@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).
It doesn't take an economist to see that if, in 15 years or so, the world is consuming half as much oil as it is now - as it must if we at all serious about limiting climate change - then it must also be producing half as much oil as now. That's just basic logic.
And if you are letting market forces do the job of destroying production by reducing consumption, that it doesn't take much of an economist to see that only those oil fields that can produce most cheaply will still be producing by then. These almost certainly don't include those in the North Sea. Ergo, there is little point continuing to invest in new oil production from the North Sea if the world is serious about combating climate change.
So no Mid Beds. I think there is a chance the Tories hold both, Selby on a split opposition vote between Labour and LDs, Uxbridge on a personal Hindu vote for Rishi and an anti Ulez vote.
I suspect the LDs will gain Mid Beds though when Dorries does finally step down and Labour will gain Rutherglen from the SNP
@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).
It doesn't take an economist to see that if, in 15 years or so, the world is consuming half as much oil as it is now - as it must if we at all serious about limiting climate change - then it must also be producing half as much oil as now. That's just basic logic.
And if you are letting market forces do the job of destroying production by reducing consumption, that it doesn't take much of an economist to see that only those oil fields that can produce most cheaply will still be producing by then. These almost certainly don't include those in the North Sea. Ergo, there is little point continuing to invest in new oil production from the North Sea if the world is serious about combating climate change.
Maybe the market will prefer 'Fairtrade' oil from the North Sea instead of 'Oppressive regime' oil from the Saudis?
Selby was a marginal seat in 1997, 2001 and 2005. This is Richard Bilton reporting from the Selby count at about 6 in the morning on election night 2005 where the result still hadn't been declared because it was very close.
Selby was a marginal seat in 1997, 2001 and 2005. This is Richard Bilton reporting from the Selby count at about 6 in the morning on election night 2005 where the result still hadn't been declared because it was very close.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
'WE' are less than 1% of the global population and already use more renewables and less fossil fuels than the global average.
As we are also seeing it also means more Mediterrenean style summers in the UK which is good for our tourism industry even if Southern Europe gets Middle Eastern and North African temperatures regularly and becomes too hot for many tourists.
So not all bad for us at least, plus it will boost the English wine industry too. You may get people holidaying in Blackpool and Southend and Bournemouth again rather than Spain and Greece and avoiding the higher costs of plane tickets as fuel prices rise
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:
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.
Get a friend to explain to you what it means. If ...
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
'WE' are less than 1% of the UK population and already use more renewables and less fossil fuels than the global average.
As we are also seeing it also means more Mediterrenean style summers in the UK which is good for our tourism industry even if Southern Europe gets Middle Eastern and North African temperatures regularly and becomes too hot for many tourists.
So not all bad for us at least, plus it will boost the English wine industry too
"Less than 1% of the UK population"? Boris supporters who think the main effect of climate change is to boost the English wine indistrY?
Be more likely the Scottish wine industry, on the greywackes of the Border hills, the way things are going.
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
FPT - good for you and (eventually) him.
I pick up a fair number of skin cancers in my clinic, and send on to dermatology. Often people are unaware of them, and they don't raise them with their GPs in phone consultations etc.
Oh, good for you. Is that only on face and hands, or do you strip them off anyway?
@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).
It doesn't take an economist to see that if, in 15 years or so, the world is consuming half as much oil as it is now - as it must if we at all serious about limiting climate change - then it must also be producing half as much oil as now. That's just basic logic.
And if you are letting market forces do the job of destroying production by reducing consumption, that it doesn't take much of an economist to see that only those oil fields that can produce most cheaply will still be producing by then. These almost certainly don't include those in the North Sea. Ergo, there is little point continuing to invest in new oil production from the North Sea if the world is serious about combating climate change.
There is a great deal of point in it if we wish to continue to have a strong petrochemical industry, a healthy balance of trade and some semblance of energy independence for the next 40 or 50 years. There is also the point that until such times as the North Sea does become uneconomic we are far better using the oil and gas from there than we are transporting it half way around the world.
Also worth remembering that if you are talking about existential threats, Europe would not be in half the mess it is in over Ukraine if they had not become beholden to Russian gas. To some extent they had no choice. We do.
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:
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.
Would you like to look into the amount of energy required to hydraulically fracture rock, and to compare it to liquification and transport costs required?
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
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
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
My GP had the attitude that she didn't like the look of three of them but there were plenty of spots on me anyway (age, fair skin, even though I've never sunbathed, sunburn is too easy) and she wasn't going to risk it - off to the specialist. Actually the one that caused her most toothsucking was benign, but I daresay some are harder than ohters. One spot is definitely to be watched for changes, though.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
'WE' are less than 1% of the global population and already use more renewables and less fossil fuels than the global average.
As we are also seeing it also means more Mediterrenean style summers in the UK which is good for our tourism industry even if Southern Europe gets Middle Eastern and North African temperatures regularly and becomes too hot for many tourists.
So not all bad for us at least, plus it will boost the English wine industry too. You may get people holidaying in Blackpool and Southend and Bournemouth again rather than Spain and Greece and avoiding the higher costs of plane tickets as fuel prices rise
The prospect of paddling in turds and relentless water shortages thanks to perennial lack of investment may not turn out to be huge tourist attractions.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
Looking on the bright side, Birmingham will one day become the capital of the North-West European archipelago, and the nearest beach will be just down the road at Tamworth-on-Sea.
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.
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
FPT - good for you and (eventually) him.
I pick up a fair number of skin cancers in my clinic, and send on to dermatology. Often people are unaware of them, and they don't raise them with their GPs in phone consultations etc.
Oh, good for you. Is that only on face and hands, or do you strip them off anyway?
Incidental findings of suspect skin cancers when looking for other things mostly.
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."
Is the HYFUD computer the one used by the Post Office?
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
Looking on the bright side, Birmingham will one day become the capital of the North-West European archipelago, and the nearest beach will be just down the road at Tamworth-on-Sea.
And who said they had no future after voting for Brexit!
On topic, it was only the invasion of Ukraine that saved Boris' sorry arse early last year.
The idea that the Conservatives were going to don the shamic horns and close Westminster's bars in an act of co-ordinated outrage rested in the febrile nut of just one man.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
'WE' are less than 1% of the global population and already use more renewables and less fossil fuels than the global average.
As we are also seeing it also means more Mediterrenean style summers in the UK which is good for our tourism industry even if Southern Europe gets Middle Eastern and North African temperatures regularly and becomes too hot for many tourists.
So not all bad for us at least, plus it will boost the English wine industry too. You may get people holidaying in Blackpool and Southend and Bournemouth again rather than Spain and Greece and avoiding the higher costs of plane tickets as fuel prices rise
In 1943, you'd presumably have been asking people to look at the positive aspects of the death camps for the British economy.
The older I get and the more I get accustomed to how stupid people can be, the less I find things can shock me, but you can still manage it.
On topic, it was only the invasion of Ukraine that saved Boris' sorry arse early last year.
The idea that the Conservatives were going to don the shamic horns and close Westminster's bars in an act of co-ordinated outrage rested in the febrile nut of just one man.
I feel we’ve talked about Boris Johnson’s febrile nuts too much.
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:
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.
Would you like to look into the amount of energy required to hydraulically fracture rock, and to compare it to liquification and transport costs required?
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
This I do agree with entirely. Fracking was always a non starter in the UK both economically and practically.
Selby was a marginal seat in 1997, 2001 and 2005. This is Richard Bilton reporting from the Selby count at about 6 in the morning on election night 2005 where the result still hadn't been declared because it was very close.
Yes and Curtice said on Peston last night even on current boundaries Blair would have likely won Selby in 1997 and 2001.
So Starmer will want to be competitive there to show Labour is on course for a comfortable majority and likely will refuse to give the LDs a clear run
Remember though that Selby-like seats (small town/village, socially mixed, lightly touched by coal mining) have got relatively more Conservative over the past 30 years.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
'WE' are less than 1% of the global population and already use more renewables and less fossil fuels than the global average.
As we are also seeing it also means more Mediterrenean style summers in the UK which is good for our tourism industry even if Southern Europe gets Middle Eastern and North African temperatures regularly and becomes too hot for many tourists.
So not all bad for us at least, plus it will boost the English wine industry too. You may get people holidaying in Blackpool and Southend and Bournemouth again rather than Spain and Greece and avoiding the higher costs of plane tickets as fuel prices rise
In 1943, you'd presumably have been asking people to look at the positive aspects of the death camps for the British economy.
The older I get and the more I get accustomed to how stupid people can be, the less I find things can shock me, but you can still manage it.
@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).
It doesn't take an economist to see that if, in 15 years or so, the world is consuming half as much oil as it is now - as it must if we at all serious about limiting climate change - then it must also be producing half as much oil as now. That's just basic logic.
And if you are letting market forces do the job of destroying production by reducing consumption, that it doesn't take much of an economist to see that only those oil fields that can produce most cheaply will still be producing by then. These almost certainly don't include those in the North Sea. Ergo, there is little point continuing to invest in new oil production from the North Sea if the world is serious about combating climate change.
A lot mixed up in there and a lot of hope (over experience?).
"if, in 15 years or so, the world is consuming half as much oil as it is now - as it must..."
Maybe it will be maybe it won't; I haven't looked at oil consumption trends over the last 15 years but I'm not sure that people are going to stop doing by half the things that they are currently doing and hence we need to find substitutes for fossil fuels. Do we have them? We are certainly on our way and time will tell whether we get there in 15 years as you hope.
But just saying "as it must" means nothing. You must give people an alternative that is affordable, together with a campaign of education, otherwise you hoping it will happen won't mean it will happen.
Same with the JSO pedestrians. They are not engaging with people, they are lecturing them. They are telling people that "they know best" which people never respond to well.
People vote with their feet and to date, Easter Island-ish as it may be, they are choosing not to.
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
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
Looking on the bright side, Birmingham will one day become the capital of the North-West European archipelago, and the nearest beach will be just down the road at Tamworth-on-Sea.
Yes, but the beaches will be rather crowded by a billion climate refugees from Africa and the Middle East, and too little ice cream to go around.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
'WE' are less than 1% of the global population and already use more renewables and less fossil fuels than the global average.
As we are also seeing it also means more Mediterrenean style summers in the UK which is good for our tourism industry even if Southern Europe gets Middle Eastern and North African temperatures regularly and becomes too hot for many tourists.
So not all bad for us at least, plus it will boost the English wine industry too. You may get people holidaying in Blackpool and Southend and Bournemouth again rather than Spain and Greece and avoiding the higher costs of plane tickets as fuel prices rise
World consumption of fossil fuels per capita: 17,197 kWh UK consumption of fossil fuels per capita: 22,610 kWh
Selby was a marginal seat in 1997, 2001 and 2005. This is Richard Bilton reporting from the Selby count at about 6 in the morning on election night 2005 where the result still hadn't been declared because it was very close.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
Looking on the bright side, Birmingham will one day become the capital of the North-West European archipelago, and the nearest beach will be just down the road at Tamworth-on-Sea.
Yes, but the beaches will be rather crowded by a billion climate refugees from Africa and the Middle East, and too little ice cream to go around.
Not if more rightwing populists like Meloni get elected in Southern Europe to stop the boats and of course they then have to cross the English Channel too even if they get through there
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
Sadly, I think you are right. When even the smart people on this forum will bend over backwards to justify or excuse the continued extraction and consumption of fossil fuels (no, somebody else has to reduce production, not us), then I think the world is likely to become a grim place for our descendants. We had our chance, and we blew it.
This is a problematic poll. How many think should not have resigned because did nothing wrong and how many, should not have resigned because did something very wrong indeed and should have taken the punishment?
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
Looking on the bright side, Birmingham will one day become the capital of the North-West European archipelago, and the nearest beach will be just down the road at Tamworth-on-Sea.
Yes, but the beaches will be rather crowded by a billion climate refugees from Africa and the Middle East, and too little ice cream to go around.
And no cod left for the fish and chips. It'll all be squid and chips.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
Looking on the bright side, Birmingham will one day become the capital of the North-West European archipelago, and the nearest beach will be just down the road at Tamworth-on-Sea.
Yes, but the beaches will be rather crowded by a billion climate refugees from Africa and the Middle East, and too little ice cream to go around.
And no cod left for the fish and chips. It'll all be squid and chips.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
Looking on the bright side, Birmingham will one day become the capital of the North-West European archipelago, and the nearest beach will be just down the road at Tamworth-on-Sea.
Yes, but the beaches will be rather crowded by a billion climate refugees from Africa and the Middle East, and too little ice cream to go around.
And no cod left for the fish and chips. It'll all be squid and chips.
Too hot for potatoes. Probably cassava or something for the chips.
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:
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.
Would you like to look into the amount of energy required to hydraulically fracture rock, and to compare it to liquification and transport costs required?
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
This I do agree with entirely. Fracking was always a non starter in the UK both economically and practically.
Neither of you are even close to impartial on this topic - next.
This is a problematic poll. How many think should not have resigned because did nothing wrong and how many, should not have resigned because did something very wrong indeed and should have taken the punishment?
I agree; it's mixing two (or perhaps several) different viewpoints on Bojo and the conflated numbers tell us very little.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
'WE' are less than 1% of the global population and already use more renewables and less fossil fuels than the global average.
As we are also seeing it also means more Mediterrenean style summers in the UK which is good for our tourism industry even if Southern Europe gets Middle Eastern and North African temperatures regularly and becomes too hot for many tourists.
So not all bad for us at least, plus it will boost the English wine industry too. You may get people holidaying in Blackpool and Southend and Bournemouth again rather than Spain and Greece and avoiding the higher costs of plane tickets as fuel prices rise
Being "beyond wrong" describes an individual who not only holds an incorrect viewpoint but also demonstrates a profound unwillingness to consider alternative perspectives or accept contradictory evidence. It goes beyond the realm of normal disagreement or fallibility and signifies a state of stubbornness, willful ignorance, or cognitive bias. These individuals often exhibit confirmation bias, selectively seeking information that aligns with their preconceived notions while dismissing opposing viewpoints. They may resort to logical fallacies, emotional appeals, or unsubstantiated claims instead of engaging in rational discourse. Furthermore, being "beyond wrong" often involves a lack of empathy or ethical consideration for the potential harm caused by their beliefs. The impact of someone being "beyond wrong" can be significant, as it hampers personal growth, impedes constructive conversations, and can perpetuate misinformation or irrational ideologies that hinder societal progress. Addressing this issue requires promoting critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and empathy while fostering a culture of intellectual humility that values learning from mistakes. By doing so, we can encourage open dialogue and mitigate the negative effects of being "beyond wrong."
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
'WE' are less than 1% of the global population and already use more renewables and less fossil fuels than the global average.
As we are also seeing it also means more Mediterrenean style summers in the UK which is good for our tourism industry even if Southern Europe gets Middle Eastern and North African temperatures regularly and becomes too hot for many tourists.
So not all bad for us at least, plus it will boost the English wine industry too. You may get people holidaying in Blackpool and Southend and Bournemouth again rather than Spain and Greece and avoiding the higher costs of plane tickets as fuel prices rise
World consumption of fossil fuels per capita: 17,197 kWh UK consumption of fossil fuels per capita: 22,610 kWh
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
'WE' are less than 1% of the global population and already use more renewables and less fossil fuels than the global average.
As we are also seeing it also means more Mediterrenean style summers in the UK which is good for our tourism industry even if Southern Europe gets Middle Eastern and North African temperatures regularly and becomes too hot for many tourists.
So not all bad for us at least, plus it will boost the English wine industry too. You may get people holidaying in Blackpool and Southend and Bournemouth again rather than Spain and Greece and avoiding the higher costs of plane tickets as fuel prices rise
Being "beyond wrong" describes an individual who not only holds an incorrect viewpoint but also demonstrates a profound unwillingness to consider alternative perspectives or accept contradictory evidence. It goes beyond the realm of normal disagreement or fallibility and signifies a state of stubbornness, willful ignorance, or cognitive bias. These individuals often exhibit confirmation bias, selectively seeking information that aligns with their preconceived notions while dismissing opposing viewpoints. They may resort to logical fallacies, emotional appeals, or unsubstantiated claims instead of engaging in rational discourse. Furthermore, being "beyond wrong" often involves a lack of empathy or ethical consideration for the potential harm caused by their beliefs. The impact of someone being "beyond wrong" can be significant, as it hampers personal growth, impedes constructive conversations, and can perpetuate misinformation or irrational ideologies that hinder societal progress. Addressing this issue requires promoting critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and empathy while fostering a culture of intellectual humility that values learning from mistakes. By doing so, we can encourage open dialogue and mitigate the negative effects of being "beyond wrong."
Yes, anyone who does not conform to the left liberal consensus must be ignored and attacked as 'beyond wrong'. And left liberals like you wonder why you often end up losing to populist rightwingers like Trump, Boris, Abbott and Meloni!
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:
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.
Would you like to look into the amount of energy required to hydraulically fracture rock, and to compare it to liquification and transport costs required?
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
This I do agree with entirely. Fracking was always a non starter in the UK both economically and practically.
Neither of you are even close to impartial on this topic - next.
What a weird thing to say. Do you think having an opinion disqualifies you from having an opinion?
No, I think where there's a financial interest in a closely related competitor, the poster should not be looked upon as an impartial source of information.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
Looking on the bright side, Birmingham will one day become the capital of the North-West European archipelago, and the nearest beach will be just down the road at Tamworth-on-Sea.
Yes, but the beaches will be rather crowded by a billion climate refugees from Africa and the Middle East, and too little ice cream to go around.
And no cod left for the fish and chips. It'll all be squid and chips.
Some of us prefer squid to cod
Make sure it’s healthy, though. You don’t want to pay 6 quid for sick squid.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
Looking on the bright side, Birmingham will one day become the capital of the North-West European archipelago, and the nearest beach will be just down the road at Tamworth-on-Sea.
Yes, but the beaches will be rather crowded by a billion climate refugees from Africa and the Middle East, and too little ice cream to go around.
Not if more rightwing populists like Meloni get elected in Southern Europe to stop the boats and of course they then have to cross the English Channel too even if they get through there
I really think you are a parody, and I must confess I was taken in by you previously. But only because bone-stupid right-wing Tories are so prevalent.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
What we in the UK do about it is almost inconsequential. It's what countries like China and India do or don't do that's important.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
'WE' are less than 1% of the global population and already use more renewables and less fossil fuels than the global average.
As we are also seeing it also means more Mediterrenean style summers in the UK which is good for our tourism industry even if Southern Europe gets Middle Eastern and North African temperatures regularly and becomes too hot for many tourists.
So not all bad for us at least, plus it will boost the English wine industry too. You may get people holidaying in Blackpool and Southend and Bournemouth again rather than Spain and Greece and avoiding the higher costs of plane tickets as fuel prices rise
World consumption of fossil fuels per capita: 17,197 kWh UK consumption of fossil fuels per capita: 22,610 kWh
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:
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.
Would you like to look into the amount of energy required to hydraulically fracture rock, and to compare it to liquification and transport costs required?
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
This I do agree with entirely. Fracking was always a non starter in the UK both economically and practically.
Neither of you are even close to impartial on this topic - next.
Strange thing to say. As I have said in the past I would love fracking to be economic and practical. It would mean loads more work for me given my skills are directly transferable. - and indeed one of my closest friends who used to work for me before he retired was working on the fracking job outside Blackpool.
So if I am partial, it is in favour of fracking as a concept.
But even that partial view cannot overcome the fact that geology and human distribution of the British Isles precludes fracking being an economic or practical proposition.
Even were we to adopt the German open cast mining system of simply destroying towns and villages that get in the way, fracking would still not be a practical proposition for the UK.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
'WE' are less than 1% of the global population and already use more renewables and less fossil fuels than the global average.
As we are also seeing it also means more Mediterrenean style summers in the UK which is good for our tourism industry even if Southern Europe gets Middle Eastern and North African temperatures regularly and becomes too hot for many tourists.
So not all bad for us at least, plus it will boost the English wine industry too. You may get people holidaying in Blackpool and Southend and Bournemouth again rather than Spain and Greece and avoiding the higher costs of plane tickets as fuel prices rise
World consumption of fossil fuels per capita: 17,197 kWh UK consumption of fossil fuels per capita: 22,610 kWh
So that would be "a lower percentage of our energy usage from fossil fuels" not "less fossil fuels than the global average".
Your figures are per capita, so not true to Hyfuds initial wording either.
You're a parody too. No real person could be so persistently stupid. Sorry I was taken in.
I'm sorry you haven't got more to contribute than telling other posters how stupid they are. Perhaps some time away from your device enjoying the sunshine might help.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
'WE' are less than 1% of the global population and already use more renewables and less fossil fuels than the global average.
As we are also seeing it also means more Mediterrenean style summers in the UK which is good for our tourism industry even if Southern Europe gets Middle Eastern and North African temperatures regularly and becomes too hot for many tourists.
So not all bad for us at least, plus it will boost the English wine industry too. You may get people holidaying in Blackpool and Southend and Bournemouth again rather than Spain and Greece and avoiding the higher costs of plane tickets as fuel prices rise
Being "beyond wrong" describes an individual who not only holds an incorrect viewpoint but also demonstrates a profound unwillingness to consider alternative perspectives or accept contradictory evidence. It goes beyond the realm of normal disagreement or fallibility and signifies a state of stubbornness, willful ignorance, or cognitive bias. These individuals often exhibit confirmation bias, selectively seeking information that aligns with their preconceived notions while dismissing opposing viewpoints. They may resort to logical fallacies, emotional appeals, or unsubstantiated claims instead of engaging in rational discourse. Furthermore, being "beyond wrong" often involves a lack of empathy or ethical consideration for the potential harm caused by their beliefs. The impact of someone being "beyond wrong" can be significant, as it hampers personal growth, impedes constructive conversations, and can perpetuate misinformation or irrational ideologies that hinder societal progress. Addressing this issue requires promoting critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and empathy while fostering a culture of intellectual humility that values learning from mistakes. By doing so, we can encourage open dialogue and mitigate the negative effects of being "beyond wrong."
Yes, anyone who does not conform to the left liberal consensus must be ignored and attacked as 'beyond wrong'. And left liberals like you wonder why you often end up losing to populist rightwingers like Trump, Boris, Abbott and Meloni!
Boris! is "beyond wrong". It is not the "left liberal consensus" saying this, it is the facts, as judged by a panel including senior Tories.
Your problem - and I do mean you personally - is that you espouse political amorality. You have no interest in facts or right and wrong. You just want your side to win. Which is a significant part of why our politics are so hated by the general public.
Whatever happened to responsibility? Accountability? Conscience?
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:
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.
Would you like to look into the amount of energy required to hydraulically fracture rock, and to compare it to liquification and transport costs required?
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
This I do agree with entirely. Fracking was always a non starter in the UK both economically and practically.
Neither of you are even close to impartial on this topic - next.
Strange thing to say. As I have said in the past I would love fracking to be economic and practical. It would mean loads more work for me given my skills are directly transferable. - and indeed one of my closest friends who used to work for me before he retired was working on the fracking job outside Blackpool.
So if I am partial, it is in favour of fracking as a concept.
But even that partial view cannot overcome the fact that geology and human distribution of the British Isles precludes fracking being an economic or practical proposition.
Even were we to adopt the German open cast mining system of simply destroying towns and villages that get in the way, fracking would still not be a practical proposition for the UK.
You have afaicr complained at length before about the fracking industry and what you perceive to be its unregulated working practises. If that wasn't you, I take it back.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
What we in the UK do about it is almost inconsequential. It's what countries like China and India do or don't do that's important.
Yes, and both countries are already suffering markedly from climate change, yet still rolling out more carbon producing power.
It's why I am defeatist on the subject. I expect the planet to still be habitable in my lifetime, but may not be in my children's lifetimes.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
'WE' are less than 1% of the global population and already use more renewables and less fossil fuels than the global average.
As we are also seeing it also means more Mediterrenean style summers in the UK which is good for our tourism industry even if Southern Europe gets Middle Eastern and North African temperatures regularly and becomes too hot for many tourists.
So not all bad for us at least, plus it will boost the English wine industry too. You may get people holidaying in Blackpool and Southend and Bournemouth again rather than Spain and Greece and avoiding the higher costs of plane tickets as fuel prices rise
Being "beyond wrong" describes an individual who not only holds an incorrect viewpoint but also demonstrates a profound unwillingness to consider alternative perspectives or accept contradictory evidence. It goes beyond the realm of normal disagreement or fallibility and signifies a state of stubbornness, willful ignorance, or cognitive bias. These individuals often exhibit confirmation bias, selectively seeking information that aligns with their preconceived notions while dismissing opposing viewpoints. They may resort to logical fallacies, emotional appeals, or unsubstantiated claims instead of engaging in rational discourse. Furthermore, being "beyond wrong" often involves a lack of empathy or ethical consideration for the potential harm caused by their beliefs. The impact of someone being "beyond wrong" can be significant, as it hampers personal growth, impedes constructive conversations, and can perpetuate misinformation or irrational ideologies that hinder societal progress. Addressing this issue requires promoting critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and empathy while fostering a culture of intellectual humility that values learning from mistakes. By doing so, we can encourage open dialogue and mitigate the negative effects of being "beyond wrong."
Yes, anyone who does not conform to the left liberal consensus must be ignored and attacked as 'beyond wrong'. And left liberals like you wonder why you often end up losing to populist rightwingers like Trump, Boris, Abbott and Meloni!
Boris! is "beyond wrong". It is not the "left liberal consensus" saying this, it is the facts, as judged by a panel including senior Tories.
Your problem - and I do mean you personally - is that you espouse political amorality. You have no interest in facts or right and wrong. You just want your side to win. Which is a significant part of why our politics are so hated by the general public.
Whatever happened to responsibility? Accountability? Conscience?
You want your left liberal side to win too. Did you vote Conservative in 2019 even when Boris won a landslide victory? No
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:
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.
Would you like to look into the amount of energy required to hydraulically fracture rock, and to compare it to liquification and transport costs required?
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
This I do agree with entirely. Fracking was always a non starter in the UK both economically and practically.
Neither of you are even close to impartial on this topic - next.
Strange thing to say. As I have said in the past I would love fracking to be economic and practical. It would mean loads more work for me given my skills are directly transferable. - and indeed one of my closest friends who used to work for me before he retired was working on the fracking job outside Blackpool.
So if I am partial, it is in favour of fracking as a concept.
But even that partial view cannot overcome the fact that geology and human distribution of the British Isles precludes fracking being an economic or practical proposition.
Even were we to adopt the German open cast mining system of simply destroying towns and villages that get in the way, fracking would still not be a practical proposition for the UK.
You have afaicr complained at length before about the fracking industry and what you perceive to be its unregulated working practises. If that wasn't you, I take it back.
Indeed. I think it is telling that the Government chose not to apply the same stringent rules to fracking as they do to conventional drilling both onshore and offshore. It tells me that there is an issue there which the Government would rather not address.
But if you could make it work (applying the same rules as the rest of the oil and gas industry) I would be delighted. It would mean more work for me.
But you can't. Even with bending the rules (or scrapping them entirely) it STILL isn't economic. You can't change the rocks.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
What we in the UK do about it is almost inconsequential. It's what countries like China and India do or don't do that's important.
Yes, and both countries are already suffering markedly from climate change, yet still rolling out more carbon producing power.
It's why I am defeatist on the subject. I expect the planet to still be habitable in my lifetime, but may not be in my children's lifetimes.
In defence of China, they are also installing enormous quantities of renewable generation, and their emissions are expected to peak (at a far lower amount per capita than ours did) and start falling again within the next year or two.
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:
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.
Would you like to look into the amount of energy required to hydraulically fracture rock, and to compare it to liquification and transport costs required?
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
This I do agree with entirely. Fracking was always a non starter in the UK both economically and practically.
Neither of you are even close to impartial on this topic - next.
Strange thing to say. As I have said in the past I would love fracking to be economic and practical. It would mean loads more work for me given my skills are directly transferable. - and indeed one of my closest friends who used to work for me before he retired was working on the fracking job outside Blackpool.
So if I am partial, it is in favour of fracking as a concept.
But even that partial view cannot overcome the fact that geology and human distribution of the British Isles precludes fracking being an economic or practical proposition.
Even were we to adopt the German open cast mining system of simply destroying towns and villages that get in the way, fracking would still not be a practical proposition for the UK.
You have afaicr complained at length before about the fracking industry and what you perceive to be its unregulated working practises. If that wasn't you, I take it back.
Indeed. I think it is telling that the Government chose not to apply the same stringent rules to fracking as they do to conventional drilling both onshore and offshore. It tells me that there is an issue there which the Government would rather not address.
But if you could make it work (applying the same rules as the rest of the oil and gas industry) I would be delighted. It would mean more work for me.
But you can't. Even with bending the rules (or scrapping them entirely) it STILL isn't economic. You can't change the rocks.
O/T But I now have the result for my Dissertation in Military History. I received a Distinction, with 73%.
Congratulations.
Thank you very much. The title is "The Great Forgotten: The Contribution Made by the Spanish to the Allied Campaign in the Peninsular War, 1808 - 1814.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
What we in the UK do about it is almost inconsequential. It's what countries like China and India do or don't do that's important.
Yes, and both countries are already suffering markedly from climate change, yet still rolling out more carbon producing power.
It's why I am defeatist on the subject. I expect the planet to still be habitable in my lifetime, but may not be in my children's lifetimes.
I agree with the problem. I think a lot of people believe that reducing CO2 output (like halving inflation for Rishi) will reduce the amount of CO2 in the air. It won't. It increases it. And Net Zero is miles off - perhaps unattainable in practice without global scaling up of CO2 removal (Climeworks etc), which is also unlikely to be attainable.
The best hope therefore is the science being wrong (unlikely but not impossible) or an early onset ice age. Ditto.
The next best hope is that the benefits (Shetland Chateau bottled, the Greenland breadbasket) outweigh the bad side. Also unlikely.
O/T But I now have the result for my Dissertation in Military History. I received a Distinction, with 73%.
Congratulations.
Thank you very much. The title is "The Great Forgotten: The Contribution Made by the Spanish to the Allied Campaign in the Peninsular War, 1808 - 1814.
By any chance did you reference "The Gun" by C.S. Forester? Adapted for silver screen as "The Pride and the Passion" by Stanley Kramer, staring Gary Grant, Sophia Loren and Frank Sinatra.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
Sadly, I think you are right. When even the smart people on this forum will bend over backwards to justify or excuse the continued extraction and consumption of fossil fuels (no, somebody else has to reduce production, not us), then I think the world is likely to become a grim place for our descendants. We had our chance, and we blew it.
Why shouldn't OPEC lower production?
You seem to not be aware that OPEC already lower and raise production to match demand.
Yet for some reason seem to think if we cut consumption they won't cut production, and I'd we cut production they won't raise it. Why?
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
'WE' are less than 1% of the global population and already use more renewables and less fossil fuels than the global average.
As we are also seeing it also means more Mediterrenean style summers in the UK which is good for our tourism industry even if Southern Europe gets Middle Eastern and North African temperatures regularly and becomes too hot for many tourists.
So not all bad for us at least, plus it will boost the English wine industry too. You may get people holidaying in Blackpool and Southend and Bournemouth again rather than Spain and Greece and avoiding the higher costs of plane tickets as fuel prices rise
Being "beyond wrong" describes an individual who not only holds an incorrect viewpoint but also demonstrates a profound unwillingness to consider alternative perspectives or accept contradictory evidence. It goes beyond the realm of normal disagreement or fallibility and signifies a state of stubbornness, willful ignorance, or cognitive bias. These individuals often exhibit confirmation bias, selectively seeking information that aligns with their preconceived notions while dismissing opposing viewpoints. They may resort to logical fallacies, emotional appeals, or unsubstantiated claims instead of engaging in rational discourse. Furthermore, being "beyond wrong" often involves a lack of empathy or ethical consideration for the potential harm caused by their beliefs. The impact of someone being "beyond wrong" can be significant, as it hampers personal growth, impedes constructive conversations, and can perpetuate misinformation or irrational ideologies that hinder societal progress. Addressing this issue requires promoting critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and empathy while fostering a culture of intellectual humility that values learning from mistakes. By doing so, we can encourage open dialogue and mitigate the negative effects of being "beyond wrong."
Yes, anyone who does not conform to the left liberal consensus must be ignored and attacked as 'beyond wrong'. And left liberals like you wonder why you often end up losing to populist rightwingers like Trump, Boris, Abbott and Meloni!
Boris! is "beyond wrong". It is not the "left liberal consensus" saying this, it is the facts, as judged by a panel including senior Tories.
Your problem - and I do mean you personally - is that you espouse political amorality. You have no interest in facts or right and wrong. You just want your side to win. Which is a significant part of why our politics are so hated by the general public.
Whatever happened to responsibility? Accountability? Conscience?
You want your left liberal side to win too. Did you vote Conservative in 2019 even when Boris won a landslide victory? No
This is not about me, how I voted, or how you define "left liberal".
This is about right and wrong.
That you refuse to accept this basic principle both of our politics and our wider society is a massive problem.
Regardless of which political tribe we vote for, there remains right and wrong.
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:
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.
Would you like to look into the amount of energy required to hydraulically fracture rock, and to compare it to liquification and transport costs required?
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
This I do agree with entirely. Fracking was always a non starter in the UK both economically and practically.
Neither of you are even close to impartial on this topic - next.
Strange thing to say. As I have said in the past I would love fracking to be economic and practical. It would mean loads more work for me given my skills are directly transferable. - and indeed one of my closest friends who used to work for me before he retired was working on the fracking job outside Blackpool.
So if I am partial, it is in favour of fracking as a concept.
But even that partial view cannot overcome the fact that geology and human distribution of the British Isles precludes fracking being an economic or practical proposition.
Even were we to adopt the German open cast mining system of simply destroying towns and villages that get in the way, fracking would still not be a practical proposition for the UK.
You have afaicr complained at length before about the fracking industry and what you perceive to be its unregulated working practises. If that wasn't you, I take it back.
Indeed. I think it is telling that the Government chose not to apply the same stringent rules to fracking as they do to conventional drilling both onshore and offshore. It tells me that there is an issue there which the Government would rather not address.
But if you could make it work (applying the same rules as the rest of the oil and gas industry) I would be delighted. It would mean more work for me.
But you can't. Even with bending the rules (or scrapping them entirely) it STILL isn't economic. You can't change the rocks.
So no need for a ban then, right?
Debatable. If they had been subject to proper regulation then no. As it was I would have been unhappy with them drilling near me in a way that I am certainly not unhappy about the extensive conventional oil fields around me.
This was a failure of Governance again. But in the end it makes no difference. Fracking will not solve any of our energy problems. At least not in this country.
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.
That's you told, SKS....
To start with, natural gas doesn’t create energy.
It contains existing stored energy.
We don’t have an especial abundance of it. We couldn’t produce (any more) enough to “ power the country”
We need something else.
The cost of wind, solar are dropping. We should definitely look more at tidal.
The advantage of all of those is that the price doesn’t depend on which world leader is channeling Hitler*, this week.
The not cooking the planet this is a side benefit.
*Why can’t a world leader channel Zsa Zsa Gabor for a change?
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
'WE' are less than 1% of the global population and already use more renewables and less fossil fuels than the global average.
As we are also seeing it also means more Mediterrenean style summers in the UK which is good for our tourism industry even if Southern Europe gets Middle Eastern and North African temperatures regularly and becomes too hot for many tourists.
So not all bad for us at least, plus it will boost the English wine industry too. You may get people holidaying in Blackpool and Southend and Bournemouth again rather than Spain and Greece and avoiding the higher costs of plane tickets as fuel prices rise
Being "beyond wrong" describes an individual who not only holds an incorrect viewpoint but also demonstrates a profound unwillingness to consider alternative perspectives or accept contradictory evidence. It goes beyond the realm of normal disagreement or fallibility and signifies a state of stubbornness, willful ignorance, or cognitive bias. These individuals often exhibit confirmation bias, selectively seeking information that aligns with their preconceived notions while dismissing opposing viewpoints. They may resort to logical fallacies, emotional appeals, or unsubstantiated claims instead of engaging in rational discourse. Furthermore, being "beyond wrong" often involves a lack of empathy or ethical consideration for the potential harm caused by their beliefs. The impact of someone being "beyond wrong" can be significant, as it hampers personal growth, impedes constructive conversations, and can perpetuate misinformation or irrational ideologies that hinder societal progress. Addressing this issue requires promoting critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and empathy while fostering a culture of intellectual humility that values learning from mistakes. By doing so, we can encourage open dialogue and mitigate the negative effects of being "beyond wrong."
Yes, anyone who does not conform to the left liberal consensus must be ignored and attacked as 'beyond wrong'. And left liberals like you wonder why you often end up losing to populist rightwingers like Trump, Boris, Abbott and Meloni!
Boris! is "beyond wrong". It is not the "left liberal consensus" saying this, it is the facts, as judged by a panel including senior Tories.
Your problem - and I do mean you personally - is that you espouse political amorality. You have no interest in facts or right and wrong. You just want your side to win. Which is a significant part of why our politics are so hated by the general public.
Whatever happened to responsibility? Accountability? Conscience?
You want your left liberal side to win too. Did you vote Conservative in 2019 even when Boris won a landslide victory? No
Left and liberal are different things. There are (or perhaps used to be) liberals in the Conservative Party. They used to have a pretty solid grip of the Conservatives, in fact.
Both left and liberal can mean almost anything. IMHO the most useful is to use 'liberal' as describing a philosophical and procedural position about how any open society should be run (maximally free etc, minimum compulsion) and 'left' to describe the spectrum of policy movements committed to maximal state intervention to achieve agreed goals such as equality of outcome, progressive taxation and state directed economic strategy.
All sane political parties should be liberal about personal freedoms and rights. Left, right etc is all to play for.
O/T But I now have the result for my Dissertation in Military History. I received a Distinction, with 73%.
Congratulations.
Thank you very much. The title is "The Great Forgotten: The Contribution Made by the Spanish to the Allied Campaign in the Peninsular War, 1808 - 1814.
By any chance did you reference "The Gun" by C.S. Forester? Adapted for silver screen as "The Pride and the Passion" by Stanley Kramer, staring Gary Grant, Sophia Loren and Frank Sinatra.
QTWTAIN We're still talking about him, therefore the answer is no.
The answer is no: 1) The politically dumb / brazen / amoral refuse to accept he did anything wrong - if anything the opposite 2) Which means Boris! can continue to inspire their politics regardless of whether he is in office (just as Trump does for the GOP) 3) Do not write off the options that Boris! still has. Farage has never been an MP, is no longer an MEP, is no longer the leader of a political party. Yet continues to drive much of the agenda. Boris! will do the same, potentially in alliance with the Nigel.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
Sadly, I think you are right. When even the smart people on this forum will bend over backwards to justify or excuse the continued extraction and consumption of fossil fuels (no, somebody else has to reduce production, not us), then I think the world is likely to become a grim place for our descendants. We had our chance, and we blew it.
Why shouldn't OPEC lower production?
You seem to not be aware that OPEC already lower and raise production to match demand.
Yet for some reason seem to think if we cut consumption they won't cut production, and I'd we cut production they won't raise it. Why?
The worry among the environmentalists is that the oil price falls, as producer nations react to the drop in demand. The Saudis are fine cutting production by a million barrels here and there, but they won’t be fine with cutting production in half. As the price drops, they’ll eventually start pumping as hard as possible, to drive everyone else out of the market.
We got a taster of this during the pandemic, as the Saudis tried to drop the price enough to get the Russians out.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
'WE' are less than 1% of the global population and already use more renewables and less fossil fuels than the global average.
As we are also seeing it also means more Mediterrenean style summers in the UK which is good for our tourism industry even if Southern Europe gets Middle Eastern and North African temperatures regularly and becomes too hot for many tourists.
So not all bad for us at least, plus it will boost the English wine industry too. You may get people holidaying in Blackpool and Southend and Bournemouth again rather than Spain and Greece and avoiding the higher costs of plane tickets as fuel prices rise
Being "beyond wrong" describes an individual who not only holds an incorrect viewpoint but also demonstrates a profound unwillingness to consider alternative perspectives or accept contradictory evidence. It goes beyond the realm of normal disagreement or fallibility and signifies a state of stubbornness, willful ignorance, or cognitive bias. These individuals often exhibit confirmation bias, selectively seeking information that aligns with their preconceived notions while dismissing opposing viewpoints. They may resort to logical fallacies, emotional appeals, or unsubstantiated claims instead of engaging in rational discourse. Furthermore, being "beyond wrong" often involves a lack of empathy or ethical consideration for the potential harm caused by their beliefs. The impact of someone being "beyond wrong" can be significant, as it hampers personal growth, impedes constructive conversations, and can perpetuate misinformation or irrational ideologies that hinder societal progress. Addressing this issue requires promoting critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and empathy while fostering a culture of intellectual humility that values learning from mistakes. By doing so, we can encourage open dialogue and mitigate the negative effects of being "beyond wrong."
Yes, anyone who does not conform to the left liberal consensus must be ignored and attacked as 'beyond wrong'. And left liberals like you wonder why you often end up losing to populist rightwingers like Trump, Boris, Abbott and Meloni!
Boris! is "beyond wrong". It is not the "left liberal consensus" saying this, it is the facts, as judged by a panel including senior Tories.
Your problem - and I do mean you personally - is that you espouse political amorality. You have no interest in facts or right and wrong. You just want your side to win. Which is a significant part of why our politics are so hated by the general public.
Whatever happened to responsibility? Accountability? Conscience?
You want your left liberal side to win too. Did you vote Conservative in 2019 even when Boris won a landslide victory? No
Left and liberal are different things. There are (or perhaps used to be) liberals in the Conservative Party. They used to have a pretty solid grip of the Conservatives, in fact.
Both left and liberal can mean almost anything. IMHO the most useful is to use 'liberal' as describing a philosophical and procedural position about how any open society should be run (maximally free etc, minimum compulsion) and 'left' to describe the spectrum of policy movements committed to maximal state intervention to achieve agreed goals such as equality of outcome, progressive taxation and state directed economic strategy.
All sane political parties should be liberal about personal freedoms and rights. Left, right etc is all to play for.
I may be left. Or right. Or centre. Liberal. Socialist. Pragmatist. Nationalist. Apparently whether I should be allowed to deliberately lie / obsfucate / debase rules which apply to all should depend not on whether the rules exist, or that the rules apply equally to all.
No, the deciding factor is "did I vote Conservative". The idea that only ardent supporters are allowed to expect the impartial rules to be applied impartially is already crazy. But it isn't even that. The impartial rules can be tossed aside for partisan reasons. And how dare anyone complain.
That the person displaying this gratuitous amorality likes to endlessly bang his pulpit on moral issues is all the funnier.
QTWTAIN We're still talking about him, therefore the answer is no.
The answer is no: 1) The politically dumb / brazen / amoral refuse to accept he did anything wrong - if anything the opposite 2) Which means Boris! can continue to inspire their politics regardless of whether he is in office (just as Trump does for the GOP) 3) Do not write off the options that Boris! still has. Farage has never been an MP, is no longer an MEP, is no longer the leader of a political party. Yet continues to drive much of the agenda. Boris! will do the same, potentially in alliance with the Nigel.
I can't imagine there's anyone that doesn't think he did anything wrong, nor even that he only did a forgivable amount of wrong.
None of this is evil incarnate, but all of it is disrespectful to almost everyone else, and really very, very stupid.
(The batsh*t insane answer would be Hungary and Russia buying them ... )
Where they are going is obvious. The non-European country is likely the US, in exchange for something else later. NATO countries really don’t have tanks in the numbers required, their tanks are much more expensive and doctrine says they go out very well supported, in a way that perhaps doesn’t happen in Ukraine.
Israel isn’t selling anything to the Russians, when even China are scared of what happens if they go down that road.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
'WE' are less than 1% of the global population and already use more renewables and less fossil fuels than the global average.
As we are also seeing it also means more Mediterrenean style summers in the UK which is good for our tourism industry even if Southern Europe gets Middle Eastern and North African temperatures regularly and becomes too hot for many tourists.
So not all bad for us at least, plus it will boost the English wine industry too. You may get people holidaying in Blackpool and Southend and Bournemouth again rather than Spain and Greece and avoiding the higher costs of plane tickets as fuel prices rise
World consumption of fossil fuels per capita: 17,197 kWh UK consumption of fossil fuels per capita: 22,610 kWh
So that would be "a lower percentage of our energy usage from fossil fuels" not "less fossil fuels than the global average".
Your figures are per capita, so not true to Hyfuds initial wording either.
You're a parody too. No real person could be so persistently stupid. Sorry I was taken in.
I have seen a lot of psychological projection on this site, but @Chris accusing two other posters of being " a parody" might be a parody in itself. My irony meter has just exploded. I would slightly amend his later sentence. No real person could be so persistently an arsehole. Well one would think so, but Chris obviously defies the rule
O/T But I now have the result for my Dissertation in Military History. I received a Distinction, with 73%.
Congratulations! With that mark, you could look into getting it/parts of it published (I've no idea about academic publishing in this area, but in my field we encourage students to publish if they get a decent mark).
QTWTAIN We're still talking about him, therefore the answer is no.
The answer is no: 1) The politically dumb / brazen / amoral refuse to accept he did anything wrong - if anything the opposite 2) Which means Boris! can continue to inspire their politics regardless of whether he is in office (just as Trump does for the GOP) 3) Do not write off the options that Boris! still has. Farage has never been an MP, is no longer an MEP, is no longer the leader of a political party. Yet continues to drive much of the agenda. Boris! will do the same, potentially in alliance with the Nigel.
I can't imagine there's anyone that doesn't think he did anything wrong, nor even that he only did a forgivable amount of wrong.
None of this is evil incarnate, but all of it is disrespectful to almost everyone else, and really very, very stupid.
There is a direct correlation between the people providing the most strident defence of Boris! and the people who were given baubles by Boris!
Though I was sternly advised on here earlier that it would basically be evil incarnate to point to to their new gongs awarded last week and query their grifting this week.
Alastair Campbell's favourite footnote (page 12) We note that Mr Johnson has recently undertaken to supply the Covid public inquiry with a large number of his personal WhatsApp messages. This contrasts with his highly restrictive release of such messages to us. If it transpires from examination of the WhatsApp messages supplied to the Covid inquiry that there was relevant material which should have been disclosed to us either by Mr Johnson or the Cabinet Office, this would be a serious matter which the House might need to revisit. https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/40412/documents/197199/default/
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:
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.
Would you like to look into the amount of energy required to hydraulically fracture rock, and to compare it to liquification and transport costs required?
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
This I do agree with entirely. Fracking was always a non starter in the UK both economically and practically.
Neither of you are even close to impartial on this topic - next.
Strange thing to say. As I have said in the past I would love fracking to be economic and practical. It would mean loads more work for me given my skills are directly transferable. - and indeed one of my closest friends who used to work for me before he retired was working on the fracking job outside Blackpool.
So if I am partial, it is in favour of fracking as a concept.
But even that partial view cannot overcome the fact that geology and human distribution of the British Isles precludes fracking being an economic or practical proposition.
Even were we to adopt the German open cast mining system of simply destroying towns and villages that get in the way, fracking would still not be a practical proposition for the UK.
You have afaicr complained at length before about the fracking industry and what you perceive to be its unregulated working practises. If that wasn't you, I take it back.
Indeed. I think it is telling that the Government chose not to apply the same stringent rules to fracking as they do to conventional drilling both onshore and offshore. It tells me that there is an issue there which the Government would rather not address.
But if you could make it work (applying the same rules as the rest of the oil and gas industry) I would be delighted. It would mean more work for me.
But you can't. Even with bending the rules (or scrapping them entirely) it STILL isn't economic. You can't change the rocks.
Perhaps we really need to put our elbow into the rock fracturing?
{Project Gasbuggy has entered the chat, giving everyone a rosy glow}
For those who are a bit literal - it didn’t work.
Still like my idea for practical thermonuclear power - think giant internal combustion engine…
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:
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.
Would you like to look into the amount of energy required to hydraulically fracture rock, and to compare it to liquification and transport costs required?
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
This I do agree with entirely. Fracking was always a non starter in the UK both economically and practically.
Neither of you are even close to impartial on this topic - next.
Strange thing to say. As I have said in the past I would love fracking to be economic and practical. It would mean loads more work for me given my skills are directly transferable. - and indeed one of my closest friends who used to work for me before he retired was working on the fracking job outside Blackpool.
So if I am partial, it is in favour of fracking as a concept.
But even that partial view cannot overcome the fact that geology and human distribution of the British Isles precludes fracking being an economic or practical proposition.
Even were we to adopt the German open cast mining system of simply destroying towns and villages that get in the way, fracking would still not be a practical proposition for the UK.
You have afaicr complained at length before about the fracking industry and what you perceive to be its unregulated working practises. If that wasn't you, I take it back.
Indeed. I think it is telling that the Government chose not to apply the same stringent rules to fracking as they do to conventional drilling both onshore and offshore. It tells me that there is an issue there which the Government would rather not address.
But if you could make it work (applying the same rules as the rest of the oil and gas industry) I would be delighted. It would mean more work for me.
But you can't. Even with bending the rules (or scrapping them entirely) it STILL isn't economic. You can't change the rocks.
I think you’ve told him that about three or four times before. Either he doesn’t believe you, or he keeps forgetting.
It seems unlikely the geology is going to change in any timeframe that bothers us ?
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:
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.
Would you like to look into the amount of energy required to hydraulically fracture rock, and to compare it to liquification and transport costs required?
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
This I do agree with entirely. Fracking was always a non starter in the UK both economically and practically.
Neither of you are even close to impartial on this topic - next.
Strange thing to say. As I have said in the past I would love fracking to be economic and practical. It would mean loads more work for me given my skills are directly transferable. - and indeed one of my closest friends who used to work for me before he retired was working on the fracking job outside Blackpool.
So if I am partial, it is in favour of fracking as a concept.
But even that partial view cannot overcome the fact that geology and human distribution of the British Isles precludes fracking being an economic or practical proposition.
Even were we to adopt the German open cast mining system of simply destroying towns and villages that get in the way, fracking would still not be a practical proposition for the UK.
You have afaicr complained at length before about the fracking industry and what you perceive to be its unregulated working practises. If that wasn't you, I take it back.
Indeed. I think it is telling that the Government chose not to apply the same stringent rules to fracking as they do to conventional drilling both onshore and offshore. It tells me that there is an issue there which the Government would rather not address.
But if you could make it work (applying the same rules as the rest of the oil and gas industry) I would be delighted. It would mean more work for me.
But you can't. Even with bending the rules (or scrapping them entirely) it STILL isn't economic. You can't change the rocks.
Perhaps we really need to put our elbow into the rock fracturing?
{Project Gasbuggy has entered the chat, giving everyone a rosy glow}
For those who are a bit literal - it didn’t work.
Still like my idea for practical thermonuclear power - think giant internal combustion engine…
Talking about nuclear - anyone know the state of play with Rolls Royce Mini Nuclear plants and the funding they were after from the Government.
Meanwhile, of course, the US Government are throwing money at any plausible plan.
Alastair Campbell's favourite footnote (page 12) We note that Mr Johnson has recently undertaken to supply the Covid public inquiry with a large number of his personal WhatsApp messages. This contrasts with his highly restrictive release of such messages to us. If it transpires from examination of the WhatsApp messages supplied to the Covid inquiry that there was relevant material which should have been disclosed to us either by Mr Johnson or the Cabinet Office, this would be a serious matter which the House might need to revisit. https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/40412/documents/197199/default/
Alastair Campbell. Now, if we are going to talk about ‘untruths’ made to Parliament, that name comes up very high on the list of people responsible for such.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
'WE' are less than 1% of the global population and already use more renewables and less fossil fuels than the global average.
As we are also seeing it also means more Mediterrenean style summers in the UK which is good for our tourism industry even if Southern Europe gets Middle Eastern and North African temperatures regularly and becomes too hot for many tourists.
So not all bad for us at least, plus it will boost the English wine industry too. You may get people holidaying in Blackpool and Southend and Bournemouth again rather than Spain and Greece and avoiding the higher costs of plane tickets as fuel prices rise
World consumption of fossil fuels per capita: 17,197 kWh UK consumption of fossil fuels per capita: 22,610 kWh
So that would be "a lower percentage of our energy usage from fossil fuels" not "less fossil fuels than the global average".
Your figures are per capita, so not true to Hyfuds initial wording either.
You're a parody too. No real person could be so persistently stupid. Sorry I was taken in.
I have seen a lot of psychological projection on this site, but @Chris accusing two other posters of being " a parody" might be a parody in itself. My irony meter has just exploded. I would slightly amend his later sentence. No real person could be so persistently an arsehole. Well one would think so, but Chris obviously defies the rule
Hmm. I don't think straightforward personal abuse - even when it does get a bit creepily obsessive for no apparent reason - qualifies as parody, so I'll reserve judgment about 'Nigel_Foremain'.
Maybe try to be funnier in future? Or at least interesting?
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:
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.
Would you like to look into the amount of energy required to hydraulically fracture rock, and to compare it to liquification and transport costs required?
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
This I do agree with entirely. Fracking was always a non starter in the UK both economically and practically.
Neither of you are even close to impartial on this topic - next.
Strange thing to say. As I have said in the past I would love fracking to be economic and practical. It would mean loads more work for me given my skills are directly transferable. - and indeed one of my closest friends who used to work for me before he retired was working on the fracking job outside Blackpool.
So if I am partial, it is in favour of fracking as a concept.
But even that partial view cannot overcome the fact that geology and human distribution of the British Isles precludes fracking being an economic or practical proposition.
Even were we to adopt the German open cast mining system of simply destroying towns and villages that get in the way, fracking would still not be a practical proposition for the UK.
You have afaicr complained at length before about the fracking industry and what you perceive to be its unregulated working practises. If that wasn't you, I take it back.
Indeed. I think it is telling that the Government chose not to apply the same stringent rules to fracking as they do to conventional drilling both onshore and offshore. It tells me that there is an issue there which the Government would rather not address.
But if you could make it work (applying the same rules as the rest of the oil and gas industry) I would be delighted. It would mean more work for me.
But you can't. Even with bending the rules (or scrapping them entirely) it STILL isn't economic. You can't change the rocks.
I think you’ve told him that about three or four times before. Either he doesn’t believe you, or he keeps forgetting.
It seems unlikely the geology is going to change in any timeframe that bothers us ?
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:
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.
Would you like to look into the amount of energy required to hydraulically fracture rock, and to compare it to liquification and transport costs required?
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
This I do agree with entirely. Fracking was always a non starter in the UK both economically and practically.
Neither of you are even close to impartial on this topic - next.
Strange thing to say. As I have said in the past I would love fracking to be economic and practical. It would mean loads more work for me given my skills are directly transferable. - and indeed one of my closest friends who used to work for me before he retired was working on the fracking job outside Blackpool.
So if I am partial, it is in favour of fracking as a concept.
But even that partial view cannot overcome the fact that geology and human distribution of the British Isles precludes fracking being an economic or practical proposition.
Even were we to adopt the German open cast mining system of simply destroying towns and villages that get in the way, fracking would still not be a practical proposition for the UK.
You have afaicr complained at length before about the fracking industry and what you perceive to be its unregulated working practises. If that wasn't you, I take it back.
Indeed. I think it is telling that the Government chose not to apply the same stringent rules to fracking as they do to conventional drilling both onshore and offshore. It tells me that there is an issue there which the Government would rather not address.
But if you could make it work (applying the same rules as the rest of the oil and gas industry) I would be delighted. It would mean more work for me.
But you can't. Even with bending the rules (or scrapping them entirely) it STILL isn't economic. You can't change the rocks.
Perhaps we really need to put our elbow into the rock fracturing?
{Project Gasbuggy has entered the chat, giving everyone a rosy glow}
For those who are a bit literal - it didn’t work.
Still like my idea for practical thermonuclear power - think giant internal combustion engine…
Talking about nuclear - anyone know the state of play with Rolls Royce Mini Nuclear plants and the funding they were after from the Government.
Meanwhile, of course, the US Government are throwing money at any plausible plan.
There was the £200m investment from a couple of years ago, but very little more recent than that. Yes, the govt should underwrite the first half a dozen off a production line, it’s a massive export potential.
(The batsh*t insane answer would be Hungary and Russia buying them ... )
Where they are going is obvious. The non-European country is likely the US, in exchange for something else later. NATO countries really don’t have tanks in the numbers required, their tanks are much more expensive and doctrine says they go out very well supported, in a way that perhaps doesn’t happen in Ukraine.
Israel isn’t selling anything to the Russians, when even China are scared of what happens if they go down that road.
Obvious to you maybe. Which is the European country?
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.
We may be in the grip of the cut of noses to spite faces party.
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:
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.
Would you like to look into the amount of energy required to hydraulically fracture rock, and to compare it to liquification and transport costs required?
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
This I do agree with entirely. Fracking was always a non starter in the UK both economically and practically.
Neither of you are even close to impartial on this topic - next.
Strange thing to say. As I have said in the past I would love fracking to be economic and practical. It would mean loads more work for me given my skills are directly transferable. - and indeed one of my closest friends who used to work for me before he retired was working on the fracking job outside Blackpool.
So if I am partial, it is in favour of fracking as a concept.
But even that partial view cannot overcome the fact that geology and human distribution of the British Isles precludes fracking being an economic or practical proposition.
Even were we to adopt the German open cast mining system of simply destroying towns and villages that get in the way, fracking would still not be a practical proposition for the UK.
You have afaicr complained at length before about the fracking industry and what you perceive to be its unregulated working practises. If that wasn't you, I take it back.
Indeed. I think it is telling that the Government chose not to apply the same stringent rules to fracking as they do to conventional drilling both onshore and offshore. It tells me that there is an issue there which the Government would rather not address.
But if you could make it work (applying the same rules as the rest of the oil and gas industry) I would be delighted. It would mean more work for me.
But you can't. Even with bending the rules (or scrapping them entirely) it STILL isn't economic. You can't change the rocks.
Perhaps we really need to put our elbow into the rock fracturing?
{Project Gasbuggy has entered the chat, giving everyone a rosy glow}
For those who are a bit literal - it didn’t work.
Still like my idea for practical thermonuclear power - think giant internal combustion engine…
Talking about nuclear - anyone know the state of play with Rolls Royce Mini Nuclear plants and the funding they were after from the Government.
Meanwhile, of course, the US Government are throwing money at any plausible plan.
There was the £200m investment from a couple of years ago, but very little more recent than that. Yes, the govt should underwrite the first half a dozen off a production line, it’s a massive export potential.
I’d buy at a fixed price for a set performance. Payment on delivery.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
Sadly, I think you are right. When even the smart people on this forum will bend over backwards to justify or excuse the continued extraction and consumption of fossil fuels (no, somebody else has to reduce production, not us), then I think the world is likely to become a grim place for our descendants. We had our chance, and we blew it.
While I of course agree with your sentiment, I'll be a bit pedantic:
Extraction and consumption of fossil fuels is not in itself the problem. Releasing CO2 (and methane) into the atmosphere as a result of their use is the problem. So turning oil into plastics, turning natural gas into blue hydrogen (with carbon capture) or burning coal for power generation (with carbon capture) are not the same as unabated combustion and emission or, worse still, venting of associated gas or leakage from the gas mains.
Comments
And if you are letting market forces do the job of destroying production by reducing consumption, that it doesn't take much of an economist to see that only those oil fields that can produce most cheaply will still be producing by then. These almost certainly don't include those in the North Sea. Ergo, there is little point continuing to invest in new oil production from the North Sea if the world is serious about combating climate change.
I suspect the LDs will gain Mid Beds though when Dorries does finally step down and Labour will gain Rutherglen from the SNP
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.215126707
Mid Beds
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.215148472
Selby & Ainsty
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.215210576
At 7 hours, 57 mins, 47 secs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fz6OdDZhT0
So Starmer will want to be competitive there to show Labour is on course for a comfortable majority and likely will refuse to give the LDs a clear run
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
As we are also seeing it also means more Mediterrenean style summers in the UK which is good for our tourism industry even if Southern Europe gets Middle Eastern and North African temperatures regularly and becomes too hot for many tourists.
So not all bad for us at least, plus it will boost the English wine industry too. You may get people holidaying in Blackpool and Southend and Bournemouth again rather than Spain and Greece and avoiding the higher costs of plane tickets as fuel prices rise
Be more likely the Scottish wine industry, on the greywackes of the Border hills, the way things are going.
Also worth remembering that if you are talking about existential threats, Europe would not be in half the mess it is in over Ukraine if they had not become beholden to Russian gas. To some extent they had no choice. We do.
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
The idea that the Conservatives were going to don the shamic horns and close Westminster's bars in an act of co-ordinated outrage rested in the febrile nut of just one man.
The older I get and the more I get accustomed to how stupid people can be, the less I find things can shock me, but you can still manage it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt#Alcarelle_&_GABA_Labs
I demand a beer that gets me drunk and doesn't give me a hangover :-)
"if, in 15 years or so, the world is consuming half as much oil as it is now - as it must..."
Maybe it will be maybe it won't; I haven't looked at oil consumption trends over the last 15 years but I'm not sure that people are going to stop doing by half the things that they are currently doing and hence we need to find substitutes for fossil fuels. Do we have them? We are certainly on our way and time will tell whether we get there in 15 years as you hope.
But just saying "as it must" means nothing. You must give people an alternative that is affordable, together with a campaign of education, otherwise you hoping it will happen won't mean it will happen.
Same with the JSO pedestrians. They are not engaging with people, they are lecturing them. They are telling people that "they know best" which people never respond to well.
People vote with their feet and to date, Easter Island-ish as it may be, they are choosing not to.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1147249/Energy_Trends_March_2023.pdf
Percentage of global energy from fossil fuels 80%
https://www.eesi.org/topics/fossil-fuels/description#:~:text=Fossil fuels—including coal, oil,percent of the world's energy.
So if I am partial, it is in favour of fracking as a concept.
But even that partial view cannot overcome the fact that geology and human distribution of the British Isles precludes fracking being an economic or practical proposition.
Even were we to adopt the German open cast mining system of simply destroying towns and villages that get in the way, fracking would still not be a practical proposition for the UK.
Your problem - and I do mean you personally - is that you espouse political amorality. You have no interest in facts or right and wrong. You just want your side to win. Which is a significant part of why our politics are so hated by the general public.
Whatever happened to responsibility? Accountability? Conscience?
It's why I am defeatist on the subject. I expect the planet to still be habitable in my lifetime, but may not be in my children's lifetimes.
But if you could make it work (applying the same rules as the rest of the oil and gas industry) I would be delighted. It would mean more work for me.
But you can't. Even with bending the rules (or scrapping them entirely) it STILL isn't economic. You can't change the rocks.
The best hope therefore is the science being wrong (unlikely but not impossible) or an early onset ice age. Ditto.
The next best hope is that the benefits (Shetland Chateau bottled, the Greenland breadbasket) outweigh the bad side. Also unlikely.
Is this the end for Boris Johnson?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP2oloVvlio (or other podcast platforms).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gun_(novel)
You seem to not be aware that OPEC already lower and raise production to match demand.
Yet for some reason seem to think if we cut consumption they won't cut production, and I'd we cut production they won't raise it. Why?
This is about right and wrong.
That you refuse to accept this basic principle both of our politics and our wider society is a massive problem.
Regardless of which political tribe we vote for, there remains right and wrong.
The end was last year when he resigned.
This is a humiliating postscript after the end.
This was a failure of Governance again. But in the end it makes no difference. Fracking will not solve any of our energy problems. At least not in this country.
It contains existing stored energy.
We don’t have an especial abundance of it. We couldn’t produce (any more) enough to “ power the country”
We need something else.
The cost of wind, solar are dropping. We should definitely look more at tidal.
The advantage of all of those is that the price doesn’t depend on which world leader is channeling Hitler*, this week.
The not cooking the planet this is a side benefit.
*Why can’t a world leader channel Zsa Zsa Gabor for a change?
All sane political parties should be liberal about personal freedoms and rights. Left, right etc is all to play for.
1) The politically dumb / brazen / amoral refuse to accept he did anything wrong - if anything the opposite
2) Which means Boris! can continue to inspire their politics regardless of whether he is in office (just as Trump does for the GOP)
3) Do not write off the options that Boris! still has. Farage has never been an MP, is no longer an MEP, is no longer the leader of a political party. Yet continues to drive much of the agenda. Boris! will do the same, potentially in alliance with the Nigel.
We got a taster of this during the pandemic, as the Saudis tried to drop the price enough to get the Russians out.
No, the deciding factor is "did I vote Conservative". The idea that only ardent supporters are allowed to expect the impartial rules to be applied impartially is already crazy. But it isn't even that. The impartial rules can be tossed aside for partisan reasons. And how dare anyone complain.
That the person displaying this gratuitous amorality likes to endlessly bang his pulpit on moral issues is all the funnier.
https://twitter.com/Jeff21461/status/1669360854641278978
I wonder where these will be going?
(The batsh*t insane answer would be Hungary and Russia buying them ...
None of this is evil incarnate, but all of it is disrespectful to almost everyone else, and really very, very stupid.
Israel isn’t selling anything to the Russians, when even China are scared of what happens if they go down that road.
Though I was sternly advised on here earlier that it would basically be evil incarnate to point to to their new gongs awarded last week and query their grifting this week.
We note that Mr Johnson has recently undertaken to supply the Covid public inquiry with a large number of his personal WhatsApp messages. This contrasts with his highly restrictive release of such messages to us. If it transpires from examination of the WhatsApp messages supplied to the Covid inquiry that there was relevant material which should have been disclosed to us either by Mr Johnson or the Cabinet Office, this would be a serious matter which the House might need to revisit.
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/40412/documents/197199/default/
{Project Gasbuggy has entered the chat, giving everyone a rosy glow}
For those who are a bit literal - it didn’t work.
Still like my idea for practical thermonuclear power - think giant internal combustion engine…
Either he doesn’t believe you, or he keeps forgetting.
It seems unlikely the geology is going to change in any timeframe that bothers us ?
Meanwhile, of course, the US Government are throwing money at any plausible plan.
Maybe try to be funnier in future? Or at least interesting?
Extraction and consumption of fossil fuels is not in itself the problem. Releasing CO2 (and methane) into the atmosphere as a result of their use is the problem. So turning oil into plastics, turning natural gas into blue hydrogen (with carbon capture) or burning coal for power generation (with carbon capture) are not the same as unabated combustion and emission or, worse still, venting of associated gas or leakage from the gas mains.