PROCNA2018
Full Member
OK if this is what you want to do - fine.
Let me explain it using small words...........
Our exchequer would not be funding initial developments at all hence the financial viability is irrelevant.
We don't need an investment bank to fund it.
I've posted repeatedly we just need to follow the Norwegian model (which was the plan when the Corrib deal was struck). You cut deals on the initial developments such that the profits from the oil and gas produced are retained by the drilling company e.g. Shell in the case of Corrib, in exchange for the infrastructure. This is why, precisely why, the processing plant was built onshore and not offshore so as to enable us to use the infrastructure for all the future developments that now will never happen. Hence the JCB, protests etc etc in Mayo.
This is exactly how Statoil, now Equinor, started and the geology in the North Sea on the Norwegian coast extends down about 700m (from memory) or about 7 times the usual depth of the North Sea because it is part of the Norwegian Trench. The Porcupine basin depth starts at about 370m depth (from memory) and where the shelf drops off it goes to about 4000m depth.
The current deepest oil well in the world is more than 12km down. The technology is not the issue. The depth of the water is not the issue. The intention is the issue.
The Palaeontological Affairs Division of the Department of Energy have cores from the Porcupine that prove there are commercially viable deposits of oil and gas readily available to be extracted.
So my point remains, if Norway are producing 4 million barrels a day and will continue to do so until 2050 - why should we not do the same? if Saudi Arabia will continue to produce oil until 2050, why should we not do the same? If the Brits are continuing to produce oil and gas until 2050, why should we not do the same?
Are you really saying just because - in some quixotic tilt at global temperature reduction or to halt temperature increase which our abstinence will do nothing to prevent?
