Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Monday, 13th October 2008

London from only £11.50 plus, over 50 Other Discounted National Express Train Routes

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Welcome to the brave new world as first onshore oilrig set to bring Texas to Scotland



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 04 July 2008
DRILLING has started at Scotland's first onshore oilrig in a move that could become more common as crude prices soar.
The Lybster field takes its name from the Caithness village where work has started to reach the undersea reserves.

The developers, Caithness Petroleum, believe the rig could bring in up to 1,000 barrels a day by the end of this year.

They said
drilling from a land base is cheaper, easier and safer than offshore. With the cost of crude oil rising to $146 a barrel it is thought other companies will examine the possibility of exploration from the land to exploit depleting reserves.

Banchory-based Reach Exploration carried out research work and its survey indicated potential reserves in the Lybster field, in the Inner Moray Firth, of between three and four million barrels of oil.

It was discovered 12 years ago but was considered too expensive by the major oil companies to drill using offshore platforms at the time.

But recent technological advances have allowed it to become only the second oilfield in the UK to be drilled from the land, after Wytch Farm in Dorset.

Both use an "extended reach" system that in Lybster involves a 100ft-high platform built onshore a few hundred metres from cliff edges.

Rob Gibson, a Highlands and Islands MSP, said: "This is a signal for a new start for Caithness. The potential for onshore oil drilling is huge. There is more oil under land than there is under the sea in Scotland that has yet to be retrieved.

"Onshore drilling allows us to retrieve more of our own oil and therefore boost oil security for Scotland."

The drill will be extended 3.5km to the reservoir some 5,000ft below the sea. After being pumped ashore it is planned to take the oil by road to the Nigg terminal in Easter Ross.

Peter O'Sullivan, chief operating officer of Caithness Petroleum, said it is hoped the field will be reached by September and oil will be recovered by the end of this year.

"When this field was discovered using a jack up rig offshore the price of oil was about $20 a barrel. So a combination of the fact they were using an offshore approach and the price of oil discouraged them (from developing it]," he said.

"Another advantage of a land-based system is the overall impact on the environment is much lower. We don't impact the marine environment at all by developing the field in this way."

The start of drilling has been welcomed in Caithness – due to lose about 2,500 jobs from the decommissioning of the Dounreay nuclear plant.

David Bremner, a Caithness councillor, said: "We expect to lose up to 500 jobs from Dounreay over the next four to five years and eventually over 2,000 will go as the plant is decommissioned. If we can diversify into oil and gas, and the company uses local firms in its supply chain, then we are all for it.

"As long as it is handled in an environmentally friendly way, I don't anticipate anyone locally having a problem with it."

Caithness Petroleum is also pressing ahead with potentially bringing another discovery off Caithness into production. The Knockinnon Field could be even bigger than the Lybster find and production would happen at another spot along the coastline.



The full article contains 573 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 03 July 2008 9:48 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Senga Jean,

04/07/2008 00:35:17
As I child in East Sutherland I remember oil oozing from the ground. I was always told to keep quiet about it until Scotland was a free country once again. (hint "Grannies Hielan Hame")
2

McMadman,

http://scottishreferendum2008.blogspot.com 04/07/2008 00:48:45
Ach, I'm just waiting for Highland Mighty..., to come along and go

OIL blah blah blah SNP blah blah blah FANTASY blah blah blah OIL ALL GONE blah blah blah SCOTLANDS FULL OF NUMPTIES THAT CANNE RUN IT FOR THIRSELVES WIOUT OTHERS blah blah blah WIR ALL DOOMED blah blah blah.

But he'll never say how so many countries around the world are independent and manage fine with no oil. He never says how it is, that we'd be a basket case independent because of debt, yet he acknowledges European countries run debts of 50% plus GDP no problem.

Yep, let's stay part of the uk and service the £650billion national debt. Not.

Let's go independent. Oil revenues from 1.2 million barrels per year current production exceed £33bn per year at a current value of $144/barrell and exchange rate of $1.90/£. Even taking a 10% share of national debt on independence (more than our 8.6% of population) we would easily be able to manage ourselves and keep well within borrowing of 40-50% GDP.

SAOR ALBA - it's time.
3

,

04/07/2008 01:27:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

Sanny,

04/07/2008 01:30:13
The article is in serious error. Whilst the Lybster operation may be the first land based oil well in Scotland it is most certainly not the second in the UK.
The first land based well in the UK was EAKRING No 1 spudded 1939, still producing in 1964. The operation has an interesting history during the WWII when American oilw workeds were shipped in to get it fully operational in support of the War Effort.

There are many onshore field in the UK indeed many in England but their exploitation is prevented by the NIMBYS. Hampshire has significant resources in Poole and in the New Forrest area.
5

McMadman,

http://scottishreferendum2008.blogspot.com 04/07/2008 01:32:57
#4

So go for it then. Independence for Bournemouth now !
6

Mad Jock,

East Lothian 04/07/2008 02:09:33
The article is still wrong. I was involved in drilling an oil well at Milltown of Balgonie, near Kirkaldy, in 1988. We struck oil then, albeit more like axle grease, but it was a producer. Not only that, but the well was called "Milltown of Balgonie #3". So there were two previous wells drilled nearby.
I first saw this report on Reporting Scotland yesterday lunchtime, and I could have screamed at the television. As I am currently stuck offshore Denmark, there wasn't much I could do about it, ie, contact the BBC and show them the error of their ways.
The oil companies that had the well then were Pentex, and a small company (husband and wife only) called Stag. It was their first oil well, and to the best of my knowledge, their only one. However, it was producing oil up to the last time I heard, which was about 10 years ago. The production rate was very low, less than 100 barrels a day, but it was a "dripping roast" nonetheless.
So, you BBC and Scotsman journalists need to get your facts right, and do a wee bit more digging (pardon the pun).
7

Neil Waugh,

Old Strathcona 04/07/2008 03:00:46
Alex Salmond must act and must act now. Establish the Scottish National Oil and Gas Conservation Board. Regulate and license all on-shore petroleum production in the right of the Scottish Parliament. And set up a progressive and effective royalty structure to assure that Scotland's natural resources are retained by Scots for the benefit of Scots.
Because it's Scotland's oil.
8

W Smith,

Middle East 04/07/2008 07:18:39
Thank goodnes its not in an area of 'special scientific interest'.

Not yet anyway.
9

donald,

glasgow 04/07/2008 09:06:07
Texas gets to keep her oil and everyone elses.

Liebour for Lybster.
10

Spoot,

Third rock pool on the left 04/07/2008 09:08:21
#7

I'm all in favour of the establishment of a SNOG Board - presumably its primary aim would be the promotion of snogging.
11

The Hiker,

Fife 04/07/2008 09:18:57
Mad Jock # 6.
Funny I thought exactly the same as you, when I read this article.
I remember the rig at Balgonie. I was working in the Middle East at the time, and came home on field break.
On the run back from the airport, I couldn't believe my eyes, when I saw the rig. Thought I was dreaming and back in Saudi!! ha ha.

Around the same time, there was also a land rig within view of the M90, near Dunfermline.

12

Number 6,

Germany 04/07/2008 09:25:58
Quick labour, mobilise your rent-a mob. This could prove to be very good for the future of Scotland. You don't have much time left to obstruct and delay this project.
13

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 04/07/2008 11:01:27
12 Number 6
Don't get carried away. 1000 barrels per day is a proverbial drop in the bucket. It represents approx. 0.7% of Scotland's own consuption. Fields such as this one are not going to make a significant difference. The large oil fields around the world yield several hundreds of thousands of barrels per day.
14

Mad Jock,

East Lothian 04/07/2008 11:09:00
Well, Ugly George, I wasn't getting carried away; I don't know where you read that into my comment. However, 1000 bbls/day might not be significant from an offshore platform, but onshore it is quite significant. The drilling costs are tiny in comparison to hiring a jack-up ($250,000 per day) or a semi-submersible ($400,000 per day). The production costs are similarly tiny compared to building a production platform and manning it. A wee nodding donkey or a flowhead if the pressure is good is all it takes. The rest is pure profit.
15

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 04/07/2008 11:13:39
2 McMadman
You obviously do not know how oil revenues are obtained. You have quoted the figure the figure for which the oil would be sold. That is not the same as the revenues which accrue. From the $144 figure the oil companies deduct their development, appraisal and operating costs. The remainder is then charged at a special corporation tax rate of 50% - this is the revenue that accrues.

The revenue therefore can only be 50% of a figure which is considerably less than the £33 bn you quoted i.e it must be considerably less than half of £33 bn.
16

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 04/07/2008 11:24:17
14 Mad Jock
My comment was actually addressed to "Number6" which is post 12.
But as you have responded, the article mentioned the Wytch Farm oil field in Dorset. It produces about 20,000 barrels per day and nobody is particularly excited about that and even people in Dorset don't know it exists. There are actually about a dozen land oilfields in the South and midlands of England producing small amounts of oil and nobody is excited about them either.
17

Number 6,

Germany 04/07/2008 11:31:01
#16 Not getting carried away, but do excuse me for being pleased at this very important development.

As you are probably aware, Scotland has a population of less than 5 million. Whatever happens this can only be positive for Scotland. YES/NO ?
18

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 04/07/2008 11:49:16
17 Number6
In a small way it can be positive but it has to be taken in context. Many people seem to be getting carried away now that the price of oil has spiked - whether it remains high or slumps as it did in the eighties remains to be seen. However production from the North sea has been declining for several years and is now only approx. half of its peak of 2000/2001. New fields are coming on stream but these are nearly all very small compared to the large fields of the past (Forties, Brent etc.) and are not enough to reverse the decline.

The cost of developing and operating small fields is proprtionately much larger (see comment 14 - $400,000 per day for equipment hire alone) and this eats into any revenues which might accrue. They are economic if prices stay high but the revenues might well not be as high as estimated. Also, if the price of oil is a bubble which is about to burst (as many think it is) their viability may come into question.
19

McMadman,

http://scottishreferendum2008.blogspot.com 04/07/2008 12:53:18
#15

You seem to be suggesting that the oil companies "on costs" of development, appraisal and operating, etc are some 50% of the barrel price and can simply be deducted at source. And clearly matters of corporation tax would be a matter for scotland to control if independent.

When North Sea oil was first discovered, the oil companies tried precisely this trick and were told to, frankly, GTF and behave or they would get no licence to operate and thus no oil and no profits.

The real income derived is likely to be far higher than your £15bn figure. However, even assuming that you are spot on, £15 billion a year just derived in oil income alone is a hell of a lot of money.

Properly controlled and invested (and bear in mind, this £15 bn is just the profit derived from oil production and not the refining of it, eg petrol, diesel, plastics etc, all of which are then of themselves revenue generating) and the oil dividend is truly massive.
20

Gere,

Scotland 04/07/2008 14:19:08
This is where we should ensure that England's theft of our oil ceases!

Freedom and riches for Scotland!!!!
21

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 04/07/2008 15:55:37
I have regular dreams of oil under my house. where can I get a test rig ?
22

,

04/07/2008 16:00:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
23

Cappo Del Monte,

04/07/2008 16:15:59
What i find very sad is for a national scottish newspaper, thay have no mention of the Piper Alpha disaster today, so very very sad.
usual pathetic paper as usual.
God be with those poor souls who lost their lives on this day and to all their families
24

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 04/07/2008 16:24:27
#22 Highland Mighty. I would have ignored you too...
25

,

04/07/2008 16:52:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

McMadman,

http://scottishreferendum2008.blogspot.com 04/07/2008 18:03:05
#22

Highland.

"You ignore my belief that Salmond's forecast of Scotland becoming wealthy on these plummeting reserves just do not add up."

Indeed. Look, you acknowledge that countries can successfully run at gdp debits of up to 60% (France etc) though that is uncomfortably high; 40 - 45% GDP debt is more sensible. USA debt is trillions of dollars and no one is putting up "closed" signs.

The fact is, oil is not the universal panacea and I have long argued that. There is endless debate about the value or worth of oil to scotland; output levels, reserves, future barrel values.

But - fact - many other independent countries of similar size manage to exist WITH NO OIL REVENUES AT ALL. Thus this seems to suggest a prima facie case that scotland is capable of independent existence as per all of these other countries, otherwise by definiton they would all cease to be economically viable.

That we have any oil revenue at all is a massive bonus and should be reinvested for the future and in renewables. However, even an independent scotland taking on, say, 10% of historical GDP (say, around £70bn) which is far more than our population percentage of around 8.5% justifies on the face of it would still only have a deficit balance at independence of about twice the current annual expenditure it currently expends. This is dealable through government bonds, taxation and investment policy, treasury management, and other borrowings and EU membership and funding IN THE SAME WAY AS APPLIES TO MANY OTHER COUNTRIES, and deliverable certainly well within the linit of 50-60% GDP as a national debt position for a new independent country.

You are so very long on criticism of independence but I have never actually heard you say what your answer is.

What is your economic masterplan for Scotland - in detail - that would make it so much more successful ? Talk up the country rather than talk it down.

To me, I would rather have the oil revenues to reinvest in scotlands f
27

McMadman,

http://scottishreferendum2008.blogspot.com 04/07/2008 18:04:06
continued from 26

To me, I would rather have the oil revenues to reinvest in scotlands future. Not to prop up the bamkrupt UK plc - £650bn in debt.

Btw, having been entirely reasonable and rational to this point, I now temporarily diverge.

"And as for your pathetic lies (do you ever stop?) that I ever said "we are numpties that cannot run ourselves"....well, you clearly are a ****** idiot, aren't you."

You are a canting f'cking idiot of questionable sanity and highly selective interpetation. Cant is of course empty, hollow talk and you are the master practicioner; "chief cant" almost if you like.

All along you post saying doom if independence comes along, SNP hopeless, broken promises, blah blah blah, we are so much better under the union (which is 7/10ths OF A TRILLION POUNDS in debt), but each time you are asked any plausibly difficult question, away you go. Spookily like AM2.

I fully expect an irrational ranting response again from you and no doubt further insults; frankly "bring it on," but the fact that there is generally little support for your positions amongst the majority of posters on this site SHOULD ring an alarm bell loudly in that (primarily empty chamber) that is your head - but I doubt it.

The repeating of lies by you does not make them truth, however many times repeated. Scotland needs to get a grip, stand tall, and take responsibility for it's actions and managing it's needs. It can. It will.

Still fancy that pint at the Marmion ?
28

Van (not white) Diesel,

Amsterdam & Augsburg 04/07/2008 18:15:44
Texas has oil, cattle, and the biggest of just about everything.
Caithness has oil, sheep, and what else?
29

McMadman,

http://scottishreferendum2008.blogspot.com 04/07/2008 19:41:08
HM

"but each time you are asked any plausibly difficult question, away you go. Spookily like AM2."

Can you hear the HM sing ?
No-oh, No-oh
Can you hear the HM sing ?
No-oh, No-oh
Can you hear the HM sing ?
Cannae hear a f'ckin thing
Noooo-ooooh OOOO-HOOO no !
30

Nikostratos,

04/07/2008 20:06:43
#31

You've been posting that link

http://scottishreferendum2008.blogspot.com


for weeks now and you have still only got 638 votes in support...........Dismal show nobody seems to want to know ............Maybe that's because you come across as a nasty person serve yourself right
31

McMadman,

http://scottishreferendum2008.blogspot.com 04/07/2008 22:07:56
Nikos

The point is to let people see the question. I put the link up about a week ago.

I make no apologies for being blunt to people like AM2, Highland Mighty - the (...,) version - or grahamski.

642 - 103 is the current score. 86% - 13% in favour.

That's a sample so far of 745.

Funny that. The above named unionists - not above very extreme criticism of all nats - claim that a representative opinion poll is about 800 - 1000 people. By their own argument, this seems to be a statistically relevant amount of people to vote and thus would seem to show an overwhelming support for nationalism.

Of course we know that argument to be fallacious. I don't mind what the outcome is but I want people to see the question and think on it for when it is asked for real. The only opinion poll that counts is that of the electorate after all.

If you want to support vicious posters like AM2, Highland Mighty - the (...,) version - or grahamski, fine, that's your choice. Dinnae greet for them when someone on the other side gives it back to them as they give it out to others.

32

Tynieforflats (GIRFUY),

Soon to be new stand @ Easter Road 04/07/2008 22:40:02
Aye, right there Mcmadman. Nikos is an @rse. Prime poster of p'sh.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.