibby]

SiMar
Your points are all fair but remember solar and wind were at £500/£600 per MWhr less than 10 years ago so I think its premature to write off tidal just because it's not at £100/MWhr yet. You could argue it's in better relative shape than wind/solar at similar age of development.
Also to reiterate (I'm reasonably sure) that tidal is the only renewable which can be considered 'base load' i.e. guaranteed power..it's a big difference.
It's very embryonic though I'd agree with that and to be a serious part of the mix we are probably 10 years away I'd guess.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

does the question of climate change not bother the folk who are worried about jobs and the oil industry? i'm not saying it's a bad news story for scotland - other than that it puts us in further jeopardy of not having a country/habitable planet to care about, let alone jobs (which i fully realise are utterly vital, but surely it's trivial to say that these jobs aren't more important than the environment?)

this said, if there was some way in which oil could be used in a way that wasn't sending us on our way to a long, protracted and miserable death, it would be great...but surely once renewables have kicked in economically, it'll be worth a lot less anyway?

i'm a yes voter, by the way - i just can't ignore the very real concern that life on planet earth may become genuinely awful for everyone within my lifetime because if this sort of short sightedness.

I do think about this, and its very valid.

But i have no faith that any othet country gives a flying one, especially the big significant countries.

In that landscspe, we are very small fry

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

SiMar
Your points are all fair but remember solar and wind were at £500/£600 per MWhr less than 10 years ago so I think its premature to write off tidal just because it's not at £100/MWhr yet. You could argue it's in better relative shape than wind/solar at similar age of development.
Also to reiterate (I'm reasonably sure) that tidal is the only renewable which can be considered 'base load' i.e. guaranteed power..it's a big difference.
It's very embryonic though I'd agree with that and to be a serious part of the mix we are probably 10 years away I'd guess.

Channel 4 news last night has a feature about how some of the rare earth minerals uaed in renewable energy ar far from it, amd so they are investigating deep sea mining.

Might not be the panacea after all

[HiBremian]

I do think about this, and its very valid.

But i have no faith that any othet country gives a flying one, especially the big significant countries.

In that landscspe, we are very small fry

Energiewende?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

Energiewende?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Certainly a policy Trump would like considering its reliance on brown coal generation!

Seriously though this policy is a very good example of how the concept of 100% renewables sounds great but in practice is very difficult to achieve.

The mere 30% the Germans have achieved has had multiple unintended and expensive consequences, survived only because they have been able to use the European grid to rebalance the intermittency and nearly destroyed its utilities due to the margin cost effect that renewables have.

[RyeSloan]

SiMar
Your points are all fair but remember solar and wind were at £500/£600 per MWhr less than 10 years ago so I think its premature to write off tidal just because it's not at £100/MWhr yet. You could argue it's in better relative shape than wind/solar at similar age of development.
Also to reiterate (I'm reasonably sure) that tidal is the only renewable which can be considered 'base load' i.e. guaranteed power..it's a big difference.
It's very embryonic though I'd agree with that and to be a serious part of the mix we are probably 10 years away I'd guess.

I'm not certain but I was under the impression tidal was not base load without some rather extravagant engineering like an associated hydro storage or the like.

Tidal to me just seems to be very high impact on our environment both visual and in terms of eco systems, especially on our shorelines, and simply too expensive without huge scale.

There are plenty of alternatives so generally tidal sits in the just because we can doesn't mean we should bucket for me!

[ano hibby]

Channel 4 news last night has a feature about how some of the rare earth minerals uaed in renewable energy ar far from it, amd so they are investigating deep sea mining.

Might not be the panacea after all

Didn't see that, what were the renewables & what were the materials, can you recall?

[ano hibby]

I'm not certain but I was under the impression tidal was not base load without some rather extravagant engineering like an associated hydro storage or the like.

Tidal to me just seems to be very high impact on our environment both visual and in terms of eco systems, especially on our shorelines, and simply too expensive without huge scale.

There are plenty of alternatives so generally tidal sits in the just because we can doesn't mean we should bucket for me!

Tidal energy is on the seabed, wave energy is on the surface. Tidal is 'invisible' in that sense and to me is a big advantage over wind and wave.
I admit to not knowing environmental impacts of both including decommission costs.

[Moulin Yarns]

Didn't see that, what were the renewables & what were the materials, can you recall?


It is solar energy and the chemicals are rare on the surface, but relatively abundant on the ocean floors.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39347620

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Energiewende?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Gesundheit

[RyeSloan]

Tidal energy is on the seabed, wave energy is on the surface. Tidal is 'invisible' in that sense and to me is a big advantage over wind and wave.
I admit to not knowing environmental impacts of both including decommission costs.

Most tidal involves barrage walls does it not, normally across estuaries of the like creating lagoons...must admit I've not spent ages investigating but any scheme I have seen proposed seems far from invisible and definitely very intrusive on the normal functioning of the areas involved. Hence why there is normally vast environmental impact assessments required for any proposal.

A good example is the one proposed as Swansea:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/12/tidal-lagoons-could-ensure-uk-power-supplies

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Didn't see that, what were the renewables & what were the materials, can you recall?

Nah, lots of names that reminded me of avatar (unobtanium) but they were used in solar panels and wind turbine manufacture.

The main places for mininig the sea bed were in mid atlantic and mid pacific, so not cheap or easy i dont suppose.

I dont know much about energy, like i say was just an interesting piece on C4 news, not a programme i would expect to cast doubt on renewables.

Edit - couldnt find anything on c4 piece, but this seems to be the same story -
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39347620

[Peevemor]

Most tidal involves barrage walls does it not, normally across estuaries of the like creating lagoons...must admit I've not spent ages investigating but any scheme I have seen proposed seems far from invisible and definitely very intrusive on the normal functioning of the areas involved. Hence why there is normally vast environmental impact assessments required for any proposal.

A good example is the one proposed as Swansea:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/12/tidal-lagoons-could-ensure-uk-power-supplies

There's one 5 minutes from me.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Station

[RyeSloan]

There's one 5 minutes from me.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Station

So not invisible then :wink:

I knew about this one...I think it's the first and almost certainly the oldest still operating in the world. Interesting to read the Wiki which suggests it has had significant impact on the local eco system which is kind of my point with this technology.

Anyhoo enough from me on my dislike of tidal, even starting to bore myself now :greengrin

[HiBremian]

Certainly a policy Trump would like considering its reliance on brown coal generation!

Seriously though this policy is a very good example of how the concept of 100% renewables sounds great but in practice is very difficult to achieve.

The mere 30% the Germans have achieved has had multiple unintended and expensive consequences, survived only because they have been able to use the European grid to rebalance the intermittency and nearly destroyed its utilities due to the margin cost effect that renewables have.

Don't the Brits love to bash anything German. This line that 100% renewables "can't work", importing from Europe, unreliable blah blah. It's a political battle here in Germany, just like in Scotland. "Destroy the utilities" is not a nice neutral, technical issue, it's the ****ing energy companies who continue to churn out tasty dividends to their shareholders. Of course they fight back, against renewables that in Germany are 50% citizen-owned and small scale. They don't like the threat to their profits. And what's not to like, if you think European, to import energy from other countries. As the smart grid develops, we need less and less "base load", a political concept in itself which benefits highly centralised (ie big business) production.

As for marginal cost effect, I raise you oil externalities. :-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

Don't the Brits love to bash anything German. This line that 100% renewables "can't work", importing from Europe, unreliable blah blah. It's a political battle here in Germany, just like in Scotland. "Destroy the utilities" is not a nice neutral, technical issue, it's the ****ing energy companies who continue to churn out tasty dividends to their shareholders. Of course they fight back, against renewables that in Germany are 50% citizen-owned and small scale. They don't like the threat to their profits. And what's not to like, if you think European, to import energy from other countries. As the smart grid develops, we need less and less "base load", a political concept in itself which benefits highly centralised (ie big business) production.

As for marginal cost effect, I raise you oil externalities. :-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I wasn't bashing Germans merely referencing their market because their policies were mentioned and they are an excellent case study on what happens when renewables become a large part of the mix.

And although the issue is politicised in Germany in particular (not least because of the mess they made of some of the legislation) the question of how the move to renewables is managed is a very real one across the globe. China for example are investing billions in ultra high voltage transmission as part of their response.

As for the removal of utilities ability to make money. That might be a vote winner but it does little to promote investment in the very infrastructure that is required to support the move away from centralised power provision so again is a valid issue to raise.

Also it's a fact that Germany could not have done what they have done if they didn't have the European grid to balance their intermittency problem...fine for them but maybe not for others nor am I sure that such an option is available such to the U.K. It's also a fact that the German green energy and nuclear decomm policies resulted in their brown coal mining and electricity production from it to to hit highs in the last couple of years not seen since 1990.

My basic point was not aimed at Germany or bashing anyone it was simply to point out that going renewables big time brings huge changes that require substantial investment and transformational change to established markets. None of it is insurmountable but the complexity, technical challenges and costs are often not appreciated fully or worse under played by the very proponents of green energy. Saying we should be 100% renewable is easy, delivering a robust and affordable solution to deliver that far from it.

[HiBremian]

I wasn't bashing Germans merely referencing their market because their policies were mentioned and they are an excellent case study on what happens when renewables become a large part of the mix.

And although the issue is politicised in Germany in particular (not least because of the mess they made of some of the legislation) the question of how the move to renewables is managed is a very real one across the globe. China for example are investing billions in ultra high voltage transmission as part of their response.

As for the removal of utilities ability to make money. That might be a vote winner but it does little to promote investment in the very infrastructure that is required to support the move away from centralised power provision so again is a valid issue to raise.

Also it's a fact that Germany could not have done what they have done if they didn't have the European grid to balance their intermittency problem...fine for them but maybe not for others nor am I sure that such an option is available such to the U.K. It's also a fact that the German green energy and nuclear decomm policies resulted in their brown coal mining and electricity production from it to to hit highs in the last couple of years not seen since 1990.

My basic point was not aimed at Germany or bashing anyone it was simply to point out that going renewables big time brings huge changes that require substantial investment and transformational change to established markets. None of it is insurmountable but the complexity, technical challenges and costs are often not appreciated fully or worse under played by the very proponents of green energy. Saying we should be 100% renewable is easy, delivering a robust and affordable solution to deliver that far from it.

Point taken.:aok:

[RyeSloan]

Point taken.:aok:

Yeah and I probably need to get out more [emoji23]

[ano hibby]

So not invisible then :wink:

I knew about this one...I think it's the first and almost certainly the oldest still operating in the world. Interesting to read the Wiki which suggests it has had significant impact on the local eco system which is kind of my point with this technology.

Anyhoo enough from me on my dislike of tidal, even starting to bore myself now :greengrin

I'm starting to bore myself too.
The pic of the French thing is different though.
Tidal energy I'm talking about involves no damming just turbines on the seabed harnessing the tide & feeding in via cables to the grid.
Moving on:)

[ronaldo7]

I'm starting to bore myself too.
The pic of the French thing is different though.
Tidal energy I'm talking about involves no damming just turbines on the seabed harnessing the tide & feeding in via cables to the grid.
Moving on:)

Like this one?

http://www.meygen.com/

[ano hibby]

Like this one?

http://www.meygen.com/

Yes thanks that's what current tidal developments are moving towards.
That site also contained this handy comparison with the latter being what I was referring to:

Marine Power

There is often confusion regarding the different types of tidal power, and indeed between tidal current power and wave power. To summarise:
Wave energy converters harness the motion of waves generated by wind and swell.
Tidal lagoons and tidal barrages use barriers to create an enhanced difference in the height of the water surface as the tide enters or exits an enclosed area. The water on the high side can then be released through turbines in the barrier to generate electricity.
Tidal current turbines are powered by the natural horizontal flow of water as our seas and oceans move in response to the interaction of the Earth, the Moon and the Sun. Unless taken to extremes, it does not require blocking of any waterways, and hence does not have the adverse environmental effects that can be associated with tidal barrages.

[ronaldo7]

Yes thanks that's what current tidal developments are moving towards.
That site also contained this handy comparison with the latter being what I was referring to:

Marine Power

There is often confusion regarding the different types of tidal power, and indeed between tidal current power and wave power. To summarise:
Wave energy converters harness the motion of waves generated by wind and swell.
Tidal lagoons and tidal barrages use barriers to create an enhanced difference in the height of the water surface as the tide enters or exits an enclosed area. The water on the high side can then be released through turbines in the barrier to generate electricity.
Tidal current turbines are powered by the natural horizontal flow of water as our seas and oceans move in response to the interaction of the Earth, the Moon and the Sun. Unless taken to extremes, it does not require blocking of any waterways, and hence does not have the adverse environmental effects that can be associated with tidal barrages.

I saw that, but I thought I'd let you link to it:aok:

[ano hibby]

In case anyone's not completely bored by this tidal chat (and apologies to OP for veering off) there's some news out today:

http://www.scotrenewables.com/news/100-press-release-the-world-s-most-powerful-tidal-turbine-hits-peak-power

I asked my pal who is involved in tidal with a different company (why I'm interested in it) and he said the following:

No floating system has proved itself in exposed conditions! Oceanflow is about the best given that it is a semi-sub design. Operating in waves causes massive load variations which means load on the electrical systems (PTO). Floating solutions really don’t like exposed areas such as Fair Head, Mull of Kintyre, West of Islay. EMEC is a relatively sheltered site so is a flattering test site for ScotRenewables.

One of the other major downsides is the export cable is exposed to severe dynamic forces. Not only that they will have significant losses due to the slip ring used to allow the platform to rotate around in the tide. This bearing will be a significant maintenance issue and directly effects your electrical efficiency hence revenue. This may also limit the voltage of the export cable again adding to electrical losses if they are long way offshore (>1 mile).

The seabed area that these systems need are very large when you include the moorings so the power/m^2 is effectively quite low despite their boasts about the most powerful turbine in the world.

The deployment costs are significantly larger than Subhub because they require many more marine operations to install the massive mooring blocks and lines. These are all heavy lifts again or many smaller ones that means time at sea and within weather windows of the lifting capabilities of the craft.

The navigational problems and planning issues are plane to see and should not be underestimated. No good for estuarine or narrow channels. If the industry proliferates and we have dozens of these damned things there is clearly going to be a collision incident with them with another marine craft.

The RSPB are very sensitive about diving birds which could be a real issue with any floating turbines that operates close to the surface.

[ano hibby]

I saw that, but I thought I'd let you link to it:aok:

Thanks I was aware of Meygen & should have referred to it earlier.

[ronaldo7]

Thanks I was aware of Meygen & should have referred to it earlier.

And another...https://t.co/FhfNhrgiWZ

Every little helps:greengrin