Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will move on a bit, because there has been talk of energy security. Members have asked questions about the Forties pipeline and what comes in at Kinneil. You have discussed in great depth current exports to ARA, and you have talked about a crude mix from international markets.

With regard to energy security and the carbon footprint, is not there an argument that more crude oil should come in through the Forties pipeline to Grangemouth? You have talked about Finnart and about the pipeline being used for diesel. I have not heard anything about petrol or kerosene and how they would come into the import plant. From an energy security perspective, would not it be better to utilise the Forties pipeline to Grangemouth more, rather than relying on international shipping coming in to Finnart? Do you have a general comment on that? I might then have some specifics to address.

We also discussed hydrogen production and the biorefinery project earlier this morning, and the previous panel was keen to talk about importing sustainable aviation fuel. Have you had any discussions with the UK Government and other partners about manufacturing sustainable aviation fuel? As an Orcadian, you will realise the essential role that aviation will continue to play in Scotland as we move forward. What can be done to try to ensure that Scotland plays a part in manufacturing SAF? Can that be done at Grangemouth as part of the just transition?

There was also some discussion earlier this morning about energy security and the impacts of international markets. In relation to the import hub plan, the previous panel made a point about diesel coming in at Finnart and going to Grangemouth through the existing pipeline, but I asked a question about the carbon footprint of importing that diesel. You talked about the international market and about refineries in China and the middle east being much more modern and competitive, but the carbon footprint of importing from China, the middle east or wherever it may be is huge. It may well be that our carbon footprint will reduce if there is no refinery at Grangemouth, but the carbon footprint of importing could be greater.

I recognise that this is the UK Government’s responsibility, but have you looked at whether we could utilise the Forties pipeline to take crude from the North Sea basin and continue to refine at the likes of Grangemouth? From an energy security point of view in this weird and wonderful world that we live in, that would probably be the best way. It would also cut down our carbon footprint compared with importing diesel, petrol and kerosene—and, in the future, the likes of SAF.

Sure.

I am aware of the high sulphur content and the fact that crude from the North Sea basin goes elsewhere. There was talk of other refineries in north-west Europe earlier. However, maybe there could be investment in a new modernised refinery—if the UK Government was willing to do that—to take account of the high sulphur content of crude from the North Sea basin in order to get to the right end products, such as diesel, petrol and kerosene. I am no expert on this, but I have been told on many occasions by folks who are experts that refineries have a peak point in dealing with certain crudes. Maybe we could do that at Grangemouth as we move on.

Is it worth having that discussion with the UK Government, which has the primary responsibility, in order to ensure that we continue to have energy security and to stop the importing and reduce the carbon footprint?

How reliable have the revenues that are linked to military operations and planning been? How can you plan effectively when that revenue stream is uncertain?

You have not talked about what the barriers are. What are they and how can they be overcome?

Okay. That is grand—it would be the responsibility of the UK Government.

Let us turn to your ambitions for a spaceport. The annual accounts note that

“Achieving a horizontal Spaceport facility has been an ambition of the Airport for a number of years”.

What are the benefits of securing that for the airport? What progress have you made? What are the main barriers that you need to overcome? What analysis have you done of the competition—there is a lot of competition, even here in Scotland—in leading on spaceport flights?

We have just heard a little about the strategic commercial assets division, the existence of which I think we all welcome. Rightly, the cabinet secretary has pointed out that this is about looking at strategy rather than at day-to-day operations. However, some of the answers to our questions in our earlier session about strategy, not just day-to-day operations, were a little vague, shall we say.

I asked about the reliance on income from military operations and, given that such things can change rapidly, the strategy for ensuring that that revenue stream continues. The response was pretty vague. I asked about the ambitions to create a spaceport in the area. The response was pretty vague. A question was asked about the opportunity in moving to sustainable aviation fuel. The response was pretty vague.

What is the level of scrutiny from the strategic commercial assets division when it comes to teasing out the prospects for some of those things? I am not asking about the day-to-day operations but about strategic planning.

On the specific point about sustainable aviation fuel, the previous witnesses said that things might happen in one year, two years or three years, but that they would not give a date at this time. That was very vague. I hope that the strategic commercial assets division is managing to get a little more out of people than that.

The witnesses also said that people are masterplanning, and that the master plan might deliver this but maybe not that. My experience of masterplanning is that a course for delivery is set and, if something does not happen, that is a wee bit of a failure, to say the least.

I would like your thoughts on the level of scrutiny that is taking place, and on the Government and the divisions that deal with Prestwick airport banishing that vagueness.