HL Deb 06 March 1973 vol 339 cc988-90

2.43 p.m.

LORD BALOGH

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government on what basis the statement was made that the British share of the oil reserves in the British part of the North Sea was 58 per cent.; how many oilfields were included, and at what tonnage; how many further oilfields have already been proven, and whether Shell was considered as a totally British company.

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN)

My Lords, the figure of 58 per cent. applied to the British share of oil reserves in the fields so far proved, Forties, Auk, Brent and Argyll, counting Shell as 40 per cent. British. At least four other finds may prove commercial. Figures of reserves in individual fields are confidential. The current estimates of future oil production are now being reviewed, and the outcome of the review will be announced shortly.

LORD BALOGH

My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the statement such as has been made was really rather misleading?

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that the statement I have just made is misleading? If so, would he care to say in what respect it is misleading?

LORD BALOGH

My Lords, I fear that perhaps I have to set myself up as a teacher of English grammar, which is a very unlikely job for me. I said "had been made"; not "had been made this minute" but "had been made in the distant past"—to wit, the original statement which I was asking to be cleared up.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I hope that any efforts that have been made to clear up this matter have not been unsuccessful. I am not aware that any statement was misleading. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing into the open what has already been said to him in a letter.

THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE

My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that there are several kinds of reserves, notably "possible", "probable" and "proven", and that among proven reserves common experience is that not more than 15 per cent. are in fact recoverable?

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I think that perhaps 15 per cent. is putting it a little low. Thirty per cent., on the other hand, might be putting it rather high.

LORD BALOGH

My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it is misleading when one says (after we had a little misunderstanding about 21 per cent. and 12 per cent.) that the figure was 59 per cent., and it is also said that British interests have been protected but it then turns out that it is only four fields, and one bears in mind the composition of the respective consortia, which is not in the least usual?

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I do not think so. I think there has been a genuine confusion between an estimate based on the territories allotted and an estimate based on the resources proven. But there was never any confusion in my mind, and I am sure the noble Lord's mind is so clear that there is none in his.

THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE

My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that to use the term "oilfields" is to use a very general term for something which is variously interpreted? It could mean "basin", or it could mean a particular well. Is not this a common source of confusion?

LORD DRUMALBYN

Yes, my Lords; I think that may well be so. However, I am not sure that it arose in this case.