Total turns on gas from West of Shetland Laggan and Tormore

Mark · Post by **Mark** » 08 Feb 2016, 09:52

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-n ... d-35516144

The first gas has begun flowing to the mainland from vast reserves west of Shetland. A gas plant in Shetland has been fired up by Total, capable of supplying energy to up to two million homes. A flare was lit at the moment that gas started flowing from the Laggan and Tormore fields, 125km north west of the Shetland. The island plant has been the biggest construction project in the UK since the London Olympics. West of Shetland contains almost one fifth of the UK's remaining oil and gas reserves. Total said the Laggan and Tormore fields will produce 90,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day. From Shetland, a pipeline takes the gas back to the UK mainland and into the national gas grid.

Deep waters
It is expected to provide about 8% of the UK's gas needs, supplying more than two million homes. The project is part of a massive £3.5bn investment by French company Total. Challenging weather conditions delayed the project by more than a year and added millions to its cost. The Laggan and Tormore fields are on the edge of the UK continental shelf, where water depths descend rapidly from an average of 120m to 600m and beyond. Total said: "It's a uniquely challenging environment in which to operate, but also one with great potential." The Shetland Gas Plant construction phase was estimated to have involved up to 800 jobs, with 70 full time posts in plant operation. It has been built on a peat bog next to the Sullom Voe oil terminal. As well as the onshore construction, there was a major programme of subsea infrastructure and pipelines.

Continues....

Post by **adam2** » 08 Feb 2016, 10:44

Good news for UK energy security and for our balance of payments.
Bad news for the environment if lower prices and a relatively plentiful supply encourage more burning of gas instead of more renewables and more conservation.

Mark · Post by **Mark** » 08 Feb 2016, 14:10

adam2 wrote:Good news for UK energy security and for our balance of payments.
Bad news for the environment if lower prices and a relatively plentiful supply encourage more burning of gas instead of more renewables and more conservation.

Succinctly put.....
I've not been, but I believe there's an awful lot of wind in the Shetlands...

Post by **clv101** » 08 Feb 2016, 19:07

This story and the BBC's enthusiastic coverage is just daft.

It's cost some £3.5bn, and it's not as if the gas is now free...
It's supply some 8% of UK demand...
It'll last for some 10-15 years, then we're back where we started...
It'll emit a whole lot of CO2 which we really don't have the budget for...
It only generates some 200 jobs...

A better move would be to take that £3.5bn and invest it all in energy efficiency savings in the UK that relate to gas demand - basically insulation to reduce space heating. That will cut gas demand. Then borrow some more money against the future savings already made by the first £3.5bn and improve efficiency in yet more buildings. Far more than 200 jobs and the stimulates demand for UK manufactured insulation products so the money all stays in the UK rather than going to Total's shareholders.

Demand savings last many decades, the life of the built environment.
Increases in fossil fuel supply are by definition temporary and leave a pollution legacy.

raspberry-blower · Post by **raspberry-blower** » 08 Feb 2016, 21:48

clv101 wrote:This story and the BBC's enthusiastic coverage is just daft.

It's cost some £3.5bn, and it's not as if the gas is now free...
It's supply some 8% of UK demand...
It'll last for some 10-15 years, then we're back where we started...
It'll emit a whole lot of CO2 which we really don't have the budget for...
It only generates some 200 jobs...

Indeed.

Putting this into some sort of perspective
Over 65,000 jobs have been lost in the North Sea oil sector since 2014
150 oil rigs could be scrapped in the next 10 years

Source

Why not leave the oil rigs in situ and convert them to having wind turbines instead? It is possible - whether it is practical is another matter entirely

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 08 Aug 2016, 11:40

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-n ... d-37007656

We don't often get news about the UK industry.

Another problem the industry could do without at present.

oobers · Post by **oobers** » 15 Aug 2016, 10:41

PS_RalphW wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-n ... d-37007656

We don't often get news about the UK industry.

Another problem the industry could do without at present.

Western Isles SNP MSP Alasdair Allan and MP Angus MacNeil said the incident underlined the need for Scotland to have two emergency tugs.

An emergency towing vessel has been sent to the scene from the Northern Isles.

Scotland used to have two of the boats available to the coastguard to cover the north and west coasts, before the UK government reduced the service to a single ship in 2012.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-h ... s-37076640

The rig ran aground off Lewis on Monday and has lost more than 12,000 gallons (56,000 litres) of diesel oil from fuel tanks.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 15 Aug 2016, 12:51

This should have absolutely nothing to do with the coastguard, except for monitoring the situation. Rescue boats should be a requirement placed on the rig owners who could then make it a requirement placed on the operators if they chose. Since the rig would have broken free in bad conditions, then a risk assessment ought to have shown a backup would be needed in case of equipment failure. This was a case of arguably low risk, but severe consequences. If the operators/owners then said it would not be "cost effective", don't undertake the exercise.