Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Snap YouGov poll has just 19%saying it’s wrong for BJ to resign – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,218
edited June 2023 in General
imageSnap YouGov poll has just 19%saying it’s wrong for BJ to resign – politicalbetting.com

In all of this I just wonder whether Johnson and his close advisors have overestimated the support they think their man has amongst voters. Sure non-Tory voters have a negative view but it is the split amongst Tory voters that is surprising.

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656
    First!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Offshore oil fields are complicated things.

    Let me give you one example. When you set up a field, you will likely do it with water injection. That is, you will pump water into the reservoir as it depletes to maintain pressure.

    When you abandon a field, you will remove all those pumps and concrete up the holes. Putting all that back would be incredibly expensive.

    If you are doing remediation work on a field, you are not going to remove those pumps, and you are not going to concrete up those holes.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,416
    In fairness, this should have been headlined as 62%/19%/20% to highlight the fact that there are a considerable number of don't knows.

    Pedantic? Moi? :smiley:
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    But how many in this 19% believes it was wrong for him to stand down before fully accepting his punishment in the HoC.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,069
    edited June 2023
    The HYFUD response will be something like:

    "So 19% think it was wrong which if you add to the Don't Knows that's more than enough for a majority."
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,395
    Selebian said:

    Carnyx said:

    148grss said:
    Yep.
    I'm getting a bit pissed off with weather presenters burbling on about tomorrow being another fantastic day.
    Quite. I've just had a checkup for skin cancer (fortunately negative) - and done very fast, at all levels, from GP to specialist (clinic on a Saturday, too) and with a copy of the specialist letter to GP sent to me.
    My dad had two skin cancer growths removed about a month back, which was about a month (certainly no more than 6 weeks) after the initial referral from GP.

    Daft bugger is bald as a coot and hadn't used a sun hat or sun cream for years. How does that song go? Looks like he's got away with it though (and is now using a sun hat!). He only saw the GP in the first place because I made him do it :frowning:
    FPT - good for you and (eventually) him.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    viewcode said:

    In fairness, this should have been headlined as 62%/19%/20% to highlight the fact that there are a considerable number of don't knows.

    Pedantic? Moi? :smiley:

    Excluding the DKs, you get 77%/23% :lol:
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,049
    fpt

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    The problem is that too many people will read that and think "well that's a good thing, isn't it?" because they're obsessed with domestic production of oil instead of domestic consumption of oil or imports.
    Globally, we can't reduce consumption without also reducing production.
    While at the same time dramatically increasing the price of oil and oil-related products and services which I'm sure sits well with left-leaning posters on here.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690
    FPT

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.

    So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
  • jamesdoylejamesdoyle Posts: 790
    But if that 33% of Tories who still support him are a Trumpian death cult, that's a massive problem for the Tories going forward: not enough to win the battle for the party, but enough to burn it down around anyone opposing them.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,976
    I'm in the 19%.

    Boris Johnson is like one of those coppers up before an investigation who takes early retirement than be sacked.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,318
    edited June 2023

    But if that 33% of Tories who still support him are a Trumpian death cult, that's a massive problem for the Tories going forward: not enough to win the battle for the party, but enough to burn it down around anyone opposing them.

    It will be enough to keep them from power for two terms at least.

    Wake me up in 2032.
  • rcs1000 said:

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Offshore oil fields are complicated things.

    Let me give you one example. When you set up a field, you will likely do it with water injection. That is, you will pump water into the reservoir as it depletes to maintain pressure.

    When you abandon a field, you will remove all those pumps and concrete up the holes. Putting all that back would be incredibly expensive.

    If you are doing remediation work on a field, you are not going to remove those pumps, and you are not going to concrete up those holes.
    But the North Sea has multiple fields, right? I cannot believe that it is economically impossible to stop extracting oil from the North Sea until it is all gone, or even to slow down the rate of extraction.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Also most people think there should be a harsher punishment:

    https://twitter.com/bestforbritain/status/1669329254973157377?s=46&t=16Vx1hkPdKeRguANzrOtZQ
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690
    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Carnyx said:

    148grss said:
    Yep.
    I'm getting a bit pissed off with weather presenters burbling on about tomorrow being another fantastic day.
    Quite. I've just had a checkup for skin cancer (fortunately negative) - and done very fast, at all levels, from GP to specialist (clinic on a Saturday, too) and with a copy of the specialist letter to GP sent to me.
    My dad had two skin cancer growths removed about a month back, which was about a month (certainly no more than 6 weeks) after the initial referral from GP.

    Daft bugger is bald as a coot and hadn't used a sun hat or sun cream for years. How does that song go? Looks like he's got away with it though (and is now using a sun hat!). He only saw the GP in the first place because I made him do it :frowning:
    FPT - good for you and (eventually) him.
    I had a concerning spot for a year. I saw four GPs in that time, each of whom said it was nothing to worry about and prescribed steroids or other treatments. The fourth decided he didn't like the look of it and referred me to the Specialist at Queens in Nottingham who said it was skin cancer (Basal Cell Carcinoma) and was rather annoyed with me (and later with the GPs once I explained) for not having got it dealt with sooner.

    The GP gatekeeper system needs radical reform
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,049

    rcs1000 said:

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Offshore oil fields are complicated things.

    Let me give you one example. When you set up a field, you will likely do it with water injection. That is, you will pump water into the reservoir as it depletes to maintain pressure.

    When you abandon a field, you will remove all those pumps and concrete up the holes. Putting all that back would be incredibly expensive.

    If you are doing remediation work on a field, you are not going to remove those pumps, and you are not going to concrete up those holes.
    But the North Sea has multiple fields, right? I cannot believe that it is economically impossible to stop extracting oil from the North Sea until it is all gone, or even to slow down the rate of extraction.
    You for some reason think that Mr & Mrs Smith are going to start cycling to Tescos instead of going by car because the petrol sold at their local Shell garage is imported rather than domestically-produced.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690

    rcs1000 said:

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Offshore oil fields are complicated things.

    Let me give you one example. When you set up a field, you will likely do it with water injection. That is, you will pump water into the reservoir as it depletes to maintain pressure.

    When you abandon a field, you will remove all those pumps and concrete up the holes. Putting all that back would be incredibly expensive.

    If you are doing remediation work on a field, you are not going to remove those pumps, and you are not going to concrete up those holes.
    But the North Sea has multiple fields, right? I cannot believe that it is economically impossible to stop extracting oil from the North Sea until it is all gone, or even to slow down the rate of extraction.
    When you can do it cheaper and easier elsewhere in the world yes it is. As is being shown now by Apache, Harbour and other oil companies.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690

    I'm in the 19%.

    Boris Johnson is like one of those coppers up before an investigation who takes early retirement than be sacked.

    It is a rather poorly worded question. It leaves a huge amount open to interpretation.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited June 2023
    Still 19% if they all went RefUK would see the Tories face a landslide defeat of worse than 1997 proportions (I assume barely any of those who hate Boris are suddenly going to start voting Tory because Sunak now leads them not Boris).

    So the Tory whips allowing Tory MPs to campaign in the by elections next week rather than have to vote on the report is sensible from a party perspective.

    I also think Boris may have blundered. Remember Ashcroft's poll had him holding Uxbridge so even had he fought the post report by election likely necessitated by a recall petition he might have won it.

    Now I doubt CCHQ will let him onto the party's approved parliamentary candidates list again, unless Mogg, Patel or Braverman become party leader in Opposition
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,927

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Carnyx said:

    148grss said:
    Yep.
    I'm getting a bit pissed off with weather presenters burbling on about tomorrow being another fantastic day.
    Quite. I've just had a checkup for skin cancer (fortunately negative) - and done very fast, at all levels, from GP to specialist (clinic on a Saturday, too) and with a copy of the specialist letter to GP sent to me.
    My dad had two skin cancer growths removed about a month back, which was about a month (certainly no more than 6 weeks) after the initial referral from GP.

    Daft bugger is bald as a coot and hadn't used a sun hat or sun cream for years. How does that song go? Looks like he's got away with it though (and is now using a sun hat!). He only saw the GP in the first place because I made him do it :frowning:
    FPT - good for you and (eventually) him.
    I had a concerning spot for a year. I saw four GPs in that time, each of whom said it was nothing to worry about and prescribed steroids or other treatments. The fourth decided he didn't like the look of it and referred me to the Specialist at Queens in Nottingham who said it was skin cancer (Basal Cell Carcinoma) and was rather annoyed with me (and later with the GPs once I explained) for not having got it dealt with sooner.

    The GP gatekeeper system needs radical reform
    Absolutely. And how many people are put off from getting that funny mole/spot checked because they know the rigmarole they have to go to before they even end up in front of a GP?

    I am glad it turned out ok for you.
  • 148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    The problem is that too many people will read that and think "well that's a good thing, isn't it?" because they're obsessed with domestic production of oil instead of domestic consumption of oil or imports.
    Globally, we can't reduce consumption without also reducing production.
    Of course we can. Simply stop or reduce the consumption of it by developing cleaner alternatives.

    Stop consuming it, producers will find they can't sell the stuff, so production will drop.

    Continue consuming it, producers will ramp up consumption to match the demand.

    The only way to affect production, globally, is to reduce demand. Anything else is just fiddling while the planet burns.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656

    rcs1000 said:

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Offshore oil fields are complicated things.

    Let me give you one example. When you set up a field, you will likely do it with water injection. That is, you will pump water into the reservoir as it depletes to maintain pressure.

    When you abandon a field, you will remove all those pumps and concrete up the holes. Putting all that back would be incredibly expensive.

    If you are doing remediation work on a field, you are not going to remove those pumps, and you are not going to concrete up those holes.
    But the North Sea has multiple fields, right? I cannot believe that it is economically impossible to stop extracting oil from the North Sea until it is all gone, or even to slow down the rate of extraction.
    Fields are expensive to operate. That water injection i mentioned requires maintenance, power,etc. Plus you need to separate the water and oil when it comes out.

    With on-shore fields, you often see them mothballed or abandoned if oil prices are low. Those nodding donkeys pulling oil to the surface... well, maybe they're turned off if they require maintenance. Or maybe the RoI from using electricity to operate them is more than it's worth. Sand then when oil is expensive again, someone will come along, do the remediation work, and get them moving again.

    With off-shore, you are asking "do I keep pumping here, for minimal returns, with a high water cut, when I could use all this equipment on another field?" And if you abandon the field, it's not coming back. (Except in exceptional circumstances.)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,049

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Carnyx said:

    148grss said:
    Yep.
    I'm getting a bit pissed off with weather presenters burbling on about tomorrow being another fantastic day.
    Quite. I've just had a checkup for skin cancer (fortunately negative) - and done very fast, at all levels, from GP to specialist (clinic on a Saturday, too) and with a copy of the specialist letter to GP sent to me.
    My dad had two skin cancer growths removed about a month back, which was about a month (certainly no more than 6 weeks) after the initial referral from GP.

    Daft bugger is bald as a coot and hadn't used a sun hat or sun cream for years. How does that song go? Looks like he's got away with it though (and is now using a sun hat!). He only saw the GP in the first place because I made him do it :frowning:
    FPT - good for you and (eventually) him.
    I had a concerning spot for a year. I saw four GPs in that time, each of whom said it was nothing to worry about and prescribed steroids or other treatments. The fourth decided he didn't like the look of it and referred me to the Specialist at Queens in Nottingham who said it was skin cancer (Basal Cell Carcinoma) and was rather annoyed with me (and later with the GPs once I explained) for not having got it dealt with sooner.

    The GP gatekeeper system needs radical reform
    I have sat in a GP's surgery as we both googled my symptoms because he had never seen them before. A female friend had exactly this (GP not heard of/mis-identified condition) just last week.

    BUT DON'T GET ME STARTED ON THE NHS.

    Ahem.

    Apart from to say @eek I did see your comment about me wanting the funding model of the NHS to change which is not my position at all. I believe it is structurally and institutionally flawed but I am not going to post any more on the subject. Today.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,318
    Boris sneeringly refers to Bernard Jenkins’s nudist hobby in his “rebuttal”.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,714
    It's the true believers in Brexit I feel sorry for. Their project will forever be shackled to the rogues gallery of Boris, Cummings, Rees-Mogg and Farage. How will they ever win hearts and minds with all that baggage? As a historical movement Brexit seems doomed before it even starts.
  • FPT

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.

    So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
    But, globally speaking, oil production has to drop if consumption is to drop, and there's no obvious reason why the UK should have special dispensation to increase production while others have to cut production. Especially as North Sea oil isn't particularly energy efficient due to the difficulty of pumping it from under the sea bed (though better of course than environmentally devastating production from tar sands).
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,976
    HYUFD said:

    Still 19% if they all went RefUK would see the Tories face a landslide defeat of worse than 1997 proportions (I assume barely any of those who hate Boris are suddenly going to start voting Tory because Sunak now leads them not Boris).

    So the Tory whips allowing Tory MPs to campaign in the by elections next week rather than have to vote on the report is sensible from a party perspective.

    I also think Boris may have blundered. Remember Ashcroft's poll had him holding Uxbridge so even had he fought the post report by election likely necessitated by a recall petition he might have won it.

    Now I doubt CCHQ will let him onto the party's approved parliamentary candidates list again, unless Mogg, Patel or Braverman become party leader in Opposition

    That poll was utter bollocks.

    How young voters in Johnson's constituency plan to vote according to *that poll*:

    18-24
    Con: 48%
    Lab: 36%

    25-34
    Con: 44%
    Lab: 41%

    If you believe this, I have a bridge over the Irish Sea to sell you.

    YouGov national polls give Labour a ~50 pt lead in these groups.

    Young respondents also enormously upweighted. Just 52 18-24 year olds responded and they're upweighted nearly 3 times, to 141!

    A crime against survey methodology.


    https://twitter.com/Beyond_Topline/status/1666022809208758273
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,903

    It's the true believers in Brexit I feel sorry for. Their project will forever be shackled to the rogues gallery of Boris, Cummings, Rees-Mogg and Farage. How will they ever win hearts and minds with all that baggage? As a historical movement Brexit seems doomed before it even starts.

    Judge a project by the quality of people who think it's a good idea.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited June 2023

    It's the true believers in Brexit I feel sorry for. Their project will forever be shackled to the rogues gallery of Boris, Cummings, Rees-Mogg and Farage. How will they ever win hearts and minds with all that baggage? As a historical movement Brexit seems doomed before it even starts.

    Now even Starmer has said he won't reverse Brexit or even go back into the EEA plus free movement, why?

    Both main parties now back Brexit, even the LDs only back EEA not full rejoin EU for now. Before the EU referendum all main parties ie Conservatives, Labour and LDs backed staying in the EU with only UKIP backing leaving it.

    Longer term even if we do rejoin the EEA but still not the EU Brexiteers have still won relative to where we were in 2015
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,153
    A

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Carnyx said:

    148grss said:
    Yep.
    I'm getting a bit pissed off with weather presenters burbling on about tomorrow being another fantastic day.
    Quite. I've just had a checkup for skin cancer (fortunately negative) - and done very fast, at all levels, from GP to specialist (clinic on a Saturday, too) and with a copy of the specialist letter to GP sent to me.
    My dad had two skin cancer growths removed about a month back, which was about a month (certainly no more than 6 weeks) after the initial referral from GP.

    Daft bugger is bald as a coot and hadn't used a sun hat or sun cream for years. How does that song go? Looks like he's got away with it though (and is now using a sun hat!). He only saw the GP in the first place because I made him do it :frowning:
    FPT - good for you and (eventually) him.
    I had a concerning spot for a year. I saw four GPs in that time, each of whom said it was nothing to worry about and prescribed steroids or other treatments. The fourth decided he didn't like the look of it and referred me to the Specialist at Queens in Nottingham who said it was skin cancer (Basal Cell Carcinoma) and was rather annoyed with me (and later with the GPs once I explained) for not having got it dealt with sooner.

    The GP gatekeeper system needs radical reform
    I saw a private consultant recently and he said one thing that he enjoyed in private practise was the freedom to “invest” in testing patients. In the NHS, testing was rationed, pretty much.

    He felt this was a hangover of the Olde Days -MRIs, X-rays and many other tests are far cheaper to do than they used to be.

    He saw big value in catching things early - he repeatedly seen stuff on the lines of

    1) patient told x months get tests and see consultant
    2) went private, came to him, scans done beforehand
    3) found conditions practically jumping out of the results, that if they had waited x months would have escalated to expensive to treat, loss of quality of life etc
  • FPT

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.

    So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
    But, globally speaking, oil production has to drop if consumption is to drop, and there's no obvious reason why the UK should have special dispensation to increase production while others have to cut production. Especially as North Sea oil isn't particularly energy efficient due to the difficulty of pumping it from under the sea bed (though better of course than environmentally devastating production from tar sands).
    You have it completely backwards. Why does production have to drop if consumption is to drop?

    Consumption exists because the product is needed, not because production exists. Production exists to meet demand.

    Find alternatives to the product and consumption will fall, and production will fall to meet the reduced demand.

    OPEC raise or lower production all the time based on supply and demand. It is not the other way around.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,437
    The navy has two aircraft carriers – and may soon have no way to refuel them
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/15/navy-two-aircraft-carriers-soon-have-no-way-to-refuel-them/ (£££)

    Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships are either in dock for repair or still under construction.

    RAF retires the C-130 Hercules – we’re now dependent on the abysmal A400M Atlas
    New plane was described in the House of Lords as ‘Euro-w------ makework project’

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/14/c-130-hercules-raf-change-to-a400m/ (£££)
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,685
    148grss said:
    One wonders quite what they had in mind, considering that he has effectively been drummed out of parliament, and banned from the estate.

    AIUI lying to parliament is not illegal as such, so penalties are not going to be custodial sentences...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,976
    edited June 2023

    Boris sneeringly refers to Bernard Jenkins’s nudist hobby in his “rebuttal”.

    I'm still laughing my head off at the idea that Bernard Jenkin is part of the Remoaner blob elite.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149

    I'm in the 19%.

    Boris Johnson is like one of those coppers up before an investigation who takes early retirement than be sacked.

    In 2023 the UK seemed like just another foreign election but it wasn't
    It was different in many ways, as were those that did the voting
    In the polls those saying Boris was right to resign was 62%
    But those saying he was wrong was 19%
    N-n-n-19%
    N-n-n-19%
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,976
    edited June 2023

    148grss said:
    One wonders quite what they had in mind, considering that he has effectively been drummed out of parliament, and banned from the estate.

    AIUI lying to parliament is not illegal as such, so penalties are not going to be custodial sentences...
    I like Boris Johnson to spend 12,000 hours cleaning the toilets at Waterloo station with just his mouth as a punishment for lying to the Commons and impugning the Committee.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546

    But if that 33% of Tories who still support him are a Trumpian death cult, that's a massive problem for the Tories going forward: not enough to win the battle for the party, but enough to burn it down around anyone opposing them.

    "Not a dog barked in the street."

    There are only a handful left who will ride and die for him.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,153
    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Offshore oil fields are complicated things.

    Let me give you one example. When you set up a field, you will likely do it with water injection. That is, you will pump water into the reservoir as it depletes to maintain pressure.

    When you abandon a field, you will remove all those pumps and concrete up the holes. Putting all that back would be incredibly expensive.

    If you are doing remediation work on a field, you are not going to remove those pumps, and you are not going to concrete up those holes.
    But the North Sea has multiple fields, right? I cannot believe that it is economically impossible to stop extracting oil from the North Sea until it is all gone, or even to slow down the rate of extraction.
    You for some reason think that Mr & Mrs Smith are going to start cycling to Tescos instead of going by car because the petrol sold at their local Shell garage is imported rather than domestically-produced.
    The reason we don’t burn much coal is not shutting down the coal industry. It is stopping burning coal.

    If we stop burning oil, that deals with the CO2 issue.

    Making oil into acrylic (for instance) can be a zero carbon operation.
  • 148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    The problem is that too many people will read that and think "well that's a good thing, isn't it?" because they're obsessed with domestic production of oil instead of domestic consumption of oil or imports.
    Globally, we can't reduce consumption without also reducing production.
    Of course we can. Simply stop or reduce the consumption of it by developing cleaner alternatives.

    Stop consuming it, producers will find they can't sell the stuff, so production will drop.

    Continue consuming it, producers will ramp up consumption to match the demand.

    The only way to affect production, globally, is to reduce demand. Anything else is just fiddling while the planet burns.
    No, we can't. Globally, consumption is necessarily approximately equal to production. You can't reduce one without reducing the other. And if the world is actually serious about reducing consumption, production from the North Sea is likely to have to fall too, given that it is one of the more expensive oils to produce.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,318
    edited June 2023

    It's the true believers in Brexit I feel sorry for. Their project will forever be shackled to the rogues gallery of Boris, Cummings, Rees-Mogg and Farage. How will they ever win hearts and minds with all that baggage? As a historical movement Brexit seems doomed before it even starts.

    Brexit voters seem to me in a less sympathetic category than, say, victims of Bernie Madoff.

    Madoff investors didn’t angrily insist everyone *else* agree that 1+1=3, and their actions didn’t impact an entire country.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    HYUFD said:

    It's the true believers in Brexit I feel sorry for. Their project will forever be shackled to the rogues gallery of Boris, Cummings, Rees-Mogg and Farage. How will they ever win hearts and minds with all that baggage? As a historical movement Brexit seems doomed before it even starts.

    Now even Starmer has said he won't reverse Brexit or even go back into the EEA plus free movement, why?

    Both main parties now back Brexit, even the LDs only back EEA not full rejoin EU for now. Before the EU referendum all main parties ie Conservatives, Labour and LDs backed staying in the EU with only UKIP backing leaving it.

    Longer term even if we do rejoin the EEA but still not the EU Brexiteers have still won relative to where we were in 2015
    HYUFD voted Remain in 2016!
  • pingping Posts: 3,805
    edited June 2023
    Weird question phrasing.

    People naturally sympathetic to him are unlikely to say he is “wrong” about anything.

    Also, the inverse.

    Surprised d/k is so low, tbh.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,167
    I know it’s hindsight but it was pretty obvious from BJ’s instant departure from the fray (he usually chucks a few people in front of him and lies a lot first) that he knew how damning the report was. The last week has been an exercise spreading the shit about before it’s inevitable collision with the fan.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987

    HYUFD said:

    Still 19% if they all went RefUK would see the Tories face a landslide defeat of worse than 1997 proportions (I assume barely any of those who hate Boris are suddenly going to start voting Tory because Sunak now leads them not Boris).

    So the Tory whips allowing Tory MPs to campaign in the by elections next week rather than have to vote on the report is sensible from a party perspective.

    I also think Boris may have blundered. Remember Ashcroft's poll had him holding Uxbridge so even had he fought the post report by election likely necessitated by a recall petition he might have won it.

    Now I doubt CCHQ will let him onto the party's approved parliamentary candidates list again, unless Mogg, Patel or Braverman become party leader in Opposition

    That poll was utter bollocks.

    How young voters in Johnson's constituency plan to vote according to *that poll*:

    18-24
    Con: 48%
    Lab: 36%

    25-34
    Con: 44%
    Lab: 41%

    If you believe this, I have a bridge over the Irish Sea to sell you.

    YouGov national polls give Labour a ~50 pt lead in these groups.

    Young respondents also enormously upweighted. Just 52 18-24 year olds responded and they're upweighted nearly 3 times, to 141!

    A crime against survey methodology.


    https://twitter.com/Beyond_Topline/status/1666022809208758273
    There is a massive under 35 Hindu vote in Uxbridge and the Hindu community is very pro Rishi.

    Hillingdon council also stayed Tory controlled even last year and the ULEZ is unpopular there
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,437

    A

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Carnyx said:

    148grss said:
    Yep.
    I'm getting a bit pissed off with weather presenters burbling on about tomorrow being another fantastic day.
    Quite. I've just had a checkup for skin cancer (fortunately negative) - and done very fast, at all levels, from GP to specialist (clinic on a Saturday, too) and with a copy of the specialist letter to GP sent to me.
    My dad had two skin cancer growths removed about a month back, which was about a month (certainly no more than 6 weeks) after the initial referral from GP.

    Daft bugger is bald as a coot and hadn't used a sun hat or sun cream for years. How does that song go? Looks like he's got away with it though (and is now using a sun hat!). He only saw the GP in the first place because I made him do it :frowning:
    FPT - good for you and (eventually) him.
    I had a concerning spot for a year. I saw four GPs in that time, each of whom said it was nothing to worry about and prescribed steroids or other treatments. The fourth decided he didn't like the look of it and referred me to the Specialist at Queens in Nottingham who said it was skin cancer (Basal Cell Carcinoma) and was rather annoyed with me (and later with the GPs once I explained) for not having got it dealt with sooner.

    The GP gatekeeper system needs radical reform
    I saw a private consultant recently and he said one thing that he enjoyed in private practise was the freedom to “invest” in testing patients. In the NHS, testing was rationed, pretty much.

    He felt this was a hangover of the Olde Days -MRIs, X-rays and many other tests are far cheaper to do than they used to be.

    He saw big value in catching things early - he repeatedly seen stuff on the lines of

    1) patient told x months get tests and see consultant
    2) went private, came to him, scans done beforehand
    3) found conditions practically jumping out of the results, that if they had waited x months would have escalated to expensive to treat, loss of quality of life etc
    Funny thing is, my friend was told the opposite by a private doctor who said the NHS will do the test and the private hospital will ask first because everything costs. My own experience in the NHS is of an age gap, with younger doctors ordering tests like tequila shots and older ones guarding them like gold dust.
  • .

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    The problem is that too many people will read that and think "well that's a good thing, isn't it?" because they're obsessed with domestic production of oil instead of domestic consumption of oil or imports.
    Globally, we can't reduce consumption without also reducing production.
    Of course we can. Simply stop or reduce the consumption of it by developing cleaner alternatives.

    Stop consuming it, producers will find they can't sell the stuff, so production will drop.

    Continue consuming it, producers will ramp up consumption to match the demand.

    The only way to affect production, globally, is to reduce demand. Anything else is just fiddling while the planet burns.
    No, we can't. Globally, consumption is necessarily approximately equal to production. You can't reduce one without reducing the other. And if the world is actually serious about reducing consumption, production from the North Sea is likely to have to fall too, given that it is one of the more expensive oils to produce.
    Yes we can.

    We reduce consumption. OPEC find they have no customers. OPEC reduce production.

    Your alternative is as follows.

    We reduce production. OPEC find they have extra customers. OPEC increase production.

    The only way to reduce production is to reduce consumption. Everything else is just fiddling while the world burns.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,167

    148grss said:
    One wonders quite what they had in mind, considering that he has effectively been drummed out of parliament, and banned from the estate.

    AIUI lying to parliament is not illegal as such, so penalties are not going to be custodial sentences...
    I like Boris Johnson to spend 12,000 hours cleaning the toilets at Waterloo station with just his mouth as a punishment for lying to the Commons and impugning the Committee.
    Is there a chance that the toilets might be significantly fouler after such an exercise?
  • 148grss said:
    One wonders quite what they had in mind, considering that he has effectively been drummed out of parliament, and banned from the estate.

    AIUI lying to parliament is not illegal as such, so penalties are not going to be custodial sentences...
    I like Boris Johnson to spend 12,000 hours cleaning the toilets at Waterloo station with just his mouth as a punishment for lying to the Commons and impugning the Committee.
    Given the amount of shit that comes out of his mouth, might that not make matters worse?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    edited June 2023
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Still 19% if they all went RefUK would see the Tories face a landslide defeat of worse than 1997 proportions (I assume barely any of those who hate Boris are suddenly going to start voting Tory because Sunak now leads them not Boris).

    So the Tory whips allowing Tory MPs to campaign in the by elections next week rather than have to vote on the report is sensible from a party perspective.

    I also think Boris may have blundered. Remember Ashcroft's poll had him holding Uxbridge so even had he fought the post report by election likely necessitated by a recall petition he might have won it.

    Now I doubt CCHQ will let him onto the party's approved parliamentary candidates list again, unless Mogg, Patel or Braverman become party leader in Opposition

    That poll was utter bollocks.

    How young voters in Johnson's constituency plan to vote according to *that poll*:

    18-24
    Con: 48%
    Lab: 36%

    25-34
    Con: 44%
    Lab: 41%

    If you believe this, I have a bridge over the Irish Sea to sell you.

    YouGov national polls give Labour a ~50 pt lead in these groups.

    Young respondents also enormously upweighted. Just 52 18-24 year olds responded and they're upweighted nearly 3 times, to 141!

    A crime against survey methodology.


    https://twitter.com/Beyond_Topline/status/1666022809208758273
    There is a massive under 35 Hindu vote in Uxbridge and the Hindu community is very pro Rishi.

    Hillingdon council also stayed Tory controlled even last year and the ULEZ is unpopular there
    In 2019, India, which is 80% Hindu, voted only 37% for Modi's lot (only FPTP gave him power).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987

    HYUFD said:

    It's the true believers in Brexit I feel sorry for. Their project will forever be shackled to the rogues gallery of Boris, Cummings, Rees-Mogg and Farage. How will they ever win hearts and minds with all that baggage? As a historical movement Brexit seems doomed before it even starts.

    Now even Starmer has said he won't reverse Brexit or even go back into the EEA plus free movement, why?

    Both main parties now back Brexit, even the LDs only back EEA not full rejoin EU for now. Before the EU referendum all main parties ie Conservatives, Labour and LDs backed staying in the EU with only UKIP backing leaving it.

    Longer term even if we do rejoin the EEA but still not the EU Brexiteers have still won relative to where we were in 2015
    HYUFD voted Remain in 2016!
    Yes and I accepted we lost the argument and now like Rishi and Sir Keir I have accepted the Brexit vote and oppose rejoining the EU
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,491

    .

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    The problem is that too many people will read that and think "well that's a good thing, isn't it?" because they're obsessed with domestic production of oil instead of domestic consumption of oil or imports.
    Globally, we can't reduce consumption without also reducing production.
    Of course we can. Simply stop or reduce the consumption of it by developing cleaner alternatives.

    Stop consuming it, producers will find they can't sell the stuff, so production will drop.

    Continue consuming it, producers will ramp up consumption to match the demand.

    The only way to affect production, globally, is to reduce demand. Anything else is just fiddling while the planet burns.
    No, we can't. Globally, consumption is necessarily approximately equal to production. You can't reduce one without reducing the other. And if the world is actually serious about reducing consumption, production from the North Sea is likely to have to fall too, given that it is one of the more expensive oils to produce.
    Yes we can.

    We reduce consumption. OPEC find they have no customers. OPEC reduce production.

    Your alternative is as follows.

    We reduce production. OPEC find they have extra customers. OPEC increase production.

    The only way to reduce production is to reduce consumption. Everything else is just fiddling while the world burns.
    No-one is suggesting reducing production alone. It’s about reducing consumption and production together.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690

    FPT

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.

    So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
    But, globally speaking, oil production has to drop if consumption is to drop, and there's no obvious reason why the UK should have special dispensation to increase production while others have to cut production. Especially as North Sea oil isn't particularly energy efficient due to the difficulty of pumping it from under the sea bed (though better of course than environmentally devastating production from tar sands).
    Others are not cutting production except in response to demand and to manipulate the price (OPEC).

    Deal with demand, not supply. The latter will follow the former.

    And in terms of energy efficiency for extraction the North Sea is far better than practially every other place on earth. Go look at how they do things in Mexico or Indonesia or Vietnam. All places, incidently, that UK companies are moving investment and exp[loration money to away from the UK.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,069

    A

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Carnyx said:

    148grss said:
    Yep.
    I'm getting a bit pissed off with weather presenters burbling on about tomorrow being another fantastic day.
    Quite. I've just had a checkup for skin cancer (fortunately negative) - and done very fast, at all levels, from GP to specialist (clinic on a Saturday, too) and with a copy of the specialist letter to GP sent to me.
    My dad had two skin cancer growths removed about a month back, which was about a month (certainly no more than 6 weeks) after the initial referral from GP.

    Daft bugger is bald as a coot and hadn't used a sun hat or sun cream for years. How does that song go? Looks like he's got away with it though (and is now using a sun hat!). He only saw the GP in the first place because I made him do it :frowning:
    FPT - good for you and (eventually) him.
    I had a concerning spot for a year. I saw four GPs in that time, each of whom said it was nothing to worry about and prescribed steroids or other treatments. The fourth decided he didn't like the look of it and referred me to the Specialist at Queens in Nottingham who said it was skin cancer (Basal Cell Carcinoma) and was rather annoyed with me (and later with the GPs once I explained) for not having got it dealt with sooner.

    The GP gatekeeper system needs radical reform
    I saw a private consultant recently and he said one thing that he enjoyed in private practise was the freedom to “invest” in testing patients. In the NHS, testing was rationed, pretty much.

    He felt this was a hangover of the Olde Days -MRIs, X-rays and many other tests are far cheaper to do than they used to be.

    He saw big value in catching things early - he repeatedly seen stuff on the lines of

    1) patient told x months get tests and see consultant
    2) went private, came to him, scans done beforehand
    3) found conditions practically jumping out of the results, that if they had waited x months would have escalated to expensive to treat, loss of quality of life etc
    Funny thing is, my friend was told the opposite by a private doctor who said the NHS will do the test and the private hospital will ask first because everything costs. My own experience in the NHS is of an age gap, with younger doctors ordering tests like tequila shots and older ones guarding them like gold dust.
    Yes, whenever I've seen a GP they don't seem to have had any hesitation in ordering tests. Maybe I've just been lucky?
  • .

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    The problem is that too many people will read that and think "well that's a good thing, isn't it?" because they're obsessed with domestic production of oil instead of domestic consumption of oil or imports.
    Globally, we can't reduce consumption without also reducing production.
    Of course we can. Simply stop or reduce the consumption of it by developing cleaner alternatives.

    Stop consuming it, producers will find they can't sell the stuff, so production will drop.

    Continue consuming it, producers will ramp up consumption to match the demand.

    The only way to affect production, globally, is to reduce demand. Anything else is just fiddling while the planet burns.
    No, we can't. Globally, consumption is necessarily approximately equal to production. You can't reduce one without reducing the other. And if the world is actually serious about reducing consumption, production from the North Sea is likely to have to fall too, given that it is one of the more expensive oils to produce.
    Yes we can.

    We reduce consumption. OPEC find they have no customers. OPEC reduce production.

    Your alternative is as follows.

    We reduce production. OPEC find they have extra customers. OPEC increase production.

    The only way to reduce production is to reduce consumption. Everything else is just fiddling while the world burns.
    No-one is suggesting reducing production alone. It’s about reducing consumption and production together.
    Blocking North Sea fields while we still need imports is reducing production alone.

    We need to reduce consumption. That is the only element we can control. When consumption is gone, then OPEC will no longer be producing to meet it. If we fail to do that, they always will.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Still 19% if they all went RefUK would see the Tories face a landslide defeat of worse than 1997 proportions (I assume barely any of those who hate Boris are suddenly going to start voting Tory because Sunak now leads them not Boris).

    So the Tory whips allowing Tory MPs to campaign in the by elections next week rather than have to vote on the report is sensible from a party perspective.

    I also think Boris may have blundered. Remember Ashcroft's poll had him holding Uxbridge so even had he fought the post report by election likely necessitated by a recall petition he might have won it.

    Now I doubt CCHQ will let him onto the party's approved parliamentary candidates list again, unless Mogg, Patel or Braverman become party leader in Opposition

    That poll was utter bollocks.

    How young voters in Johnson's constituency plan to vote according to *that poll*:

    18-24
    Con: 48%
    Lab: 36%

    25-34
    Con: 44%
    Lab: 41%

    If you believe this, I have a bridge over the Irish Sea to sell you.

    YouGov national polls give Labour a ~50 pt lead in these groups.

    Young respondents also enormously upweighted. Just 52 18-24 year olds responded and they're upweighted nearly 3 times, to 141!

    A crime against survey methodology.


    https://twitter.com/Beyond_Topline/status/1666022809208758273
    There is a massive under 35 Hindu vote in Uxbridge and the Hindu community is very pro Rishi.

    Hillingdon council also stayed Tory controlled even last year and the ULEZ is unpopular there
    In 2019, India, which is 80% Hindu, voted only 36% for Modi's lot (only FPTP gave him power).
    And most Indian Opposition leaders are Hindu too.

    Here though Starmer is a white atheist, Davey a white Anglican.

    Only Rishi is a British Asian Hindu of the 3 main party leaders
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    It's the true believers in Brexit I feel sorry for. Their project will forever be shackled to the rogues gallery of Boris, Cummings, Rees-Mogg and Farage. How will they ever win hearts and minds with all that baggage? As a historical movement Brexit seems doomed before it even starts.

    Now even Starmer has said he won't reverse Brexit or even go back into the EEA plus free movement, why?

    Both main parties now back Brexit, even the LDs only back EEA not full rejoin EU for now. Before the EU referendum all main parties ie Conservatives, Labour and LDs backed staying in the EU with only UKIP backing leaving it.

    Longer term even if we do rejoin the EEA but still not the EU Brexiteers have still won relative to where we were in 2015
    HYUFD voted Remain in 2016!
    Yes and I accepted we lost the argument and now like Rishi and Sir Keir I have accepted the Brexit vote and oppose rejoining the EU
    Why didn't you back Brexit in the first place?
  • FPT

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.

    So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
    But, globally speaking, oil production has to drop if consumption is to drop, and there's no obvious reason why the UK should have special dispensation to increase production while others have to cut production. Especially as North Sea oil isn't particularly energy efficient due to the difficulty of pumping it from under the sea bed (though better of course than environmentally devastating production from tar sands).
    You have it completely backwards. Why does production have to drop if consumption is to drop?

    Consumption exists because the product is needed, not because production exists. Production exists to meet demand.

    Find alternatives to the product and consumption will fall, and production will fall to meet the reduced demand.

    OPEC raise or lower production all the time based on supply and demand. It is not the other way around.
    If the world as a whole consumes less oil, than it also has to produce less oil. I'm not stating a direction of causation, merely stating that that is a fact. The world, as a whole, must consume oil at about the same rate that it is producing it. Therefore, if consumption is to fall, then production must also fall. Somebody has to produce less oil if we are consuming less oil.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155

    148grss said:
    One wonders quite what they had in mind, considering that he has effectively been drummed out of parliament, and banned from the estate.

    AIUI lying to parliament is not illegal as such, so penalties are not going to be custodial sentences...
    I think the suggestion he shouldn’t get certain monetary benefits of being PM / an MP would sit well with most people.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    It's the true believers in Brexit I feel sorry for. Their project will forever be shackled to the rogues gallery of Boris, Cummings, Rees-Mogg and Farage. How will they ever win hearts and minds with all that baggage? As a historical movement Brexit seems doomed before it even starts.

    Now even Starmer has said he won't reverse Brexit or even go back into the EEA plus free movement, why?

    Both main parties now back Brexit, even the LDs only back EEA not full rejoin EU for now. Before the EU referendum all main parties ie Conservatives, Labour and LDs backed staying in the EU with only UKIP backing leaving it.

    Longer term even if we do rejoin the EEA but still not the EU Brexiteers have still won relative to where we were in 2015
    HYUFD voted Remain in 2016!
    Yes and I accepted we lost the argument and now like Rishi and Sir Keir I have accepted the Brexit vote and oppose rejoining the EU
    Why did you vote Remain in the first place? Were you...wrong?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    edited June 2023
    I'd have said he was wrong to resign.

    As he inconsistently remembers he was democratically elected, and he seems to still want to be involved intimately in politics.

    As such, he should have let the process run through and see if his electorate are as outraged as he is. What a way to stick it to the Committee if he succeeded.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 22,415
    edited June 2023

    FPT

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.

    So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
    But, globally speaking, oil production has to drop if consumption is to drop, and there's no obvious reason why the UK should have special dispensation to increase production while others have to cut production. Especially as North Sea oil isn't particularly energy efficient due to the difficulty of pumping it from under the sea bed (though better of course than environmentally devastating production from tar sands).
    You have it completely backwards. Why does production have to drop if consumption is to drop?

    Consumption exists because the product is needed, not because production exists. Production exists to meet demand.

    Find alternatives to the product and consumption will fall, and production will fall to meet the reduced demand.

    OPEC raise or lower production all the time based on supply and demand. It is not the other way around.
    If the world as a whole consumes less oil, than it also has to produce less oil. I'm not stating a direction of causation, merely stating that that is a fact. The world, as a whole, must consume oil at about the same rate that it is producing it. Therefore, if consumption is to fall, then production must also fall. Somebody has to produce less oil if we are consuming less oil.
    Yes, if we consume less then OPEC will produce less and overall production will fall.

    But if we produce less, then OPEC will produce more, and overall production will be flat.

    There is a direction of causation. OPEC raise or lower production based on demand, not the environment, and they have enough capacity to replace anything we stop producing.

    But we aren't consuming less in the first scenario because production was reduced, production was reduced because we were consuming less.

    So if you want to help the environment, the only solution is to reduce consumption. Nothing else counts.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    It's the true believers in Brexit I feel sorry for. Their project will forever be shackled to the rogues gallery of Boris, Cummings, Rees-Mogg and Farage. How will they ever win hearts and minds with all that baggage? As a historical movement Brexit seems doomed before it even starts.

    Now even Starmer has said he won't reverse Brexit or even go back into the EEA plus free movement, why?

    Both main parties now back Brexit, even the LDs only back EEA not full rejoin EU for now. Before the EU referendum all main parties ie Conservatives, Labour and LDs backed staying in the EU with only UKIP backing leaving it.

    Longer term even if we do rejoin the EEA but still not the EU Brexiteers have still won relative to where we were in 2015
    HYUFD voted Remain in 2016!
    Yes and I accepted we lost the argument and now like Rishi and Sir Keir I have accepted the Brexit vote and oppose rejoining the EU
    Why did you vote Remain in the first place? Were you...wrong?
    "Well, he acts like he has genuine emotions. Um, of course he's programmed that way to make it easier for us to talk to him, but as to whether or not he has real feelings is something I don't think anyone can truthfully answer."
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    kle4 said:

    I'd have said was wrong to resign.

    As he inconsistently remembers he was democratically elected, and he seems to stillwantto be involved intimately in politics.

    As such, he should have let the process run through and see if his electorate are as outraged as he is. What a way to stick it to the Committee if he succeeded.

    Yeah same. He's avoided his punishment by resigning.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    The navy has two aircraft carriers – and may soon have no way to refuel them
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/15/navy-two-aircraft-carriers-soon-have-no-way-to-refuel-them/ (£££)

    Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships are either in dock for repair or still under construction.

    RAF retires the C-130 Hercules – we’re now dependent on the abysmal A400M Atlas
    New plane was described in the House of Lords as ‘Euro-w------ makework project’

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/14/c-130-hercules-raf-change-to-a400m/ (£££)

    Let's never forget the plan had been to scrap the damn things before they were built.

    It's a good thing some of our kit gets use in Ukraine, as we otherwise appear unable to do pretty much anything.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Carnyx said:

    148grss said:
    Yep.
    I'm getting a bit pissed off with weather presenters burbling on about tomorrow being another fantastic day.
    Quite. I've just had a checkup for skin cancer (fortunately negative) - and done very fast, at all levels, from GP to specialist (clinic on a Saturday, too) and with a copy of the specialist letter to GP sent to me.
    My dad had two skin cancer growths removed about a month back, which was about a month (certainly no more than 6 weeks) after the initial referral from GP.

    Daft bugger is bald as a coot and hadn't used a sun hat or sun cream for years. How does that song go? Looks like he's got away with it though (and is now using a sun hat!). He only saw the GP in the first place because I made him do it :frowning:
    FPT - good for you and (eventually) him.
    I had a concerning spot for a year. I saw four GPs in that time, each of whom said it was nothing to worry about and prescribed steroids or other treatments. The fourth decided he didn't like the look of it and referred me to the Specialist at Queens in Nottingham who said it was skin cancer (Basal Cell Carcinoma) and was rather annoyed with me (and later with the GPs once I explained) for not having got it dealt with sooner.

    The GP gatekeeper system needs radical reform
    Absolutely. And how many people are put off from getting that funny mole/spot checked because they know the rigmarole they have to go to before they even end up in front of a GP?

    I am glad it turned out ok for you.
    I am something of a hypochondriac so I think it was always going to turn out alright given how often I whined about it :)
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Still 19% if they all went RefUK would see the Tories face a landslide defeat of worse than 1997 proportions (I assume barely any of those who hate Boris are suddenly going to start voting Tory because Sunak now leads them not Boris).

    So the Tory whips allowing Tory MPs to campaign in the by elections next week rather than have to vote on the report is sensible from a party perspective.

    I also think Boris may have blundered. Remember Ashcroft's poll had him holding Uxbridge so even had he fought the post report by election likely necessitated by a recall petition he might have won it.

    Now I doubt CCHQ will let him onto the party's approved parliamentary candidates list again, unless Mogg, Patel or Braverman become party leader in Opposition

    That poll was utter bollocks.

    How young voters in Johnson's constituency plan to vote according to *that poll*:

    18-24
    Con: 48%
    Lab: 36%

    25-34
    Con: 44%
    Lab: 41%

    If you believe this, I have a bridge over the Irish Sea to sell you.

    YouGov national polls give Labour a ~50 pt lead in these groups.

    Young respondents also enormously upweighted. Just 52 18-24 year olds responded and they're upweighted nearly 3 times, to 141!

    A crime against survey methodology.


    https://twitter.com/Beyond_Topline/status/1666022809208758273
    There is a massive under 35 Hindu vote in Uxbridge and the Hindu community is very pro Rishi.

    Hillingdon council also stayed Tory controlled even last year and the ULEZ is unpopular there
    In 2019, India, which is 80% Hindu, voted only 36% for Modi's lot (only FPTP gave him power).
    And most Indian Opposition leaders are Hindu too.

    Here though Starmer is a white atheist, Davey a white Anglican.

    Only Rishi is a British Asian Hindu of the 3 main party leaders
    But only 37% voted for the main right-wing party.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,263
    HYUFD said:

    Still 19% if they all went RefUK would see the Tories face a landslide defeat of worse than 1997 proportions...

    They wouldn't.
    And if they don't lance the Boris boil, they'll suffer electorally anyway.

    Inventing reasons to cling on to the FLSOJ is one of your more futile exercises.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    HYUFD said:

    Still 19% if they all went RefUK would see the Tories face a landslide defeat of worse than 1997 proportions (I assume barely any of those who hate Boris are suddenly going to start voting Tory because Sunak now leads them not Boris).

    So the Tory whips allowing Tory MPs to campaign in the by elections next week rather than have to vote on the report is sensible from a party perspective.

    I also think Boris may have blundered. Remember Ashcroft's poll had him holding Uxbridge so even had he fought the post report by election likely necessitated by a recall petition he might have won it.

    Now I doubt CCHQ will let him onto the party's approved parliamentary candidates list again, unless Mogg, Patel or Braverman become party leader in Opposition

    That poll was utter bollocks.

    How young voters in Johnson's constituency plan to vote according to *that poll*:

    18-24
    Con: 48%
    Lab: 36%

    25-34
    Con: 44%
    Lab: 41%

    If you believe this, I have a bridge over the Irish Sea to sell you.

    YouGov national polls give Labour a ~50 pt lead in these groups.

    Young respondents also enormously upweighted. Just 52 18-24 year olds responded and they're upweighted nearly 3 times, to 141!

    A crime against survey methodology.


    https://twitter.com/Beyond_Topline/status/1666022809208758273
    Sad to see the good lord abandon psephological credibility.

    I guess we know which side of the civil war he is batting for.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,263

    The navy has two aircraft carriers – and may soon have no way to refuel them
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/15/navy-two-aircraft-carriers-soon-have-no-way-to-refuel-them/ (£££)

    Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships are either in dock for repair or still under construction.

    One of the carriers isn't seaworthy anyway.
  • FPT

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.

    So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
    But, globally speaking, oil production has to drop if consumption is to drop, and there's no obvious reason why the UK should have special dispensation to increase production while others have to cut production. Especially as North Sea oil isn't particularly energy efficient due to the difficulty of pumping it from under the sea bed (though better of course than environmentally devastating production from tar sands).
    Others are not cutting production except in response to demand and to manipulate the price (OPEC).

    Deal with demand, not supply. The latter will follow the former.

    And in terms of energy efficiency for extraction the North Sea is far better than practially every other place on earth. Go look at how they do things in Mexico or Indonesia or Vietnam. All places, incidently, that UK companies are moving investment and exp[loration money to away from the UK.
    According to this source, North Sea oil is near the middle of the field when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions:

    https://oci.carnegieendowment.org/#analysis

    Saudi oil, for example, is less damaging.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656
    Rule one of economics: demand creates supply.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited June 2023
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Still 19% if they all went RefUK would see the Tories face a landslide defeat of worse than 1997 proportions...

    They wouldn't.
    And if they don't lance the Boris boil, they'll suffer electorally anyway.

    Inventing reasons to cling on to the FLSOJ is one of your more futile exercises.
    Yes they would. The vast majority of the 19% voted Tory in 2019 so if they all went RefUK that takes the Tories down to just 24% from 43% in 2019 even without a single voter lost to Labour. Add the Leave voters who have returned to Labour but think Boris was right to go in the redwall and Remainers who have gone to Starmer Labour or LD now Corbyn has gone and it would be even worse than that.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,882
    CatMan said:

    The HYFUD response will be something like:

    "So 19% think it was wrong which if you add to the Don't Knows that's more than enough for a majority."

    Corbyn got 40% in 2017 and lost, so no. 39% isn't enough.......
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,903
    rcs1000 said:

    Rule one of economics: demand creates supply.

    Say it ain't so!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    CatMan said:

    The HYFUD response will be something like:

    "So 19% think it was wrong which if you add to the Don't Knows that's more than enough for a majority."

    Corbyn got 40% in 2017 and lost, so no. 39% isn't enough.......
    Depends on the gap.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    It's the true believers in Brexit I feel sorry for. Their project will forever be shackled to the rogues gallery of Boris, Cummings, Rees-Mogg and Farage. How will they ever win hearts and minds with all that baggage? As a historical movement Brexit seems doomed before it even starts.

    Now even Starmer has said he won't reverse Brexit or even go back into the EEA plus free movement, why?

    Both main parties now back Brexit, even the LDs only back EEA not full rejoin EU for now. Before the EU referendum all main parties ie Conservatives, Labour and LDs backed staying in the EU with only UKIP backing leaving it.

    Longer term even if we do rejoin the EEA but still not the EU Brexiteers have still won relative to where we were in 2015
    HYUFD voted Remain in 2016!
    Yes and I accepted we lost the argument and now like Rishi and Sir Keir I have accepted the Brexit vote and oppose rejoining the EU
    Why did you vote Remain in the first place? Were you...wrong?
    As I though the deal we had was a good one.

    Had remaining required joining the Euro, I would have voted Leave
  • FPT

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.

    So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
    But, globally speaking, oil production has to drop if consumption is to drop, and there's no obvious reason why the UK should have special dispensation to increase production while others have to cut production. Especially as North Sea oil isn't particularly energy efficient due to the difficulty of pumping it from under the sea bed (though better of course than environmentally devastating production from tar sands).
    Others are not cutting production except in response to demand and to manipulate the price (OPEC).

    Deal with demand, not supply. The latter will follow the former.

    And in terms of energy efficiency for extraction the North Sea is far better than practially every other place on earth. Go look at how they do things in Mexico or Indonesia or Vietnam. All places, incidently, that UK companies are moving investment and exp[loration money to away from the UK.
    According to this source, North Sea oil is near the middle of the field when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions:

    https://oci.carnegieendowment.org/#analysis

    Saudi oil, for example, is less damaging.
    Saudi oil isn't too damaging relative to UK oil when it comes to greenhouse gases.

    However the same can not be said for the economy, balance of trade, human rights, women's rights in the particular and the funding of terrorism.

    And of course Saudi Arabia aren't the only member of OPEC.

    For a plethora of reasons, not just the environment, it'd be good to have fewer imports from Saudi Arabia.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656

    rcs1000 said:

    Rule one of economics: demand creates supply.

    Say it ain't so!
    There is no greater example than the attempts by the American government to stop the supply of drugs at source.
  • FPT

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.

    So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
    But, globally speaking, oil production has to drop if consumption is to drop, and there's no obvious reason why the UK should have special dispensation to increase production while others have to cut production. Especially as North Sea oil isn't particularly energy efficient due to the difficulty of pumping it from under the sea bed (though better of course than environmentally devastating production from tar sands).
    You have it completely backwards. Why does production have to drop if consumption is to drop?

    Consumption exists because the product is needed, not because production exists. Production exists to meet demand.

    Find alternatives to the product and consumption will fall, and production will fall to meet the reduced demand.

    OPEC raise or lower production all the time based on supply and demand. It is not the other way around.
    If the world as a whole consumes less oil, than it also has to produce less oil. I'm not stating a direction of causation, merely stating that that is a fact. The world, as a whole, must consume oil at about the same rate that it is producing it. Therefore, if consumption is to fall, then production must also fall. Somebody has to produce less oil if we are consuming less oil.
    Yes, if we consume less then OPEC will produce less and overall production will fall.

    But if we produce less, then OPEC will produce more, and overall production will be flat.

    There is a direction of causation. OPEC raise or lower production based on demand, not the environment, and they have enough capacity to replace anything we stop producing.

    But we aren't consuming less in the first scenario because production was reduced, production was reduced because we were consuming less.

    So if you want to help the environment, the only solution is to reduce consumption. Nothing else counts.
    No. Globally, the only solution is to both consume and produce less. You can't do one without the other.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,263
    edited June 2023


    RAF retires the C-130 Hercules – we’re now dependent on the abysmal A400M Atlas
    New plane was described in the House of Lords as ‘Euro-w------ makework project’

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/14/c-130-hercules-raf-change-to-a400m/ (£££)

    But greater range, speed and capacity.
    Telegraph sunk cost fallacy in operation. Alongside pitiful nostalgia.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690

    FPT

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.

    So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
    But, globally speaking, oil production has to drop if consumption is to drop, and there's no obvious reason why the UK should have special dispensation to increase production while others have to cut production. Especially as North Sea oil isn't particularly energy efficient due to the difficulty of pumping it from under the sea bed (though better of course than environmentally devastating production from tar sands).
    Others are not cutting production except in response to demand and to manipulate the price (OPEC).

    Deal with demand, not supply. The latter will follow the former.

    And in terms of energy efficiency for extraction the North Sea is far better than practially every other place on earth. Go look at how they do things in Mexico or Indonesia or Vietnam. All places, incidently, that UK companies are moving investment and exp[loration money to away from the UK.
    According to this source, North Sea oil is near the middle of the field when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions:

    https://oci.carnegieendowment.org/#analysis

    Saudi oil, for example, is less damaging.
    Only in terms of its extraction (you punch a hole in the ground and the oil comes out). But it is also some of the most polluting oil in the world (leaving aside the heavy stuff from Canada and Venezuela). It is massively high in H2S and refining it is a real problem. 100ppm of H2S will kill you. Where we were drilling in the Empty Quarter back in the late 80s the concentration was 350,000 ppm - 35%. For the same reason, it is also poorly suited for many petrochemical applications.

    On top of that their environmental controls are pretty much zero.

    And that is all before you start having to transport it around the world.

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    It's the true believers in Brexit I feel sorry for. Their project will forever be shackled to the rogues gallery of Boris, Cummings, Rees-Mogg and Farage. How will they ever win hearts and minds with all that baggage? As a historical movement Brexit seems doomed before it even starts.

    Now even Starmer has said he won't reverse Brexit or even go back into the EEA plus free movement, why?

    Both main parties now back Brexit, even the LDs only back EEA not full rejoin EU for now. Before the EU referendum all main parties ie Conservatives, Labour and LDs backed staying in the EU with only UKIP backing leaving it.

    Longer term even if we do rejoin the EEA but still not the EU Brexiteers have still won relative to where we were in 2015
    HYUFD voted Remain in 2016!
    Yes and I accepted we lost the argument and now like Rishi and Sir Keir I have accepted the Brexit vote and oppose rejoining the EU
    Why did you vote Remain in the first place? Were you...wrong?
    As I though the deal we had was a good one.

    Had remaining required joining the Euro, I would have voted Leave
    "Let me put it this way, Mr. Seal. The HYUFD series is the most reliable computer ever made. No HYUFD computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error."
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,049
    edited June 2023
    @FeersumEnjineeya I have no doubt you are a fearsome engineer but an economist you are not.

    Neither, I suspect are those delightful folk meandering along in the middle of the road from time to time holding up the traffic.

    Because as people are trying to tell you, reducing production, holding consumption equal will either force people to find substitutes (eg imports in this case) or increase the price of that product or service.

    I know it's a messy, disappointing world but that is how it all works.

    Note to add: I see @rcs1000 has pointed this out also it's not just me the horrible right-winger (although @rcs1000 might also be a horrible right-winger).
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,069
    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    It's the true believers in Brexit I feel sorry for. Their project will forever be shackled to the rogues gallery of Boris, Cummings, Rees-Mogg and Farage. How will they ever win hearts and minds with all that baggage? As a historical movement Brexit seems doomed before it even starts.

    Now even Starmer has said he won't reverse Brexit or even go back into the EEA plus free movement, why?

    Both main parties now back Brexit, even the LDs only back EEA not full rejoin EU for now. Before the EU referendum all main parties ie Conservatives, Labour and LDs backed staying in the EU with only UKIP backing leaving it.

    Longer term even if we do rejoin the EEA but still not the EU Brexiteers have still won relative to where we were in 2015
    HYUFD voted Remain in 2016!
    Yes and I accepted we lost the argument and now like Rishi and Sir Keir I have accepted the Brexit vote and oppose rejoining the EU
    Why did you vote Remain in the first place? Were you...wrong?
    As I though the deal we had was a good one.

    Had remaining required joining the Euro, I would have voted Leave
    Had leaving required getting to go out with Gal Gadot, I'd have voted Leave
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,869
    Gas is a wonderful way to create energy, and our country is blessed to have an abundance of it. Those who would diminish our domestic industry in favour of imports are simply saboteurs of our economy.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 22,415
    edited June 2023

    FPT

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.

    So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
    But, globally speaking, oil production has to drop if consumption is to drop, and there's no obvious reason why the UK should have special dispensation to increase production while others have to cut production. Especially as North Sea oil isn't particularly energy efficient due to the difficulty of pumping it from under the sea bed (though better of course than environmentally devastating production from tar sands).
    You have it completely backwards. Why does production have to drop if consumption is to drop?

    Consumption exists because the product is needed, not because production exists. Production exists to meet demand.

    Find alternatives to the product and consumption will fall, and production will fall to meet the reduced demand.

    OPEC raise or lower production all the time based on supply and demand. It is not the other way around.
    If the world as a whole consumes less oil, than it also has to produce less oil. I'm not stating a direction of causation, merely stating that that is a fact. The world, as a whole, must consume oil at about the same rate that it is producing it. Therefore, if consumption is to fall, then production must also fall. Somebody has to produce less oil if we are consuming less oil.
    Yes, if we consume less then OPEC will produce less and overall production will fall.

    But if we produce less, then OPEC will produce more, and overall production will be flat.

    There is a direction of causation. OPEC raise or lower production based on demand, not the environment, and they have enough capacity to replace anything we stop producing.

    But we aren't consuming less in the first scenario because production was reduced, production was reduced because we were consuming less.

    So if you want to help the environment, the only solution is to reduce consumption. Nothing else counts.
    No. Globally, the only solution is to both consume and produce less. You can't do one without the other.
    We can't control what OPEC produce or consume globally.

    We can control what we consume, and if we consume less the OPEC will reduce production to compensate.

    We can control what we produce, but if we produce less then OPEC will increase production to compensate.

    I'm an atheist, and not an alcoholic, but the AA's serenity prayer comes to mind here: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,903
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rule one of economics: demand creates supply.

    Say it ain't so!
    There is no greater example than the attempts by the American government to stop the supply of drugs at source.
    Indeed. My comment was an Economics joke, referring to Say's Law (supply creates its own demand). In equilibrium supply=demand so it's true whichever way you Say it.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    CatMan said:

    The HYFUD response will be something like:

    "So 19% think it was wrong which if you add to the Don't Knows that's more than enough for a majority."

    Note that the Vicar will no doubt assure us, that BJxMP is still on the job (as much as he ever was anyway) serving the good folk of Uxbridge and South Ruislip!
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,491

    .

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    The problem is that too many people will read that and think "well that's a good thing, isn't it?" because they're obsessed with domestic production of oil instead of domestic consumption of oil or imports.
    Globally, we can't reduce consumption without also reducing production.
    Of course we can. Simply stop or reduce the consumption of it by developing cleaner alternatives.

    Stop consuming it, producers will find they can't sell the stuff, so production will drop.

    Continue consuming it, producers will ramp up consumption to match the demand.

    The only way to affect production, globally, is to reduce demand. Anything else is just fiddling while the planet burns.
    No, we can't. Globally, consumption is necessarily approximately equal to production. You can't reduce one without reducing the other. And if the world is actually serious about reducing consumption, production from the North Sea is likely to have to fall too, given that it is one of the more expensive oils to produce.
    Yes we can.

    We reduce consumption. OPEC find they have no customers. OPEC reduce production.

    Your alternative is as follows.

    We reduce production. OPEC find they have extra customers. OPEC increase production.

    The only way to reduce production is to reduce consumption. Everything else is just fiddling while the world burns.
    No-one is suggesting reducing production alone. It’s about reducing consumption and production together.
    Blocking North Sea fields while we still need imports is reducing production alone.

    We need to reduce consumption. That is the only element we can control. When consumption is gone, then OPEC will no longer be producing to meet it. If we fail to do that, they always will.
    You and I have very different understandings of the word “alone”.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 4,499
    edited June 2023

    FPT

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.

    So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
    But, globally speaking, oil production has to drop if consumption is to drop, and there's no obvious reason why the UK should have special dispensation to increase production while others have to cut production. Especially as North Sea oil isn't particularly energy efficient due to the difficulty of pumping it from under the sea bed (though better of course than environmentally devastating production from tar sands).
    Others are not cutting production except in response to demand and to manipulate the price (OPEC).

    Deal with demand, not supply. The latter will follow the former.

    And in terms of energy efficiency for extraction the North Sea is far better than practially every other place on earth. Go look at how they do things in Mexico or Indonesia or Vietnam. All places, incidently, that UK companies are moving investment and exp[loration money to away from the UK.
    According to this source, North Sea oil is near the middle of the field when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions:

    https://oci.carnegieendowment.org/#analysis

    Saudi oil, for example, is less damaging.
    Saudi oil isn't too damaging relative to UK oil when it comes to greenhouse gases.

    However the same can not be said for the economy, balance of trade, human rights, women's rights in the particular and the funding of terrorism.

    And of course Saudi Arabia aren't the only member of OPEC.

    For a plethora of reasons, not just the environment, it'd be good to have fewer imports from Saudi Arabia.
    Fair points, but I don't envy the negotiators that have to convince the Saudis to cut their oil output while we refuse to do likewise. Or if you're just going to allow market forces to do their thing as consumption falls, than North Sea oil is likely to be one of the first to become unprofitable in any case. A refusal to accept that production of North Sea oil has to fall is basically the same as refusing to accept that consumption has to fall.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited June 2023

    CatMan said:

    The HYFUD response will be something like:

    "So 19% think it was wrong which if you add to the Don't Knows that's more than enough for a majority."

    Corbyn got 40% in 2017 and lost, so no. 39% isn't enough.......
    35% was enough for Blair in 2005 to get a majority, 37% enough for Cameron to get a majority in 2015.

    The collapse of the LDs post 2015 means you usually need over 40% for a majority now, even in current polls the LDs are on about half their May 2010 level. While the SNP and UKIP taking Labour votes in 2015 helped Cameron get a small majority even under 40% and with the LDs collapse
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,049

    FPT

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.

    So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
    But, globally speaking, oil production has to drop if consumption is to drop, and there's no obvious reason why the UK should have special dispensation to increase production while others have to cut production. Especially as North Sea oil isn't particularly energy efficient due to the difficulty of pumping it from under the sea bed (though better of course than environmentally devastating production from tar sands).
    Others are not cutting production except in response to demand and to manipulate the price (OPEC).

    Deal with demand, not supply. The latter will follow the former.

    And in terms of energy efficiency for extraction the North Sea is far better than practially every other place on earth. Go look at how they do things in Mexico or Indonesia or Vietnam. All places, incidently, that UK companies are moving investment and exp[loration money to away from the UK.
    According to this source, North Sea oil is near the middle of the field when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions:

    https://oci.carnegieendowment.org/#analysis

    Saudi oil, for example, is less damaging.
    Saudi oil isn't too damaging relative to UK oil when it comes to greenhouse gases.

    However the same can not be said for the economy, balance of trade, human rights, women's rights in the particular and the funding of terrorism.

    And of course Saudi Arabia aren't the only member of OPEC.

    For a plethora of reasons, not just the environment, it'd be good to have fewer imports from Saudi Arabia.
    Fair points, but I don't envy the negotiators that have to convince the Saudis to cut their oil output while we refuse to do likewise. Or if you're just going to allow market forces to do their thing as consumption falls, than North Sea oil is likely to be one of the first to become unprofitable in any case. A refusal to accept that production of North Sea oil has to fall is basically the same as refusing to accept that consumption has to fall.
    One should follow the other. It is up to us, you, to convince people to cycle to Tescos for their weekly shop and turn the lights out when they walk out of the room, and stop posting on PB, and then when there is a surplus of supply prices will fall and producers will exit the market.

    Until then they will stay in equilibrium and this despite the shenanigans of OPEC which is the least market-friendly organisation on the planet but they hold many of the cards.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656

    FPT

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.

    So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
    But, globally speaking, oil production has to drop if consumption is to drop, and there's no obvious reason why the UK should have special dispensation to increase production while others have to cut production. Especially as North Sea oil isn't particularly energy efficient due to the difficulty of pumping it from under the sea bed (though better of course than environmentally devastating production from tar sands).
    Others are not cutting production except in response to demand and to manipulate the price (OPEC).

    Deal with demand, not supply. The latter will follow the former.

    And in terms of energy efficiency for extraction the North Sea is far better than practially every other place on earth. Go look at how they do things in Mexico or Indonesia or Vietnam. All places, incidently, that UK companies are moving investment and exp[loration money to away from the UK.
    According to this source, North Sea oil is near the middle of the field when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions:

    https://oci.carnegieendowment.org/#analysis

    Saudi oil, for example, is less damaging.
    Only in terms of its extraction (you punch a hole in the ground and the oil comes out). But it is also some of the most polluting oil in the world (leaving aside the heavy stuff from Canada and Venezuela). It is massively high in H2S and refining it is a real problem. 100ppm of H2S will kill you. Where we were drilling in the Empty Quarter back in the late 80s the concentration was 350,000 ppm - 35%. For the same reason, it is also poorly suited for many petrochemical applications.

    On top of that their environmental controls are pretty much zero.

    And that is all before you start having to transport it around the world.

    (Sorry to be a pedant, but transportation costs are very modest in the general scheme of things - I doubt more than 0.5% of total CO2 emissions from a barrel of oil.)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,145

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rule one of economics: demand creates supply.

    Say it ain't so!
    There is no greater example than the attempts by the American government to stop the supply of drugs at source.
    Indeed. My comment was an Economics joke, referring to Say's Law (supply creates its own demand). In equilibrium supply=demand so it's true whichever way you Say it.
    Indeed, if demand is less than supply then the price cheapens, creating more demand. There is a certain built in inertia in the system.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,730

    FPT

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.

    So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
    But, globally speaking, oil production has to drop if consumption is to drop, and there's no obvious reason why the UK should have special dispensation to increase production while others have to cut production. Especially as North Sea oil isn't particularly energy efficient due to the difficulty of pumping it from under the sea bed (though better of course than environmentally devastating production from tar sands).
    Others are not cutting production except in response to demand and to manipulate the price (OPEC).

    Deal with demand, not supply. The latter will follow the former.

    And in terms of energy efficiency for extraction the North Sea is far better than practially every other place on earth. Go look at how they do things in Mexico or Indonesia or Vietnam. All places, incidently, that UK companies are moving investment and exp[loration money to away from the UK.
    According to this source, North Sea oil is near the middle of the field when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions:

    https://oci.carnegieendowment.org/#analysis

    Saudi oil, for example, is less damaging.
    Saudi oil isn't too damaging relative to UK oil when it comes to greenhouse gases.

    However the same can not be said for the economy, balance of trade, human rights, women's rights in the particular and the funding of terrorism.

    And of course Saudi Arabia aren't the only member of OPEC.

    For a plethora of reasons, not just the environment, it'd be good to have fewer imports from Saudi Arabia.
    Fair points, but I don't envy the negotiators that have to convince the Saudis to cut their oil output while we refuse to do likewise. Or if you're just going to allow market forces to do their thing as consumption falls, than North Sea oil is likely to be one of the first to become unprofitable in any case. A refusal to accept that production of North Sea oil has to fall is basically the same as refusing to accept that consumption has to fall.
    Nobody has to negotiate with the Saudis, they just have to stop buying their stuff.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509

    FPT

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.

    So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
    Guaranteed UK will pick that option , F*ck the planet up and pay through the nose doing it whilst sanctimoniously claiming they are saving the environment.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,976
    edited June 2023
    Confirmed: 20th Jul for Selby and Uxbridge by-elections

    https://twitter.com/e_casalicchio/status/1669351423325409280?s=46
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,869
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT

    148grss said:
    And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
    If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦‍♂️
    Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
    No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
    Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
    Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.

    So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
    But, globally speaking, oil production has to drop if consumption is to drop, and there's no obvious reason why the UK should have special dispensation to increase production while others have to cut production. Especially as North Sea oil isn't particularly energy efficient due to the difficulty of pumping it from under the sea bed (though better of course than environmentally devastating production from tar sands).
    Others are not cutting production except in response to demand and to manipulate the price (OPEC).

    Deal with demand, not supply. The latter will follow the former.

    And in terms of energy efficiency for extraction the North Sea is far better than practially every other place on earth. Go look at how they do things in Mexico or Indonesia or Vietnam. All places, incidently, that UK companies are moving investment and exp[loration money to away from the UK.
    According to this source, North Sea oil is near the middle of the field when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions:

    https://oci.carnegieendowment.org/#analysis

    Saudi oil, for example, is less damaging.
    Only in terms of its extraction (you punch a hole in the ground and the oil comes out). But it is also some of the most polluting oil in the world (leaving aside the heavy stuff from Canada and Venezuela). It is massively high in H2S and refining it is a real problem. 100ppm of H2S will kill you. Where we were drilling in the Empty Quarter back in the late 80s the concentration was 350,000 ppm - 35%. For the same reason, it is also poorly suited for many petrochemical applications.

    On top of that their environmental controls are pretty much zero.

    And that is all before you start having to transport it around the world.

    (Sorry to be a pedant, but transportation costs are very modest in the general scheme of things - I doubt more than 0.5% of total CO2 emissions from a barrel of oil.)
    That's not a small amount. And for gas, there's also liquefying it for transit.

    Not that actual carbon emissions would have any bearing on the enthusiasm of certain people to destroy the UK industry.
This discussion has been closed.