If north sea oil is not the panecea of wealth we were lead to believe it was in the 70s, having reached its peak output. With we are currently lead to believe falling production and higher costs.
It is a whole load of double talk designed to confuse. The easiest oil to extract is ALWAYS taken first. This is the policy of every extraction company in the world. Companies NEVER extract, if their costs would be less somewhere else. It is common sense to see they wish to maximise thier profit.
It is noticed the companies did not say they would halt extraction... Only thier PROFITS would decrease.
When Gordon Brown gave his misleading report of north sea oil expectations and returns in his budget. He was challenged later about his TWO sets of figures. Official(Budget) and official(governmental), the TV viewer knew the figures couldnt both be true.
The budget figure being considerably lower in returns value, was EXPOSED as attempting to MISLEAD the country(UK).
When Scots/Scotland regain independence, is westminster(status quo parties) suggesting Scotland does not qualify for a percentage of the NORTH SEA and ATLANTIC oilfields?
The north sea being relatively shallow ie, 50ft-600ft deep, extraction costs are less then the Atlantic, where depths are deeper and drilling practices are more costly. You do not have to be an economist to see the differences.
The Mexicans, Nigerians, Iraqis and Iranians dont seem to care that production costs are more, as the returns are still gushing into the coffers.
Any costs of the future, will be offset by the HUGE increase in demand from China, India and Asia.
An independent Scotland has a territorial claim to oil reserves in both the Atlantic and North sea. It cannot be disputed. Westminster wishes to keep Scotland manacled to the UK.
What westminster wishes to deny Scots/Scotland is the oppertunity to become the BAHRAIN of the North Atlantic. Independent in the arc of prosperity of Nor

Very interesting article. However, it's worth noting that low economic growth in Scotland is also reflected in the oil industry.

It wasn't primarily Scottish or even UK companies that took advantage - and still are - of our oil/gas resources but mainly foreign ones and notably the Americans and Norwegians. I'm talking here of course about supply side companies and in particular those that provide the strategic, high value engineering products with global markets.

Another example of the cost of the 'Union'. Central Planning is a bankrupt system in part because of the notion that the exploitation of resources in the provinces will always trump bad decisions in the Capital. The glaring flaw in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is its reliance on "the law" (a.k.a. government). The members of which fundamentally believe in central planning. Devolution/Independence is Scotland's, NO humanities only hope for a sufficiently responsive association to deal with the future. Bullies - those who can't (build an empire) become professional politicians.

This seems to be an endorsment of the SNP's policy of setting up an oil fund on the Norwegian model where according to http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/gdp_real_growth_r... they enjoy 3% real GDP growth compared with 2.8% for the EU & 2.6% for the UK.

4 PoI,
I agree with you my friend.
I checked the government figures too, yes the UK gdp was 2.6 but if you look further, you will see Scotland at 1.8 and has been for the last 3 years and has been performing behing England for the last 8 years.
The 2 years before that Gordon was fixing the conservative shambles of 18 years before.
Vote SNP on 3rd of may.

It is time.

Folks, there is not much wrong with being nationalist, but its not the answer to the maidens prayer. With SNP (maybe) controlling the Scottish politics after 4 May, are you looking for a socialist policy (welfare for all ) or a capitalist policy (meritocracy) ? I happen to live in a wee country (Singapore) with almost as big a population as Scotland, which is Nationalist, and we have no welfare state, yet far better health facilities etc than anyone in Scotland could imagine, and growth year on year of almost 10%, and Singapore has no oil, or gas or even water of its own.

Those of you spending sleepless nights worring about oil going to run our, should read Paul Gold's book " The Hot Biosphere", and get a real education.

mr kays submission might carry more weight if factual errors were removed. alberta is not part of the usa, for now at least...

#7 is correct...what crass inaccuracy! Given that Alberta has proven recoverable oil reserves (especially from its oil sands) on a par with Saudi Arabia, I'm sure the US would love to 'adopt' us, but that won't happen. Mr Kay is correct in reporting that the Govt. of Alberta is socking away some of the windfall billions into a Heritage trust fund, but not as high a proportion of the royalties as many would wish. But the economy of Alberta sure is at boiling point. Our curse here is dealing with a highly overheated economy, with 'help wanted' ads posted on every business premises. Any of you folks need a job?