Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on September 5, 2014

Bookmark and Share

North Sea Oil and Scottish Independence: where does the truth lie?

North Sea Oil and Scottish Independence: where does the truth lie? thumbnail
  • How much oil and gas is left in the North Sea? 16 billion barrels oil equivalent (boe) according to Sir Ian Wood or 24 billion boe according to Oil and Gas UK? The correct answer for official proved+probable reserves is between 8 and 9 billion boe, a figure that both DECC and Oil and Gas UK agree on. With over 9 different classes of reserves, this debate is sterile and this is not the correct question to ask.
  • How wealthy will oil make Scotland? In 2013, the direct tax take from oil and gas production for the whole of the UK was £4.67 billion and falling. This compares with annual spending of the Scottish government (plus UK spending on Scotland) running at £65.2 billion. Hence, direct taxation of oil and gas production may account for less than 7% of the Scottish budget. What we should be asking is where the other 93% is going to come from?

 

On 18th September this year people resident in Scotland be they Scottish, English, Irish or Polish will vote on Scotland’s continued membership of The United Kingdom. The debate is heating up. Oil magnate Sir Ian Wood suggests that remaining oil and gas reserves are about 16 billion barrels oil equivalent (boe). While industry representative Oil and Gas UK suggest a figure of 24 billion boe, a figure preferred by the pro-independnece lobby. As discussed below, both of these numbers as they stand alone are totally meaningless.

Voters are clearly confused and are pleading for real data upon which to base this most crucial of decisions. In this post I attempt to bring some reality to the debate about North Sea oil and gas reserves, production and finance.

Reserves Figures are a Sterile Debate

The Society of Petroleum Engineers provides a framework for the classification of reserves based on class and certainty [1]. There are three classes and three certainty levels giving at least 9 different classifications of reserves (Figure 1). And so, when a number of 24 billion boe is reported it is essential to qualify this with the classification terms. Are these 2P reserves? i.e. oil and gas known to exist with a high degree of certainty. Or are they 3P reserves + resources, i.e. oil and gas optimistically hoped to exist, but  yet to be discovered or a means of production economically worked out.

Figure 1 Classification of reserves according to The Society of Petroleum Engineers. The industry standard is normally to report 1P or 2P reserves (the middle of the green band).

Figure 2 UK North Sea reserves estimates from various sources [2]. The 2P figures from the Government (DECC) and Oil and Gas UK are actually closely aligned at between 9 and 11 billon boe oil + gas (updated to 8 to 9 billion boe). See note at the end of this section). With over 42 billion boe already produced it seems likely that 80% of UK oil and gas is already gone.

A year ago I conducted a review of reserves from different sources including my own back of the envelope calculation using industry standard methodology [2] (Figure 2). There is a degree of agreement where the proved oil and gas reserves category lies somewhere between 4 and 5 billion boe. Proved + Probable (2P) reserves stand at around 8 billion boe according to DECC [3] and about 9 billion boe according to Oil and Gas UK [4] (see note at the end of this section). How these figures become inflated to 16 and 24 billion is pure speculation.

Oil and Gas UK qualify their numbers with the need to spend £1 trillion to get their high end estimates out of the ground (Figure 3). Considering that current investment levels are running at around £20 billion per year it will take 50 years to reach that target. Most of the existing infrastructure will have fallen into the North Sea long before. Production growth is now negatively correlated with investment (Figure 4) and one needs to ask the question how likely it is that the industry will sink another £1 trillion into this ageing, mature province? It is of course Oil and Gas UK’s business to talk the industry up.

Figure 3 Excerpt for Oil and Gas UK’s 2013 financial report revealing how they get from 7.4 to 24 billion boe [4].

Figure 4 Despite rising and record levels of investment in the North Sea, oil and gas production has continued to decline [5].

At the current mature stage of North Sea development, oil price is vitally important. With Brent approaching $100 / barrel, companies in Aberdeen are preparing for recession. There are of course bright spots like Clair, Mariner and Laggan Tormore. But there are many black spots where companies can no longer afford to maintain rusting platforms producing a mere dribble of oil. The UK industry currently needs sharply higher oil prices to prosper.

[Note added 17:00, 25th August. I received a few emails from DECC providing more up to date figures than the ones I was using that were complied last December:

Last year we said P+P reserves were 8.9 billion boe. Which I guess explains where your 9 billion boe comes from. Oil & Gas UK were at 9.9 billion boe so I don’t see why you say between 9 and 11 billion boe. It would be more accurate to report DECC’s current estimate of 8 billion boe and Oil & Gas UK’s of 10 billion boe.

Oil & Gas UK now say 9.4 billion boe (see attached) so the range should be 8 to 9 billion boe rather than 9 to 11 billion boe.

The numbers in the post were therefore revised accordingly.]

The Harsh Reality of Production Decline

Combined UK oil and gas production peaked in 1999 (Figure 5). We have now experienced 14 years of relentless decline. This is not speculation but a fact. Production today is 32.4% of the 1999 peak value. Decline is a feature brought about by the depletion of reserves and pressure. At first a field will produce dry oil. But with the passage of time increasing amounts of water are produced with the oil. The industry fights decline 24/7. But it is rather like swimming upstream in a river against a strong current. You may want to get upstream but the current relentlessly wants to drag you down.

There are signs that declines are being stabilised for the time being. This has been brought about by record levels of investment that will not be maintained at current prices [5]. Some large new fields due to come on stream in the near future may arrest or temporarily reverse the long-term decline picture. But all of the fields represented in Figure 5 will still be there pulling production down.

Figure 5 The history of UK oil and gas production according to the 2014 BP statistical review of world energy.

With over 42 billion boe already produced from the North Sea [4], it seems likely that about 80% of the producible oil and gas has already gone. The industry will of course continue for many decades, but on current data it will be at a much lower level than in the past. However, one can never discount a new oil and gas province being discovered in the waters to the west.

The Financial Reality

Direct taxation of the UK oil and gas industry since 1968 is shown in Figure 6 [6]. Direct taxation is in the form of a Petroleum Revenue Tax and Corporation tax that oil and gas operators pay at a higher rate than other companies.

In 2013 the total UK direct tax take from Oil and Gas was £4.67 billion [6]. In 2012/13 total UK and Scottish Government expenditure on Scotland was £65.2 billion [7]. 9.1% of the UK total even though we have only 8.3% of the population. Hence direct tax revenues from oil and gas will amount to less than 7% of the total Scottish budget (the North Sea oil tax figure is for the whole of the UK). Important to be sure, but not nearly as important as the 93% (£60.6 billion) that will have to be found from other sources.

Figure 6 Data for total direct taxation of the UK oil and gas industry [6]. The roller coaster ride in tax income comes down to a combination of production rise and fall, oil and gas price rise and fall, changes in operating costs and changes to the taxation regime. The current environment is one where oil prices have more or less traded side ways since 2008, production has continued to decline and operating costs have gone through the roof. The industry in Aberdeen is preparing for a new cyclical recession. Contractors are being laid off or their rates cut and the operating companies are preparing to lay off staff.

Whilst important, the direct tax take from North Sea oil is by far NOT the most important aspect of the industry to the Scottish economy. The benefits to the economy comes from the economic activity that the oil industry creates. It creates jobs directly in the operating and service companies and in the supply chains. In 2012 this expenditure amounted to £22 billion spent on goods and services, not all of it spent in Scotland. A large amount is spent on salaries to people living in Scotland who then spend this money in local shops, pubs and restaurants. It is true that the tax revenue generated from this activity is shared with the whole of the UK. But it is the economic activity itself that is most important, and this already exists in a Scotland that is part of the UK.

Of similar importance is the fact that Scotland is now a hub for hemispheric oil and gas activity. US companies, based in Scotland, may employ staff here servicing the oil industry in Algeria, Azerbaijan or Nigeria. These companies want stability and certainty to continue their business in an increasingly uncertain world. Similarly UK (Scottish) companies that grew out of the North Sea oil boom like The Wood Group serve the global industry providing jobs and prosperity to Scotland. These companies too want fiscal and currency certainty looking forward. The focus on ethereal reserves is a mistake, the focus on direct tax income is a mistake. The focus should be on the continued  existence of a multi-billion £ industry that provides jobs and prosperity for many and a single minded focus on doing nothing that may jeopardise the present or the future.

euan mearns



20 Comments on "North Sea Oil and Scottish Independence: where does the truth lie?"

  1. Plantagenet on Fri, 5th Sep 2014 12:42 pm 

    Scotland could’ve been another Norway—a wealthy, stable oil exporting EU country. Instead, the Brits have stolen the oil and oil wealth is mostly gone.

  2. MJ on Fri, 5th Sep 2014 2:31 pm 

    The scots are Brits you fool. As are the English and the Welsh and they have been Brits for hundreds of years so no one stole oil. The revenue generated are insignificant to a 2.5 trillion dollar economy. The main wealth in the UK is south England and London. The rest is a net taker. The scots would be mad to cut themselves off from the real wealth of the south east.

  3. Plantagenet on Fri, 5th Sep 2014 3:45 pm 

    I bet you said the same thing to the people of Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, etc., but they are all doing just fine after becoming independent, thank you very much.

    AND The Scots are’t British, you fool. When the Scots vote to become independent of the British Empire they will be Scottish, not citizens of Great Britain, you fool.

    Cheers!

  4. dolanbaker on Fri, 5th Sep 2014 6:03 pm 

    Well according to the latest polls the no vote is still ahead with 48% and yes is at 42%.

    There has been a recent dramatic change as the figures were about YES 38% and the NO over 50% for most of the campaign.
    If that trend continues a YES is possible but will be unexpected.

    @Plantedagent, the Britush Empire ceased to exist about 60 years ago and yes the Scots are not British (England and Wales) are British. Scotland is part of Great Britain.

  5. Plantagenet on Fri, 5th Sep 2014 8:42 pm 

    @dolanBaker

    Thank you Dolan for further explaining why the Scots are not British. I was just in Ireland a couple of months ago and they are doing very well without the Brits ruling them. I have no doubt the Scots will do at least as well running their own country as other people around the world are doing. The age of colonialism is OVER.

  6. Makati1 on Fri, 5th Sep 2014 10:02 pm 

    MJ, read your history. The UK is made up of 4 countries. That does NOT make them Brits. Language and heritage is more important than invisible boundaries or conquering armies. Ask the Eastern Ukrainians or the Crimeans.

    Ask the French if they are Eukies (EU member)or French. I bet you would get a reply, “Je suis français”,”I am French!” 99 out of 100 times.

    Ditto,if you ask an American Indian what he is, he would say, Iroquois or Apache or whatever tribe he belongs to, but not American. Time does not change everything.

  7. Neil on Sat, 6th Sep 2014 1:46 am 

    I live in ireland and anyone who thinks we’re doing just fine is deluded enough to also believe the Scottish are not british. UK pm Cameron’s background is Scottish, his predecessor Gordon brown is Scottish and tony Blair’s background is also largelly Scottish – so by plant’s thinking the last three prime ministers of the uk are not british.

    Scotland could have seceded (just like South Carolina?) any time in the last 50 years if there had been a vote in favour of it. There never was. In 1979, they even rejected very limited home rule in a Referendum.

  8. forbin on Sat, 6th Sep 2014 4:22 am 

    oh well the United Kingdom may yet survive another attempt by the Scottish to run their own affairs

    However they do at present hold British passports like I do , so in that sense they are ” British” , although over here on hearing them speak we know they are preferred to be referred to as “scottish” or atleat ” Glasweigian”

    ” Are yea from Glasgie ? ”

    Still the article is about the relative unimportance of North Sea Oil in the debate over independence.

    Forbin,

    PS It was that celebrated right wing leader of ours that decided that the Oil revenues would be classed in general taxation and not set in an oil wealth fund .

    unlike the government of the Orkneys who have an oil fund ……

    isle of man government would also like it known that they are Manx but hold British passports ….
    ( and would like oil to be found near them but alas…. )

  9. Neil on Sat, 6th Sep 2014 4:41 am 

    Strange that the supposedly non British scots are responsible for prime ministers brown and Blair, and Cameron doesn’t sound like an English name either. The scots who make up a vastly over represented proportion of the uk armed forces might also disagree with plant and makati.

    I live in ireland and if your visit qualifies you to describe us as “doing very well” you’re seriously deluded.

  10. J-Gav on Sat, 6th Sep 2014 6:10 am 

    Mearns makes some good points in this article, notably this one: “The current environment is one where oil prices have more or less traded sideways since 2008, production has continued to decline and operating costs have gone through the roof.”

  11. inorbitt on Sat, 6th Sep 2014 7:54 am 

    Let’s hope the Scots become independent. All government is bad, one located hundreds of miles away is worse than one located close by. If the Scots are allowed to show us the way, the devolution of power away from TPTB and back to the people might be possible.

  12. JuanP on Sat, 6th Sep 2014 8:26 am 

    I’ll throw in my two cents.
    AFAIK, the British Isles are Britain, Ireland, and other smaller islands in the British archipelago. The largest island is Britain, and anyone coming from those islands can be referred to as British.
    I think that Scots and the Welsh preferred being called Scots and Welsh.
    I don’t know where the English, the other British nation, prefer one or the other, but I am aware of the existence of English nationalists that make a clear distinction, particularly soccer fans and far right xenophobic groups.
    The Irish come from the British Islands, too, but if you call them British, you are in trouble.
    All these distinctions were pointed out repeatedly to me as a child by the Irish Christian Brothers that educated me with aspirations that I would become a proper gentleman, perfectly capable of interacting with the British on an equal footing.
    There is also the matter of the British Empire and their territories, and the people coming from these places. What do the Malvinas people call themselves? I don’t know

  13. synapsid on Sat, 6th Sep 2014 3:01 pm 

    The Orkneys! A wonderful place.

    I recall an Orcadian saying “You can call us British but don’t call us Scots.”

    Orcadian history (and dialect) are Norwegian in flavor, not Celtic as Scotland is.

  14. dolanbaker on Sat, 6th Sep 2014 4:57 pm 

    “What do the Malvinas people call themselves?”
    Falklands! and the people there are Falkland islanders first and British second.

    Malvinas is a Spanish name for an English speaking island.

  15. J-Gav on Sat, 6th Sep 2014 5:14 pm 

    Through my wife I have family on the Isle of Eigg (Highlands – Inner Hebrides). He’s English, she’s French and their (grown-up) kids are … Scottish I guess – but they live in England. They’ll be voting ‘yes’ to independence however as they’re tired of being the proving grounds for unpopular political innovations on the part of London. General feeling they’ve been getting ripped off. Justified? Probably, but I couldn’t say to what extent and personally I have no dog in that fight.

    One worry which might take the ‘no’ through is that is might set a precedent for the rest of the Commonwealth. Even the otherwise radical George Galloway is in the ‘no’ camp.

  16. Neil on Sun, 7th Sep 2014 3:04 am 

    Hello juan – apart from the British irish of course. But you wouldn’t be told that by a Christian brother.

  17. Neil on Sun, 7th Sep 2014 3:05 am 

    Hello juan – apart from the British irish of course. But you wouldn’t be told that by a Christian brother.

    It’s the Shetlands that have the oil fund, not the Orkneys .

  18. Stephen on Mon, 8th Sep 2014 5:03 am 

    A good article. The points that should get more airtime are; the remaining reserves are limited, and that equally as important in the long term is the value of a (stable) centre of industry excellence. Getting funding for investments needs stability and many of the financial pundits suggest t his will only be more difficult in an independent Scotland.

    Good luck to you all on clarifying what it means to be ‘British’! Your passport is normally the ultimate guide and is the one I go by.

  19. Stephan on Mon, 8th Sep 2014 10:35 am 

    I hope Scotland says YES. Not only because i think it’s better for them, but also because it will be the beginning of new era in Europe.
    Scotland will not be the last Europa independent sate for a long time. Catalonia will follow shortly and after that the Basks, South Tyrol and alot more.
    Say YES!

  20. Stephan on Mon, 8th Sep 2014 10:43 am 

    I forgot
    greetings from South Tyrol – at the moment part of Italy, hopefully not for long

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *