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.

Sign In
Register

Peterhead's doomed BP plant to be built in Abu Dhabi



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: 23 January 2008
By Gerri Peev
A REVOLUTIONARY green-energy plant once planned by BP for Peterhead is now to be built in the United Arab Emirates.
The energy giant withdrew its investment in the £1 billion carbon-capture plant in May 2007, blaming delays in government funding. The project would have provided "carbon-free" electricity from hydrogen and brought around 1,000 jobs to the Aber
deenshire port.

Now a deal has been struck by Hydrogen Energy, a joint venture involving BP Alternative Energy, Rio Tinto and Masdar, for a renewable energy scheme in Abu Dhabi, backed by the Gulf state government. An announcement was made at the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi.

BP has confirmed that the plant will be similar to the scheme proposed for Peterhead, in which it had invested £30 million.

Last night, Stewart Hosie, the Scottish National Party's Treasury spokesman and Dundee East MP, blamed the loss of the project to the Gulf on the UK government's "dithering and delay".

The SNP has previously attacked UK ministers for failing to act quickly to secure the project for Scotland.

Mr Hosie said: "Instead of supporting a project to develop potentially planet- saving technology in Scotland, the UK government is prepared to squander vast resources on nuclear power, which the government's own figures show will have a negligible impact on carbon abatement."



The full article contains 231 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 23 January 2008 12:31 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

a proud doonhamer,

Dumfries 23/01/2008 02:00:46
Once again the union dividend for Scotland is clearly evident.
2

,

23/01/2008 02:16:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

blueguru,

US 23/01/2008 02:54:58
No doubt AM2 will blame the SNP for this too!
4

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 23/01/2008 03:28:36
This is a direct result and indeed proof, if it were needed, that to get a huge project such as this a country would have to be able to produce a competant and eager workforce, a building programme that is completed on time within budget, that all would work well, and guess what Scotland did not come up to sctratch on ANY of these.

They must have watched the Scottish Parly fiasco and thought .......... no way!

Great job Scotland AGAIN, its time we wake up and try harder
5

Andrew D,

23/01/2008 03:44:43
That is so sickening to see. Absolutely sickening...
6

,

23/01/2008 03:50:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 23/01/2008 04:11:23
Hi Richard, funding, yes the funding of the Scottish Parly ,,,,,,,,, mmmmm that funding went to plan did it not??

tell me again how Westminster managed to get the funding so wrong, oops they had nothing to do with it.

In fact they were so hands off to show the world what we could do when left to our own devices and boy "didn't we do well?"

The Saudis will build on time within budget, and on spec. It will be manned by skilled labour, there will be no strikes, th eoutput will be as expected if not better.

Scotland has a credibility gap, widening each year.
8

Ross Fyffe,

23/01/2008 04:18:24
for Saudis read Abudabians ........ :-)
9

Breezy,

Argyll 23/01/2008 04:32:50
The people of Peterhead and the rest of Scotland know exactly why this happened, and the blame lies firmly on the slouched shoulders of Westminster.
10

M H,

Cymru 23/01/2008 04:46:00
In answer to Ross Fyffe, Westminster failed to get the funding right on two counts.

The scheme would only have worked if there was an operating carbon pricing regime for it to trade against. The UK government has not set up a scheme, waiting for an EU scheme to get up and running.

The alternative deal (as a stopgap solution) was to treat the electricity produced as "renewable" and therefore subject to the Renewables Obligation subsidy. It might be stretching the point as it is not renewable; but the overall CO2 effect is similar, so it would have been within the spirit, if not the letter of the law.

Alistair Darling, as the then Trade and Industry Secretary, failed to do the second (or any similar alternative).

The Scottish Government did what it could (namely planning approval and lobbying, including in Europe), but the overall pricing structure for energy is a UK matter.
11

Pete40,

Tassy 23/01/2008 05:01:18
Well they can build the test site in Abu Dhabi. If it is as good as they say, and they have paid for a lot of research, they are not going to come back to Scotland where the guys in charge will not be ditherers.
12

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 23/01/2008 05:03:49
MH my point was on the funding for the parly!
13

Ubi,

Edinburgh 23/01/2008 06:21:45
The empire's over folks. The money's on its way east. Unless of course our sharp, lean, swashbuckling governors are the instrument of commerce to have the global economy quaking in its boots.
14

danielrober,

23/01/2008 08:09:30
Good move BP, still protecting UK jobs i see.

Part of the UK and Scottish planning process is disclosure. In other countires this is done behind closed doors to maintain the competitive edge of the company. This protects companies employees, pensions and investments, as well as meeting planning regulations.

However, experience has shown UK companies, as in actual British comapnies, that the release of sensitive information ruins projects and intellectual property rights.

Example.

Stage 1, I apply for a loan to build a new wind turbine project.

Stage 2, A bank assesses my wind turbine project. This assessment is backed up by another bank, an independent bank, outside the UK. This bank then sends off my information to their headquaters in XXXX. These bankers then send the information to a local university, which then publish my work as an accademic paper. Strengthening my proposal, but ruining my intellectual property rights.

Then stages 4 - through to 20. Repeating this same process with all manner of professional bodies.

This process is both legal and encouraged by current regulations.

BP has done a sensible thing pioneering this plant some where else. It will speed up delivery and protect UK jobs.
15

Number 6,

Germany 23/01/2008 08:10:43
Classic example of the damage this so called "union" has
done to the Scottish economy. Contrast this with the SNP's successful fight to secure a Billion plus investment into a region starved of economic aid by this useless goverment. Let's get out before it's too late. Tragic
16

danielrober,

23/01/2008 08:21:43
# 15, Number 6,Germany

Good grief, how on earth do you leap to that 'classic' conclusion. Do you have a crystal ball or are BP's corporate headquaters been bugged (again).
17

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 23/01/2008 08:48:37
Hang on, how can this plant possibly be described as "renewable"?
18

Number 6,

Germany 23/01/2008 10:16:08
#16 Don't you get it Danielrober?. I was of course alluding to the fact that this project got lost in the bowels of westminster as it was only scotland. IF we were dealing with this ourselves, on our behalf, i'm sure there would have been a much better chance of it getting built. Leaving our future in the hands of a bunch of serial incompitents like LABOUR, scottish or englandshire wing, is a recipie for disaster.

19

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 23/01/2008 10:38:56
Hugely unimpressed that on my RSS feed this is the Scotsmans bottom story.

£1 billion carbon capture plant...why that's the equivalent of a major golfing resort...and in the same are too. Just think potentially £2 billion of investment lost!
20

Fairfax,

23/01/2008 10:52:57
Guthrie (17): "Hang on, how can this plant possibly be described as "renewable"?"

Good point. This plan was for a carbon capture project -- an excellent idea -- but BP was really being very greedy: they were asking for the right to charge the renewable fuel subsidy on the hydrogen produced from gas, so providing an enormous profit margin.
21

Alastair the First,

23/01/2008 11:11:23
Words nearly fail me. Another major screw up by the Westminster cretins.
22

Colin McDonald,

Walton-on-Thames 23/01/2008 11:32:16
#12

"my point was on the funding for the parly"

And what pray tell does that have to do with this particular article or discussion thread??

23

Colin McDonald,

Walton-on-Thames 23/01/2008 11:37:57
Where are all the unionistas?...

....and with all thse "buzzing Nats" in need of swatting, they are being remiss in their duties. Surely they have a coherent, well researched repost to the scandalous misrepresentation of the union dividend expressed in the above story?

Should I hold my breath?
24

JayDeeTee,

23/01/2008 11:50:57
Imagine the scandal this would have caused if the plant was proposed for somewhere in England. Wake up to the fact we are treated as a second rate country as far as Westminster is concerned. Just look at how this lot "look after" us in farming and fishing, etc etc.
25

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 23/01/2008 12:00:06
#19- but its not renewable if you are using non-renewable (Unless you have 200 million years spare) resources eg gas and oil, to produce the H2 and CO2.
26

Alfie Bett,

23/01/2008 12:10:31
Until such times as we are in charge of our own country this will happen time and time again,I'm old enough to have seen the collapse of manufacturing and industrial decline of the UK and without fail Scotland always felt the closures first,the union reps would demand to have meetings with the government of the day at downing street,labour or tory take your pick,and would come back with zilch every time,the same union reps would still dutifully support labour and expect the remaining workforce to do the same.
Ironically this is about the same era that the Scottish oil fields are coming on stream and the revenue from it baling out the ailing UK economy massively while at the same time the M'Crone report is being suppressed to keep this reality from the Scottish people.
Now here a generation later we have an instance where a vital new technology could have been developed in Scotland at Peterhead,it had everything going for it,an existing power station,pipelines,and and the Miller field at the stage of its life just perfect to be utilized for such a project but the dead hand of new labour intervened when they came out with some bull that there had to be some competition as to who would get government funding to help develop this new technology ,BP aren't into competitions their into business and were not going to hang around while new labour cynically p*ss around working out the best scenario for labour as to whom they will finally award funding to,I have no doubt that it will eventually be awarded in some region of England as an electoral bribe that's new labour's style
Contrast that to the hard work that the SNP has put into saving the Trump project in spite af the machinations of the unionist parties,if we were an independent nation the Peterhead CCS would be an up and running project, developing the expertise to offer the potential construction of like projects around the world,instead we've kissed it goodbye,union dividend my ass!
27

Edward,

23/01/2008 12:19:30
According to Alistair Darling there is supposed to be 'several' companies offering Carbon Capture
Its a pity he is unwilling to name them, if they do exist!
Quote from Hansard 7th June 2007 (in answer to Robert Smith)
'As I said when we discussed this matter yesterday, I am sorry that BP was not able to continue operation of the Miller field, but I should point out two things. First, BP always knew that there was going to be a competition. Seven other companies are interested in working with the Government towards building a carbon capture and storage scheme and, as I said yesterday, it is not open to the Government to hand over a contract such as this to one company, when we know that others are in the field. Secondly, even if BP had remained in the competition, there was of course no guarantee that it would have been'

The thing is I was under the impression that it was only BP that had this technology!
28

Klaus Dubois,

Edinburgh 23/01/2008 12:20:14
It was him mammy, it was him !

What drags Scotland down isn't Westminster; it's those living in the past.

We've now lost any chance of building new nuclear plants 'cos wee 'eck always takes a contradictory stance to Westminster (& no, I'm not a labour supporter - especially the prehistoric version often trotted out in Scotland). We will also lose the ship-to-ship oil transfer work in the Forth if the leftie losers get their way. More social workers to make excuses for criminals, junkies, abusers.......... fill yer boots at the earning public's expense.
29

An English Voice™,

23/01/2008 12:42:20
31. Calm down, nats! There are still at least seven other companies in the running for this Carbon-Capture Scheme competition; including E.ON UK, Conoco Philips, RWE nPower, and a partnership between Progressive Energy and Centrica.

Jumping the gun again? Surely not the nats!

Making assumptions while only in possession of a fraction of the facts? Surely not the nats!
30

S'me,

Edinburgh 23/01/2008 13:01:23
Oh Alex... you were so mouthy.. now you are, as thought, the same as the rest...
31

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 23/01/2008 13:12:44
#34 I'm sorry, are you from the past?
32

ImSparticus,

23/01/2008 15:19:37
what did Bliar or Broon do not help secure this for Aberdeen... Sweet FA Another reason to vote for King Ecky.
33

Ike,

Glasgow 23/01/2008 17:15:02
... this is a scandal, right enough. So hostile to Scotand. This is a jewel of a project... it stinks of enemy action by Westminster's trade and strategic planners. If they'd wanted it to come to Peterhead - with £30 million already spent - it would have come to Peterhead. The press should really chase this one down - but sadly they won't. Sad but true.
34

Ike,

Glasgow 23/01/2008 17:20:10
#36 Of course... to all you remind us of. But big decisions are simplistic. Thereafter the effect trickles to influence all the points of negotiation between government - whose blessing is always required - and the many commercial interests which are easily frightened by uncertainty.
35

Il Penseroso,

Inverurie 23/01/2008 17:21:34
MH Cymru Your post makes the case for Independence.
AM" At it again! "some money". You, that knows all about statistics, tell us how much the "some" was. I think millions would be nearer the mark. In your eyes, Westminster do no wrong. Like Iraq (you avoid that like the plague). Like tax payers money saving the gambling instincts of Northern Rock. Like Gordon and his Darling (haven't enough money to pay our police force) but £20 odd billion to prop up a bank whose directors grant themselves millions for making a disaster of the company finances. Like the whitewash with Hutton (he's still being paid for Bloody Sunday and the inquest is still running). Like the Saudi deal. Like rendition flights. Like inadequate protection for our troops. Like prudent Brown having to sell the gold reserves to prop up his creative accountancy of the true state of the British economy.Like Blair, now an Arch Villain, unwilling to see the parents of our soldiers killed on his whim in association with the biggest idiot in politics, George W Bush. Did you watch " No End In Sight" More 4 on TV last night and this was an American production? Hope that made you proud of Blair's craving to be with those murderers.And you are an advocate for Westminster and the Union? I'll list more if you need reminding.
36

Ike,

Glasgow 23/01/2008 17:31:14
#42
What can you do? No-one will resign. Rubbish... isn't it?
37

Il Penseroso,

Inverurie 23/01/2008 17:34:27
AM2 You talk of a spend of "hundreds of millions of pounds over ten or twenty tears". Brown and Darling are talking of £25 BILLION over five years and it's not their money but ours. Brown and Darling say they can't afford to link pensioners' incomes to average wage earners, the formula broken by Thatcher, retained by Brown and Blair but promised to be re-established in 1997. Just this quarter the British Pensioners have dropped from SECOND LOWEST in Europe to LOWEST. Thousands, REPEAT thousands of our eldely will die from cold related illnesses this year.None have been recorded in the last ten years in Denmark, Sweden,Norway and Finland in the same time scale. This in the fifth richest nation on earth they tell us. Proud of Westminster? Want more?
38

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD,

Dar-Es-Salaam Tanzania 23/01/2008 18:29:54
Excellent choice
Here are the reasons
The English Language does not help when the starvation sets in. I mean this. Today 23rd January the stocks are so low that even the papers do not know how to set op the typos.
Davos,
The state of economy, politics or gossips no one can tell. Why too much hype in the language with many hiccups.
US politics trumping economics, or vice versa?
Weak data force bank to take bold approach

Sir:
If there is policy it belongs to the US. If the DAVOS turns into quagmire of politic issue and monetary issue of the felled markets of the world, the primary cause is US. How can you state otherwise? There is no vice versa. It is US and all know of this.
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla MBA PhD
P.O.Box 6044
Dar-Es-Salaam
Tanzania
East Africa
39

danielrober,

23/01/2008 22:32:06
# 21 clarry,aberdeen

The truth is stanger than fiction. You'd need a mind like Columbo to understand the energy sector. I used to hate the word 'aclimatization', in fact i still do but now its joined by the phrase 'risk assessment'. ARRGGHHH. Just do it.


# 22 Number 6,Germany

If we where dealing with this problem on our own then other countries would just turn up and buy us out. It would be the mobilephone industry debarcel all over again.

However as the UK, we are a pinoeering nation for offshore technology, attracting lots of FDI. Support services and sales leave here for all over the world, including Germany. We can't win them all and somtimes its better to develop a demonstation plant, in partnership with others, at a location that has huge petro reserves.

I doubt either the UK or Scotish government could have chaged the situation. Good business and a job well done BP.
40

brian mcc,

the arctic 24/01/2008 00:22:30
Can you begin to see how oil companies rule the world? A foriegn financial transaction, Dubai to London in regards to 'Scotland.' To understand get a translator who speaks Arabic, Chinese, and Russian.
41

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 25/01/2008 23:19:53
54 yep suck it up pal thats life as we know it
42

daveserviceman,

edinburgh 03/02/2008 08:34:26
no 31 not only BP most oil companies have the tech no how and the facilities to do carbon capture.
BP was put out because of the European Competition Laws
BP was the only one that polititions favoured But brussels said it had to be opened up to global competition this would have taken a couple of years to implement so BP got fed up and moved to where there are no competition laws. as a former employ of Exxon mobile and a researcher for the brussels lot I know the real reasons as stated above

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Scotland

More Scotland >>

More Climate change

More Climate change >>

Features

Scotsman Digital Archive
Supplements
Scotsman Hotels Scotsman Hotels

Featured Advertising



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.