I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
I just find it bizarre that the Truss Cabinet think fracking is the answer to everything. It's very unpopular, e.g. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/science/trackers/should-britain-start-extracting-shale-gas It's even more unpopular with the people in affected areas. It's not a sensible long-term solution to energy needs, unless you're a full-on climate change denialist. There's not enough that can come quickly enough to be a sensible short-term solution to the current energy crisis. It reeks of being a Hail Mary pass, as the Americans say.
Diddums.
You're almost up to the Mogg levels of argumentation. Well done.
Whining because you're not getting your way (which is what we're seeing in response to fracking) invites mockery, not counter-argument.
The left's problem with fracking, tax cuts and deregulation isn't that they won't work.
It is that they might.
Ha. We have it! This isn't left versus right.
It's thinking versus.. unthinking.
Fracking is supported by some (usually hard core) righties literally because some particularly egregious lefties (the smelly / scruffy ones) thought fracking was a bad idea and said so loudly.
I reckon they secretly quite fancy a bit of inflation. Good way to rebalance some of the country's imbalances, particularly our ruinous levels of mortgage debt and our generational wealth gap.
I agree with you.
This is what I was saying last night. The dirty little secret nobody will admit is that a bit of inflation is a good thing right now and helps address our debt levels.
But nobody will admit that, because saying that some inflation is OK, healthy even, is so politically toxic . . .
It'd have been OK if the Gov't hadn't sold a whole heap of inflation linked debt.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
What makes you imagine gas produced here will sell at less than the market rate ?
The comment you replied to quite clearly refers to the cost of production plus transport.
Actually the engineer on 5 live this morning who is involved in the East Midlands did say that UK fracked gas would not be on the open market but sold locally to residents
At what price ?
I cannot answer that but just quoting from this mornings interview
Meghan update. A week is a long time in the holding hands is bad > not holding hands is bad dialectic.
Can you imagine how soul destroying it must be to have to write this shit?
I think you have to be desperate to work for the Mail surely, there is no other reason you would?
The Mail pays better than any other newspaper. And it gets more visitors than any other equivalent news website in the English language bar the NYT
The Meghan story is designed to be clicked and shared. As has been done on here multiple times. Each time you do it, the Mail gets more money for its online ads. Kerching
Muppets
No it doesn't, because I use an ad blocker. They get no money from me. Seems like you're the muppet.
I reckon they secretly quite fancy a bit of inflation. Good way to rebalance some of the country's imbalances, particularly our ruinous levels of mortgage debt and our generational wealth gap.
I agree with you.
This is what I was saying last night. The dirty little secret nobody will admit is that a bit of inflation is a good thing right now and helps address our debt levels.
But nobody will admit that, because saying that some inflation is OK, healthy even, is so politically toxic . . .
It'd have been OK if the Gov't hadn't sold a whole heap of inflation linked debt.
You can add that to "with which country does France have its longest land border"?
The obvious answer is Spain, but I guess it's not that... so I'd guess Brazil (with French Guiana)
Gold star for you yes.
Incorrect though, Adelie land is a segment of Antarctic in the middle of Australian Antarctic territory, the border is huuuuuuuuuuge, spreading either side ftom the South Pole to the edge of the continent
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
What makes you imagine gas produced here will sell at less than the market rate ?
The comment you replied to quite clearly refers to the cost of production plus transport.
Actually the engineer on 5 live this morning who is involved in the East Midlands did say that UK fracked gas would not be on the open market but sold locally to residents
Well, the key question is: at what price?
I don’t expect you or anyone to know the answer, btw. But that is the key question.
Open market -10%? Or cost +10%?
Also, how local do you have to be to get the discount?
I expect, once the policy has been hammered out and if commercially viable gas is actually found, then local residents will end up with a shit deal.
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
I reckon they secretly quite fancy a bit of inflation. Good way to rebalance some of the country's imbalances, particularly our ruinous levels of mortgage debt and our generational wealth gap.
Since we now have approx 25% of national debt with index linked interest rates, it's very much a 2-edged sword.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
Yes it's funny that people get a bit sniffy about their environment, well being and health being put at risk.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
What makes you imagine gas produced here will sell at less than the market rate ?
The comment you replied to quite clearly refers to the cost of production plus transport.
Actually the engineer on 5 live this morning who is involved in the East Midlands did say that UK fracked gas would not be on the open market but sold locally to residents
Well, the key question is: at what price?
I don’t expect you or anyone to know the answer, btw. But that is the key question.
Open market -10%? Or cost +10%?
How local do you have to be to get the discount?
I expect, once the policy has been hammered out and if commercially viable gas is actually found, then local residents will end up with a shit deal.
Cynical, me? Never!
As far as I know our own @Richard_Tyndall is an expert in this field and his opinion on the East Midlands would be interesting
Meghan update. A week is a long time in the holding hands is bad > not holding hands is bad dialectic.
Can you imagine how soul destroying it must be to have to write this shit?
I think you have to be desperate to work for the Mail surely, there is no other reason you would?
The Mail pays better than any other newspaper. And it gets more visitors than any other equivalent news website in the English language bar the NYT
The Meghan story is designed to be clicked and shared. As has been done on here multiple times. Each time you do it, the Mail gets more money for its online ads. Kerching
Muppets
No it doesn't, because I use an ad blocker. They get no money from me. Seems like you're the muppet.
I really don't like ad blockers for that sort of use. If you consume the product, then you should really pay the going price - even if that's having to have ads.
If you don't want to pay, don't consume the product.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
What makes you imagine gas produced here will sell at less than the market rate ?
The comment you replied to quite clearly refers to the cost of production plus transport.
Actually the engineer on 5 live this morning who is involved in the East Midlands did say that UK fracked gas would not be on the open market but sold locally to residents
Well, the key question is: at what price?
I don’t expect you or anyone to know the answer, btw. But that is the key question.
Open market -10%? Or cost +10%?
Also, how local do you have to be to get the discount?
I expect, once the policy has been hammered out and if commercially viable gas is actually found, then local residents will end up with a shit deal.
Cynical, me? Never!
If it's viable, a mini-Statoil type solution would be ideal for UK fracking. Richard Tice (Someone obviously not on the left) agreed with this idea on his Talk Radio show.
You can add that to "with which country does France have its longest land border"?
The obvious answer is Spain, but I guess it's not that... so I'd guess Brazil (with French Guiana)
Australia. French antarctic territory lies in the middle of the Aussie section
Great factoid!
Ahh. Do they count that as France?
Yep. Same as British Antarctic territory is an overseas territory
They might count it, but that doesn't make it so. Claimed territories are a very iffy area, and the claims are in the main only recognised by competing claimants
Meghan update. A week is a long time in the holding hands is bad > not holding hands is bad dialectic.
Can you imagine how soul destroying it must be to have to write this shit?
I think you have to be desperate to work for the Mail surely, there is no other reason you would?
The Mail pays better than any other newspaper. And it gets more visitors than any other equivalent news website in the English language bar the NYT
The Meghan story is designed to be clicked and shared. As has been done on here multiple times. Each time you do it, the Mail gets more money for its online ads. Kerching
Muppets
No it doesn't, because I use an ad blocker. They get no money from me. Seems like you're the muppet.
I really don't like ad blockers for that sort of use. If you consume the product, then you should really pay the going price - even if that's having to have ads.
If you don't want to pay, don't consume the product.
Which was fine when the media companies served their own static ads on the page - as opposed to the mess of third-party trackers, auto playing videos (with sound!) and pop ups that serve most ‘news’ websites these days.
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
You’re starting from the premise of the domestic impact on climate change, others are starting from the premise of maximising domestic production at a time of high prices.
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
In which case close down your computer right now and cease posting on PB (and anything else you might be using it for).
There's no way on God's green earth the threshold changes will be put back, unless the Gov't is completely mental. Threshold change for NI is seperate legislation.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
What makes you imagine gas produced here will sell at less than the market rate ?
The comment you replied to quite clearly refers to the cost of production plus transport.
Actually the engineer on 5 live this morning who is involved in the East Midlands did say that UK fracked gas would not be on the open market but sold locally to residents
So you get the cracks in your house and you get to pay more for your gas!
The Bank of England are like rabbits in the headlights. Bailey can't believe that all that money he printed has helped cause inflation, when it was patently obvious.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
Of course we are in a recession. The Tories have fucked the economy and are out of ideas about how to solve it.
Why don't we try and help people that actually work instead of pensioners?
Because the State Pension is about 9 grand a fucking year?
My wife's is £4,800
Liked but not 'liked'. Quite
It does demonstrate the myths about pensions and pensioners incomes but then I saved into a private pension over 45 years and it means we are comfortable
Anyway, what with all the death talk around, my children asked me the other day what arrangements I had made for my own funeral. I gave them a bit of a hard stare and pointed out that I was really not old at all and that other than wanting a proper Catholic funeral (no dreary mumbling in a crematorium) and a bloody good party after it, my main wish was to have lovely flowers from my garden on my coffin.
Then Husband piped up to point out that money could be saved by using our Berlingo van to transport me. This van is utterly filthy, battered and smelly as it is used for outdoor adventures, moving belongings etc and the dog loves sleeping in it. It is a disgrace to the world of vehicles. I said very firmly that if there was any more talk of transporting me to my Maker in a shitey van, it wouldn't be my funeral we'd be arranging.
Still I have decided to become a bit fitter and lose some weight. My big problem is that I adore pasta, bread and cheese. Which I suppose are now a no-no. Porridge for breakfast for me today.
It is very dreary.
Put some honey in it - I do!
One question, if I may: what if it's winter? No flowers in the garden? (Have learnt, from practical experience as an executor, the risks of making stipulations in wills which might not be practicable whern the time comes...).
I loathe honey. My mother put it in warm milk for my sore throats as a child. Put me right off.
I don't mind a good porridge. It is doing without pasta which is making me weep...
You don't have to do without - just make it once a week only. You'll then enjoy it all the more, surely ?
I need to give my appetite a bit of cold turkey (metaphorically) so that I start shedding some pounds. There are lots of lovely Italian vegetable soups so I will start with those. And I do like broths - it is one of my signature dishes, though it does take forever.
There's no way on God's green earth the threshold changes will be put back, unless the Gov't is completely mental. Threshold change for NI is seperate legislation.
I might be wrong on that. Or Rentoul might be ?
I hope he's wrong and I'm not !
Oh I suspect he is right - remember Truss wants to undo everything Sunak did so decreasing thresholds makes perfect sense - after all, tax cuts for the rich somehow need to be paid for
I just find it bizarre that the Truss Cabinet think fracking is the answer to everything. It's very unpopular, e.g. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/science/trackers/should-britain-start-extracting-shale-gas It's even more unpopular with the people in affected areas. It's not a sensible long-term solution to energy needs, unless you're a full-on climate change denialist. There's not enough that can come quickly enough to be a sensible short-term solution to the current energy crisis. It reeks of being a Hail Mary pass, as the Americans say.
Diddums.
You're almost up to the Mogg levels of argumentation. Well done.
Whining because you're not getting your way (which is what we're seeing in response to fracking) invites mockery, not counter-argument.
Having seen what you consider arguments, I can understand that stance.
You're entitled to your opinion; I'm entitled to continue to ascribe to it the value that I feel is appropriate.
The Bank of England are like rabbits in the headlights. Bailey can't believe that all that money he printed has helped cause inflation, when it was patently obvious.
To be totally fair, the biggest driver of inflation this year has been mostly imported energy costs - but yes, central bankers everywhere seem surprised that QE didn’t lead to inflation over the past decade. There now needs to be a period of “Quantatitive Tightening”, which to be fair the BoE have also announced today.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
What makes you imagine gas produced here will sell at less than the market rate ?
The comment you replied to quite clearly refers to the cost of production plus transport.
Actually the engineer on 5 live this morning who is involved in the East Midlands did say that UK fracked gas would not be on the open market but sold locally to residents
Well, the key question is: at what price?
I don’t expect you or anyone to know the answer, btw. But that is the key question.
Open market -10%? Or cost +10%?
How local do you have to be to get the discount?
I expect, once the policy has been hammered out and if commercially viable gas is actually found, then local residents will end up with a shit deal.
Cynical, me? Never!
As far as I know our own @Richard_Tyndall is an expert in this field and his opinion on the East Midlands would be interesting
It still isn't really economic because of the large number of wells that need to be drilled and the heavily faulted and barriered nature of the fields.
There are over a thousand oil wells drilled within 30 miles of Newark and as a result the subsurface geology of the East Midlands is probably the best investigated and understood of any region in Britain - or indeed in Europe. As a result we know that what shale gas plays there are, will be extremely limited in extent and will need far more wells to exploit than a US or Polish play. It is good to see that the man who was running all of this until recently understands this and is realistic enough to accept it.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
This is why your criticisms aren't serious.
Importing Qatari gas instead of UK gas causes more climate change, not less.
Anyone who quotes climate change as a reason to oppose fracking is not being serious. If you want to stop climate change, lets start with stopping Qatari etc imports which have more emissions than UK domestic generation, not less.
The Bank of England are like rabbits in the headlights. Bailey can't believe that all that money he printed has helped cause inflation, when it was patently obvious.
I heard on the radio yesterday that the energy plan might knock something like 4% off the inflation rate, at least temporarily. This seemed a remarkable amount but if it is even close to being true then inflation will peak next month, at least for now.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
This is why your criticisms aren't serious.
Importing Qatari gas instead of UK gas causes more climate change, not less.
Anyone who quotes climate change as a reason to oppose fracking is not being serious. If you want to stop climate change, lets start with stopping Qatari etc imports which have more emissions than UK domestic generation, not less.
You are making a whole set of assumptions there which may not be accurate. It's perfectly plausible that the production and transportation of LNG from Qatar to the UK would use less resources than fracking in the UK...
You can add that to "with which country does France have its longest land border"?
The obvious answer is Spain, but I guess it's not that... so I'd guess Brazil (with French Guiana)
Australia. French antarctic territory lies in the middle of the Aussie section
Great factoid!
Ahh. Do they count that as France?
Yep. Same as British Antarctic territory is an overseas territory
They might count it, but that doesn't make it so. Claimed territories are a very iffy area, and the claims are in the main only recognised by competing claimants
True but France and Australia recognise each others claims so acknowledge the border between them. The 1961 treaty doesnt invalidate the claims made to date but does restrict any military use etc. The treaty has made claims and denial of claims moot, and France has de facto control. But if we boot it, Brazil yes
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
What makes you imagine gas produced here will sell at less than the market rate ?
The comment you replied to quite clearly refers to the cost of production plus transport.
Actually the engineer on 5 live this morning who is involved in the East Midlands did say that UK fracked gas would not be on the open market but sold locally to residents
Well, the key question is: at what price?
I don’t expect you or anyone to know the answer, btw. But that is the key question.
Open market -10%? Or cost +10%?
How local do you have to be to get the discount?
I expect, once the policy has been hammered out and if commercially viable gas is actually found, then local residents will end up with a shit deal.
Cynical, me? Never!
As far as I know our own @Richard_Tyndall is an expert in this field and his opinion on the East Midlands would be interesting
It still isn't really economic because of the large number of wells that need to be drilled and the heavily faulted and barriered nature of the fields.
There are over a thousand oil wells drilled within 30 miles of Newark and as a result the subsurface geology of the East Midlands is probably the best investigated and understood of any region in Britain - or indeed in Europe. As a result we know that what shale gas plays there are, will be extremely limited in extent and will need far more wells to exploit than a US or Polish play. It is good to see that the man who was running all of this until recently understands this and is realistic enough to accept it.
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
Yes it will and that is exactly what Bart was arguing and I was agreeing with. Concentrate on the demand side and the supply side will look after itself and decline accordingly. What is stupid is reducing supply from the UK and expecting that to impact demand when you have a readily available alternative in the form of imports. And from places with far lower environmental standards than the UK.
If that means opening up new UK production then so what? Either it will be an economic way for supplying the UK demand until renewables catch up or it won't - in which case we will revert to importing our supply and exporting our pollution.
There's an interesting nugget in the BoE report that says:
"An additional Growth Plan announcement is scheduled to take place shortly after this MPC meeting, which is expected to provide further fiscal support, and is likely to contain news that is material for the economic outlook. Once this announcement has been made, and as part of its November MPC round, the Committee will make a full assessment of the impact on demand and inflation from all these announcements, along with other news, and determine further implications for monetary policy."
Given tax cuts are inflationary, we're likely to see a 0.75% rate rise at the start of November and then another hike before Christmas.
We're likely to have base rates of around 3.5% by Christmas. That compares to 0.25% at the start of the year. That's a big increase in the cost of debt.
I reckon they secretly quite fancy a bit of inflation. Good way to rebalance some of the country's imbalances, particularly our ruinous levels of mortgage debt and our generational wealth gap.
I agree with you.
This is what I was saying last night. The dirty little secret nobody will admit is that a bit of inflation is a good thing right now and helps address our debt levels.
But nobody will admit that, because saying that some inflation is OK, healthy even, is so politically toxic . . .
Oh inflation if controlled will solve a lot of problems.
The issue is that we've never, in the past, been able to control inflation so the end game is going to be very unpleasant for a lot of people..
More importantly, it won't solve problems in a cost-free way, because everything costs someone.
For example house price inflation looks great, but utterly stiffs those who don't get on the bandwagon in time- as we're seeing.
So who wins and losses over the lifecycle of an inflationary bubble? Not just one bit of it, but the whole cycle. I dunno, to be honest. But I'd like to know so I can work out how I feel about it.
If you own assets that have intrinsic value, and particularly income-bearing assets, such as land, housing, shares in the right companies, etc, then inflation is simply a renumbering exercise on the value and income from your assets. So the asset-rich are fine.
If you don't own any assets then it depends to what extent you can bargain your income up to match the rate of inflation. Some people will suffer more than others, and some will be okay, but generally an inflationary spiral only ends when enough of the asset-poor suffer enough to reduce aggregate demand.
If you've recently bought assets with debt then you're laughing, as inflation devalues your debt, but your assets hold their intrinsic value.
Historically, the people who are most upset by inflation are those who were doing okay, and had a modest amount of liquid savings, so they felt relatively secure, but then see their income and assets eroded by inflation so that they become part of the much more financially insecure part of the population. It hollows out the middling part of society.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
This is why your criticisms aren't serious.
Importing Qatari gas instead of UK gas causes more climate change, not less.
Anyone who quotes climate change as a reason to oppose fracking is not being serious. If you want to stop climate change, lets start with stopping Qatari etc imports which have more emissions than UK domestic generation, not less.
You are making a whole set of assumptions there which may not be accurate. It's perfectly plausible that the production and transportation of LNG from Qatar to the UK would use less resources than fracking in the UK...
It isn't and it won't. I speak from direct experience of both.
But that doesn't change the fact that Fracking in the UK is a non starter for myriad practical reasons and we should be looking at serious solutions to our energy issues, not red herrings.
Allegedly @GOVUK will scrap plans to ban the import of fur and foie gras . Shelved earlier in the year under @trussliz it won’t happen and banning live animal export for slaughter and the import of hunting trophies may go too . Apparently banning things seems ‘very socialist’ . https://twitter.com/ChrisGPackham/status/1572666986554949632/photo/1
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
I'm afraid the latter point is simply nonsense, as has already been explained. You choose not to accept the blindingly simple logic because it doesn't fit with your extremely ideological world view.
As for environmental impacts; they should continue to be monitored, but not so we can ban something that could keep people warm due to the 'danger' of an earthquake that you'd need a seismagraph to even know about.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No. The point is that the cost of extraction, liquefaction, shipping and regasification of the American gas is lower than just the cost of production of British shale gas.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
I'm afraid the latter point is simply nonsense, as has already been explained. You choose not to accept the blindingly simple logic because it doesn't fit with your extremely ideological world view.
As for environmental impacts; they should continue to be monitored, but not so we can ban something that could keep people warm due to the 'danger' of an earthquake that you'd need a seismagraph to even know about.
No, fracking is so dangerous the quakes will cause our part of the crust to break off and float into space. FACT.
Nobody on PB seems to care about tuition fees or transport costs. Because presumably most people don't have a problem with them as they either don't have them or don't use them
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
You’re starting from the premise of the domestic impact on climate change, others are starting from the premise of maximising domestic production at a time of high prices.
It’s difficult to predict the future. (It’s much easier predicting the past…) If I knew what was going to happen to gas prices, I’d be very rich. However, we can observe some general points.
Gas prices are currently very high because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, the war will be over with a Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. Of course, that may not happen, but commentators generally think the price shock from the war will reduce over time, either because something happens in the war or because alternative supply routes to Europe are established.
Fracking will take time to produce gas. That depends on particular sites etc., but fracking isn’t going to have a significant effect on domestic production this winter and probably not next winter. As I understand it.
So fracking doesn’t seem like a good way to tackle the current energy crisis. On shore solar and wind are the quickest ways of increasing domestic energy production. By the time fracking is producing serious quantities of gas in the UK, if that ever happens, gas prices are likely to be back to normal.
Longer term, if we in the UK and the rest of the world are serious about climate change, then the demand for gas will have to be significantly decreased soon. Demand will decrease faster than supply. Prices should fall. A large gas reserve will become almost worthless. I don’t think that has a sunk in for a lot of people.
A company seeking new gas production has to take a gamble on what prices will be. I think many are gambling that people aren’t serious about climate change, and maybe they’ll be proved correct. It’s difficult for businesses to deal with such uncertainty. It would be better if the Government could be clearer about how we move to Net Zero, but they won’t because they want the plaudits for being green without talking about the costs there will have to be.
Nobody on PB seems to care about tuition fees or transport costs. Because presumably most people don't have a problem with them as they either don't have them or don't use them
Are you kidding? Tuition fees are frequently mentioned and fuel costs are mentioned all the time.
Tuition fees are just a graduate income tax that age discriminates against the young, and fuel duty is far too high.
There's no way on God's green earth the threshold changes will be put back, unless the Gov't is completely mental. Threshold change for NI is seperate legislation.
I might be wrong on that. Or Rentoul might be ?
I hope he's wrong and I'm not !
Oh I suspect he is right - remember Truss wants to undo everything Sunak did so decreasing thresholds makes perfect sense - after all, tax cuts for the rich somehow need to be paid for
Amongst all the posh sods speaking at the funeral, Liz Truss accent stood out - and I liked it. She’s Yorkshire alright. It’s good that common uneducated people with an accent can get right up the greasy pole in politics, it gives me hope.
What the fuck is this? Jizzy Lizzy has a PPE from Oxford and is a Chartered Accountant. How is that 'uneducated'?
Irony? LizT makes great play of having been educated at Dotheboys Hall.
One comment I read after one of her more rubbish speeches - if her Comprehensive managed to get her into Oxford it must have been a lot better than she is making out.
Or her father pulled strings, of course.
But from what I know, which may be completely wrong, it's probably the former.
That in itself raises questions about her integrity, but equally Harold Wilson played the same card most days and he was quite successful.
I went to a secondary school that dropped from seven classes in year 7 to six classes by year 10, because so many kids had been permanently excluded for violence. There would be fights in the corridor to determine who would get to sit next to me in class tests, and poke me with a compass so that I showed my answers.
I still made it to Cambridge, mostly because my Dad had gone to Cambridge, and his Dad was a graduate, and so there was an expectation at home that I would do well at school and go to university. When you told my Dad that you scored 98% on a test he'd want to know how you managed to drop 2%.
I know nothing about the school Liz Truss went to, but it's not implausible to me that she ended up at Oxford on her merits, and despite her school, and without any inappropriate influence.
It would be interesting to know whether the school you went to has improved as a consequence of the inspection regime now in place… what is the name of the school, so I can look it up?
If it's like the dump schools round here - it will be on it's 3rd name, it's 6/10th head and it's 5th Trust, having destroyed 3 of them
Amongst all the posh sods speaking at the funeral, Liz Truss accent stood out - and I liked it. She’s Yorkshire alright. It’s good that common uneducated people with an accent can get right up the greasy pole in politics, it gives me hope.
What the fuck is this? Jizzy Lizzy has a PPE from Oxford and is a Chartered Accountant. How is that 'uneducated'?
Tbf that’s a good point you pulled me up on there - and thanks for clearly toning down from your usual language to make it.
I guess I was over focussed on what Truss called the awful state school and education she started from, before making good for herself. I do accept even common people like Truss can go the UKs great university’s (either of them) if they try very hard at a subject and want a proper job afterwards.
Her dad was a maths professor! She's middle class not "common". But like most middle class people and 93% of the population she went to a state school.
This is like when Bryan Gould (to whom I have been kindly disposed since I read about him dancing a jig of joy on receipt of the news of John Smith's demise) claimed his dad was an 'agricultural labourer' but it turned out he owned half of New Zealand.
I know people who claim to be farmers. Id say they own farms. But that is an extreme case!
Nobody on PB seems to care about tuition fees or transport costs. Because presumably most people don't have a problem with them as they either don't have them or don't use them
You are an intelligent fellow, you presumably knew the risk/reward of a modern university education when you embarked on it.
If your degree has not got you the job you thought it might, maybe you, and many other graduates, were mis-sold
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
This is why your criticisms aren't serious.
Importing Qatari gas instead of UK gas causes more climate change, not less.
Anyone who quotes climate change as a reason to oppose fracking is not being serious. If you want to stop climate change, lets start with stopping Qatari etc imports which have more emissions than UK domestic generation, not less.
We need to do many things to stop climate change, and we are doing many things (if not enough). Yes, we need to reduce and then stop Qatari imports. But we were talking specifically about fracking. In a context where we’re doing all the things we need to stop climate change, where is the role for fracking?
(Existing UK domestic generation has less emissions than Qatari gas, but developing new fields has an initial cost in emissions (and in £). Developing new fields is rarely a sensible way of reducing emissions.)
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
I'm afraid the latter point is simply nonsense, as has already been explained. You choose not to accept the blindingly simple logic because it doesn't fit with your extremely ideological world view.
As for environmental impacts; they should continue to be monitored, but not so we can ban something that could keep people warm due to the 'danger' of an earthquake that you'd need a seismagraph to even know about.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
I'm afraid the latter point is simply nonsense, as has already been explained. You choose not to accept the blindingly simple logic because it doesn't fit with your extremely ideological world view.
As for environmental impacts; they should continue to be monitored, but not so we can ban something that could keep people warm due to the 'danger' of an earthquake that you'd need a seismagraph to even know about.
I don’t think the climate change contribution of UK fracking is particularly relevant, other than in the signalling.
What is very relevant and I still don’t understand, is why you’d lift a moratorium on an unpopular, unproven, expensive and potentially environmentally damaging technology like this and maintain a moratorium on the popular, proven, cheap and environmentally neutral technology onshore wind.
Tuition fee issue is simple. Scrap them and anyone going to Uni signs up to a lifetime of higher income tax in return for a fully funded course and maintenance grant. Your basic and higher rates are increased by 1% for each year or partial year completed at university
Nobody on PB seems to care about tuition fees or transport costs. Because presumably most people don't have a problem with them as they either don't have them or don't use them
You are an intelligent fellow, you presumably knew the risk/reward of a modern university education when you embarked on it.
If your degree has not got you the job you thought it might, maybe you, and many other graduates, were mis-sold
It's very well to say that to one person, but when it's a problem generational, perhaps there is a structural problem. Not just for those with the debt, but for the older generations that need younger people to pay for their pensions and healthcare. That isn't going to work if millenials don't have kids because they are struggling under a debt mountain.
Amongst all the posh sods speaking at the funeral, Liz Truss accent stood out - and I liked it. She’s Yorkshire alright. It’s good that common uneducated people with an accent can get right up the greasy pole in politics, it gives me hope.
What the fuck is this? Jizzy Lizzy has a PPE from Oxford and is a Chartered Accountant. How is that 'uneducated'?
Irony? LizT makes great play of having been educated at Dotheboys Hall.
One comment I read after one of her more rubbish speeches - if her Comprehensive managed to get her into Oxford it must have been a lot better than she is making out.
Or her father pulled strings, of course.
But from what I know, which may be completely wrong, it's probably the former.
That in itself raises questions about her integrity, but equally Harold Wilson played the same card most days and he was quite successful.
I went to a secondary school that dropped from seven classes in year 7 to six classes by year 10, because so many kids had been permanently excluded for violence. There would be fights in the corridor to determine who would get to sit next to me in class tests, and poke me with a compass so that I showed my answers.
I still made it to Cambridge, mostly because my Dad had gone to Cambridge, and his Dad was a graduate, and so there was an expectation at home that I would do well at school and go to university. When you told my Dad that you scored 98% on a test he'd want to know how you managed to drop 2%.
I know nothing about the school Liz Truss went to, but it's not implausible to me that she ended up at Oxford on her merits, and despite her school, and without any inappropriate influence.
It would be interesting to know whether the school you went to has improved as a consequence of the inspection regime now in place… what is the name of the school, so I can look it up?
If it's like the dump schools round here - it will be on it's 3rd name, it's 6/10th head and it's 5th Trust, having destroyed 3 of them
Interesting, may I ask where you are?
Darlington - now I did exaggerate very slightly there I think it's the 4th trust and the current head is an acting one but the rest is true.
What's more entertaining is that if you move to the big new build estates you get a choice of 1 secondary school - care to guess which one...
Meghan update. A week is a long time in the holding hands is bad > not holding hands is bad dialectic.
Can you imagine how soul destroying it must be to have to write this shit?
I think you have to be desperate to work for the Mail surely, there is no other reason you would?
The Mail pays better than any other newspaper. And it gets more visitors than any other equivalent news website in the English language bar the NYT
The Meghan story is designed to be clicked and shared. As has been done on here multiple times. Each time you do it, the Mail gets more money for its online ads. Kerching
Muppets
No it doesn't, because I use an ad blocker. They get no money from me. Seems like you're the muppet.
I really don't like ad blockers for that sort of use. If you consume the product, then you should really pay the going price - even if that's having to have ads.
If you don't want to pay, don't consume the product.
Which was fine when the media companies served their own static ads on the page - as opposed to the mess of third-party trackers, auto playing videos (with sound!) and pop ups that serve most ‘news’ websites these days.
And that's fair enough. So don't consume their product. There are certain local newspaper sites that are really bad for the sort of ads you mention - so I don't go to them. That's their choice in having such intrusive ads.
Nobody on PB seems to care about tuition fees or transport costs. Because presumably most people don't have a problem with them as they either don't have them or don't use them
You are an intelligent fellow, you presumably knew the risk/reward of a modern university education when you embarked on it.
If your degree has not got you the job you thought it might, maybe you, and many other graduates, were mis-sold
It's very well to say that to one person, but when it's a problem generational, perhaps there is a structural problem. Not just for those with the debt, but for the older generations that need younger people to pay for their pensions and healthcare. That isn't going to work if millenials don't have kids because they are struggling under a debt mountain.
For all intents and purposes it is now a form of tax, one that thankfully expires. No one calls income tax a "debt mountain" do they?
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
You’re starting from the premise of the domestic impact on climate change, others are starting from the premise of maximising domestic production at a time of high prices.
It’s difficult to predict the future. (It’s much easier predicting the past…) If I knew what was going to happen to gas prices, I’d be very rich. However, we can observe some general points.
Gas prices are currently very high because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, the war will be over with a Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. Of course, that may not happen, but commentators generally think the price shock from the war will reduce over time, either because something happens in the war or because alternative supply routes to Europe are established.
Fracking will take time to produce gas. That depends on particular sites etc., but fracking isn’t going to have a significant effect on domestic production this winter and probably not next winter. As I understand it.
So fracking doesn’t seem like a good way to tackle the current energy crisis. On shore solar and wind are the quickest ways of increasing domestic energy production. By the time fracking is producing serious quantities of gas in the UK, if that ever happens, gas prices are likely to be back to normal.
Longer term, if we in the UK and the rest of the world are serious about climate change, then the demand for gas will have to be significantly decreased soon. Demand will decrease faster than supply. Prices should fall. A large gas reserve will become almost worthless. I don’t think that has a sunk in for a lot of people.
A company seeking new gas production has to take a gamble on what prices will be. I think many are gambling that people aren’t serious about climate change, and maybe they’ll be proved correct. It’s difficult for businesses to deal with such uncertainty. It would be better if the Government could be clearer about how we move to Net Zero, but they won’t because they want the plaudits for being green without talking about the costs there will have to be.
I am afraid that you've gone so very deep down your ideological rabbit hole on this, it's actually 'the costs', that you feel people should bear are what is important to you. There are a lot of ways we can make ourselves (if we must reach an arbitrary target) net zero. Dressing fields with rock dust will apparently get us 45% of the way there for example. I would imagine this feels wrong to you, because there's not enough pain and misery involved.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
This is why your criticisms aren't serious.
Importing Qatari gas instead of UK gas causes more climate change, not less.
Anyone who quotes climate change as a reason to oppose fracking is not being serious. If you want to stop climate change, lets start with stopping Qatari etc imports which have more emissions than UK domestic generation, not less.
We need to do many things to stop climate change, and we are doing many things (if not enough). Yes, we need to reduce and then stop Qatari imports. But we were talking specifically about fracking. In a context where we’re doing all the things we need to stop climate change, where is the role for fracking?
(Existing UK domestic generation has less emissions than Qatari gas, but developing new fields has an initial cost in emissions (and in £). Developing new fields is rarely a sensible way of reducing emissions.)
Again not true. You keep making these statements which are based on nothing but supposition and are factually inaccurate. Qatari gas does not just seep from the ground by osmosis. It needs to be drilled for and produced in exactly the same way as UK gas. Adding new field emissions to UK fields but ignoring them for imported gas is simply dishonest.
Nobody on PB seems to care about tuition fees or transport costs. Because presumably most people don't have a problem with them as they either don't have them or don't use them
Out of interest, how do you think transport costs will go down with the immigration policies you support? More demand on existing infrastructure is going to drive up costs, and you can't build much more in an increasingly congested country.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
I'm afraid the latter point is simply nonsense, as has already been explained. You choose not to accept the blindingly simple logic because it doesn't fit with your extremely ideological world view.
As for environmental impacts; they should continue to be monitored, but not so we can ban something that could keep people warm due to the 'danger' of an earthquake that you'd need a seismagraph to even know about.
The worry is not about 0.5 Richter earthquakes. The danger is the bigger earthquakes that might happen: 4 on the Richter scale happened in Texas, for example. The current stop on activity if anything exceeds 0.5 Richter is because small earthquakes can predict bigger earthquakes. This is blindingly simple.
Nobody on PB seems to care about tuition fees or transport costs. Because presumably most people don't have a problem with them as they either don't have them or don't use them
You are an intelligent fellow, you presumably knew the risk/reward of a modern university education when you embarked on it.
If your degree has not got you the job you thought it might, maybe you, and many other graduates, were mis-sold
It's very well to say that to one person, but when it's a problem generational, perhaps there is a structural problem. Not just for those with the debt, but for the older generations that need younger people to pay for their pensions and healthcare. That isn't going to work if millenials don't have kids because they are struggling under a debt mountain.
As the Democrats are finding out in the US: fewer than half the younger generation go to university, many parents put their life savings into paying tuition to avoid their kids going into debt, many people saved hard in their twenties and paid their loans off as quickly as possible, and most of those left with debt are in the top quartile by income.
Pretty much everyone in politics, media or on Twitter went to university though, and a lot of them love the idea of debt relief.
Nobody on PB seems to care about tuition fees or transport costs. Because presumably most people don't have a problem with them as they either don't have them or don't use them
You are an intelligent fellow, you presumably knew the risk/reward of a modern university education when you embarked on it.
If your degree has not got you the job you thought it might, maybe you, and many other graduates, were mis-sold
It's very well to say that to one person, but when it's a problem generational, perhaps there is a structural problem. Not just for those with the debt, but for the older generations that need younger people to pay for their pensions and healthcare. That isn't going to work if millenials don't have kids because they are struggling under a debt mountain.
For all intents and purposes it is now a form of tax, one that thankfully expires. No one calls income tax a "debt mountain" do they?
It's one that expires once you are past the life decision phase of settling down and having a family. If you can't afford a home and kids by your late 40s, you probably aren't going to do it.
Crashing fertility rates are THE primary problem of Western societies, but it's such a big problem no politician wants to think about it.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
This is why your criticisms aren't serious.
Importing Qatari gas instead of UK gas causes more climate change, not less.
Anyone who quotes climate change as a reason to oppose fracking is not being serious. If you want to stop climate change, lets start with stopping Qatari etc imports which have more emissions than UK domestic generation, not less.
We need to do many things to stop climate change, and we are doing many things (if not enough). Yes, we need to reduce and then stop Qatari imports. But we were talking specifically about fracking. In a context where we’re doing all the things we need to stop climate change, where is the role for fracking?
(Existing UK domestic generation has less emissions than Qatari gas, but developing new fields has an initial cost in emissions (and in £). Developing new fields is rarely a sensible way of reducing emissions.)
Again not true. You keep making these statements which are based on nothing but supposition and are factually inaccurate. Qatari gas does not just seep from the ground by osmosis. It needs to be drilled for and produced in exactly the same way as UK gas. Adding new field emissions to UK fields but ignoring them for imported gas is simply dishonest.
Surely because the geology of the UK is so bad for fracking it's likely that fracking in the UK would generate more pollution per cubic feet of gas produced than Qatar?
Rajavartiolaitos @rajavartijat Situation at Finland's borders has not changed with the announcement of Russian moilization. There are videos circulating on social media, at least some of which have already been filmed before and now taken out of context. There is incorrect information in circulation.
All imploding faster and harder than the most extreme forecasts
RT used to always have plentiful anti-US fracking stories. If Russia does covertly support Western causes, supporting the abti-fracking lobby is far more plausible than them supporting Brexit.
Allegedly @GOVUK will scrap plans to ban the import of fur and foie gras . Shelved earlier in the year under @trussliz it won’t happen and banning live animal export for slaughter and the import of hunting trophies may go too . Apparently banning things seems ‘very socialist’ . https://twitter.com/ChrisGPackham/status/1572666986554949632/photo/1
Seems another 'brave' policy – allowing trophy hunting imports. Truss is an effing weirdo.
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
Yes it will and that is exactly what Bart was arguing and I was agreeing with. Concentrate on the demand side and the supply side will look after itself and decline accordingly. What is stupid is reducing supply from the UK and expecting that to impact demand when you have a readily available alternative in the form of imports. And from places with far lower environmental standards than the UK.
If that means opening up new UK production then so what? Either it will be an economic way for supplying the UK demand until renewables catch up or it won't - in which case we will revert to importing our supply and exporting our pollution.
You are talking here in general terms, but it’s the specifics that matter. You’ve also said that fracking in the UK won’t be economic, as I understand it. So we’re in agreement. It’s a bad idea.
Were there some new UK production that could be opened up without any of the problems of fracking, that is economic, great. Go for it!
Setting aside the rights and wrongs of fracking, the reason the moratorium was brought into being in the first place (aside from the earthquakes) was Cummings wanted the issue locking down in Autumn 2019 so Boris could get himself that majority. The first thing they did when he called the election was the moratorium to stop fracking being an issue.
Now Boris / Cummings have long gone (and with them the election winning nous) we have the ERG faction setting Government policy thinking that the likes of LuckyGuy and Barty is somehow representative of public opinion or even Conservative voters. Big big mistake. These people are at the extreme fringes of public opinion.
If you don't buy this general thesis, how else can you explain Rees Mogg?
Comments
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
It's thinking versus.. unthinking.
Fracking is supported by some (usually hard core) righties literally because some particularly egregious lefties (the smelly / scruffy ones) thought fracking was a bad idea and said so loudly.
Why don't we try and help people that actually work instead of pensioners?
I don’t expect you or anyone to know the answer, btw. But that is the key question.
Open market -10%? Or cost +10%?
Also, how local do you have to be to get the discount?
I expect, once the policy has been hammered out and if commercially viable gas is actually found, then local residents will end up with a shit deal.
Cynical, me? Never!
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
Quite a lot of people expected a 0.75% increase... https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1572914546590859264/photo/1
If you don't want to pay, don't consume the product.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_Antarctica
A journey of 1,000 miles...and all that.
I might be wrong on that. Or Rentoul might be ?
I hope he's wrong and I'm not !
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
There are over a thousand oil wells drilled within 30 miles of Newark and as a result the subsurface geology of the East Midlands is probably the best investigated and understood of any region in Britain - or indeed in Europe. As a result we know that what shale gas plays there are, will be extremely limited in extent and will need far more wells to exploit than a US or Polish play. It is good to see that the man who was running all of this until recently understands this and is realistic enough to accept it.
0.75% 3 votes
0.50% 5 votes
0.25% 1 vote
Who on earth in the BoE called for a 0.25% hike ?
I'd laugh if it was Bailey himself
Importing Qatari gas instead of UK gas causes more climate change, not less.
Anyone who quotes climate change as a reason to oppose fracking is not being serious. If you want to stop climate change, lets start with stopping Qatari etc imports which have more emissions than UK domestic generation, not less.
The treaty has made claims and denial of claims moot, and France has de facto control.
But if we boot it, Brazil yes
You live in a house bigger than Blenheim Palace, built out of the bones of working people. Which you were given for nothing.
Don’t you read PB.com ?
2人: 25bps
3人: 50bps
4人: 75bps
Is it first past the post or AV?
If that means opening up new UK production then so what? Either it will be an economic way for supplying the UK demand until renewables catch up or it won't - in which case we will revert to importing our supply and exporting our pollution.
Given tax cuts are inflationary, we're likely to see a 0.75% rate rise at the start of November and then another hike before Christmas.
We're likely to have base rates of around 3.5% by Christmas. That compares to 0.25% at the start of the year. That's a big increase in the cost of debt.
If you don't own any assets then it depends to what extent you can bargain your income up to match the rate of inflation. Some people will suffer more than others, and some will be okay, but generally an inflationary spiral only ends when enough of the asset-poor suffer enough to reduce aggregate demand.
If you've recently bought assets with debt then you're laughing, as inflation devalues your debt, but your assets hold their intrinsic value.
Historically, the people who are most upset by inflation are those who were doing okay, and had a modest amount of liquid savings, so they felt relatively secure, but then see their income and assets eroded by inflation so that they become part of the much more financially insecure part of the population. It hollows out the middling part of society.
But that doesn't change the fact that Fracking in the UK is a non starter for myriad practical reasons and we should be looking at serious solutions to our energy issues, not red herrings.
https://bbc.in/3S2QrPR
Allegedly @GOVUK will scrap plans to ban the import of fur and foie gras . Shelved earlier in the year under @trussliz it won’t happen and banning live animal export for slaughter and the import of hunting trophies may go too . Apparently banning things seems ‘very socialist’ . https://twitter.com/ChrisGPackham/status/1572666986554949632/photo/1
As for environmental impacts; they should continue to be monitored, but not so we can ban something that could keep people warm due to the 'danger' of an earthquake that you'd need a seismagraph to even know about.
Already had negative growth in Q2, so any negative growth in Q3 makes it official starting from Q2.
The Queen's Funeral will have probably helped ensure we have negative growth in Q3.
Gas prices are currently very high because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, the war will be over with a Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. Of course, that may not happen, but commentators generally think the price shock from the war will reduce over time, either because something happens in the war or because alternative supply routes to Europe are established.
Fracking will take time to produce gas. That depends on particular sites etc., but fracking isn’t going to have a significant effect on domestic production this winter and probably not next winter. As I understand it.
So fracking doesn’t seem like a good way to tackle the current energy crisis. On shore solar and wind are the quickest ways of increasing domestic energy production. By the time fracking is producing serious quantities of gas in the UK, if that ever happens, gas prices are likely to be back to normal.
Longer term, if we in the UK and the rest of the world are serious about climate change, then the demand for gas will have to be significantly decreased soon. Demand will decrease faster than supply. Prices should fall. A large gas reserve will become almost worthless. I don’t think that has a sunk in for a lot of people.
A company seeking new gas production has to take a gamble on what prices will be. I think many are gambling that people aren’t serious about climate change, and maybe they’ll be proved correct. It’s difficult for businesses to deal with such uncertainty. It would be better if the Government could be clearer about how we move to Net Zero, but they won’t because they want the plaudits for being green without talking about the costs there will have to be.
Tuition fees are just a graduate income tax that age discriminates against the young, and fuel duty is far too high.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/28/enacted
Has no effect on
National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/16
So he'd have to repeal both acts. I think the papers would come down on the Gov't like a ton of bricks if he tried that fast one this afternoon.
If your degree has not got you the job you thought it might, maybe you, and many other graduates, were mis-sold
Atom offering 4% interest on their 2yr fixed saver;
https://www.atombank.co.uk/fixed-saver/two-year-annual/
(Existing UK domestic generation has less emissions than Qatari gas, but developing new fields has an initial cost in emissions (and in £). Developing new fields is rarely a sensible way of reducing emissions.)
The third rail Republicans can’t stop touching
Social Security and Medicare are wildly popular. So why do GOP Senate candidates keep talking about privatizing them?
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/22/republican-candidates-social-security-medicare-00058158
What is very relevant and I still don’t understand, is why you’d lift a moratorium on an unpopular, unproven, expensive and potentially environmentally damaging technology like this and maintain a moratorium on the popular, proven, cheap and environmentally neutral technology onshore wind.
Actually I do understand why. I think we all do.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/sep/22/liz-truss-therese-coffey-gps-nhs-health-uk-politics-live
All imploding faster and harder than the most extreme forecasts
What's more entertaining is that if you move to the big new build estates you get a choice of 1 secondary school - care to guess which one...
https://www.politico.eu/article/liz-truss-uk-embassy-move-jerusalem-israel/
For clarity - this isn’t a recommendation for Atom, from me. Do your own research, etc.
Just pointing out a fairly significant move in savings market rates.
Pretty much everyone in politics, media or on Twitter went to university though, and a lot of them love the idea of debt relief.
Crashing fertility rates are THE primary problem of Western societies, but it's such a big problem no politician wants to think about it.
Rajavartiolaitos
@rajavartijat
Situation at Finland's borders has not changed with the announcement of Russian moilization. There are videos circulating on social media, at least some of which have already been filmed before and now taken out of context. There is incorrect information in circulation.
@rajavartijat is the Finnish border guard.
Were there some new UK production that could be opened up without any of the problems of fracking, that is economic, great. Go for it!
Now Boris / Cummings have long gone (and with them the election winning nous) we have the ERG faction setting Government policy thinking that the likes of LuckyGuy and Barty is somehow representative of public opinion or even Conservative voters. Big big mistake. These people are at the extreme fringes of public opinion.
If you don't buy this general thesis, how else can you explain Rees Mogg?