Absolutely, and Wood even says in the video that current investment levels are about the ~£20 billion mark per year in the NS, so its not going to die off soon, or even the next few years. However, we have to be realistic about our expectations of production, and not just concentrate what we can get out of it in its current state, and whats over the hill, as this is not a general election or membership of some international organistaion we can pull out of if it doesn't suit..
How can we make a decision that will majorly affect the economic viablity of Scotland based on cherry-picking of facts around one of the most variable commodities around? Just seems madness to base things on that.. As the video clearly points out, this is not just about our generation, or even necessarily the next (although they are likely to feel the effects), but of future generations when there is no oil and gas production in the NS.
My understanding is the the UKCS has been pretty much explored. Investment in new technologies has allow previously uneconomic reserves to be tapped. An example if the Clair Ridge project, which despite the fact that its has "just been found", I worked on the platform design about 4 years ago. It wasn't designed for a small reservoir or for ~20 years. Great, but the reality is that eventually cost will (as its doing now to an extent) overtake technical capability. Again, how can you make the case for things that haven't been found yet? Is the oft-used offshore phrase "you can only p**s with the c**k you've got.." not appropriate here?
Wood has commercial interests in recovery technology, so surely he has the most relevant input, knowledge, data and experience to estimate current reserves and what is achievable with current and future predicted technology?