There was a headline in your business pages which could have appeared two years ago ("Tax rises put Shell off funding gas projects", The Herald, May 3).
The article contained the following paragraph: "The comments may disappoint the Chancellor who has introduced a series of concessions since he provoked anger with a surprise hike in the tax rate applicable to North Sea profits in the 2011 Budget."
My only surprise would be if George Osborne had not expected that the likes of Shell would be deterred from investing in the UK sector of the North Sea as a result of his actions. It is not just about the level of taxation. It is about certainty relating to the levying of taxation. In taking the action the Chancellor did, he was always going to undermine the oil and gas industry in Scotland.
Also in 2011, the UK Government chose to stick it to both Shell and Scotland by abandoning the Longannet carbon capture and storage (CCS) project. This would have utilised Shell's depleted Goldeneye gas field and associated infrastructure. Next up for a CCS project decision is the competition between Peterhead (Shell and SSE), again for injection of captured CO2 into a depleted gas field, and the White Rose project in Yorkshire where the CO2 will be injected into a deep saline aquifer. Given Shell's core business is in oil production, and how captured CO2 has been used for enhanced oil recovery in jurisdictions other than the North Sea, my expectation would be that Peterhead would be the frontrunner, if only for Shell's technical know-how. But given that decisions will be made for political reasons I am not holding my breath.
One thing is for sure: if the Scottish Government had full authority over energy, there would not have been the dithering that led to the abandoning of the previous Peterhead CCS project in 2007. BP was a major player in that venture, using its pre-existing infrastructure. Meanwhile, Norway forges ahead in CCS with their own initiatives. So much for Better Together.
David Young,
State Route 681N, Albany, Ohio, USA.
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