This is big: it seems China stopped permitting new coal-based steel mills in the first half of 2024!
Steel is the second-largest emitter in China after electricity, due to the industry's vast size and heavy reliance on coal.
In recent years, China has been permitting hundreds of millions of tonnes of new coal-based steel capacity. While these have been "replacement" projects, i.e. an equal or slightly larger amount of old capacity has to be closed, this continued investment has extended the sector's reliance on coal.
Ridiculous over-reaction. Who here hasn't occasionally taken a cab to Clifton Suspension Bridge with two suitcases containing human remains?
Have the police got nothing better to do?
I completely resent that insinuation, I have never done that.
When I dispose of human remains in a suitcase I take my own vehicle to do so, I would never do so in a cab.
Mrs Thatcher always considered anyone carrying human remains on a bus was a failure, cab or Denis’s Jag every time.
These days, the discerning hire Addison Lee's electric delivery van option. The drivers seem an amenable lot - probably could get them to put the body in the river for 20 quid.
A compulsory facial recognition database with ANPR cameras replaced with facial recognition cameras and a year inside for covering your face while driving would soon sort it.
Won't go down well in Guardian Towers though.
As ever, the question is what privacy we are willing to sacrifice for the greater good and will the other uses such a system might be put to by the government and its agencies be worse than allowing a small part of society to cause misery.to others.
Blair passed proceeds of crime legislation to allow the state to seize the receipts of drug dealing and terrorism. What we got was local councils bankrupting residents who pruned a protected tree without permission based on the imputed increased value of their house as a result of the tree no longer causing a light blocking nuisance.
Do you have a linky for that last claim?
Did @MrBedfordshire back this claim up, of someone pruning a TPO Tree being bankrupted after being pursued under Proceeds of Crime law?
I'd really like to see it, as I have never seen POCA used wrt TPO trees, and it is in my area of interest. Getting permission to prune is not difficult, and is free, and we treat damaging TPO trees as an attack on the system of maintaining the public environment, which is what it is.
The closest I am aware of was a millionaire scrote on Sandbanks who added £40k to the value of his property by destroying two TPO trees.
He got off lightly: all he got done for was £2700 fine, £15500 court costs, and the £40k profits he had made by illegally destroying the trees. That fine could have been £25k.
"Proceeds of Crime orders, such as the confiscation of property, are normally associated with seizing money from organised criminals. If a person is convicted from having profited from a crime, those funds can be confiscated by the court. However, these powers are increasingly being used by authorities in broader and ever more innovative ways. The result, in addition to relatively nominal fines, is that courts have begun imposing significant – and some would argue punitive – confiscation orders.
In this case the council appointed surveyors to determine the increase in the property’s value following the cutting down of the protected tree. In the opinion of the council’s experts, Wilson’s home increased in value by around £21,000."
So they’re using laws intended for drug dealers, terrorists, and people traffickers, to financially ruin someone who cuts down a protected tree on their own land?
He didn't even cut them down, just gave them a significant pruning. They will grow back.
These sorts of powers allow jumped up power crazed ideologically rugid c**ts in councils to lord it over residents like Norman Barons and hold them in just as much contempt.
TBF the original claim made on the thread was around making him bankrupt.
AFAICS he hasn't been ruined. He's just lost his illegal profits.
If he wants to prune protected trees, a free, not at all difficult, system exists for him to use. He thought he was above the law and could do whatever he wanted.
Personally I'd say that the landowner destroying public benefit is the one behaving like a Nortman Baron.
I think that is bordering on pedantry. Anyone with a half decent pension pot and house is a millionaire these days.
That dosent mean they have tens of thousands spare because they are given a bill of tens of thousands based on an imputed rise in value of their property.
Doing that will ruin people.
How many people has it ruined?
If the property is up in value, they can get a small mortgage or move to somewhere slightly smaller. Or if they are a pension millionaire of the type you mention, they can draw down 3% or 5% of their pension pot.
But mainly they should really have thought about that before committing the crime.
The standard punishment in 2 of the 3 cases we have discussed is a small fine of a few thousand, Court Costs, and recovery of criminal profits.
The Leominster River Legg SSSI destruction case is a little different, in that the perp with the record of offences going back to 2007, who got the year in prison, has been told to spend £1.2m to restore the landscape he destroyed.
But that one has assets reported by the Daily Mail of more than £20m+, so he can perfectly well afford it.
So I think "forced into bankruptcy" is essentially a fiction.
Ridiculous over-reaction. Who here hasn't occasionally taken a cab to Clifton Suspension Bridge with two suitcases containing human remains?
Have the police got nothing better to do?
I completely resent that insinuation, I have never done that.
When I dispose of human remains in a suitcase I take my own vehicle to do so, I would never do so in a cab.
Not even an Uber? When I've got dismembered body parts in a rucksack that need to get to a well known tourist hotspot, I find Ubers are really useful. What I don't bloody need is the police sticking their noses in, frankly
Get on with arresting burglars, Like, ACTUAL police work
Do you two have no regard for the environment, or congestion? I have a cargo bike I use when I want to transport suitcases containing human remains about the place. And for longer journeys public transport works fine in urban areas.
Yes. A cargobike would be pretty much perfect. No ANPR and in Woke Bristol you'll blend in..
Disguise the body as a statue - you'd get people volunteering to help shove it in the river....
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
Lots to quibble with but will point out that he absolutely can help how the draw pans out. Winning matches gives the easier draws through seeding. If we had finished second in our group this time we would have been playing Germany in the last 16. If we had finished second in the our group last time we would have faced Spain and had France in the same quarter (they lost in l16 but it would have been a harder draw). He needs to get credit for topping qualifying groups and group stages.
Its pretty disrespectful and curmudgeonly to not accept Southgate has done a good job imo. His reluctance to use subs is infuriating and sometimes costly but the overall package, especially the creation of a happy and together environment has been good.
Definitely lucky this time. 0. Didn't get drawn into one of the hardest groups. 1. A bit lucky to finish top of the group, if Denmark had managed so score a goal against Serbia England would have come second. 1-0, 1-1, 0-0 in a fairly weak group is mediocre at best. England would have faced Germany, and if they'd managed to get through (doubtful), Spain in the quarters. 2. If Germany hadn't equalised in the last minute against Switzerland, England would have probably had to face Germany in the quarter finals. 3. If France had managed to beat Poland, it could have been France in the semis. 4. If Portugal had bothered not to lose against Georgia it would have been the Netherlands rather than Slovakia in the 8th-finals.
Then they were going out against Slovakia until injury time, only got past Switzerland on penalties, and benefited from a soft penalty decision against the Netherlands.
Hard to imagine how England could have had more luck to get to the finals, tbh. Compare to Spain, who were in a group with Italy and Croatia, won all their games, and had to beat Germany and France to get to the finals. Maybe a bit lucky they didn't get a soft penalty given against them for handball vs Germany, but that's it.
Spain are the standout side for sure. But pick any other finalist, France, Germany, Portugal, Netherlands, Swiss they could play and I can write another script to explain why they had luck on their side. Its the nature of international tournament football.
Spain had a gigantic slice of luck against the Germans – a stonewall penalty for handball when Cucurella saved a goal-bound shot.
Some England 'fans' are very weird – they simply cannot give their own side credit. Martin Samuel in the Times was excellent on this topic a few days back.
England were mediocre to poor AND boring for most of the first 5 games, barely managed to win an easy group, barely got through the 8th final, and quarterfinal despite getting a relatively easy route to the finals. They played well against the Netherlands, and of course getting to the finals is still an achievement.
I can't comment on the Cucurella handball because I am no expert, except to say even the German TV commentary and referee-expert seemed to think the decision was correct, but maybe you are right and they are wrong.
The decision was correct by current UEFA refereeing guidelines. In the Prem it would be a pen, or at least was at the start of the season, by the second half of the season it had got confused. Fifa might have given different guidelines had it been a World Cup. And whatever the rules are now they will be changed a bit by the next tournament.
It is not hard to see why fans and commentators are bemused and confused.
The rules seem to have changed to favour the attacking side generally except offside.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
Hmm.
Do you think it's possible to taper this down in a way that satisfies the transition to renewables while not causing such a cliff edge? Or prioritise not importing some refined products from the baddies as we do it?
This is tricky politics. We are a net exporter of crude oil. How we justify that while pushing renewables...
Because everything that is good about life is built on gas and oil. Wishful thinking wont reverse that.
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
Lots to quibble with but will point out that he absolutely can help how the draw pans out. Winning matches gives the easier draws through seeding. If we had finished second in our group this time we would have been playing Germany in the last 16. If we had finished second in the our group last time we would have faced Spain and had France in the same quarter (they lost in l16 but it would have been a harder draw). He needs to get credit for topping qualifying groups and group stages.
Its pretty disrespectful and curmudgeonly to not accept Southgate has done a good job imo. His reluctance to use subs is infuriating and sometimes costly but the overall package, especially the creation of a happy and together environment has been good.
Definitely lucky this time. 0. Didn't get drawn into one of the hardest groups. 1. A bit lucky to finish top of the group, if Denmark had managed so score a goal against Serbia England would have come second. 1-0, 1-1, 0-0 in a fairly weak group is mediocre at best. England would have faced Germany, and if they'd managed to get through (doubtful), Spain in the quarters. 2. If Germany hadn't equalised in the last minute against Switzerland, England would have probably had to face Germany in the quarter finals. 3. If France had managed to beat Poland, it could have been France in the semis. 4. If Portugal had bothered not to lose against Georgia it would have been the Netherlands rather than Slovakia in the 8th-finals.
Then they were going out against Slovakia until injury time, only got past Switzerland on penalties, and benefited from a soft penalty decision against the Netherlands.
Hard to imagine how England could have had more luck to get to the finals, tbh. Compare to Spain, who were in a group with Italy and Croatia, won all their games, and had to beat Germany and France to get to the finals. Maybe a bit lucky they didn't get a soft penalty given against them for handball vs Germany, but that's it.
Spain are the standout side for sure. But pick any other finalist, France, Germany, Portugal, Netherlands, Swiss they could play and I can write another script to explain why they had luck on their side. Its the nature of international tournament football.
Spain had a gigantic slice of luck against the Germans – a stonewall penalty for handball when Cucurella saved a goal-bound shot.
Some England 'fans' are very weird – they simply cannot give their own side credit. Martin Samuel in the Times was excellent on this topic a few days back.
England were mediocre to poor AND boring for most of the first 5 games, barely managed to win an easy group, barely got through the 8th final, and quarterfinal despite getting a relatively easy route to the finals. They played well against the Netherlands, and of course getting to the finals is still an achievement.
I can't comment on the Cucurella handball because I am no expert, except to say even the German TV commentary and referee-expert seemed to think the decision was correct, but maybe you are right and they are wrong.
The decision was correct by current UEFA refereeing guidelines. In the Prem it would be a pen, or at least was at the start of the season, by the second half of the season it had got confused. Fifa might have given different guidelines had it been a World Cup. And whatever the rules are now they will be changed a bit by the next tournament.
It is not hard to see why fans and commentators are bemused and confused.
The rules seem to have changed to favour the attacking side generally except offside.
Football does have a problem tho. Defenses have got better and better
They need to enlarge the goals by a few inches. Seriously
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
Lots to quibble with but will point out that he absolutely can help how the draw pans out. Winning matches gives the easier draws through seeding. If we had finished second in our group this time we would have been playing Germany in the last 16. If we had finished second in the our group last time we would have faced Spain and had France in the same quarter (they lost in l16 but it would have been a harder draw). He needs to get credit for topping qualifying groups and group stages.
Its pretty disrespectful and curmudgeonly to not accept Southgate has done a good job imo. His reluctance to use subs is infuriating and sometimes costly but the overall package, especially the creation of a happy and together environment has been good.
Definitely lucky this time. 0. Didn't get drawn into one of the hardest groups. 1. A bit lucky to finish top of the group, if Denmark had managed so score a goal against Serbia England would have come second. 1-0, 1-1, 0-0 in a fairly weak group is mediocre at best. England would have faced Germany, and if they'd managed to get through (doubtful), Spain in the quarters. 2. If Germany hadn't equalised in the last minute against Switzerland, England would have probably had to face Germany in the quarter finals. 3. If France had managed to beat Poland, it could have been France in the semis. 4. If Portugal had bothered not to lose against Georgia it would have been the Netherlands rather than Slovakia in the 8th-finals.
Then they were going out against Slovakia until injury time, only got past Switzerland on penalties, and benefited from a soft penalty decision against the Netherlands.
Hard to imagine how England could have had more luck to get to the finals, tbh. Compare to Spain, who were in a group with Italy and Croatia, won all their games, and had to beat Germany and France to get to the finals. Maybe a bit lucky they didn't get a soft penalty given against them for handball vs Germany, but that's it.
Spain are the standout side for sure. But pick any other finalist, France, Germany, Portugal, Netherlands, Swiss they could play and I can write another script to explain why they had luck on their side. Its the nature of international tournament football.
Spain had a gigantic slice of luck against the Germans – a stonewall penalty for handball when Cucurella saved a goal-bound shot.
Some England 'fans' are very weird – they simply cannot give their own side credit. Martin Samuel in the Times was excellent on this topic a few days back.
England were mediocre to poor AND boring for most of the first 5 games, barely managed to win an easy group, barely got through the 8th final, and quarterfinal despite getting a relatively easy route to the finals. They played well against the Netherlands, and of course getting to the finals is still an achievement.
I can't comment on the Cucurella handball because I am no expert, except to say even the German TV commentary and referee-expert seemed to think the decision was correct, but maybe you are right and they are wrong.
The decision was correct by current UEFA refereeing guidelines. In the Prem it would be a pen, or at least was at the start of the season, by the second half of the season it had got confused. Fifa might have given different guidelines had it been a World Cup. And whatever the rules are now they will be changed a bit by the next tournament.
It is not hard to see why fans and commentators are bemused and confused.
The rules seem to have changed to favour the attacking side generally except offside.
Change the rule to allow one attacking player to be offside ?
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But the world as a whole cannot maintain oil and gas production at anywhere near the current levels if it is serious about combatting climate change. That's the whole bloody point. And if we're not going to be serious about it, how can we expect anyone else to be? The oil and gas industry is destroying the climate. It needs to be screwed.
I just tuned into Radio 4 Long Wave in the vain hope that it might still be broadcasting Test Match Special.
It wasn't. 🙁
It's on Radio Five SportsXtra on digital.
I know, but I've got this dinky old radio that does long wave, short wave, medium wave, FM which I used to listen to the cricket on. Digital radio didn't exist when it was manufactured.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
Has any official announcement actually been reported anywhere reputable ?
Not that I have seen. I have based my response entirely on the Telegraph report (dangerous I know) and the fact that Miliband said this was exactly what they would do once in office (maybe that is dangerous too?)
The point being it is a fundementally stupid thing to do whenever they decide to do it. Actually it was a fundementally stupid thing to even suggest doing as it has significatly reduced investment in the UKCS over the last year or so once it was clear Labour would win.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But the world as a whole cannot maintain oil and gas production at anywhere near the current levels if it is serious about combatting climate change. That's the whole bloody point. And if we're not going to be serious about it, how can we expect anyone else to be? The oil and gas industry is destroying the climate. It needs to be screwed.
"if we dont disarm our nuclear warheads how can we expect anyone else to" Of course if you do it, you dont result in anyone else not having warheads, you just no longer have your own.
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
Lots to quibble with but will point out that he absolutely can help how the draw pans out. Winning matches gives the easier draws through seeding. If we had finished second in our group this time we would have been playing Germany in the last 16. If we had finished second in the our group last time we would have faced Spain and had France in the same quarter (they lost in l16 but it would have been a harder draw). He needs to get credit for topping qualifying groups and group stages.
Its pretty disrespectful and curmudgeonly to not accept Southgate has done a good job imo. His reluctance to use subs is infuriating and sometimes costly but the overall package, especially the creation of a happy and together environment has been good.
Definitely lucky this time. 0. Didn't get drawn into one of the hardest groups. 1. A bit lucky to finish top of the group, if Denmark had managed so score a goal against Serbia England would have come second. 1-0, 1-1, 0-0 in a fairly weak group is mediocre at best. England would have faced Germany, and if they'd managed to get through (doubtful), Spain in the quarters. 2. If Germany hadn't equalised in the last minute against Switzerland, England would have probably had to face Germany in the quarter finals. 3. If France had managed to beat Poland, it could have been France in the semis. 4. If Portugal had bothered not to lose against Georgia it would have been the Netherlands rather than Slovakia in the 8th-finals.
Then they were going out against Slovakia until injury time, only got past Switzerland on penalties, and benefited from a soft penalty decision against the Netherlands.
Hard to imagine how England could have had more luck to get to the finals, tbh. Compare to Spain, who were in a group with Italy and Croatia, won all their games, and had to beat Germany and France to get to the finals. Maybe a bit lucky they didn't get a soft penalty given against them for handball vs Germany, but that's it.
Spain are the standout side for sure. But pick any other finalist, France, Germany, Portugal, Netherlands, Swiss they could play and I can write another script to explain why they had luck on their side. Its the nature of international tournament football.
Spain had a gigantic slice of luck against the Germans – a stonewall penalty for handball when Cucurella saved a goal-bound shot.
Some England 'fans' are very weird – they simply cannot give their own side credit. Martin Samuel in the Times was excellent on this topic a few days back.
England were mediocre to poor AND boring for most of the first 5 games, barely managed to win an easy group, barely got through the 8th final, and quarterfinal despite getting a relatively easy route to the finals. They played well against the Netherlands, and of course getting to the finals is still an achievement.
I can't comment on the Cucurella handball because I am no expert, except to say even the German TV commentary and referee-expert seemed to think the decision was correct, but maybe you are right and they are wrong.
The decision was correct by current UEFA refereeing guidelines. In the Prem it would be a pen, or at least was at the start of the season, by the second half of the season it had got confused. Fifa might have given different guidelines had it been a World Cup. And whatever the rules are now they will be changed a bit by the next tournament.
It is not hard to see why fans and commentators are bemused and confused.
The rules seem to have changed to favour the attacking side generally except offside.
Yeah, I don't mind the general direction and big rule changes such as the back pass and goal kick changes, they have improved the game. But tinkering year in year out and then having different competiton and country specific interpretations of the laws is silly.
Replace the tinkering with more and better funded trials in second tier football to see if they can nail the handball law. But only change it once every 5 or 10 years and then implement it across (at least) the whole professional game.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
Has any official announcement actually been reported anywhere reputable ?
Not that I have seen. I have based my response entirely on the Telegraph report (dangerous I know) and the fact that Miliband said this was exactly what they would do once in office (maybe that is dangerous too?)
The point being it is a fundementally stupid thing to do whenever they decide to do it. Actually it was a fundementally stupid thing to even suggest doing as it has significatly reduced investment in the UKCS over the last year or so once it was clear Labour would win.
The problem is burning fossil fuels. And we are going to be burning them for a bit. Unless you'd like to shut down the NHS. As a start.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
We are going to need petrochemicals indefinitely into the future.
Better they come from the North Sea than the Middle East or Russia.
Cutting consumption of oil and gas is a good thing, cutting exploration and future production without banning imports first is not.
And the quantities needed for the petrochemicals industry are small compared to the current quantities used as fuel. So, as I said, if we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production. Miliband hasn't cut production: there is no threat to our petrochemicals industry.
Banning all imports would be against WTO rules surely.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
Has any official announcement actually been reported anywhere reputable ?
All I can find is reports saying "sources suggest".
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
Lots to quibble with but will point out that he absolutely can help how the draw pans out. Winning matches gives the easier draws through seeding. If we had finished second in our group this time we would have been playing Germany in the last 16. If we had finished second in the our group last time we would have faced Spain and had France in the same quarter (they lost in l16 but it would have been a harder draw). He needs to get credit for topping qualifying groups and group stages.
Its pretty disrespectful and curmudgeonly to not accept Southgate has done a good job imo. His reluctance to use subs is infuriating and sometimes costly but the overall package, especially the creation of a happy and together environment has been good.
Definitely lucky this time. 0. Didn't get drawn into one of the hardest groups. 1. A bit lucky to finish top of the group, if Denmark had managed so score a goal against Serbia England would have come second. 1-0, 1-1, 0-0 in a fairly weak group is mediocre at best. England would have faced Germany, and if they'd managed to get through (doubtful), Spain in the quarters. 2. If Germany hadn't equalised in the last minute against Switzerland, England would have probably had to face Germany in the quarter finals. 3. If France had managed to beat Poland, it could have been France in the semis. 4. If Portugal had bothered not to lose against Georgia it would have been the Netherlands rather than Slovakia in the 8th-finals.
Then they were going out against Slovakia until injury time, only got past Switzerland on penalties, and benefited from a soft penalty decision against the Netherlands.
Hard to imagine how England could have had more luck to get to the finals, tbh. Compare to Spain, who were in a group with Italy and Croatia, won all their games, and had to beat Germany and France to get to the finals. Maybe a bit lucky they didn't get a soft penalty given against them for handball vs Germany, but that's it.
Spain are the standout side for sure. But pick any other finalist, France, Germany, Portugal, Netherlands, Swiss they could play and I can write another script to explain why they had luck on their side. Its the nature of international tournament football.
Spain had a gigantic slice of luck against the Germans – a stonewall penalty for handball when Cucurella saved a goal-bound shot.
Some England 'fans' are very weird – they simply cannot give their own side credit. Martin Samuel in the Times was excellent on this topic a few days back.
England were mediocre to poor AND boring for most of the first 5 games, barely managed to win an easy group, barely got through the 8th final, and quarterfinal despite getting a relatively easy route to the finals. They played well against the Netherlands, and of course getting to the finals is still an achievement.
I can't comment on the Cucurella handball because I am no expert, except to say even the German TV commentary and referee-expert seemed to think the decision was correct, but maybe you are right and they are wrong.
The decision was correct by current UEFA refereeing guidelines. In the Prem it would be a pen, or at least was at the start of the season, by the second half of the season it had got confused. Fifa might have given different guidelines had it been a World Cup. And whatever the rules are now they will be changed a bit by the next tournament.
It is not hard to see why fans and commentators are bemused and confused.
The rules seem to have changed to favour the attacking side generally except offside.
Change the rule to allow one attacking player to be offside ?
I think the Saka goal being ruled out worked OK - the flag went up immediately with the semi-automated stuff, VAR checked it from the expectation of it not being a goal (And that's the crucial bit psychologically) so it was OK.
I think the VAR officials need to ask themselves when it comes to stuff like handball/the penalty "Was this a clear and obvious error by the referee", instead they're rereferring stuff - which IMO should not be the point of VAR. Of course clear and obvious errors (Henry's handball for instance) are far fewer than hairline decisions which look far worse on a slo-mo than they were in real time. They need to realise once a decision is referred back to the referee that the referee will almost always go with their new decision even if there was no clear and obvious error originally.
Will Dunn thinks the story has been exaggerated a bit:
I'm told this story is not accurate. My understanding from industry & govt is that no decisions have been made on existing bids in the current license round, Miliband has not overruled officials, and that there is not an immediate ban on new licenses.
Trouble is it does send a signal to investors anyway.
OK, I sincerely hope that's true - whatever one's position on North sea oil and gas and ribbing of Ed Miliband it's better that I and the Telegraph have written a few paragraphs of complete bollocks than the government ends up with a mahoosive legal bill because of Ed Miliband's actions.
The Telegraph writing a few paragraphs of complete bollocks has become an overly familiar event.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
We are going to need petrochemicals indefinitely into the future.
Better they come from the North Sea than the Middle East or Russia.
Cutting consumption of oil and gas is a good thing, cutting exploration and future production without banning imports first is not.
And the quantities needed for the petrochemicals industry are small compared to the current quantities used as fuel. So, as I said, if we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production. Miliband hasn't cut production: there is no threat to our petrochemicals industry.
Banning all imports would be against WTO rules surely.
The answer is to cut back our own production as well as heavily taxing imports. Of course we need some hydrocarbons for purposes other than fuel, but we currently burn most of them. Not only is this bad for the environment, it is incredibly wasteful.
This is big: it seems China stopped permitting new coal-based steel mills in the first half of 2024!
Steel is the second-largest emitter in China after electricity, due to the industry's vast size and heavy reliance on coal.
In recent years, China has been permitting hundreds of millions of tonnes of new coal-based steel capacity. While these have been "replacement" projects, i.e. an equal or slightly larger amount of old capacity has to be closed, this continued investment has extended the sector's reliance on coal.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But we don't need to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Miliband's actions have no impact on current production today. They will some years in the future, but we are committed to very significant reductions in the use of oil and gas over the next decade.
@SpeakerPelosi has been advising frontline members to voice their district & do what they need for re-election -- even if it means calling on Biden to step aside. (Her one request: wait until NATO concludes out of respect for the office & Biden)
For other safe-seat members, she's encouraging them to take their desire for him to step aside straight to the WH or campaign to minimize party infighting.
For her part, Pelosi has told some people that Biden won't win and should step aside.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
Hmm.
Do you think it's possible to taper this down in a way that satisfies the transition to renewables while not causing such a cliff edge? Or prioritise not importing some refined products from the baddies as we do it?
This is tricky politics. We are a net exporter of crude oil. How we justify that while pushing renewables...
We are not a net exporter of oil (crude and refined). We are a net importer and have been for a good few years. We do export much of our production because of its high quality for petrochemicals but we import far more for our own domestic use. The variation in the crude oil import/export is due to refining capacity issues. But even then it is almost exactly balanced.
This is big: it seems China stopped permitting new coal-based steel mills in the first half of 2024!
Steel is the second-largest emitter in China after electricity, due to the industry's vast size and heavy reliance on coal.
In recent years, China has been permitting hundreds of millions of tonnes of new coal-based steel capacity. While these have been "replacement" projects, i.e. an equal or slightly larger amount of old capacity has to be closed, this continued investment has extended the sector's reliance on coal.
"The older brother of Kyle Clifford, suspect in the triple murder of John Hunt’s wife and daughters, is already in prison for murder.
Bradley Clifford, of Rendlesham Road, Enfield, was found guilty of murder and the attempted grievous bodily harm with intent against a 19-year-old man in May 2018.
The now 30-year-old was handed a life sentence with a minimum term of 23 years for murder and seven years for the attack on Mr Francis, to run concurrently."
"Starmer hints at a possible bank holiday if England win the Euros. The PM said 'we should certainly mark the occasion' but 'I don't want to jinx it'. Starmer previously called for bank holidays if England won past tournaments"
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Yep, there is zero national security argument for gas/oil. If you're fussed about it, we need to reduce our exposure to global energy markets. Neither domestic fossil fuels or renewables provide that.
No one is suggesting changing that, so the only actual cost is to the economy in the NE of Scotland. Which is a real cost, particularly to some of my friends in the sector.
Its a cost to the UK balance of trade. It also removes a reliable UK source for the petrochemical industry. In addition North Sea oil is much better than much of the imported stuff, particularly from the Middle East, as it has a far lower sulphide content so needs far less processing.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But the world as a whole cannot maintain oil and gas production at anywhere near the current levels if it is serious about combatting climate change. That's the whole bloody point. And if we're not going to be serious about it, how can we expect anyone else to be? The oil and gas industry is destroying the climate. It needs to be screwed.
"if we dont disarm our nuclear warheads how can we expect anyone else to" Of course if you do it, you dont result in anyone else not having warheads, you just no longer have your own.
This is big: it seems China stopped permitting new coal-based steel mills in the first half of 2024!
Steel is the second-largest emitter in China after electricity, due to the industry's vast size and heavy reliance on coal.
In recent years, China has been permitting hundreds of millions of tonnes of new coal-based steel capacity. While these have been "replacement" projects, i.e. an equal or slightly larger amount of old capacity has to be closed, this continued investment has extended the sector's reliance on coal.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
Hmm.
Do you think it's possible to taper this down in a way that satisfies the transition to renewables while not causing such a cliff edge? Or prioritise not importing some refined products from the baddies as we do it?
This is tricky politics. We are a net exporter of crude oil. How we justify that while pushing renewables...
Of course it is.
Taper down consumption of oil and gas and let the market handle the rest.
Firms won't invest in redundant exploration that is unnecessary.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But we don't need to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Miliband's actions have no impact on current production today. They will some years in the future, but we are committed to very significant reductions in the use of oil and gas over the next decade.
LOL. You really have no idea do you. Near field exploration and development can bring wells on in a matter of months. I drilled a well for Dana last August on a near-field exploration target which, if it isn't online already, will be in the next month or so. It is a constant conveyor system to keep fields operational and once there are indications of a break in the conveyor the oil companies will simply pull that investment and shoft it to elsewhere in the world. Harbour, Dana, Ithaca and loads of other independent UK oil companies, as well as the majors, have already started that process, partly because of the windfall tax and partly because of the prospect of Labour imposing the ban. Why bother to invest now when you know you will have the lesg taken out from under you in a few months or years.
So all you are doing is damaging the UK economy and forcing us to import more hydrocarbons, destroying importantindustries and making the transition all the more difficult. It is self destructive childish virtue signalling.
"Starmer hints at a possible bank holiday if England win the Euros. The PM said 'we should certainly mark the occasion' but 'I don't want to jinx it'. Starmer previously called for bank holidays if England won past tournaments"
I just tuned into Radio 4 Long Wave in the vain hope that it might still be broadcasting Test Match Special.
It wasn't. 🙁
It's on Radio Five SportsXtra on digital.
Not much help if you've managed to keep your motor running since 2010 or so. I listen on 5LSE but they should keep it going on R4LW till about 2040 I think.
Why? Nobody listens to that station any more. You could just get a DAB for your car if it's that old couldn't you?
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
This is unalloyed garbage. Did you even watch the game last night?
No, I didn't - I'd already said as such upthread (but it was some time ago and it would be an odd man indeed who sought out ALL of my comments.) My comment about passing back and forth between the back four is based on what I've seen from the other four matches, which seemed to contain almost no attacking play whatsoever.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But the world as a whole cannot maintain oil and gas production at anywhere near the current levels if it is serious about combatting climate change. That's the whole bloody point. And if we're not going to be serious about it, how can we expect anyone else to be? The oil and gas industry is destroying the climate. It needs to be screwed.
You deal with it by reducing demand, not by cutting your own throat and increasing imports. OIl, and gas prouduction worldwide won't change by a single barrel just because we stop our production.
How do you build your electric cars without petrochemical products - plastics, lubricants, coolants?
And as I have said before, when that gives you an almighty headache don't reach for the asprin. It won't be there as it is made of hydrocarbons.
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
Lots to quibble with but will point out that he absolutely can help how the draw pans out. Winning matches gives the easier draws through seeding. If we had finished second in our group this time we would have been playing Germany in the last 16. If we had finished second in the our group last time we would have faced Spain and had France in the same quarter (they lost in l16 but it would have been a harder draw). He needs to get credit for topping qualifying groups and group stages.
Its pretty disrespectful and curmudgeonly to not accept Southgate has done a good job imo. His reluctance to use subs is infuriating and sometimes costly but the overall package, especially the creation of a happy and together environment has been good.
Definitely lucky this time. 0. Didn't get drawn into one of the hardest groups. 1. A bit lucky to finish top of the group, if Denmark had managed so score a goal against Serbia England would have come second. 1-0, 1-1, 0-0 in a fairly weak group is mediocre at best. England would have faced Germany, and if they'd managed to get through (doubtful), Spain in the quarters. 2. If Germany hadn't equalised in the last minute against Switzerland, England would have probably had to face Germany in the quarter finals. 3. If France had managed to beat Poland, it could have been France in the semis. 4. If Portugal had bothered not to lose against Georgia it would have been the Netherlands rather than Slovakia in the 8th-finals.
Then they were going out against Slovakia until injury time, only got past Switzerland on penalties, and benefited from a soft penalty decision against the Netherlands.
Hard to imagine how England could have had more luck to get to the finals, tbh. Compare to Spain, who were in a group with Italy and Croatia, won all their games, and had to beat Germany and France to get to the finals. Maybe a bit lucky they didn't get a soft penalty given against them for handball vs Germany, but that's it.
Spain are the standout side for sure. But pick any other finalist, France, Germany, Portugal, Netherlands, Swiss they could play and I can write another script to explain why they had luck on their side. Its the nature of international tournament football.
Spain had a gigantic slice of luck against the Germans – a stonewall penalty for handball when Cucurella saved a goal-bound shot.
Some England 'fans' are very weird – they simply cannot give their own side credit. Martin Samuel in the Times was excellent on this topic a few days back.
England were mediocre to poor AND boring for most of the first 5 games, barely managed to win an easy group, barely got through the 8th final, and quarterfinal despite getting a relatively easy route to the finals. They played well against the Netherlands, and of course getting to the finals is still an achievement.
I can't comment on the Cucurella handball because I am no expert, except to say even the German TV commentary and referee-expert seemed to think the decision was correct, but maybe you are right and they are wrong.
The decision was correct by current UEFA refereeing guidelines. In the Prem it would be a pen, or at least was at the start of the season, by the second half of the season it had got confused. Fifa might have given different guidelines had it been a World Cup. And whatever the rules are now they will be changed a bit by the next tournament.
It is not hard to see why fans and commentators are bemused and confused.
The rules seem to have changed to favour the attacking side generally except offside.
Change the rule to allow one attacking player to be offside ?
Then you would just have a permanent goal hanger. Better to have a challenge system a la cricket with each captain allowed just one challenge per half (he retains it if he is proved right). Result would likely be more goals from the linesman giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt in close calls (as they are supposed to do by keeping their flags down if unsure).
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But we don't need to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Miliband's actions have no impact on current production today. They will some years in the future, but we are committed to very significant reductions in the use of oil and gas over the next decade.
LOL. You really have no idea do you. Near field exploration and development can bring wells on in a matter of months. I drilled a well for Dana last August on a near-field exploration target which, if it isn't online already, will be in the next month or so. It is a constant conveyor system to keep fields operational and once there are indications of a break in the conveyor the oil companies will simply pull that investment and shoft it to elsewhere in the world. Harbour, Dana, Ithaca and loads of other independent UK oil companies, as well as the majors, have already started that process, partly because of the windfall tax and partly because of the prospect of Labour imposing the ban. Why bother to invest now when you know you will have the lesg taken out from under you in a few months or years.
So all you are doing is damaging the UK economy and forcing us to import more hydrocarbons, destroying importantindustries and making the transition all the more difficult. It is self destructive childish virtue signalling.
If we halve our gas usage, we'll still be importing a bit. And our levels of production these days have almost no effect at the margin on world market prices. So there's no good economic or environmental case for an immediate halt to new projects.
But oil & gas revenues can and should be used to subsidise more renewables.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Yep, there is zero national security argument for gas/oil. If you're fussed about it, we need to reduce our exposure to global energy markets. Neither domestic fossil fuels or renewables provide that.
No one is suggesting changing that, so the only actual cost is to the economy in the NE of Scotland. Which is a real cost, particularly to some of my friends in the sector.
Its a cost to the UK balance of trade. It also removes a reliable UK source for the petrochemical industry. In addition North Sea oil is much better than much of the imported stuff, particularly from the Middle East, as it has a far lower sulphide content so needs far less processing.
And the US Oil has much of the same problems as the Middle East whilst Norway is already at close to capacity for its ability to export to us. They already said earlier in the year that they would be unlikely to be able to meet current UK demand for their gas.
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
This is unalloyed garbage. Did you even watch the game last night?
No, I didn't - I'd already said as such upthread (but it was some time ago and it would be an odd man indeed who sought out ALL of my comments.) My comment about passing back and forth between the back four is based on what I've seen from the other four matches, which seemed to contain almost no attacking play whatsoever.
Well even they contained attacking play, albeit not as much as one would like (which is rather a different point). You don't seem to like football much, which is fair enough. But I think these sweeping generalisations you are making in this particular case are rather coloured by your general views of the sport.
"Starmer hints at a possible bank holiday if England win the Euros. The PM said 'we should certainly mark the occasion' but 'I don't want to jinx it'. Starmer previously called for bank holidays if England won past tournaments"
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But the world as a whole cannot maintain oil and gas production at anywhere near the current levels if it is serious about combatting climate change. That's the whole bloody point. And if we're not going to be serious about it, how can we expect anyone else to be? The oil and gas industry is destroying the climate. It needs to be screwed.
"if we dont disarm our nuclear warheads how can we expect anyone else to" Of course if you do it, you dont result in anyone else not having warheads, you just no longer have your own.
The net result of everyone refusing to curtail fossil fuel extraction is that a fair chunk of the UK vanishes below the waves. Is this what you and the other fossil fuel addicts want? Do you hate your country that much?
Also, bring in game-limited appeals to VAR. This works brilliantly in cricket, and actually adds to the drama
It's such an obvious thing to do, speed up the game, decrease disallowed goals, make it all more exciting. They are such dimwits for not doing this
Correct. Sorry, I made the same point below but I see you have made it first.
Edit: it would also enhance the role of the skipper, which would be a good addition to the game. Captains with good game sense would attract a premium as 'skilled reviewers'.
I just tuned into Radio 4 Long Wave in the vain hope that it might still be broadcasting Test Match Special.
It wasn't. 🙁
It's on Radio Five SportsXtra on digital.
Not much help if you've managed to keep your motor running since 2010 or so. I listen on 5LSE but they should keep it going on R4LW till about 2040 I think.
Why? Nobody listens to that station any more. You could just get a DAB for your car if it's that old couldn't you?
Well you could, but it seems a bit rum that you have to.
(I too, you will be unsurprised to learn, lament the passing of R4LWTMS - seemed to me to fall into the category of not broke/don't fix. I too have a car which is 'that old', and I also had recently a long wave radio I used specifically for listening to the cricket when I was out and about. Unlike a phone, I didn't have to pay for data and the battery lasted for ever. And I miss the break for the shipping forecast.)
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But we don't need to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Miliband's actions have no impact on current production today. They will some years in the future, but we are committed to very significant reductions in the use of oil and gas over the next decade.
LOL. You really have no idea do you. Near field exploration and development can bring wells on in a matter of months. I drilled a well for Dana last August on a near-field exploration target which, if it isn't online already, will be in the next month or so. It is a constant conveyor system to keep fields operational and once there are indications of a break in the conveyor the oil companies will simply pull that investment and shoft it to elsewhere in the world. Harbour, Dana, Ithaca and loads of other independent UK oil companies, as well as the majors, have already started that process, partly because of the windfall tax and partly because of the prospect of Labour imposing the ban. Why bother to invest now when you know you will have the lesg taken out from under you in a few months or years.
So all you are doing is damaging the UK economy and forcing us to import more hydrocarbons, destroying importantindustries and making the transition all the more difficult. It is self destructive childish virtue signalling.
If we halve our gas usage, we'll still be importing a bit. And our levels of production these days have almost no effect at the margin on world market prices. So there's no good economic or environmental case for an immediate halt to new projects.
But oil & gas revenues can and should be used to subsidise more renewables.
Perhaps Milliband is just playing hardball on that latter suggestion ?
Though I never saw him as sufficiently politically adept.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But we don't need to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Miliband's actions have no impact on current production today. They will some years in the future, but we are committed to very significant reductions in the use of oil and gas over the next decade.
LOL. You really have no idea do you. Near field exploration and development can bring wells on in a matter of months. I drilled a well for Dana last August on a near-field exploration target which, if it isn't online already, will be in the next month or so. It is a constant conveyor system to keep fields operational and once there are indications of a break in the conveyor the oil companies will simply pull that investment and shoft it to elsewhere in the world. Harbour, Dana, Ithaca and loads of other independent UK oil companies, as well as the majors, have already started that process, partly because of the windfall tax and partly because of the prospect of Labour imposing the ban. Why bother to invest now when you know you will have the lesg taken out from under you in a few months or years.
So all you are doing is damaging the UK economy and forcing us to import more hydrocarbons, destroying importantindustries and making the transition all the more difficult. It is self destructive childish virtue signalling.
If we halve our gas usage, we'll still be importing a bit. And our levels of production these days have almost no effect at the margin on world market prices. So there's no good economic or environmental case for an immediate halt to new projects.
But oil & gas revenues can and should be used to subsidise more renewables.
Yep. Agree entirely. This is why I think BP and Shell are wrong to roll back from renewables.
And we need to do something to make EVs more attractive as well. Not the pie in the sky stuff opponents talk about but practical stuff that makes them viable and preferable as a choice for most people. As I said before, because of the impact I think fuel additives are having on insect populations I would love to see us move to EVs a lot quicker.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But the world as a whole cannot maintain oil and gas production at anywhere near the current levels if it is serious about combatting climate change. That's the whole bloody point. And if we're not going to be serious about it, how can we expect anyone else to be? The oil and gas industry is destroying the climate. It needs to be screwed.
"if we dont disarm our nuclear warheads how can we expect anyone else to" Of course if you do it, you dont result in anyone else not having warheads, you just no longer have your own.
The net result of everyone refusing to curtail fossil fuel extraction is that a fair chunk of the UK vanishes below the waves. Is this what you and the other fossil fuel addicts want? Do you hate your country that much?
Perhaps give a referendum to those in the areas projected to be effected a referendum on whether we should continue net zero policies. That'd be democratic.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But we don't need to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Miliband's actions have no impact on current production today. They will some years in the future, but we are committed to very significant reductions in the use of oil and gas over the next decade.
LOL. You really have no idea do you. Near field exploration and development can bring wells on in a matter of months. I drilled a well for Dana last August on a near-field exploration target which, if it isn't online already, will be in the next month or so. It is a constant conveyor system to keep fields operational and once there are indications of a break in the conveyor the oil companies will simply pull that investment and shoft it to elsewhere in the world. Harbour, Dana, Ithaca and loads of other independent UK oil companies, as well as the majors, have already started that process, partly because of the windfall tax and partly because of the prospect of Labour imposing the ban. Why bother to invest now when you know you will have the lesg taken out from under you in a few months or years.
So all you are doing is damaging the UK economy and forcing us to import more hydrocarbons, destroying importantindustries and making the transition all the more difficult. It is self destructive childish virtue signalling.
If we halve our gas usage, we'll still be importing a bit. And our levels of production these days have almost no effect at the margin on world market prices. So there's no good economic or environmental case for an immediate halt to new projects.
But oil & gas revenues can and should be used to subsidise more renewables.
Perhaps Milliband is just playing hardball on that latter suggestion ?
Though I never saw him as sufficiently politically adept.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But we don't need to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Miliband's actions have no impact on current production today. They will some years in the future, but we are committed to very significant reductions in the use of oil and gas over the next decade.
LOL. You really have no idea do you. Near field exploration and development can bring wells on in a matter of months. I drilled a well for Dana last August on a near-field exploration target which, if it isn't online already, will be in the next month or so. It is a constant conveyor system to keep fields operational and once there are indications of a break in the conveyor the oil companies will simply pull that investment and shoft it to elsewhere in the world. Harbour, Dana, Ithaca and loads of other independent UK oil companies, as well as the majors, have already started that process, partly because of the windfall tax and partly because of the prospect of Labour imposing the ban. Why bother to invest now when you know you will have the lesg taken out from under you in a few months or years.
So all you are doing is damaging the UK economy and forcing us to import more hydrocarbons, destroying importantindustries and making the transition all the more difficult. It is self destructive childish virtue signalling.
If we halve our gas usage, we'll still be importing a bit. And our levels of production these days have almost no effect at the margin on world market prices. So there's no good economic or environmental case for an immediate halt to new projects.
But oil & gas revenues can and should be used to subsidise more renewables.
Yep. Agree entirely. This is why I think BP and Shell are wrong to roll back from renewables.
And we need to do something to make EVs more attractive as well. Not the pie in the sky stuff opponents talk about but practical stuff that makes them viable and preferable as a choice for most people. As I said before, because of the impact I think fuel additives are having on insect populations I would love to see us move to EVs a lot quicker.
We need to deal with demand not supply.
It's like a drug. You deal with both demand and supply.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But we don't need to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Miliband's actions have no impact on current production today. They will some years in the future, but we are committed to very significant reductions in the use of oil and gas over the next decade.
LOL. You really have no idea do you. Near field exploration and development can bring wells on in a matter of months. I drilled a well for Dana last August on a near-field exploration target which, if it isn't online already, will be in the next month or so. It is a constant conveyor system to keep fields operational and once there are indications of a break in the conveyor the oil companies will simply pull that investment and shoft it to elsewhere in the world. Harbour, Dana, Ithaca and loads of other independent UK oil companies, as well as the majors, have already started that process, partly because of the windfall tax and partly because of the prospect of Labour imposing the ban. Why bother to invest now when you know you will have the lesg taken out from under you in a few months or years.
So all you are doing is damaging the UK economy and forcing us to import more hydrocarbons, destroying importantindustries and making the transition all the more difficult. It is self destructive childish virtue signalling.
If we halve our gas usage, we'll still be importing a bit. And our levels of production these days have almost no effect at the margin on world market prices. So there's no good economic or environmental case for an immediate halt to new projects.
But oil & gas revenues can and should be used to subsidise more renewables.
Perhaps Milliband is just playing hardball on that latter suggestion ?
Though I never saw him as sufficiently politically adept.
Well we still haven't seen this story reported by a reputable source, so worth keeping the powder dry on what Ed has actually said or done for now.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But we don't need to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Miliband's actions have no impact on current production today. They will some years in the future, but we are committed to very significant reductions in the use of oil and gas over the next decade.
Richard is THE expert in this place on UK oil and gas development. When he says the UK oil and gas sector is screwed by this decision, he knows of what he speaks.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But we don't need to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Miliband's actions have no impact on current production today. They will some years in the future, but we are committed to very significant reductions in the use of oil and gas over the next decade.
LOL. You really have no idea do you. Near field exploration and development can bring wells on in a matter of months. I drilled a well for Dana last August on a near-field exploration target which, if it isn't online already, will be in the next month or so. It is a constant conveyor system to keep fields operational and once there are indications of a break in the conveyor the oil companies will simply pull that investment and shoft it to elsewhere in the world. Harbour, Dana, Ithaca and loads of other independent UK oil companies, as well as the majors, have already started that process, partly because of the windfall tax and partly because of the prospect of Labour imposing the ban. Why bother to invest now when you know you will have the lesg taken out from under you in a few months or years.
So all you are doing is damaging the UK economy and forcing us to import more hydrocarbons, destroying importantindustries and making the transition all the more difficult. It is self destructive childish virtue signalling.
I said the decision will have no impact on current production, but some years in the future. You talked of drilling a well that, 1 year later, will be online. But your drilling of it wasn't the beginning of the process. The licence for that drilling will have occurred before then, probably a fair while before then. So you haven't disproved my "some years" estimate.
Our oil and gas needs will soon be dramatically lower. Yes, that is bad news for oil companies. The wise thing to do is not to invest in oil companies.
I just tuned into Radio 4 Long Wave in the vain hope that it might still be broadcasting Test Match Special.
It wasn't. 🙁
It's on Radio Five SportsXtra on digital.
Not much help if you've managed to keep your motor running since 2010 or so. I listen on 5LSE but they should keep it going on R4LW till about 2040 I think.
Why? Nobody listens to that station any more. You could just get a DAB for your car if it's that old couldn't you?
Well you could, but it seems a bit rum that you have to.
(I too, you will be unsurprised to learn, lament the passing of R4LWTMS - seemed to me to fall into the category of not broke/don't fix. I too have a car which is 'that old', and I also had recently a long wave radio I used specifically for listening to the cricket when I was out and about. Unlike a phone, I didn't have to pay for data and the battery lasted for ever. And I miss the break for the shipping forecast.)
My motor is newer so has DAB now but I empathise with those with older cars.
I just tuned into Radio 4 Long Wave in the vain hope that it might still be broadcasting Test Match Special.
It wasn't. 🙁
It's on Radio Five SportsXtra on digital.
Not much help if you've managed to keep your motor running since 2010 or so. I listen on 5LSE but they should keep it going on R4LW till about 2040 I think.
Why? Nobody listens to that station any more. You could just get a DAB for your car if it's that old couldn't you?
Well you could, but it seems a bit rum that you have to.
(I too, you will be unsurprised to learn, lament the passing of R4LWTMS - seemed to me to fall into the category of not broke/don't fix. I too have a car which is 'that old', and I also had recently a long wave radio I used specifically for listening to the cricket when I was out and about. Unlike a phone, I didn't have to pay for data and the battery lasted for ever. And I miss the break for the shipping forecast.)
I mean that is a classic Cookie case of nostalgia > sense, in a similar way to people on here persisting with bulky wallets that are full of paper tickets and weigh a ton, and cash, neither of which have much purpose in the modern world, and create just meaningless clutter and landfill.
I dare say the key reason why R4LWTMS was binned was that hardly anyone listened to it. I mean, most cars don't even have LW (even if they have an old-style FM radio) and the sound quality on DAB is vastly superior.
I just tuned into Radio 4 Long Wave in the vain hope that it might still be broadcasting Test Match Special.
It wasn't. 🙁
It's on Radio Five SportsXtra on digital.
Not much help if you've managed to keep your motor running since 2010 or so. I listen on 5LSE but they should keep it going on R4LW till about 2040 I think.
Why? Nobody listens to that station any more. You could just get a DAB for your car if it's that old couldn't you?
Years ago I was given a PURE DAB set up that would receive DAB and transmit FM to your car radio. Transformative. I was used to crackly medium wave for radio 5 (693 and 909 etc). I now have an inbuilt DAB on a much newer car, but sadly its worse, because the aerial is quite poor and signal drops out all over Wltshire. Sometimes progress is not all its cracked up to be.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But we don't need to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Miliband's actions have no impact on current production today. They will some years in the future, but we are committed to very significant reductions in the use of oil and gas over the next decade.
LOL. You really have no idea do you. Near field exploration and development can bring wells on in a matter of months. I drilled a well for Dana last August on a near-field exploration target which, if it isn't online already, will be in the next month or so. It is a constant conveyor system to keep fields operational and once there are indications of a break in the conveyor the oil companies will simply pull that investment and shoft it to elsewhere in the world. Harbour, Dana, Ithaca and loads of other independent UK oil companies, as well as the majors, have already started that process, partly because of the windfall tax and partly because of the prospect of Labour imposing the ban. Why bother to invest now when you know you will have the lesg taken out from under you in a few months or years.
So all you are doing is damaging the UK economy and forcing us to import more hydrocarbons, destroying importantindustries and making the transition all the more difficult. It is self destructive childish virtue signalling.
If we halve our gas usage, we'll still be importing a bit. And our levels of production these days have almost no effect at the margin on world market prices. So there's no good economic or environmental case for an immediate halt to new projects.
But oil & gas revenues can and should be used to subsidise more renewables.
Yep. Agree entirely. This is why I think BP and Shell are wrong to roll back from renewables.
And we need to do something to make EVs more attractive as well. Not the pie in the sky stuff opponents talk about but practical stuff that makes them viable and preferable as a choice for most people. As I said before, because of the impact I think fuel additives are having on insect populations I would love to see us move to EVs a lot quicker.
We need to deal with demand not supply.
It's like a drug. You deal with both demand and supply.
Yes. Its like a prescription drug administered by the NHS. What you want to do is cut off the supply and then say how sorry you are when the patient dies.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But the world as a whole cannot maintain oil and gas production at anywhere near the current levels if it is serious about combatting climate change. That's the whole bloody point. And if we're not going to be serious about it, how can we expect anyone else to be? The oil and gas industry is destroying the climate. It needs to be screwed.
"if we dont disarm our nuclear warheads how can we expect anyone else to" Of course if you do it, you dont result in anyone else not having warheads, you just no longer have your own.
The net result of everyone refusing to curtail fossil fuel extraction is that a fair chunk of the UK vanishes below the waves. Is this what you and the other fossil fuel addicts want? Do you hate your country that much?
Should we have tried to prevent the rest of the world from industrialising in the first place?
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But the world as a whole cannot maintain oil and gas production at anywhere near the current levels if it is serious about combatting climate change. That's the whole bloody point. And if we're not going to be serious about it, how can we expect anyone else to be? The oil and gas industry is destroying the climate. It needs to be screwed.
"if we dont disarm our nuclear warheads how can we expect anyone else to" Of course if you do it, you dont result in anyone else not having warheads, you just no longer have your own.
The net result of everyone refusing to curtail fossil fuel extraction is that a fair chunk of the UK vanishes below the waves. Is this what you and the other fossil fuel addicts want? Do you hate your country that much?
Perhaps give a referendum to those in the areas projected to be effected a referendum on whether we should continue net zero policies. That'd be democratic.
Didn't we just have an election in which one of the parties most enthusiastic about net zero won a stonking majority?
Well I can't be the only one struck by the Starmer/Southgate similarity. Both of them slagged off relentlessly for being dull, negative, too cautious etc etc, they ignore all that, stick to their guns and ... WIN.
Both very lucky with their opponents.
I would argue that for a country with the size and football resources of England, getting to the quarter finals of the European Championships is par. They should be doing that every single time. You would expect the quarter finals to be made up of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain plus three others from Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, Russia (if allowed) and whoever else manages to get through. But those first five, definitely: it is a massive failure if any of them fail to get to the quarter finals, short of a situation in which one of them manages to knock another out early (and that is only a mitigation if it is not also the case that the situation has only arisen through some egregious failure against a tiny country).
So, England SHOULD be in the quarters every single time. And SHOULD be getting to the semis one time in two, and to the final one time in four, and winning it one time in eight.
[We can also take this logic and apply it to the World Cup, but roughly double the numbers: so England would expect to win the WC one time in 16.]
Being lucky with your opponents is somewhat baked in. Most countries are small compared to England. It's comparatively rare that England will come across one of the other big five. And of course this is also true for other members of the big five.
Southgate has got England to the finals twice, granted, but both times I think without playing anyone else from the big five. Not his fault - he can't help how the draw pans out - but I'd say his achievements have been no better than par.
That said, in comparison to the teams managed by his five or six predecessors, par is actually a big success. So well done Gareth - you've been boring and your teams have massively underperformed what ought to be their potential; they spend the entire bloody match passing it between the back four and most of the time appear to wish not to be there, but in contrast to your predecessors you've managed to achieve the status of bang-average.
This is unalloyed garbage. Did you even watch the game last night?
No, I didn't - I'd already said as such upthread (but it was some time ago and it would be an odd man indeed who sought out ALL of my comments.) My comment about passing back and forth between the back four is based on what I've seen from the other four matches, which seemed to contain almost no attacking play whatsoever.
Well even they contained attacking play, albeit not as much as one would like (which is rather a different point). You don't seem to like football much, which is fair enough. But I think these sweeping generalisations you are making in this particular case are rather coloured by your general views of the sport.
That's fair enough. There's a bit of a cause and effect question here - do I not like football much because teams play so frustratingly defensively/cynically/dirtily? Or do I not like teams playing defensively/cynically/dirtily because I don't like football much? Dunno. I find almost all teams immensely frustrating to watch. I liked Turkey, though. A shame they went out.
I genuinely do find the praise for Southgate odd. England AFAICS have done no better than par during his tenure. Which is admittedly substantially better than under his predecessors. Partly it's just a factor of the nature of international football: in comparison to other sports (or to domestic football), the best teams play each other so rarely it is hard to get a meaningful measure of how good a team is.
I just tuned into Radio 4 Long Wave in the vain hope that it might still be broadcasting Test Match Special.
It wasn't. 🙁
It's on Radio Five SportsXtra on digital.
Not much help if you've managed to keep your motor running since 2010 or so. I listen on 5LSE but they should keep it going on R4LW till about 2040 I think.
Why? Nobody listens to that station any more. You could just get a DAB for your car if it's that old couldn't you?
Well you could, but it seems a bit rum that you have to.
(I too, you will be unsurprised to learn, lament the passing of R4LWTMS - seemed to me to fall into the category of not broke/don't fix. I too have a car which is 'that old', and I also had recently a long wave radio I used specifically for listening to the cricket when I was out and about. Unlike a phone, I didn't have to pay for data and the battery lasted for ever. And I miss the break for the shipping forecast.)
My motor is newer so has DAB now but I empathise with those with older cars.
£25 a day inside the ULEZ to listen to Golden Oldie TMS.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But we don't need to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Miliband's actions have no impact on current production today. They will some years in the future, but we are committed to very significant reductions in the use of oil and gas over the next decade.
LOL. You really have no idea do you. Near field exploration and development can bring wells on in a matter of months. I drilled a well for Dana last August on a near-field exploration target which, if it isn't online already, will be in the next month or so. It is a constant conveyor system to keep fields operational and once there are indications of a break in the conveyor the oil companies will simply pull that investment and shoft it to elsewhere in the world. Harbour, Dana, Ithaca and loads of other independent UK oil companies, as well as the majors, have already started that process, partly because of the windfall tax and partly because of the prospect of Labour imposing the ban. Why bother to invest now when you know you will have the lesg taken out from under you in a few months or years.
So all you are doing is damaging the UK economy and forcing us to import more hydrocarbons, destroying importantindustries and making the transition all the more difficult. It is self destructive childish virtue signalling.
I said the decision will have no impact on current production, but some years in the future. You talked of drilling a well that, 1 year later, will be online. But your drilling of it wasn't the beginning of the process. The licence for that drilling will have occurred before then, probably a fair while before then. So you haven't disproved my "some years" estimate.
Our oil and gas needs will soon be dramatically lower. Yes, that is bad news for oil companies. The wise thing to do is not to invest in oil companies.
Nope. All you are doing is moving that investment overseas. Like I said, it is infantile.
I just tuned into Radio 4 Long Wave in the vain hope that it might still be broadcasting Test Match Special.
It wasn't. 🙁
It's on Radio Five SportsXtra on digital.
Not much help if you've managed to keep your motor running since 2010 or so. I listen on 5LSE but they should keep it going on R4LW till about 2040 I think.
Why? Nobody listens to that station any more. You could just get a DAB for your car if it's that old couldn't you?
Well you could, but it seems a bit rum that you have to.
(I too, you will be unsurprised to learn, lament the passing of R4LWTMS - seemed to me to fall into the category of not broke/don't fix. I too have a car which is 'that old', and I also had recently a long wave radio I used specifically for listening to the cricket when I was out and about. Unlike a phone, I didn't have to pay for data and the battery lasted for ever. And I miss the break for the shipping forecast.)
My motor is newer so has DAB now but I empathise with those with older cars.
I mean a DAB adaptor for your car costs less than a tank of petrol.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But we don't need to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Miliband's actions have no impact on current production today. They will some years in the future, but we are committed to very significant reductions in the use of oil and gas over the next decade.
LOL. You really have no idea do you. Near field exploration and development can bring wells on in a matter of months. I drilled a well for Dana last August on a near-field exploration target which, if it isn't online already, will be in the next month or so. It is a constant conveyor system to keep fields operational and once there are indications of a break in the conveyor the oil companies will simply pull that investment and shoft it to elsewhere in the world. Harbour, Dana, Ithaca and loads of other independent UK oil companies, as well as the majors, have already started that process, partly because of the windfall tax and partly because of the prospect of Labour imposing the ban. Why bother to invest now when you know you will have the lesg taken out from under you in a few months or years.
So all you are doing is damaging the UK economy and forcing us to import more hydrocarbons, destroying importantindustries and making the transition all the more difficult. It is self destructive childish virtue signalling.
If we halve our gas usage, we'll still be importing a bit. And our levels of production these days have almost no effect at the margin on world market prices. So there's no good economic or environmental case for an immediate halt to new projects.
But oil & gas revenues can and should be used to subsidise more renewables.
Yep. Agree entirely. This is why I think BP and Shell are wrong to roll back from renewables.
And we need to do something to make EVs more attractive as well. Not the pie in the sky stuff opponents talk about but practical stuff that makes them viable and preferable as a choice for most people. As I said before, because of the impact I think fuel additives are having on insect populations I would love to see us move to EVs a lot quicker.
We need to deal with demand not supply.
It's like a drug. You deal with both demand and supply.
Yes. Its like a prescription drug administered by the NHS. What you want to do is cut off the supply and then say how sorry you are when the patient dies.
But it's a drug with terrible side effects, and it's going to run out at some point anyway. Do we try to wean ourselves off it as quickly as possible, or do we carry on in the hope that it doesn't kill us and something else comes along in time?
Everyone arguing that Britain shouldn't do anything about the climate until China does will now be supporting investment in renewable energy then?
China has dropped their coal consumption to 53% of power generation.
The UK has kept its coal consumption steady at 0% of power generation.
Are you sure you want Britain to do what China is doing?
I'm glad they've belatedly started to catch up with what we did decades ago, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking we're doing badly or they're doing better.
I think it is more the case that they have increased power consumption so much that coal is maxed out and the only way to get the extra was solar
In 2023 they were building 95% of the worlds new coal fired power stations. A major uptick. So they are still invested in coal for the time being.
That doesn't take into account how many old stations were being decommissioned.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But we don't need to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Miliband's actions have no impact on current production today. They will some years in the future, but we are committed to very significant reductions in the use of oil and gas over the next decade.
LOL. You really have no idea do you. Near field exploration and development can bring wells on in a matter of months. I drilled a well for Dana last August on a near-field exploration target which, if it isn't online already, will be in the next month or so. It is a constant conveyor system to keep fields operational and once there are indications of a break in the conveyor the oil companies will simply pull that investment and shoft it to elsewhere in the world. Harbour, Dana, Ithaca and loads of other independent UK oil companies, as well as the majors, have already started that process, partly because of the windfall tax and partly because of the prospect of Labour imposing the ban. Why bother to invest now when you know you will have the lesg taken out from under you in a few months or years.
So all you are doing is damaging the UK economy and forcing us to import more hydrocarbons, destroying importantindustries and making the transition all the more difficult. It is self destructive childish virtue signalling.
If we halve our gas usage, we'll still be importing a bit. And our levels of production these days have almost no effect at the margin on world market prices. So there's no good economic or environmental case for an immediate halt to new projects.
But oil & gas revenues can and should be used to subsidise more renewables.
Yep. Agree entirely. This is why I think BP and Shell are wrong to roll back from renewables.
And we need to do something to make EVs more attractive as well. Not the pie in the sky stuff opponents talk about but practical stuff that makes them viable and preferable as a choice for most people. As I said before, because of the impact I think fuel additives are having on insect populations I would love to see us move to EVs a lot quicker.
We need to deal with demand not supply.
It's like a drug. You deal with both demand and supply.
Yes. Its like a prescription drug administered by the NHS. What you want to do is cut off the supply and then say how sorry you are when the patient dies.
But it's a drug with terrible side effects, and it's going to run out at some point anyway. Do we try to wean ourselves off it as quickly as possible, or do we carry on in the hope that it doesn't kill us and something else comes along in time?
You wean yourself off it. That is dealing with demand. You don't just stop it and die.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But the world as a whole cannot maintain oil and gas production at anywhere near the current levels if it is serious about combatting climate change. That's the whole bloody point. And if we're not going to be serious about it, how can we expect anyone else to be? The oil and gas industry is destroying the climate. It needs to be screwed.
"if we dont disarm our nuclear warheads how can we expect anyone else to" Of course if you do it, you dont result in anyone else not having warheads, you just no longer have your own.
The net result of everyone refusing to curtail fossil fuel extraction is that a fair chunk of the UK vanishes below the waves. Is this what you and the other fossil fuel addicts want? Do you hate your country that much?
I'm unsure saying stuff like "UK vanishes below the waves" or calling others "fossil fuel addicts" does your 'argument' any good at all.
My own view - and I don't think I'm alone in this - is that we need to move to greener forms of energy. But we cannot afford to do that in a way that destroys jobs or the economy as a whole (obviously, some jobs will go, but they should be offset by jobs in the new sectors).
There are vast opportunities to be made in going green - not just in terms of climate change, but in other ways, for instance local air quality. But the moment we start having brownouts or blackouts, we're a bit screwed. Therefore care is needed.
IMV others - I'm not saying this is you, but it may be - see Green issues more as a way of introducing socialist policies as much as promoting the environment. And if you look at the history of socialism and the environment, it isn't good. Especially extreme forms such as Communism.
"The basic problem neoliberal globalisation always had was that even though it undeniably raised the incomes of Western countries, those gains were unequally spread. Urban professionals gained a lot, whereas unskilled workers were hammered, their industrial towns often turning into wastelands of boarded-up shops and abandoned mills. Meanwhile the urban booms drove up property prices and enriched owners, sucking more and more money out of the pockets of working folk, forcing many to move far out of town where they often suffered from inadequate services. One of the most reliable predictors of support for France’s National Rally is the distance one lives from a train station: the further away, the more likely a vote for the RN."
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But we don't need to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Miliband's actions have no impact on current production today. They will some years in the future, but we are committed to very significant reductions in the use of oil and gas over the next decade.
LOL. You really have no idea do you. Near field exploration and development can bring wells on in a matter of months. I drilled a well for Dana last August on a near-field exploration target which, if it isn't online already, will be in the next month or so. It is a constant conveyor system to keep fields operational and once there are indications of a break in the conveyor the oil companies will simply pull that investment and shoft it to elsewhere in the world. Harbour, Dana, Ithaca and loads of other independent UK oil companies, as well as the majors, have already started that process, partly because of the windfall tax and partly because of the prospect of Labour imposing the ban. Why bother to invest now when you know you will have the lesg taken out from under you in a few months or years.
So all you are doing is damaging the UK economy and forcing us to import more hydrocarbons, destroying importantindustries and making the transition all the more difficult. It is self destructive childish virtue signalling.
If we halve our gas usage, we'll still be importing a bit. And our levels of production these days have almost no effect at the margin on world market prices. So there's no good economic or environmental case for an immediate halt to new projects.
But oil & gas revenues can and should be used to subsidise more renewables.
Yep. Agree entirely. This is why I think BP and Shell are wrong to roll back from renewables.
And we need to do something to make EVs more attractive as well. Not the pie in the sky stuff opponents talk about but practical stuff that makes them viable and preferable as a choice for most people. As I said before, because of the impact I think fuel additives are having on insect populations I would love to see us move to EVs a lot quicker.
We need to deal with demand not supply.
It's like a drug. You deal with both demand and supply.
Yes. Its like a prescription drug administered by the NHS. What you want to do is cut off the supply and then say how sorry you are when the patient dies.
But it's a drug with terrible side effects, and it's going to run out at some point anyway. Do we try to wean ourselves off it as quickly as possible, or do we carry on in the hope that it doesn't kill us and something else comes along in time?
Isn't there a reasonable position which allows the UK to retain the same ratio of gas imports (50%) and crude oil (self-sufficient) even while we reduce consumption.
And Richard is suggesting we can't maintain that without some (limited) new licenses. The key thing is to provide a bit of certainty to the sector over the next decade or so, while asserting downward pressure so the transition doesn't slow.
This test isn't lasting until tomorrow lunchtime, is it?
Not a bad effort from Smith to keep it going till tommorow.
JL Smith 50 runs (104)
Don't bet on it. I remember the strange series of 2000. I set off from Norwich to travel Wiltshire for the weekend. The WI were batting again with 100 runs deficit from the first innings and were all out by the time I reached the M25... 61 all out in 26.2 overs.
This was also the series were the second day of the second test had part of all four innings. Courtney Walsh batted and bowled in all four innings on that day, the only player ever to do so.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But we don't need to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Miliband's actions have no impact on current production today. They will some years in the future, but we are committed to very significant reductions in the use of oil and gas over the next decade.
LOL. You really have no idea do you. Near field exploration and development can bring wells on in a matter of months. I drilled a well for Dana last August on a near-field exploration target which, if it isn't online already, will be in the next month or so. It is a constant conveyor system to keep fields operational and once there are indications of a break in the conveyor the oil companies will simply pull that investment and shoft it to elsewhere in the world. Harbour, Dana, Ithaca and loads of other independent UK oil companies, as well as the majors, have already started that process, partly because of the windfall tax and partly because of the prospect of Labour imposing the ban. Why bother to invest now when you know you will have the lesg taken out from under you in a few months or years.
So all you are doing is damaging the UK economy and forcing us to import more hydrocarbons, destroying importantindustries and making the transition all the more difficult. It is self destructive childish virtue signalling.
If we halve our gas usage, we'll still be importing a bit. And our levels of production these days have almost no effect at the margin on world market prices. So there's no good economic or environmental case for an immediate halt to new projects.
But oil & gas revenues can and should be used to subsidise more renewables.
Yep. Agree entirely. This is why I think BP and Shell are wrong to roll back from renewables.
And we need to do something to make EVs more attractive as well. Not the pie in the sky stuff opponents talk about but practical stuff that makes them viable and preferable as a choice for most people. As I said before, because of the impact I think fuel additives are having on insect populations I would love to see us move to EVs a lot quicker.
We need to deal with demand not supply.
It's like a drug. You deal with both demand and supply.
Yes. Its like a prescription drug administered by the NHS. What you want to do is cut off the supply and then say how sorry you are when the patient dies.
But it's a drug with terrible side effects, and it's going to run out at some point anyway. Do we try to wean ourselves off it as quickly as possible, or do we carry on in the hope that it doesn't kill us and something else comes along in time?
Isn't there a reasonable position which allows the UK to retain the same ratio of gas imports (50%) and crude oil (self-sufficient) even while we reduce consumption.
And Richard is suggesting we can't maintain that without some (limited) new licenses. The key thing is to provide a bit of certainty to the sector over the next decade or so, while asserting downward pressure so the transition doesn't slow.
There's a whole spectrum of "reasonable positions".
But no one agrees where the right one is positioned
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But we don't need to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Miliband's actions have no impact on current production today. They will some years in the future, but we are committed to very significant reductions in the use of oil and gas over the next decade.
LOL. You really have no idea do you. Near field exploration and development can bring wells on in a matter of months. I drilled a well for Dana last August on a near-field exploration target which, if it isn't online already, will be in the next month or so. It is a constant conveyor system to keep fields operational and once there are indications of a break in the conveyor the oil companies will simply pull that investment and shoft it to elsewhere in the world. Harbour, Dana, Ithaca and loads of other independent UK oil companies, as well as the majors, have already started that process, partly because of the windfall tax and partly because of the prospect of Labour imposing the ban. Why bother to invest now when you know you will have the lesg taken out from under you in a few months or years.
So all you are doing is damaging the UK economy and forcing us to import more hydrocarbons, destroying importantindustries and making the transition all the more difficult. It is self destructive childish virtue signalling.
If we halve our gas usage, we'll still be importing a bit. And our levels of production these days have almost no effect at the margin on world market prices. So there's no good economic or environmental case for an immediate halt to new projects.
But oil & gas revenues can and should be used to subsidise more renewables.
Yep. Agree entirely. This is why I think BP and Shell are wrong to roll back from renewables.
And we need to do something to make EVs more attractive as well. Not the pie in the sky stuff opponents talk about but practical stuff that makes them viable and preferable as a choice for most people. As I said before, because of the impact I think fuel additives are having on insect populations I would love to see us move to EVs a lot quicker.
We need to deal with demand not supply.
It's like a drug. You deal with both demand and supply.
Yes. Its like a prescription drug administered by the NHS. What you want to do is cut off the supply and then say how sorry you are when the patient dies.
But it's a drug with terrible side effects, and it's going to run out at some point anyway. Do we try to wean ourselves off it as quickly as possible, or do we carry on in the hope that it doesn't kill us and something else comes along in time?
You wean yourself off it. That is dealing with demand. You don't just stop it and die.
You're not going to wean yourself off it if you keep procuring it.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But the world as a whole cannot maintain oil and gas production at anywhere near the current levels if it is serious about combatting climate change. That's the whole bloody point. And if we're not going to be serious about it, how can we expect anyone else to be? The oil and gas industry is destroying the climate. It needs to be screwed.
"if we dont disarm our nuclear warheads how can we expect anyone else to" Of course if you do it, you dont result in anyone else not having warheads, you just no longer have your own.
The net result of everyone refusing to curtail fossil fuel extraction is that a fair chunk of the UK vanishes below the waves. Is this what you and the other fossil fuel addicts want? Do you hate your country that much?
Should we have tried to prevent the rest of the world from industrialising in the first place?
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But the world as a whole cannot maintain oil and gas production at anywhere near the current levels if it is serious about combatting climate change. That's the whole bloody point. And if we're not going to be serious about it, how can we expect anyone else to be? The oil and gas industry is destroying the climate. It needs to be screwed.
"if we dont disarm our nuclear warheads how can we expect anyone else to" Of course if you do it, you dont result in anyone else not having warheads, you just no longer have your own.
The net result of everyone refusing to curtail fossil fuel extraction is that a fair chunk of the UK vanishes below the waves. Is this what you and the other fossil fuel addicts want? Do you hate your country that much?
Should we have tried to prevent the rest of the world from industrialising in the first place?
At the height of Empire, we did just that.
Not really. We were a massive exporter of energy and raw materials.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But we don't need to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Miliband's actions have no impact on current production today. They will some years in the future, but we are committed to very significant reductions in the use of oil and gas over the next decade.
LOL. You really have no idea do you. Near field exploration and development can bring wells on in a matter of months. I drilled a well for Dana last August on a near-field exploration target which, if it isn't online already, will be in the next month or so. It is a constant conveyor system to keep fields operational and once there are indications of a break in the conveyor the oil companies will simply pull that investment and shoft it to elsewhere in the world. Harbour, Dana, Ithaca and loads of other independent UK oil companies, as well as the majors, have already started that process, partly because of the windfall tax and partly because of the prospect of Labour imposing the ban. Why bother to invest now when you know you will have the lesg taken out from under you in a few months or years.
So all you are doing is damaging the UK economy and forcing us to import more hydrocarbons, destroying importantindustries and making the transition all the more difficult. It is self destructive childish virtue signalling.
If we halve our gas usage, we'll still be importing a bit. And our levels of production these days have almost no effect at the margin on world market prices. So there's no good economic or environmental case for an immediate halt to new projects.
But oil & gas revenues can and should be used to subsidise more renewables.
Yep. Agree entirely. This is why I think BP and Shell are wrong to roll back from renewables.
And we need to do something to make EVs more attractive as well. Not the pie in the sky stuff opponents talk about but practical stuff that makes them viable and preferable as a choice for most people. As I said before, because of the impact I think fuel additives are having on insect populations I would love to see us move to EVs a lot quicker.
We need to deal with demand not supply.
It's like a drug. You deal with both demand and supply.
Yes. Its like a prescription drug administered by the NHS. What you want to do is cut off the supply and then say how sorry you are when the patient dies.
But it's a drug with terrible side effects, and it's going to run out at some point anyway. Do we try to wean ourselves off it as quickly as possible, or do we carry on in the hope that it doesn't kill us and something else comes along in time?
Isn't there a reasonable position which allows the UK to retain the same ratio of gas imports (50%) and crude oil (self-sufficient) even while we reduce consumption.
And Richard is suggesting we can't maintain that without some (limited) new licenses. The key thing is to provide a bit of certainty to the sector over the next decade or so, while asserting downward pressure so the transition doesn't slow.
There's a whole spectrum of "reasonable positions".
But no one agrees where the right one is positioned
Given the O&G sector's record it's right to be sceptical of their motives. This telegraph article looks like a classic of the genre.
I don't believe that these kind of vested interests will allow the transition to happen in a way that is optimal for the UK, so you do need to be pushy with them. The same with EVs by 2030, housing developers and so on. They are out for a profit, as is their right.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But we don't need to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Miliband's actions have no impact on current production today. They will some years in the future, but we are committed to very significant reductions in the use of oil and gas over the next decade.
LOL. You really have no idea do you. Near field exploration and development can bring wells on in a matter of months. I drilled a well for Dana last August on a near-field exploration target which, if it isn't online already, will be in the next month or so. It is a constant conveyor system to keep fields operational and once there are indications of a break in the conveyor the oil companies will simply pull that investment and shoft it to elsewhere in the world. Harbour, Dana, Ithaca and loads of other independent UK oil companies, as well as the majors, have already started that process, partly because of the windfall tax and partly because of the prospect of Labour imposing the ban. Why bother to invest now when you know you will have the lesg taken out from under you in a few months or years.
So all you are doing is damaging the UK economy and forcing us to import more hydrocarbons, destroying importantindustries and making the transition all the more difficult. It is self destructive childish virtue signalling.
If we halve our gas usage, we'll still be importing a bit. And our levels of production these days have almost no effect at the margin on world market prices. So there's no good economic or environmental case for an immediate halt to new projects.
But oil & gas revenues can and should be used to subsidise more renewables.
Yep. Agree entirely. This is why I think BP and Shell are wrong to roll back from renewables.
And we need to do something to make EVs more attractive as well. Not the pie in the sky stuff opponents talk about but practical stuff that makes them viable and preferable as a choice for most people. As I said before, because of the impact I think fuel additives are having on insect populations I would love to see us move to EVs a lot quicker.
We need to deal with demand not supply.
It's like a drug. You deal with both demand and supply.
Yes. Its like a prescription drug administered by the NHS. What you want to do is cut off the supply and then say how sorry you are when the patient dies.
But it's a drug with terrible side effects, and it's going to run out at some point anyway. Do we try to wean ourselves off it as quickly as possible, or do we carry on in the hope that it doesn't kill us and something else comes along in time?
Isn't there a reasonable position which allows the UK to retain the same ratio of gas imports (50%) and crude oil (self-sufficient) even while we reduce consumption.
And Richard is suggesting we can't maintain that without some (limited) new licenses. The key thing is to provide a bit of certainty to the sector over the next decade or so, while asserting downward pressure so the transition doesn't slow.
That sounds reasonable, but is all too easily used as an excuse for carrying on as normal. Getting down to net zero requires a rapid reduction in consumption (and hence production) and I'd be amenable to whatever approach can best achieve this.
Ridiculous over-reaction. Who here hasn't occasionally taken a cab to Clifton Suspension Bridge with two suitcases containing human remains?
Have the police got nothing better to do?
Has anyone checked the inventory of the archeology department at Bristol University?
I rather think dry bones labelled "Wookey Hole" are easy to spot.
I'm actually quite surprised at the speed of identification of human remains - or at least the working assumption that they are human. Edit: implies something fresh or blatantly obvious. No need for DNA testing for ID as human.
But this time I hope the media don't fall into the trap of finding the nearest eccentric middle-aged male with a bad haircut, or lack of one, that can be found to the site. It was a bit expensive last time.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But the world as a whole cannot maintain oil and gas production at anywhere near the current levels if it is serious about combatting climate change. That's the whole bloody point. And if we're not going to be serious about it, how can we expect anyone else to be? The oil and gas industry is destroying the climate. It needs to be screwed.
"if we dont disarm our nuclear warheads how can we expect anyone else to" Of course if you do it, you dont result in anyone else not having warheads, you just no longer have your own.
The net result of everyone refusing to curtail fossil fuel extraction is that a fair chunk of the UK vanishes below the waves. Is this what you and the other fossil fuel addicts want? Do you hate your country that much?
I'm unsure saying stuff like "UK vanishes below the waves" or calling others "fossil fuel addicts" does your 'argument' any good at all.
My own view - and I don't think I'm alone in this - is that we need to move to greener forms of energy. But we cannot afford to do that in a way that destroys jobs or the economy as a whole (obviously, some jobs will go, but they should be offset by jobs in the new sectors).
There are vast opportunities to be made in going green - not just in terms of climate change, but in other ways, for instance local air quality. But the moment we start having brownouts or blackouts, we're a bit screwed. Therefore care is needed.
IMV others - I'm not saying this is you, but it may be - see Green issues more as a way of introducing socialist policies as much as promoting the environment. And if you look at the history of socialism and the environment, it isn't good. Especially extreme forms such as Communism.
The stupid thing is that there are plenty of us in the industry who have spent the last 30 years or more saying we need renewables because oil is too important a finite resource to burn. It was one of my earliest discussions on here when I joined (18 or more years ago? Certainly back in the Brown era). But you do it by reducing demand for hydrocarbon fuels and by investing in every viable renewable energy form (we should do loads more geothermal for example, and tidal as well as the more (now) conventional forms). Eventually hydrocarbons as a fuel provider will dwindle to very little (nothing if we have the reliable mini nukes or tidal energy). That is the grown up way to do this rather than the current virtue signalling.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But we don't need to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Miliband's actions have no impact on current production today. They will some years in the future, but we are committed to very significant reductions in the use of oil and gas over the next decade.
LOL. You really have no idea do you. Near field exploration and development can bring wells on in a matter of months. I drilled a well for Dana last August on a near-field exploration target which, if it isn't online already, will be in the next month or so. It is a constant conveyor system to keep fields operational and once there are indications of a break in the conveyor the oil companies will simply pull that investment and shoft it to elsewhere in the world. Harbour, Dana, Ithaca and loads of other independent UK oil companies, as well as the majors, have already started that process, partly because of the windfall tax and partly because of the prospect of Labour imposing the ban. Why bother to invest now when you know you will have the lesg taken out from under you in a few months or years.
So all you are doing is damaging the UK economy and forcing us to import more hydrocarbons, destroying importantindustries and making the transition all the more difficult. It is self destructive childish virtue signalling.
If we halve our gas usage, we'll still be importing a bit. And our levels of production these days have almost no effect at the margin on world market prices. So there's no good economic or environmental case for an immediate halt to new projects.
But oil & gas revenues can and should be used to subsidise more renewables.
Yep. Agree entirely. This is why I think BP and Shell are wrong to roll back from renewables.
And we need to do something to make EVs more attractive as well. Not the pie in the sky stuff opponents talk about but practical stuff that makes them viable and preferable as a choice for most people. As I said before, because of the impact I think fuel additives are having on insect populations I would love to see us move to EVs a lot quicker.
We need to deal with demand not supply.
It's like a drug. You deal with both demand and supply.
Yes. Its like a prescription drug administered by the NHS. What you want to do is cut off the supply and then say how sorry you are when the patient dies.
But it's a drug with terrible side effects, and it's going to run out at some point anyway. Do we try to wean ourselves off it as quickly as possible, or do we carry on in the hope that it doesn't kill us and something else comes along in time?
Isn't there a reasonable position which allows the UK to retain the same ratio of gas imports (50%) and crude oil (self-sufficient) even while we reduce consumption.
And Richard is suggesting we can't maintain that without some (limited) new licenses. The key thing is to provide a bit of certainty to the sector over the next decade or so, while asserting downward pressure so the transition doesn't slow.
That sounds reasonable, but is all too easily used as an excuse for carrying on as normal. Getting down to net zero requires a rapid reduction in consumption (and hence production) and I'd be amenable to whatever approach can best achieve this.
Oh yeah. If consumption falls faster than expected (and I'm optimistic), screw the O&G companies. We mustn't let them hold us back.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But the world as a whole cannot maintain oil and gas production at anywhere near the current levels if it is serious about combatting climate change. That's the whole bloody point. And if we're not going to be serious about it, how can we expect anyone else to be? The oil and gas industry is destroying the climate. It needs to be screwed.
"if we dont disarm our nuclear warheads how can we expect anyone else to" Of course if you do it, you dont result in anyone else not having warheads, you just no longer have your own.
The net result of everyone refusing to curtail fossil fuel extraction is that a fair chunk of the UK vanishes below the waves. Is this what you and the other fossil fuel addicts want? Do you hate your country that much?
Should we have tried to prevent the rest of the world from industrialising in the first place?
At the height of Empire, we did just that.
Not really. We were a massive exporter of energy and raw materials.
Take a look what happened to Indian industrial production in the 19th century.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
Hmm.
Do you think it's possible to taper this down in a way that satisfies the transition to renewables while not causing such a cliff edge? Or prioritise not importing some refined products from the baddies as we do it?
This is tricky politics. We are a net exporter of crude oil. How we justify that while pushing renewables...
Of course it is.
Taper down consumption of oil and gas and let the market handle the rest.
Firms won't invest in redundant exploration that is unnecessary.
Oh, how I enjoy your naive belief in capitalism.
It's not naive. Firms have no reason to produce that which they can not sell.
Oh and if it's not being sold to be burnt and only being produced for petrochemicals that we need anyway, then what's the harm if they do?
Ridiculous over-reaction. Who here hasn't occasionally taken a cab to Clifton Suspension Bridge with two suitcases containing human remains?
Have the police got nothing better to do?
Has anyone checked the inventory of the archeology department at Bristol University?
I rather think dry bones labelled "Wookey Hole" are easy to spot.
I'm actually quite surprised at the speed of identification of human remains - or at least the working assumption that they are human.
But this time I hope the media don't fall into the trap of finding the nearest eccentric middle-aged male with a bad haircut, or lack of one, that can be found to the site. It was a bit expensive last time.
If they are bones then any half decent archaeologist or forensics bod will be able to tell you if they are human or animal almost instantly. I am not an expert but even I can identify human bones on a dig site with no trouble.
Ridiculous over-reaction. Who here hasn't occasionally taken a cab to Clifton Suspension Bridge with two suitcases containing human remains?
Have the police got nothing better to do?
Has anyone checked the inventory of the archeology department at Bristol University?
I rather think dry bones labelled "Wookey Hole" are easy to spot.
I'm actually quite surprised at the speed of identification of human remains - or at least the working assumption that they are human. Edit: implies something fresh or blatantly obvious. No need for DNA testing for ID as human.
But this time I hope the media don't fall into the trap of finding the nearest eccentric middle-aged male with a bad haircut, or lack of one, that can be found to the site. It was a bit expensive last time.
PBers in the West Country watch out. Flatlander, get outta there
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But the world as a whole cannot maintain oil and gas production at anywhere near the current levels if it is serious about combatting climate change. That's the whole bloody point. And if we're not going to be serious about it, how can we expect anyone else to be? The oil and gas industry is destroying the climate. It needs to be screwed.
"if we dont disarm our nuclear warheads how can we expect anyone else to" Of course if you do it, you dont result in anyone else not having warheads, you just no longer have your own.
The net result of everyone refusing to curtail fossil fuel extraction is that a fair chunk of the UK vanishes below the waves. Is this what you and the other fossil fuel addicts want? Do you hate your country that much?
a) when will this happen; and b) define "fair chunk".
Or will it be like the Maldives which - shock, horror - haven't sunk.
Anyway that's great because inflicting damage on the economy in the name of fatuous "environmental goals" is precisely what we voted for.
But sadly the reality is that people don't want to chnage or get rid of their laptops or cars or whatnot. They don't want to do all those things which the Greens really, really want to do (albeit few of them do themselves). This is just the reality.
Restricting supply will simply push up prices which will disproportionately affect the poorer. Which again is just what we voted for.
Ridiculous over-reaction. Who here hasn't occasionally taken a cab to Clifton Suspension Bridge with two suitcases containing human remains?
Have the police got nothing better to do?
Has anyone checked the inventory of the archeology department at Bristol University?
I rather think dry bones labelled "Wookey Hole" are easy to spot.
I'm actually quite surprised at the speed of identification of human remains - or at least the working assumption that they are human. Edit: implies something fresh or blatantly obvious. No need for DNA testing for ID as human.
But this time I hope the media don't fall into the trap of finding the nearest eccentric middle-aged male with a bad haircut, or lack of one, that can be found to the site. It was a bit expensive last time.
Years ago I did a first aid course and the only thing that really stuck is the idea that a doctor is required to certify death, even in the extreme case of finding very obviously long dead remains.
This is a self inflicted wound. We will have higher energy prices as a consequence.
Idiot.
Winter Blackouts in a long cold high pressure spell are already more than possible.
He needs to remember what Power Cuts did to Heaths Government.
Could you let us know what proportion of UK electricity generation is from oil?
About 40% of our gas consumption is supplied from our North Sea fields, I think ?
It's about 90% I think. 50% UK fields plus imports from Norway.
Though it is fungible and the world prices set globally.
Cutting our own production does save a single gram of CO2 going into the environment, but it does harm our balance of trade, our own industries and boosts the profits of Gazprom etc
Miliband isn’t cutting our own production. He is stopping new explorations, so he is preventing future increases in production several years in the future. If we’re remotely serious about what we’ve said we’ll do, we definitely won’t need that future increase in production.
That just shows the ignorance of both Miliband and yourself. We constantly need those new developments simply to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Field life is an extremely finite thing. The Solan field I did the original exploration and production drilling for in 2010/12 will reach COP (Ceasation of Production) next year. 10 - 12 years is the norm for most oil and gas fields these days.
This decision will result in a very rapid drop off in production because it also includes near field development licences used to maintain current fields.
Basically this screws the UK oil and gas industry and the UK energy sector as a whole very rapidly.
But we don't need to maintain production at anywhere near current levels. Miliband's actions have no impact on current production today. They will some years in the future, but we are committed to very significant reductions in the use of oil and gas over the next decade.
LOL. You really have no idea do you. Near field exploration and development can bring wells on in a matter of months. I drilled a well for Dana last August on a near-field exploration target which, if it isn't online already, will be in the next month or so. It is a constant conveyor system to keep fields operational and once there are indications of a break in the conveyor the oil companies will simply pull that investment and shoft it to elsewhere in the world. Harbour, Dana, Ithaca and loads of other independent UK oil companies, as well as the majors, have already started that process, partly because of the windfall tax and partly because of the prospect of Labour imposing the ban. Why bother to invest now when you know you will have the lesg taken out from under you in a few months or years.
So all you are doing is damaging the UK economy and forcing us to import more hydrocarbons, destroying importantindustries and making the transition all the more difficult. It is self destructive childish virtue signalling.
If we halve our gas usage, we'll still be importing a bit. And our levels of production these days have almost no effect at the margin on world market prices. So there's no good economic or environmental case for an immediate halt to new projects.
But oil & gas revenues can and should be used to subsidise more renewables.
Yep. Agree entirely. This is why I think BP and Shell are wrong to roll back from renewables.
And we need to do something to make EVs more attractive as well. Not the pie in the sky stuff opponents talk about but practical stuff that makes them viable and preferable as a choice for most people. As I said before, because of the impact I think fuel additives are having on insect populations I would love to see us move to EVs a lot quicker.
We need to deal with demand not supply.
It's like a drug. You deal with both demand and supply.
Yes. Its like a prescription drug administered by the NHS. What you want to do is cut off the supply and then say how sorry you are when the patient dies.
But it's a drug with terrible side effects, and it's going to run out at some point anyway. Do we try to wean ourselves off it as quickly as possible, or do we carry on in the hope that it doesn't kill us and something else comes along in time?
Isn't there a reasonable position which allows the UK to retain the same ratio of gas imports (50%) and crude oil (self-sufficient) even while we reduce consumption.
And Richard is suggesting we can't maintain that without some (limited) new licenses. The key thing is to provide a bit of certainty to the sector over the next decade or so, while asserting downward pressure so the transition doesn't slow.
That sounds reasonable, but is all too easily used as an excuse for carrying on as normal. Getting down to net zero requires a rapid reduction in consumption (and hence production) and I'd be amenable to whatever approach can best achieve this.
Consumption for being burnt yes, but not production. It will need to be produced forever unless we find an alternative to petrochemicals, and there's no harm in that, the harm is in burning it.
So deal with the consumption and the production will take care of itself.
Comments
This is big: it seems China stopped permitting new coal-based steel mills in the first half of 2024!
Steel is the second-largest emitter in China after electricity, due to the industry's vast size and heavy reliance on coal.
In recent years, China has been permitting hundreds of millions of tonnes of new coal-based steel capacity. While these have been "replacement" projects, i.e. an equal or slightly larger amount of old capacity has to be closed, this continued investment has extended the sector's reliance on coal.
The potential to reduce emissions from steelmaking over the next decade is probably larger than from any other sector...
https://x.com/laurimyllyvirta/status/1811359252310843518
If the property is up in value, they can get a small mortgage or move to somewhere slightly smaller. Or if they are a pension millionaire of the type you mention, they can draw down 3% or 5% of their pension pot.
But mainly they should really have thought about that before committing the crime.
The standard punishment in 2 of the 3 cases we have discussed is a small fine of a few thousand, Court Costs, and recovery of criminal profits.
The Leominster River Legg SSSI destruction case is a little different, in that the perp with the record of offences going back to 2007, who got the year in prison, has been told to spend £1.2m to restore the landscape he destroyed.
But that one has assets reported by the Daily Mail of more than £20m+, so he can perfectly well afford it.
So I think "forced into bankruptcy" is essentially a fiction.
Can't do this with gas and oil.
They need to enlarge the goals by a few inches. Seriously
The point being it is a fundementally stupid thing to do whenever they decide to do it. Actually it was a fundementally stupid thing to even suggest doing as it has significatly reduced investment in the UKCS over the last year or so once it was clear Labour would win.
It's such an obvious thing to do, speed up the game, decrease disallowed goals, make it all more exciting. They are such dimwits for not doing this
Replace the tinkering with more and better funded trials in second tier football to see if they can nail the handball law. But only change it once every 5 or 10 years and then implement it across (at least) the whole professional game.
Banning all imports would be against WTO rules surely.
And this:
...But the UK Government's Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has said the reports are untrue and no official decision has been made...
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ed-miliband-orders-immediate-ban-102141947.html
Unless the 'sources' are reported on the Guardian front page, it's probably not true.
Which is really going to sting for the Telegraph.
I think the VAR officials need to ask themselves when it comes to stuff like handball/the penalty "Was this a clear and obvious error by the referee", instead they're rereferring stuff - which IMO should not be the point of VAR. Of course clear and obvious errors (Henry's handball for instance) are far fewer than hairline decisions which look far worse on a slo-mo than they were in real time.
They need to realise once a decision is referred back to the referee that the referee will almost always go with their new decision even if there was no clear and obvious error originally.
@SpeakerPelosi has been advising frontline members to voice their district & do what they need for re-election -- even if it means calling on Biden to step aside. (Her one request: wait until NATO concludes out of respect for the office & Biden)
For other safe-seat members, she's encouraging them to take their desire for him to step aside straight to the WH or campaign to minimize party infighting.
For her part, Pelosi has told some people that Biden won't win and should step aside.
Bradley Clifford, of Rendlesham Road, Enfield, was found guilty of murder and the attempted grievous bodily harm with intent against a 19-year-old man in May 2018.
The now 30-year-old was handed a life sentence with a minimum term of 23 years for murder and seven years for the attack on Mr Francis, to run concurrently."
https://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/24444962.brother-bushey-suspect-kyle-clifford-jail-murder/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43977756
https://x.com/ITVNewsPolitics/status/1811369853527187647
So all you are doing is damaging the UK economy and forcing us to import more hydrocarbons, destroying importantindustries and making the transition all the more difficult. It is self destructive childish virtue signalling.
And a touch infra dig
How do you build your electric cars without petrochemical products - plastics, lubricants, coolants?
And as I have said before, when that gives you an almighty headache don't reach for the asprin. It won't be there as it is made of hydrocarbons.
I love a bit of real summer heat but.... ouch
And this gloriously ancient house has no aircon
And our levels of production these days have almost no effect at the margin on world market prices.
So there's no good economic or environmental case for an immediate halt to new projects.
But oil & gas revenues can and should be used to subsidise more renewables.
Edit: it would also enhance the role of the skipper, which would be a good addition to the game. Captains with good game sense would attract a premium as 'skilled reviewers'.
(I too, you will be unsurprised to learn, lament the passing of R4LWTMS - seemed to me to fall into the category of not broke/don't fix. I too have a car which is 'that old', and I also had recently a long wave radio I used specifically for listening to the cricket when I was out and about. Unlike a phone, I didn't have to pay for data and the battery lasted for ever. And I miss the break for the shipping forecast.)
Though I never saw him as sufficiently politically adept.
And we need to do something to make EVs more attractive as well. Not the pie in the sky stuff opponents talk about but practical stuff that makes them viable and preferable as a choice for most people. As I said before, because of the impact I think fuel additives are having on insect populations I would love to see us move to EVs a lot quicker.
We need to deal with demand not supply.
JL Smith
50 runs
(104)
Our oil and gas needs will soon be dramatically lower. Yes, that is bad news for oil companies. The wise thing to do is not to invest in oil companies.
I dare say the key reason why R4LWTMS was binned was that hardly anyone listened to it. I mean, most cars don't even have LW (even if they have an old-style FM radio) and the sound quality on DAB is vastly superior.
I genuinely do find the praise for Southgate odd. England AFAICS have done no better than par during his tenure. Which is admittedly substantially better than under his predecessors.
Partly it's just a factor of the nature of international football: in comparison to other sports (or to domestic football), the best teams play each other so rarely it is hard to get a meaningful measure of how good a team is.
Ouch !
https://www.amazon.co.uk/POP-Adapter-Bluetooth-Transmitter-Handsfree/dp/B0CKLT8DRC/ref=asc_df_B0CKLT8DRC/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=696285193871&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=4000445475789336460&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9044936&hvtargid=pla-2281435177818&psc=1&mcid=216e3bf7527533308e1181046c1b32f0&hvocijid=4000445475789336460-B0CKLT8DRC-&hvexpln=74&gad_source=1
Thanks
My own view - and I don't think I'm alone in this - is that we need to move to greener forms of energy. But we cannot afford to do that in a way that destroys jobs or the economy as a whole (obviously, some jobs will go, but they should be offset by jobs in the new sectors).
There are vast opportunities to be made in going green - not just in terms of climate change, but in other ways, for instance local air quality. But the moment we start having brownouts or blackouts, we're a bit screwed. Therefore care is needed.
IMV others - I'm not saying this is you, but it may be - see Green issues more as a way of introducing socialist policies as much as promoting the environment. And if you look at the history of socialism and the environment, it isn't good. Especially extreme forms such as Communism.
"The basic problem neoliberal globalisation always had was that even though it undeniably raised the incomes of Western countries, those gains were unequally spread. Urban professionals gained a lot, whereas unskilled workers were hammered, their industrial towns often turning into wastelands of boarded-up shops and abandoned mills. Meanwhile the urban booms drove up property prices and enriched owners, sucking more and more money out of the pockets of working folk, forcing many to move far out of town where they often suffered from inadequate services. One of the most reliable predictors of support for France’s National Rally is the distance one lives from a train station: the further away, the more likely a vote for the RN."
And Richard is suggesting we can't maintain that without some (limited) new licenses. The key thing is to provide a bit of certainty to the sector over the next decade or so, while asserting downward pressure so the transition doesn't slow.
This was also the series were the second day of the second test had part of all four innings. Courtney Walsh batted and bowled in all four innings on that day, the only player ever to do so.
But no one agrees where the right one is positioned
Check that you've omitted all pineapples.
Word format preferred.
I don't believe that these kind of vested interests will allow the transition to happen in a way that is optimal for the UK, so you do need to be pushy with them. The same with EVs by 2030, housing developers and so on. They are out for a profit, as is their right.
I'm actually quite surprised at the speed of identification of human remains - or at least the working assumption that they are human. Edit: implies something fresh or blatantly obvious. No need for DNA testing for ID as human.
But this time I hope the media don't fall into the trap of finding the nearest eccentric middle-aged male with a bad haircut, or lack of one, that can be found to the site. It was a bit expensive last time.
Oh and if it's not being sold to be burnt and only being produced for petrochemicals that we need anyway, then what's the harm if they do?
b) define "fair chunk".
Or will it be like the Maldives which - shock, horror - haven't sunk.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/26/climate/maldives-islands-climate-change.html
But sadly the reality is that people don't want to chnage or get rid of their laptops or cars or whatnot. They don't want to do all those things which the Greens really, really want to do (albeit few of them do themselves). This is just the reality.
Restricting supply will simply push up prices which will disproportionately affect the poorer. Which again is just what we voted for.
Hurrah.
So deal with the consumption and the production will take care of itself.