Subsidies for the Oil Industry.

[Rheghead]

I disagree.

There's a big difference.

The net effect is only the same if you make the ridiculous assumption that the same amount of oil would be produced whether the tax break was given or not.

Companies only produce oil when it is economically viable to do so.

If the tax incentives for offshore oil were not there, the oil would not be produced. There would be no oil income and, as a double whammy, hundreds of thousands of more people unemployed.

Not good for the country at all.

Shell paid the Norwegians £2.7 billion in tax revenues and they are still out there pumping oil out. We gave them £80million and a tax break. The key thing is that the oil has suffered the same in price for the Norwegians as it has for the UK.

[theone]

Shell paid the Norwegians £2.7 billion in tax revenues and they are still out there pumping oil out. We gave them £80million and a tax break. The key thing is that the oil has suffered the same in price for the Norwegians as it has for the UK.

Unfortunately, once again, this is like comparing apples to oranges.

Shell has high profit, low cost fields in Norway. Monster new fields such as Ormen Lange whereas is the UK it is largely old, low yield fields. Indeed, Shell is selling off much of its UK operated portfolio this year. https://www.theguardian.com/business...aor-linda-cook .

It also has large decommissioning costs for the Brent field, and others, that eats into the (taxable) profits. They're also investing heavily in future UK infrastructure projects, they've invested several £Billion into the West of Shetland which obviously reduces current taxation (but will allow for more in future).

We'd have to see figures of cost/turnover/investment and profit for each country before giving a realistic comparison.

I'm not for a second promoting tax avoidance, just that there's a fine line between promoting investment and hurting it.

[mi16]

Absolutely nothing wrong with tax avoidance at all.

[theone]

Absolutely nothing wrong with tax avoidance at all.

I agree. But often the laws and regulations that allow the avoidance are questionable.

[Rheghead]

Yeah, pull the other one, oil extraction in the North sea is different for Scotland than it is for Norway. Norway does demand taxes from its oil industry. That is the only difference.

[theone]

Yeah, pull the other one, oil extraction in the North sea is different for Scotland than it is for Norway. Norway does demand taxes from its oil industry. That is the only difference.

Oil production from new fields is the same in the UK and in Norway. Relatively easy and cheap.
Oil production from old fields is the same in the UK and in Norway. Relatively difficult and expensive.

Shell has a large number of new fields in Norway. Shell has a large number of old fields in the UK. Life extension projects. Decommissioning. Hence why profits (and therefore taxes) in Norway are higher.

The taxation system in Norway for offshore oil is remarkably similar to the UK. Companies have their investment in new fields and infrastructure offset against profits from existing fields.

Before looking at the "taxes paid" figure, you really need to look at the expenditure and turnover figures to make a real assessment of the situation. Shell has spent BILLIONS over the last few years, expenditure they committed to making before the oil price crashed.

The taxation will follow as the new investments start producing.

[Alrock]

The taxation will follow as the new investments start producing.

Just in time for a newly Independent Scotland to reap the rewards...

[sids]

Yeah, pull the other one, oil extraction in the North sea is different for Scotland than it is for Norway. Norway does demand taxes from its oil industry. That is the only difference.

If you were a taxpayer, you'd understand.