The truth about UK oil and gas

The Scots Numpty Party (SNP) bases its case for the viability of Scotland’s independence  on the idea that wicked England has been “stealin’ ouir oil” and that  if only they had control of the tax revenues from UK oil and gas Scotland would become a Caledonian El Doraldo.  Sadly for such people a 2009  a  Scotland Office paper  “Scotland and Oil” dealing with the tax income from oil  and gas  fields around the UK painted a rather different picture. It concluded that:

“• If all North Sea oil revenues had been allocated to Scotland there would only have been 9 years out of  the last 27 when Scotland’s finances would have  been in surplus.

• Including all North Sea oil revenues the last year  of surplus was in 1988-89 and since then there has been 18 years of annual deficits with Scotland’s spending being greater than the tax raised in Scotland.

• Even if all oil revenues had been allocated to Scotland the total deficit would have outweighed the total surplus by £20bn since 1980-81. “ (see page 1 – all references below to pages without a url  refer to this url – http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/scotlandoffice/files/Scotland%20and%20Oil%20-%20Background%20paper.pdf)

So there you have it, the official view is that even if all the oil and gas revenues were   allocated to Scotland they still would not pay their way. Of course, a substantial part
of the oil and gas  tax revenue would not go to Scotland because of the fields  in
English waters.  Exactly how much is debatable, but  most of the remaining gas
is in English waters, viz:

“The SNP claims that Scotland would receive 95 per cent of oil revenue, but its calculation is based on the total revenue from oil and gas. Its opponents say that they do not take into account the large number of gas fields in English waters.

“THE EXPERT SAYS: Prof Haszeldine says: “The vast majority of the oil is in Scottish waters. With practically all of the gas in  the UK in the southern North Sea, that is in ‘English’ territory.” He says it is hard to separate the revenue from oil and gas. “(http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics/Can-oil-and-gas-fuel.2834598.jp)

There is also the intriguing prospect of  the outer Islands, the Orkneys and Shetlands,  not wanting to leave the UK or seeking independence.  That would take more oil and gas
revenue out of Scottish hands.

The fact that even  the total  oil and gas tax revenues did not bridge the gap between what Scotland received in money from the Treasury and what she contributed to the Treasury is unsurprising. The price of oil is high now but this is an abnormal. In the period 1980-2003, the price was always below $20 a barrel  apart for two years in the mid 1990s when it was a couple of dollars a barrel  higher.   (see page 3 “Scotland and Oil”) . The price did not rise above $50 dollars a barrel until 2007.

There has also been great volatility in the tax take in recent   years:

“In July last year [2008-9] sitting with the price of oil breaking new highs at $147 a barrel and  projected revenues for the current year [2008-09] at £13.2bn, finances were looking  incredibly good. However, sitting today with oil prices at $70 per barrel and projected  revenues for the current year [2009-10]  of £6.9bn the finances would be looking  substantially different and spending plans would have had to have changed.” (see page 10 “Scotland and Oil”).

At present the Scottish Parliament is in a very fortunate situation. It knows, more or less,  what revenue it will have to spend  for the coming financial year because its funding comes from the UK Treasury. Thus it is spared the  responsibility of raising money from its electors . It is in the same position as, for example, the BBC.

If Scotland were independent it would have to raise the money to be spent by central government.  That would bring a very different relationship between the politicians
and the Scottish electorate.   If  a very large slice of  Scottish government revenue was dependent on oil  and gas revenues , massively swings in the tax collected from year to year, as happened in the years 2008/9 and 2009/10 , it  would  make  forward planning very difficult indeed.  To understand just how volatile tax revenue from oil and gas  has been since production began see http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/corporate_tax/table11-11.pdf.
No electorate is going to be cheering if politicians are constantly having to change spending plans.  The worse case scenario  would be that the oil and gas revenues would be so low that  a Scottish government would simply not be able to fund  the ordinary business of government.  That is not so far-fetched because of the great difference between revenue and expenditure when oil and gas revenue is ignored.   For  2007/8 the Scotland Office estimated that  without including any revenue from oil and tax,  Scotland paid £45,191 billion  into the UK exchequer and received £56,285 billion back, a deficit of £11, 094 billion. (http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/scotlandoffice/files/Time%20Series%20Analysis%20of%20Government%20Expenditures%20and%20Revenues%20in%20Scotland.pdf).

Apart from the volatility of the oil and gas price, there is also the rapidly depleting reserves of oil and gas around  the UK.   Production has already fallen from just under  3 million barrels a day in 1999 to  about 1,25 million barrels in 2014. ( see page 5 “Scotland and Oil”).  The amount of oil and gas will continue to fall over the medium term and the quantuity  oil and gas extracted will be strongly influenced by the oil and gas price. The
lower it is, the less exploitation of the smaller marginal fields.  In the medium term Scotland can look forward to diminishing tax returns whatever happens.

There is a further fly in the Caledonian water.  As the price of oil and gas has risen and the
political volatility of  many of the major oil and gas producers has increased, increased interest has been shown in extracting gas and oil from shales. Most of the likely sites in the UK are in England or English waters.  http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/energy/shalegas.html.
If this source of hydrocarbons proves to be as abundant  as its advocates claim, the demand for oil and gas from the ever more marginal fields around the UK will diminish.

There are many other economic dragons which an independent Scotland would need to slay, including dealing with their over-reliance on taxpayer funded jobs and how they would fund their share of the UK’s public financial obligations at the point of independence, but the volatility and shrinking of the UK’s oil and gas tax receipts  would be arguably their greatest challenge simply because of the heavy dependence the
advocates of independence have placed upon their continuation at a high rate.

This entry was posted in Devolution, Economics, Nationhood and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to The truth about UK oil and gas

  1. Pingback: The truth about UK oil and gas (via England calling) « English Warrior

  2. efgd says:

    Thank you for that Robert. Your blogs are always informative and thought provoking. It goes to show that some politicians will not do the maths before they speak.

  3. It’s worth remembering that all oil and gas reserves beneath ‘U’K waters, and those areas agreed to be in the ‘U’K's sector of international waters, are ‘U’K assets and at the dissolution of the union all of the constituent parts of it could make an arguable case for a share of their entire value. This might involve the Scotch government agreeing to pay over the appropriate proportion of the value of those assets as determined at the point of dissolution. The Jocks could find themselves with a very hefty financial burden after independence, which, of course, the English easily could force upon them whether they want it or not.

    It’s indicative of their mentality that they believe they hold all the aces in a game they can only lose, if they upset the dealer.

    • Chris says:

      William,

      I think you know deep down that when we ‘Scotch’ as you call us, as though we were bottles of whiskey, I think you know that England will not be seeing one bent penny of profit from North Sea Oil which lies in Scottish Waters. These just sound like the desperate words of a desperate man in a desperate situation, trying to cling to the furniture so that England is not stripped bare for all the world to see that it has nothing but the city of London to fall back on.

    • Euan says:

      Its indicitive of your mentality that you consider yourselves the “dealer” and that you control everything, always have done and always will do.

      Wheres the precious British Empire that the English would like to cling to so dearly now?

      Also, “force it upon them whether they want it or not” sounds like a rapist.

  4. Ben says:

    thankyou, your blogs are excellent. successive UK governments have spent a vast, disproportionate amount of time and money; pandering to the Scottish and welsh. And we still get absolutely no thanks from them. Cameron shouldn’t be worrying about how to keep the ‘union’ together, he should be figuring out how he can get the best possible deal for the English tax payer, when Scotland finally does fck off.

  5. Pingback: The wages of Scottish independence – the currency problem | England calling

  6. Pingback: The wages of Scottish independence – Nationality | England calling

  7. Pingback: The wages of Scottish independence – a divided country | England calling

  8. Antony says:

    “The vast majority of the oil is in Scottish waters. With practically all of the gas in the UK in the southern North Sea, that is in ‘English’ territory.”

    A good indication of a weak, unhelpful mindset, irrespective of subject matter, is the habit of writing Scotland freely while placing an English designation in inverted commas. I’ve argued long and hard to be rid of this ‘british/English’ schizophrenia. It weakens identification with what is important, rendering it diffuse, and only confuses foreigners who might be sympathetic. We – or in this case Prof. Haszeldine – should pay more attention to language.

    A very interesting article. Another feature rarely taken into account in this debate is the Scottish contribution to getting the oil out from beneath the sea bed which, in terms of technology and infrastructure and finance, and aside from affirmative action-style employment quotas, amounts to what some assessments describe as the square root of zero.

  9. Pingback: The complete “Wages of Scottish independence” | England calling

  10. Pingback: The complete “Wages of Scottish indpendence” « Living In A Madhouse

  11. Pingback: The complete “The wages of Scottish Independence” « Living In A Madhouse

  12. James S says:

    William,

    I’m intrigued by what you meant by: “The Jocks could find themselves with a very hefty financial burden after independence, which, of course, the English easily could force upon them whether they want it or not.”.

    Shall we see you on the border with your tin hat and air rifle?

    Oil is only one part of the absolute vital resource called ENERGY. Scotland is a country of small population but with a vast wealth of oil, coal, and electricity generation potential. We have 30-40 years of oil and gas left (possibly more with the new drilling being proposed), currently amounting to 2/3 of the EU’s total oil production, 100 years of coal and coal gas based on the most recent estimates and 10% of the EU’s wind generating capacity and 25% of it’s tidal capacity. The plans already on the table will mean we generate up to 6 times our own needs of the world’s most vital resource – energy.

    England is an overpopulated and, in all but name, a bankrupt country dependent entirely on the goodwill of others to furnish them with oil, coal, water, electricity and food. Which country do you know has the infrastructure to supply it with much of these needs in the decades ahead?

    Oil, water and energy will determine the countries with the most influence in this century and England is bereft of much of any of it. A shortfall in either debases your whole economy.The 5 million Scots on the other hand are blessed with plenty of each hence our laughter at your xenophobic resentment and undermining of our prospects. Keep firing away though; the more you do the better the chances we will be celebrating our Independence Day sooner rather than later.

    Regards,

    James S

    • Mark says:

      An outlandish set of assertions, James. Any evidence or references for them?

    • Alan G says:

      James S,
      Just to take one of your points, You state, quite correctly I am sure, that Scotland is blessed with “10% of the EU’s wind generating capacity and 25% of it’s tidal capacity. The plans already on the table will mean we generate up to 6 times our own needs of the world’s most vital resource – energy”,
      Scotland then has to sell that energy to someone. If England is, as you also assert “bankrupt”, who is going to pay for it ? Sell it to someone else maybe?
      The thing is electricity is very difficult and expensive to move long distances due to the losses incurred due to electrical resistance in the lines, which all in any case go via England. Ireland (North and South), might be a possibilty as customers, but they are not short of wind and tides themselves.
      The French nuclear power stations on their northern coast are much closer to most of England. In this case Scotland is hampered by the tyrany of distance.

    • Anne E. says:

      I would like the UK to stay together but Scotland, if you are going to go, will you please go soon. I feel like I’m in a marriage with a partner who belittles me but somehow manages to make me feel like I am in the wrong. Very confused and hurt. Please, if you want to go, just go and let’s be fair and reasonable about who takes/owes what. Then we can both start again and see where it gets us.

      • JamesS says:

        Oh my god, did someone just quote the Daily Hate Mail? Albania? Seriously? 2/3 of the EU’s oil and we’d be like Albania?

        What is sad about people like you is not that you’re being hopelessly irrational but that you wish for it to be so. I only have good wishes for every person on these isles and hope we all enjoy a good quality of life.

        England having it’s own parliament and making its own decisions would not make me feel threatened and turn me into a royal axxxxole like some on here. I certainly wouldn’t wish for it to fail and become Albania.

        Is this the true English sentiment coming out or has the referendum just brought out the bottom-dwellers who feast on hatred?

    • GC says:

      “Oh my god, did someone just quote the Daily Hate Mail?”

      Poison the well much? It’s in other papers too, so take your pick.

      “Albania? Seriously? 2/3 of the EU’s oil and we’d be like Albania?”

      The fact that Iraq is sitting on the the world’s largest oil reserve hasn’t prevented a massive level of state dependence, has it?

      “What is sad about people like you is not that you’re being hopelessly irrational but that you wish for it to be so.”

      Like an crazed idealogue, you assume automatic hostile intent in anyone who points out that Scottish independence isn’t going to be all it’s cracked up to be, or that the numbers don’t quite add up.

      “Is this the true English sentiment coming out or has the referendum just brought out the bottom-dwellers who feast on hatred?”

      The entire concept of Scottish nationalism seems to derive from, and is largely supported by “bottom-dwellers who feast on hatred”.

      • jamess says:

        Honestly, Iraq? You’re comparing the Scots wanting to run their own affairs free of the disaster of Westminster with Iraq? As you clearly believe the Daily Mail (oh how I laughed at that one), according to them it may be England that experiences a fate similar to Iraq based on the fact the most common name being given to infants in England is Mohammed!

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1324194/Mohammed-popular-baby-boys-ahead-Jack-Harry.html

        Get real man.

        Even if the numbers don’t quite add up as you claim, and most of the data suggests otherwise, there is more to a country than just a balance sheet. If initially or even long-term there is a drop in living standards most who want to ditch the corruption and trough feeding at Westminster are happy for that to be the case in order that a society more closely mirroring their beliefs is allowed to develop.

        For instance, who the hell are you or anyone else to tell us we can’t provide free education to our kids or free prescriptions to our elderly just because those same trough feeders have denied it down south? If you don’t like it, vote for a party that wants these things rather than complain about those North of the border. Every GERS report in recent years confirms we pay more into the UK than we receive so frankly stick your opinions where the sun doesn’t shine.

        Not only that but from 1979 to 1995, during the Tory asset-stripping of the UK, William Waldegrave was forced to admit that Scotland had contributed 27 billions more in taxes than had been spent on it, even using his own extremely suspect assumptions, while the Tories had been in power. That’s £5300 per person North of the border. So this subsidy of the English (mainly the South) has been happening for decades and what have we had in return? Successive right wing governments that we didn’t vote for that have crippled our economy and infrastructure, created two generations of people without hope in the long-term unemployed and squandered the golden goose that keeps on laying, namely the North sea, on the fat cats in the South-east who have somehow bankrupted the country.

        Should we be grateful for this? Funnily enough this equally applies to you as whether we leave or not, the former-UK or FUK (ha ha) is in the absolute shi**er. It will be left with the largest sovereign debt per capita in the world, the second worst balance of payments in the world, little oil left to convince the bond traders to keep lending to you ( Mr Standard and Poors, you know that trillion we thought was coming over the next 20 years, well Salmond’s got most of it now – but we still have Trident!) which will almost certainly result in a downgrading of your credit-worthiness. Never mind the fact your economy is totally out of balance, overly dependent on imports (while the pound continues to be undermined by the madness of the B of E!) and your country is being eaten from within by your new fellow “Englishmen” who openly hate you. You should stop complaining about the choices we are facing and have a serious look at your own predicaments.

        As I’ve said before on here and others have elsewhere, the more I study this debate the more I believe Scotland is shackled to a corpse.

        Good day.

  13. christine walker says:

    Please Scotland – Go !!!!!!! The English are quite aware of your oil revenues . You have been bleeting about them since they were discovered . Had our prime minister refused a referendom or said that the Scots could not have Independance from England . We would of had a out cry from Scotland and more years of listening to there whining . Instead … he said yes go for it , the only thing he imposed was that the scottish people could not go for devo max . And your still bloody moaning .. get a life !! Wih the Scottish people having such a huge chip on there shoulder about England . I believe that what ever action David took with the Scots … it would of gone the same way … Damned if he did give them independance and Damned if he did not . Scotland keeps changing the rules as it goes along .. and they are truely a nasty race of people .

    • jamess says:

      “a nasty race of people”?

      To classify a whole 25 million people worldwide as “nasty” because one half of the union are considering making their own way in the world outwith the control of a corrupt and incompetent Westminster seems a bit harsh.

      If I were to resort to such moronic claims I could be forgiven for considering you a stupid brain-dead cow based on your vague premise. I won’t though as that would insult bovine quadrupeds.

    • Euan says:

      A truely nasty race of people wouldnt conquer and pillage half the world and then leave it to rot?

      Colonial Fcks

  14. christine walker says:

    James
    Your country has just over 5 million people in it … the other twenty million left many moons ago . Just like sean connery for pastures greener like England and America to name just a couple of places . Since then these people have had children born in these countries … meaning they are No longer Scottish … Just so that your aware of this . Its like our Wayne Rooney is no longer Irish !! If there is enough people in your country first of all that agree on leaving the u.k . Then good on scotland … and if you do manage to make a go of it . Then it will deffinately knock the smiles of the face of the English people i agree .. if of course things do not go to plan ,,,, then the English are like the Scots in respect of they never forget … and as we are just a island at the end of the day … i am sure you will be able to hear the English laughing even in Scotland if it does go wrong . Yours without predjudice .

  15. Pingback: It must be no to Devomax | England calling

  16. umakanta tiadi says:

    sir,
    i want o know that is there a company named Pinacle oil and gas company uk.

  17. sneditions says:

    mETHINKS YOUR CALCULATIONS COME FROM BIASED REPORT!
    WITH OIL DEMAND TRIPLE IN THE COMING DECADES IF NOT MORE THE PRICE
    PER BARREL WILL UNDOUBTEDLY ROCKET THERE ARE WEST OF SHETLAND BASIN FINDS
    TOO. SO ALL YOUR CALCULATIONS NEED BE DONE AGAIN AND AS FOR THE PAST WELL IT IS WELL KNOWN MAGGIE BANKROLLED ENGLAND ON THE OIL BONANZA.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s