North Sea Oil is Running Out?

Everyone that I know who works in the North Sea, and being from Aberdeen those are quite a few people indeed, tells me that North Sea oil is running dry. It's days are numbered. Why then do I read that a new oil refinery is planned for Teeside in the North East of England? Sonhoe, a London-based company that specialises in the development of hydro-carbon processing and infrastructure facilities, is planning to build a new £2 bn facility "designed to process 200,000 barrels a day of heavy crude oil into high quality, low sulphur diesel, petrochemical feedstock naphtha and kerosene for use in the UK or for export."

I can't argue with the site of the facility, Teeside is an excellent location, not only for access to a deep water port, but also in terms of proximity to the oil fields which it would service. I would surmise that it is for the latter reason more than the former, that the project is even being considered at all.

I would contend that this is part of a larger Westminster strategy, to isolate the idea of Scottish independence, which is deepening in it's support and momentum, with the natural possession of Scotttish oil. By ensuring that Grangemouth is no longer the lynchpin between the North Sea oil fields and the United Kingdom supply chain, they can cut Scotland out entirely. Indeed as such, there are other commercial reasons to promote such a strategy. The Ineos strike at Grangemouth in 2007 provided a harsh lesson when it forced the vital BP oil pipeline to close, shutting down operation across almost the entire UK sector of the North Sea at an estimated cost to the industry of £50m per day.

Indeed this may be a theory, with little basis in fact, but it does ride roughshod over the notion that the oil is running out. North sea production may be in decline, but there is still more than enough to satisfy a return on investment of a £2bn on oil refinery. Sonhoe clearly think that the oil will keep pumping for the next few decades at least.

It is somewhat famous in Nationalist circles that the Westminster Government have consistently lied to the Scottish people about the scope of Scottish oil. As such it has either not been viable, or actually running out since the first barrel was extracted on November 3rd, 1975.

In re-call reading in 2005 an article published in the Independent entitled How black gold was hijacked: North sea oil and the betrayal of Scotland. The article highlighted a report written by an economist, Gavin McCrone, and for the Cabinet Office in April 1975, but released in 2005 under the Freedom of Information Act.

"At the time of Professor McCrone's report to the cabinet office, the SNP claimed that North Sea Oil would yield £800 million a year for the government by 1980. Professor McCrone's main criticism of their analysis was that their forecasts were "far too low". He put the sum at about £3 billion."

Meanwhile Westminster has siphoned around £200bn of North Sea oil revenue since 1975, the majority of that since the oil price boom and subsequent windfall tax. The idea that the rest of the UK subsides Scotland is ridiculous to say the least. Without the taxation and licensing of Scotland's oil, Darling's budget would be shorter than the list for potential Labour donors.

The Independent article also went on to say that by "the mid 1970s, international convention had already agreed that the North Sea north of the 55th parallel was under Scottish jurisdiction. That meant around 90 per cent of the UK's oil and gas reserves fell within Scottish waters."

If the Scottish people voted "aye" in a referendum on Scottish Independence the United Kingdom government would therefore be duty bound under International law, to accept the free will and volition of the Scottish people to posit themselves on the international stage as a sovereign nation would they not? Indeed along with such a partition they would also have to follow this international convention that all waters North of the 55th parallel are Scottish waters, including the oil and gas which is reserved underneath them. But what if the Westminster government did not follow this convention and attempted to maintain their jursidiction over Scottish water, at the same time as offering independence? Giving with one hand, while taking away with the other.

The first task of a fledgling Scottish Government therefore, in such a situation, would be to appeal to the international community for support, particularly in Europe. After all, if Westminster would so readily ignore it's international obligations with regards to an independent Scotland, then why should it be expected to follow them with it's other neighbours? Appropriation without consent is tantamount to theft under Scots law, would we stand idly by?

Al-Megrahi, Oil and the SNP

Jack Straw's admission that the Westminster government had opened a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) with Libya to bring an oil deal on stream has lead to the SNP Government in Holyrood being tarred with the same brush. The inference that Kenny MacAskill's decision was based upon an oil deal with Libya is not only not based upon fact as the files will evidence, it is completely devoid of common sense.

Whilst Brown and Co. would apparently have happily handed over Abdelbasset Al-Megrahi for black gold, this was upset by circumstances in Holyrood, namely the election of the SNP administration in June 2007. The SNP have re-iterated that they would not agree to the PTA, and have continually stressed that they are happy for the files to be released detailing the decision making process. A Labour administration in contrast, would have been expected to tow the party line in honouring the PTA.

Instead Kenny MacAskill considered realeasing terminally ill Al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds, something which is enshrined in Scots law. This decision left him with nothing to gain politically, and was clearly a very difficult decision to make. Advice was sought from a number of officials including the Chief Inspector of Strathclyde Police, before coming to the decision.

Whilst personally I think that Al-Megrahi's conviction and the evidence used to secure it was highly suspect, and I question his guilt in the first place, see USS Vincennes. I don't think that this did play a part in the decision making process. The corrospondence is there for all to see. Neither do I think that it should have. Guilt or innocence are a matter for appeal. The likelihood that Libya would have given him a hero's welcome on his return to Tripoli should not have been a matter for consideration either. Assurances were made and these were not kept. MacAskill cannot be held responsible for that.

The idea that MacAskill was insensitive and inconsiderate in granting compassionate release does not take into account how strongly the sensitivity, of what is a very difficult issue, was considered. Advice was sought from the UK Government regarding agreements that were made with the US on where Al-Megrahi was to serve his prison sentence. Westminster regrettably decided not to issue this advice. In further support of the SNP administration's sensitive approach to the issue, Alex Salmond wrote a letter to Gordon Brown dated 25th October 2008, where he highlighted the sensitivity of inviting Colonel Gadaffi to an oil sumit 2 days before the 20th Anniversary of the disaster. If anyone is guilty of insensitivity therefore, it is the Labour government.

The inference that the SNP were involved in a shady energy deal is put simply proposterous. An SNP government, which would seek independence for what is an energy rich Scotland, would have little to gain out of a foreign oil deal, unlike London. Especially when you consider that a newly independent Scotland would find it most prudent to sell oil and gas to it's energy hungry neighbour south of the border.

Interesting Times

A recent poll published in the Times on voting intentions in Scotland on June 4th made for interesting reading. Whilst it showed an increase in support for fringe parties, these gains are unlikely to translate into a seat. The article focused on Labour's fears of an election catastrophe, and whilst the election may turn out to be just that elsewhere, I for one don't think that Labour will find themselves unseated in Scotland.

The poll quotes a senior Labour spokesperson as saying that there "is a lot of concern for us. We think we might manage to keep the second seat but it's going to be very close." Now by taking the projected vote as published, with the SNP on 37%, Labour on 25%, the Tories on 17% and the Lib Dems on 12%, and working that into an expected low turnout, the results couldn't be further from the truth. The turnout in 2004 was 30.9% mustering 1,176,817 voters, but in 1999 it was only 988,310 with a shoddy 24.7% showing up at the polls.

It is generally accepted that low turnout is to be expected, due in no small part to the expenses scandal. If we transpose the poll onto the 1999 turnout therefore, we see 435,422 votes to the SNP, 294,204 to Labour, 200,058 to the Conservatives and 141,218 to the Liberal Democrats. Under the d'Hondt method this would deliver the 1st seat to the SNP, the 2nd seat to Labour, the 3rd seat to the SNP, the 4th seat to the Tories, the 5th seat to Labour and the 6th seat to SNP.

The poll was correct on it's assertion, and on the basis of their projections, that the SNP could capture enough votes for 3 MEPs. However in order for Labour to lose Catherine Stihler MEP, either Labour would have to hemorrhage a significant number of voters to the Lib Dems, there would need to be an enormous swing to the SNP, or a much larger than expected turnout. All of the above are somewhat unlikely, if you want my very humble opinion, it's George Lyon and the Liberal Democrats who should be considering a plan B.

I think that the allocation of seats in Northern Ireland will be all the more interesting. Sinn Fein essentially unseated the SDLP in 2004, as they had been anticipated to do, to take what is seen as the Nationalist seat at Brussels. They may see their political fortunes in Northern Ireland revived further. The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), who have been the strongest Unionist party in Ulster for over a decade, may see their fortunes decline somewhat due in no small part to Jim Allister MEP, the man whom they selected as a candidate to replace Ian Paisley in the European Parliament. He left the party and formed Traditional Unionist Voice in 2007, over his anger at power-sharing agreements agreed to by the DUP and Sinn Fein, “No power sharing with terrorists” is his motto. Once loyal DUP voters could vote for a man whom they have seen work hard for them in Brussels, thus splitting the vote. To add salt to the wound, the Ulster Unionist Party, tired of seeing their fortunes wane, have forged an alliance with the Conservative party and David Cameron, giving them a stronger voice, and making them more electable.

Whilst this may give the DUP cause for concern, as the Irish Times shows, neither Jim Allister or the UUP are likely to garner more votes than the DUP's candidate, Diane Dodds. However Northern Ireland politics are a partisan affair, and there are only so many unionist votes, just as there are only so many nationalist votes. The effect of this, and my prediction, will be to split the unionist vote, which could result in Sinn Fein winning the first seat, the DUP the second, and the SDLP the third. After all they lost out to the UUP for third place by only 4,000 votes in 2004. This would be the first time in Northern Ireland that nationalists have topped the polls, and profess a total sea-change in Northern Irish demographics.

European Elections

A profile tool for the European elections. By answering 30 questions on social and economic policy it places you on a political compass and gives you an idea of the party or parties with the ideas closest to yours. Apparently my beliefs fit in closest with the ideology of either the SNP or the Liberal Democrats, and more widely, the centre-right Moderaterna Partiet in Sweden. This is pretty accurate as I'd probably vote for all three depending on my place of residence.