That constant harbinger of doom, the No campaign, is now putting forward the absurd argument that future volatility of oil prices will be a huge problem for the economy of an independent Scotland, while apparently quite content to keep the fluctuating revenues within the London Treasury and leave it to wrestle with the apparent problem.
For some unexplained and bizarre reason it also thinks reduced supplies and higher extraction costs will cause the oil price to fall, when normal economics would suggest that in such circumstances prices will increase, thus bringing extra tax revenues.
The report just published by the highly respected Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) predicts that the baseline value of a barrel of oil will rise to between $150 and $270 throughout the coming decade. These figures compare with the safe estimate of $100 a barrel used by the Scottish Government in its future analysis of oil income, suggesting total revenue of £1.5 trillion still to come from the Scottish oil and gas sector. The total value of the oil yet to be extracted could be two or three times as much.
The latest forecasts of Oil and Gas UK suggest North Sea production could reach the equivalent of two million barrels a day by 2017, an increase of 30% on current production levels. This compares with the gloomy forecast of the UK Government's Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) that oil production will decline by 4% between 2012 and 2017. Could they perhaps be dancing to their master's voice rather than being properly objective?
The OECD and Oil and Gas UK projections are reliably based and made by independent organisations not subject to political control or influence.
It is now vital that Scotland this time is allowed to have its proper share of this massive bonus from our own international waters, rather than having it confiscated and squandered by successive UK governments, with nothing to show for it.
Iain AD Mann,
7 Kelvin Court,
Glasgow.
Iain Mann suggests, in relation to fears that North Sea oil is running out, that "Nothing could be further from the truth" (Letters, May 4).
If he is saying this (and I suspect he is not) with the underlying wish that it should never run out, because a UK or Scottish government will choose not to use it, I could endorse the sentiment.
It is surely no longer in doubt that a serious deterioration in the global climate attends the profligate combustion of fossil fuels. Four numbers are critical to the climate debate – two; 450; 565 billion; and 3000 bn.
The "safe" global mean temperature rise accepted by most reputable climate scientists is two degrees centigrade. The laws of thermodynamics dictate that atmospheric carbon dioxide can rise to no more than 450ppmv (parts per million by volume) if two degrees centigrade is not to be breached. It has currently advanced to 400ppmv from a long-term natural base of 280ppmv.
Employing some simple combustion chemistry, this means we can expel no more than 565bn tons of carbon into the atmosphere to remain within the 450ppmv carbon dioxide limit. At the current rate of wasteful burning this will take just another 14 years.
But here is the rub. Even if we gave up on all the relatively inaccessible and unconventional fossil fuel resources the energy industries are spending billions trying to extract, and were just to burn the known oil, coal and gas reserves – the ones that are already economically viable – we would emit almost 3000 bn tonnes of carbon. No-one can say exactly how much warming that would cause, but it is overwhelmingly likely we would shoot well past two degrees centigrade and towards three or even four degrees centigrade of warming. This is the route to a Venusian climate and would be disastrous for the planet.
So, returning to Iain Mann's observation, a future UK or Scottish Government is very soon going to have to announce that North Sea oil will remain where it lies, and where it is safe. It should then strenuously cajole the rest of the world to follow its lead.
Alan J Sangster,
37 Craigmount Terrace,
Edinburgh.
The scandal that the economic damage massive wind generation in Scotland is doing to our country took another disgraceful turn last month when more than £1 million was paid out to wind-farm operators to switch off their turbines for one day because of too much generation.
This included one major Scottish landowner being paid nearly £300,000. The money comes from us all as electricity consumers helping to drive more into fuel poverty. Not only is our blinkered Government making consumers pay raised prices for their drive to expensive, inefficient, renewable power, they now have to pay increased prices for the provision of no power at all from the wind farms.
The people of Scotland deserve better. It is not the duty of the Government to boost the income of rich landowners at the expense of the consumer. The brakes must be put on this incessant drive for even more costly wind generation driven by the SNP's political determination to flood our country with even more wind farms, irrespective of concerns for the people of our country.
Surely this will convince any doubters about the Scottish Government boasting it will always listen to the voters' concerns.
Sadly, this is only true if the views agree with Alex Salmond's policies. It is time for the First Minister to put Scotland first and admit the present Scottish Government's energy policy is crippling our country and its people.
Iain J McConnell,
Speedybank,
Gifford,
East Lothian.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article