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.
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.
I see green issues fundamentally as long term economics. It is in the interest of all of us to have a sustainable economy that isn't destroying the environment that supports us. On the whole, I think market-oriented approaches are likely to be the best ones. I'm not in favour of bans on anything, but rather in balancing negative externalities through taxation.
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.
Though the point here is that it is largely immaterial to the oil companies. They simply move their investment to other parts of the world where they get a bigger return. The same amount of oil and gas gets produced overall, there is greater rather than less environmental damage done - though the additional damage is on a local rather than global level - and their profits stay the same or actually improve. Oh but because they are making those profits overseas they don't end up paying it to the UK exchequer.
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.
But it can't be produced forever, because it's a finite resource. Which makes burning it so bloody stupid when there are, in many cases, alternatives to doing so.
@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.
It looks as though Biden and Harris may be approaching crossover on Betfair.
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.
a) Over the next few hundred years. It obviously doesn't all happen at once. b) Ultimately, potentially everywhere below about 60m above sea level if we were to burn all available fossil fuels.
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.
That's true, but for a really suspicious situation like this they'll haul the polis quack out of bed pronto. And not even wait for him if it is really obvious, and someone might be getting away.
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.
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.
a) Over the next few hundred years. It obviously doesn't all happen at once. b) Ultimately, potentially everywhere below about 60m above sea level if we were to burn all available fossil fuels.
Absurd logic. You really think that our ability to adapt and substitute won't change for hundreds of years.
Plus as I have referred to, it is by no means certain that climate change leads to submerged landmass.
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.
That's true, but you normally need to wait till they have had their Ready-Brek and crawled into the lab in the morning. And dry bones don't justify anything earlier.
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.
Though the point here is that it is largely immaterial to the oil companies. They simply move their investment to other parts of the world where they get a bigger return. The same amount of oil and gas gets produced overall, there is greater rather than less environmental damage done - though the additional damage is on a local rather than global level - and their profits stay the same or actually improve. Oh but because they are making those profits overseas they don't end up paying it to the UK exchequer.
This logic suggests that the UK becomes a 100% exporter of fossil fuels even as we become fully powered by renewables.
It's a view. I don't think it's politically tenable. There is a reason why we are making this transition and it's not entirely self-interest.
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.
Though the point here is that it is largely immaterial to the oil companies. They simply move their investment to other parts of the world where they get a bigger return. The same amount of oil and gas gets produced overall, there is greater rather than less environmental damage done - though the additional damage is on a local rather than global level - and their profits stay the same or actually improve. Oh but because they are making those profits overseas they don't end up paying it to the UK exchequer.
This logic suggests that the UK becomes a 100% exporter of fossil fuels even as we become fully powered by renewables.
It's a view. I don't think it's politically tenable. There is a reason why we are making this transition and it's not entirely self-interest.
Nope that isn't the logic at all. The logic (using your example) is that we become a 100% exporter of petrochemicals and petroleum derivatves whilst becoming fully powered by renewables.
The logic of the Greens is that we become a 100% importer of fossil fuels whilst killing our own petrochemical industry.
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.
Though the point here is that it is largely immaterial to the oil companies. They simply move their investment to other parts of the world where they get a bigger return. The same amount of oil and gas gets produced overall, there is greater rather than less environmental damage done - though the additional damage is on a local rather than global level - and their profits stay the same or actually improve. Oh but because they are making those profits overseas they don't end up paying it to the UK exchequer.
The UK is one of the worst in the oil and gas sector for political risk. Our portfolio of assets for development or abandonment is consequentially at the forefront of review. Most of the African countries I dealt with were deemed far more stable.
The result of not making further field investment - and consequently earlier abandonment of fields - is that remaining production will be used to offset obligations to dismantle and take away platforms and pipelines, instead of being subject to tax. So less taxable hydrocarbons are produced over the life of the field than would have been.
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?
He left the suitcases sitting there? This is the problem with modern Britain - a lack of training in technical manual tasks.
The Cali Cartel taught their guys a standardised disposal methods - wrap the body in chicken wire, with rocks inside, use heavy cable ties to prevent the chickenwire unrolling, then into the river.
According to the latest "History Buffs" https://youtu.be/GyBC5IysttE?si=bPinr3_Oh-YLc6fs&t=975 on the subject, they did do that, but in some cases they also gutted the corpse and stuffed rocks into the abdomen to ensure the corpse did not rise to the surface.
Although "disposing of a corpse" is the subject of a contingency plan in my head (alongside "zombie survival plan" and "how to survive a nuke"), I can't help but think that under the circs this is not the time to discuss it.
So, can anyone see behind the first statement from Louise Haigh, the Transport Minister:
New Transport Secretary Louise Haigh promised to deliver the biggest overhaul to transport in a generation.
The Secretary of State immediately convened officials to begin work at pace across the department on rail reform, further devolution of bus powers, ensuring infrastructure works for the whole country, and supporting local authorities to fix roads for the long term.
In her first address to Department for Transport (DfT) staff on Monday (8 July 2024), Haigh set out her 5 strategic priorities, putting transport at the heart of mission-driven government.
They include:
improving performance on the railways and driving forward rail reform improving bus services and growing usage across the country transforming infrastructure to work for the whole country, promoting social mobility and tackling regional inequality delivering greener transport better integrating transport networks
Getting straight into action, the Transport Secretary’s first official visit later this week will be focused on plans to deliver better buses in every corner of the country, beginning a round of engagement with Mayors and devolved leaders who will be key delivery partners.
And we have:
The newly-appointed Rail Minister, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill CBE will also bring decades of experience to help realise the Government’s ambition of transforming infrastructure and improving public transport to deliver for passengers.
So, can anyone see behind the first statement from Louise Haigh, the Transport Minister:
New Transport Secretary Louise Haigh promised to deliver the biggest overhaul to transport in a generation.
The Secretary of State immediately convened officials to begin work at pace across the department on rail reform, further devolution of bus powers, ensuring infrastructure works for the whole country, and supporting local authorities to fix roads for the long term.
In her first address to Department for Transport (DfT) staff on Monday (8 July 2024), Haigh set out her 5 strategic priorities, putting transport at the heart of mission-driven government.
They include:
improving performance on the railways and driving forward rail reform improving bus services and growing usage across the country transforming infrastructure to work for the whole country, promoting social mobility and tackling regional inequality delivering greener transport better integrating transport networks
Getting straight into action, the Transport Secretary’s first official visit later this week will be focused on plans to deliver better buses in every corner of the country, beginning a round of engagement with Mayors and devolved leaders who will be key delivery partners.
And we have:
The newly-appointed Rail Minister, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill CBE will also bring decades of experience to help realise the Government’s ambition of transforming infrastructure and improving public transport to deliver for passengers.
Unsurprising but disappointing lack of investment in new roads and bridges as a priority, both of which can be used by buses and cyclists as well as vehicles.
The last thing the Tories need is Reform voters. Their views are extreme.
The ideal for the Conservatives is to get the votes of Reform backers without turning into Reform themselves. Partly because it would be bad government, but also because there are still more votes to lose on their left flank.
Unfortunately, that's not easy to do. The best way would have been to strangle them at birth, but it's about twenty years too later for that.
Do you mean by attempting to deceive them by putting a few right wing bones in the manifesto you have no intention of implementing (the norm)?
Which no longer works.
Or actually addressing the problem which means both building a lot more houses on nimby members prized view and stopping immigration to the extent that there is net migration to facilitate a house price collapase so that under 40s can get somewhere to live without paying an extortionate amount?
All of which is anathema to the wealthy vested interests controlling the party.
How stupid can you be, anyone facilitating a house price collapse would be out on their arses tout suite. Typical selfish arseholes wanting to bankrupt lots of people because they want everything for nothing. Get out and earn enough to buy a house you sad sick loser.
A house price collapse doesn't bankrupt anyone, it just makes costs more affordable. If you've been paying off your mortgage (or paid it off) you owe less or nothing on your home already, it's those who need to buy one we should be caring about not those who already have one.
Costs going up is a bad thing, costs going down is a good thing. Or do you want gas prices and other costs to only ever go up?
DOH, usual economics for idiots from you Bart. There ar emmany many who bought in recent years not paid anything off yet , intreest only mortgages and other such stuff, it would beggar them you fool.
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?
Irrelevant. Had he not done this he could have blamed the Tories for power cuts. Labour will have to own it now.
That's mad.
The decision is stupid, will hurt out balance of trade and help enrich the Putins and Ayatollahs and Mullahs of this world, while doing nothing to aid the environment whatsoever.
But its got absolutely jack all to do with power cuts, or the risk of them.
Yes it's daft - and I fear going to be legally expensive for the Gov't... , at least he lifted the onshore wind ban immediately on taking office.
The oil and gas ban was one of the big reasons I didn't vote for Labour tbh.
Comments
b) Ultimately, potentially everywhere below about 60m above sea level if we were to burn all available fossil fuels.
Plus as I have referred to, it is by no means certain that climate change leads to submerged landmass.
Here's another article.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/briefing/maldives-atolls-climate-change.html
NEW THREAD
Don't suppose we will be finding out any time soon but interesting to ponder.
It's a view. I don't think it's politically tenable. There is a reason why we are making this transition and it's not entirely self-interest.
The logic of the Greens is that we become a 100% importer of fossil fuels whilst killing our own petrochemical industry.
The result of not making further field investment - and consequently earlier abandonment of fields - is that remaining production will be used to offset obligations to dismantle and take away platforms and pipelines, instead of being subject to tax. So less taxable hydrocarbons are produced over the life of the field than would have been.
Although "disposing of a corpse" is the subject of a contingency plan in my head (alongside "zombie survival plan" and "how to survive a nuke"), I can't help but think that under the circs this is not the time to discuss it.
New Transport Secretary Louise Haigh promised to deliver the biggest overhaul to transport in a generation.
The Secretary of State immediately convened officials to begin work at pace across the department on rail reform, further devolution of bus powers, ensuring infrastructure works for the whole country, and supporting local authorities to fix roads for the long term.
In her first address to Department for Transport (DfT) staff on Monday (8 July 2024), Haigh set out her 5 strategic priorities, putting transport at the heart of mission-driven government.
They include:
improving performance on the railways and driving forward rail reform
improving bus services and growing usage across the country
transforming infrastructure to work for the whole country, promoting social mobility and tackling regional inequality
delivering greener transport
better integrating transport networks
Getting straight into action, the Transport Secretary’s first official visit later this week will be focused on plans to deliver better buses in every corner of the country, beginning a round of engagement with Mayors and devolved leaders who will be key delivery partners.
And we have:
The newly-appointed Rail Minister, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill CBE will also bring decades of experience to help realise the Government’s ambition of transforming infrastructure and improving public transport to deliver for passengers.
In addition, the Prime Minister has announced the appointment of new ministers at the Department, including Future of Roads Minister Lilian Greenwood MP, Local Transport Minister Simon Lightwood MP, and Aviation, Maritime, and Security Minister Mike Kane MP.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/transport-secretary-sets-out-5-key-priorities-to-deliver-the-biggest-overhaul-to-transport-in-a-generation
Thoughts?