Personally I think Harris is the only candidate and strikes me as a slight SKS candidate, in that nobody really knows who she is.
I think you are right. If Biden bows out he deserves a lot of respect and one presumes his VP is a shoe-in. Unless he endorses someone else which seems unlikely but can it be ruled out?
PB brains trust: If I wanted to go somewhere in Europe for a week on my own, wanting some sunshine and perhaps some socialising with 25-35 year olds, for not a large sum of money, where should I go?
"During the meeting, the 81-year-old president responded to a question from Hawaii Gov. Josh Green about his health by stating he was fine, but he added, "it's just my brain," according to one person in the room and another familiar with the discussion.'
NewsWire @NewsWire_US · 1h Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO) says calls to his office about Biden are breaking 9-1 in favor of wanting him to withdraw - Semafor
PB brains trust: If I wanted to go somewhere in Europe for a week on my own, wanting some sunshine and perhaps some socialising with 25-35 year olds, for not a large sum of money, where should I go?
There’s some lovely cities in Eastern Europe, cheap as chips to stay and enjoy life there for a few days.
Krakow Budapest Prague Bucharest Istanbul Bratislava
Bonus points for Lviv.
I think the question needs further narrowing down. It’s only a couple of steps from “I would like to go in holiday. Where would you suggest”.
Actually an interesting question would be “where is the absolutely cheapest place to go on holiday for a week in summer, factoring in travel, accommodation, cost of food and drink and activities?”
I'd say Morocco. Close, poor, and good amount of shitty package holidays.
And scoring top marks in my nuclear war escape location analysis spreadsheet. Last updated in 2022 but probably still top.
CNN: Angry and stunned Democrats blame Biden’s closest advisers for shielding public from full extent of president’s decline
Federal Reserve Chair Powell was asked by a congressman yesterday when he had last been phoned or held a meeting with the President. Answer not since 2022!
I remember when it was a Trumpite conspiracy theory to suggest that Biden wasn't really in charge.
The Trumpite conspiracy theory was about someone else pulling the strings, rather than the more prosaic and accurate reality that delegation works.
Sorry. but you're rewriting history. I was continually accused of "ranting on" and being a "Trumpite shill" and repeating "MAGA propaganda" for pointing out the FUCKING OBVIOUS FACT THAT BIDEN WAS AND IS SENILE
Even when I showed videos of him basically crapping himself and wearing a chair for a hat there was always a PBer to explain it way
NBC News confirms: The Biden campaign is quietly assessing the viability of Vice President Kamala Harris' candidacy against Donald Trump in a new head-to-head poll. @MSNBC
It's happening. All the gas lighters who said Biden simply has a stutter and don't believe our lying eyes about Joe's dementia are wrong
Yes I do believe you are correct. Though I do not understand this strange expression about "gas lighters". Years ago I used to smoke and used gas lighters but what that has to do with it I have no idea.
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?
It is not just oil but gas as well. 32% of our power generation was from gas last year.
The UK spent almost £50 billion on oil and gas imports last year. This decision will not reduce consumption by a single barrel but will just increase our balance of trade deficit and make us more reliable on imports, many from unstable places whose environmental controls are far below our own.
It will also do immense damage to our petrochemical industry. Good luck building using electric cars without hydrocarbons.
It is a fecking stupid thing to do with no redeeming factors. Virtue signalling to a suicidal level.
But the decision is not about what we do now, but about what we do some years in the future.
Yes and some years in the future we are still going to need petrochemicals, NHS medicines and everything else the industry supports.
We should be looking to end imports and the fungible profits that go to Russia and the Middle East before we look to cut our own production.
Amazing that people do not realise that a ban on using oil and gas as fuel would just result in it being burned off in flares and huge inflation in (and shortages of) the million and one other essential things made from oil as they would no longer be subsidised by profits from the petrol and gas distilled from the crude oil.
I am normally a really measured poster, but I do believe that this is the biggest load of tosh I've read on PB.
Oil and gas are going to be continued to be produced irrespective of whether there is any fuel demand for them*, because they have uses beyond fuel. (Which you get.)
But why would that make them more expensive?
You seem to be suggesting that the supply curve for oil points in a different direction to every other commodity in the world. Can I recommend this excellent piece: http://theoildrum.com/node/2899
* And of course, fuel demand will continue for 100 years anyway, but that's another story.
Are there any non fuel petroleum products which are markedly less damaging than fuel? Plastics don't have a great rep, nor fertilizers
A whole range of medicines. Lubricants, greases, coolants. Modern society simply cannot exist without petroleum products. And plastics are vital for basically the whole of modern infrastructure. Not ghe disposable bottle type stuff but basic stuff like insulation around wiring. The list of things made from petroleum products is truly terrifying in the face of idiots who want us to stop drilling for the stuff.
You don't need oil for this stuff its just acquiring the feedstock from carbon capture or biological means and building up the molecular complexity is much more expensive.
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?
It is not just oil but gas as well. 32% of our power generation was from gas last year.
The UK spent almost £50 billion on oil and gas imports last year. This decision will not reduce consumption by a single barrel but will just increase our balance of trade deficit and make us more reliable on imports, many from unstable places whose environmental controls are far below our own.
It will also do immense damage to our petrochemical industry. Good luck building using electric cars without hydrocarbons.
It is a fecking stupid thing to do with no redeeming factors. Virtue signalling to a suicidal level.
But the decision is not about what we do now, but about what we do some years in the future.
Yes and some years in the future we are still going to need petrochemicals, NHS medicines and everything else the industry supports.
We should be looking to end imports and the fungible profits that go to Russia and the Middle East before we look to cut our own production.
Amazing that people do not realise that a ban on using oil and gas as fuel would just result in it being burned off in flares and huge inflation in (and shortages of) the million and one other essential things made from oil as they would no longer be subsidised by profits from the petrol and gas distilled from the crude oil.
I am normally a really measured poster, but I do believe that this is the biggest load of tosh I've read on PB.
Oil and gas are going to be continued to be produced irrespective of whether there is any fuel demand for them*, because they have uses beyond fuel. (Which you get.)
But why would that make them more expensive?
You seem to be suggesting that the supply curve for oil points in a different direction to every other commodity in the world. Can I recommend this excellent piece: http://theoildrum.com/node/2899
* And of course, fuel demand will continue for 100 years anyway, but that's another story.
Are there any non fuel petroleum products which are markedly less damaging than fuel? Plastics don't have a great rep, nor fertilizers
Fertilisers are critical for ensuring people are fed.
But if you want a different sector how about pharmaceuticals? 99% of pharmaceuticals contain petrochemicals, so shut down petrochemicals you shut down the NHS and over the counter the counter medicines too.
Hope you don't need a paracetamol or ibuprofen any time soon, let alone anything more serious.
I remember being at an oil conference about fifteen years ago, and a Canadian E&P executive stood up and said "Oil and gas are so essential for a modern economy that it makes me crazy to think that we just burn the stuff."
Yes, the move towards electric cars is going to reduce the amount of fuel we need, but given how difficult finding entirely new sources of oil is, that's rather good news. Instead of having to replace 5 million barrels a day of production each year, perhaps it's only 1 or 2 million,
Its more difficult than it was but not that difficult yet.
The gradual rampdown through market forces (as opposed to idiot ministers banning exploration) is fine at first, but becomes a major problem when profitable fuel sales decline to the point that the waste sludge left over from distilling off gas and petroleum becomes *the* product and has to shoulder the exporation and drilling costs.
A bit like branch railway lines. They were built for goods. Passenger services used them but were only viable when the goods paid for the infrastructure. When the goods went the passenger services became an economic basket case.
In this parable the Petrol/Gas is the goods traffic, the other uses for oil the passenger traffic and the oil industry the railway.
I'm sorry, but this is still utter gibberish.
Ultimately, this is simple economics and everything else is flim flam. If there is demand for oil and gas for petrochemicals, then there will be supply. The idea that the supply will be more expensive because there is less total demand is utter rubbish. (And the idea there is cross subsidy is just insane. Why would Shell sell petrochemical products at a loss to relative to fuel.)
Sorry to belabour the point, but crude oil is a bunch of long chain hydrocarbons of various different flavors. But those long chain hydrocarbons can be either split up or joined together.
At one extreme end of this, you have the shortest chain hydrocarbon of all (CH4, methane) being chained together to make low sulphur diesel. And at the other, you have cracking where longer chain hydrocarbons are reduced to smaller ones.
In the event fuel demand were to fall to zero*, then you would still be able to use all of the contents of the barrel of oil for chemical purposes. So, even ignoring economics, your characterization is simply wrong.
* Which it won't
Why then was most gas flared off until the LPG industry made it usable?
Errr, because getting gas from fields to where it was used was difficult. It's a lot harder to store than a simple liquid.
Thats the whole point. I'm making. If it can't be sold off then it becomes a waste product. Its still produced when you extract oil but dosent contribute. So the rest of the oil products are proportionately more expensive.
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?
It is not just oil but gas as well. 32% of our power generation was from gas last year.
The UK spent almost £50 billion on oil and gas imports last year. This decision will not reduce consumption by a single barrel but will just increase our balance of trade deficit and make us more reliable on imports, many from unstable places whose environmental controls are far below our own.
It will also do immense damage to our petrochemical industry. Good luck building using electric cars without hydrocarbons.
It is a fecking stupid thing to do with no redeeming factors. Virtue signalling to a suicidal level.
But the decision is not about what we do now, but about what we do some years in the future.
Yes and some years in the future we are still going to need petrochemicals, NHS medicines and everything else the industry supports.
We should be looking to end imports and the fungible profits that go to Russia and the Middle East before we look to cut our own production.
Amazing that people do not realise that a ban on using oil and gas as fuel would just result in it being burned off in flares and huge inflation in (and shortages of) the million and one other essential things made from oil as they would no longer be subsidised by profits from the petrol and gas distilled from the crude oil.
I am normally a really measured poster, but I do believe that this is the biggest load of tosh I've read on PB.
Oil and gas are going to be continued to be produced irrespective of whether there is any fuel demand for them*, because they have uses beyond fuel. (Which you get.)
But why would that make them more expensive?
You seem to be suggesting that the supply curve for oil points in a different direction to every other commodity in the world. Can I recommend this excellent piece: http://theoildrum.com/node/2899
* And of course, fuel demand will continue for 100 years anyway, but that's another story.
Are there any non fuel petroleum products which are markedly less damaging than fuel? Plastics don't have a great rep, nor fertilizers
Fertilisers are critical for ensuring people are fed.
But if you want a different sector how about pharmaceuticals? 99% of pharmaceuticals contain petrochemicals, so shut down petrochemicals you shut down the NHS and over the counter the counter medicines too.
Hope you don't need a paracetamol or ibuprofen any time soon, let alone anything more serious.
I remember being at an oil conference about fifteen years ago, and a Canadian E&P executive stood up and said "Oil and gas are so essential for a modern economy that it makes me crazy to think that we just burn the stuff."
Yes, the move towards electric cars is going to reduce the amount of fuel we need, but given how difficult finding entirely new sources of oil is, that's rather good news. Instead of having to replace 5 million barrels a day of production each year, perhaps it's only 1 or 2 million,
Its more difficult than it was but not that difficult yet.
The gradual rampdown through market forces (as opposed to idiot ministers banning exploration) is fine at first, but becomes a major problem when profitable fuel sales decline to the point that the waste sludge left over from distilling off gas and petroleum becomes *the* product and has to shoulder the exporation and drilling costs.
A bit like branch railway lines. They were built for goods. Passenger services used them but were only viable when the goods paid for the infrastructure. When the goods went the passenger services became an economic basket case.
In this parable the Petrol/Gas is the goods traffic, the other uses for oil the passenger traffic and the oil industry the railway.
I'm sorry, but this is still utter gibberish.
Ultimately, this is simple economics and everything else is flim flam. If there is demand for oil and gas for petrochemicals, then there will be supply. The idea that the supply will be more expensive because there is less total demand is utter rubbish. (And the idea there is cross subsidy is just insane. Why would Shell sell petrochemical products at a loss to relative to fuel.)
Sorry to belabour the point, but crude oil is a bunch of long chain hydrocarbons of various different flavors. But those long chain hydrocarbons can be either split up or joined together.
At one extreme end of this, you have the shortest chain hydrocarbon of all (CH4, methane) being chained together to make low sulphur diesel. And at the other, you have cracking where longer chain hydrocarbons are reduced to smaller ones.
In the event fuel demand were to fall to zero*, then you would still be able to use all of the contents of the barrel of oil for chemical purposes. So, even ignoring economics, your characterization is simply wrong.
* Which it won't
Why then was most middle east gas flared off as a waste product from oil extraction until the LPG industry made it usable by transporting it on ships?
I don't get your point? Nothing about flaring gas is in opposition to what Robert said.
PB brains trust: If I wanted to go somewhere in Europe for a week on my own, wanting some sunshine and perhaps some socialising with 25-35 year olds, for not a large sum of money, where should I go?
This solar power is more trouble than it’s worth. This afternoon the news that the firm that services my solar thermal system has gone into liquidation; it took me ages to find them, after the guy who installed them - who was an excellent salesman since he only came round to service the boiler and in the end I spent about £6000 on plumbing and all the rest - lost his young office assistant, passed the work over to his wife; working together wasn’t the route to marital happiness so he took up with a younger polish woman and the combination of polish food and a more ‘energetic’ lifestyle led to a fatal heart attack on Shanklin beach; once buried his business passed to a firm that was only interested in plumbing and not solar, and it took a long time to find someone new to service my panels and system.
CNN: Angry and stunned Democrats blame Biden’s closest advisers for shielding public from full extent of president’s decline
Federal Reserve Chair Powell was asked by a congressman yesterday when he had last been phoned or held a meeting with the President. Answer not since 2022!
I remember when it was a Trumpite conspiracy theory to suggest that Biden wasn't really in charge.
The Trumpite conspiracy theory was about someone else pulling the strings, rather than the more prosaic and accurate reality that delegation works.
Sorry. but you're rewriting history. I was continually accused of "ranting on" and being a "Trumpite shill" and repeating "MAGA propaganda" for pointing out the FUCKING OBVIOUS FACT THAT BIDEN WAS AND IS SENILE
Even when I showed videos of him basically crapping himself and wearing a chair for a hat there was always a PBer to explain it way
I was slow, indeed very slow, to accept what you were saying to be honest. Even if he wasn't quite how he was I reckoned he would still be nominee and better bet than Trump.
It took Biden setting himself his own test - an early debate in June to show he was totally capable of being POTUS for four more years - and utterly and totally failing for me to switch.
Chapeau to you sir. I dont think any of us can now argue that you were right.
PB brains trust: If I wanted to go somewhere in Europe for a week on my own, wanting some sunshine and perhaps some socialising with 25-35 year olds, for not a large sum of money, where should I go?
There’s some lovely cities in Eastern Europe, cheap as chips to stay and enjoy life there for a few days.
Krakow Budapest Prague Bucharest Istanbul Bratislava
Bonus points for Lviv.
I think the question needs further narrowing down. It’s only a couple of steps from “I would like to go in holiday. Where would you suggest”.
Actually an interesting question would be “where is the absolutely cheapest place to go on holiday for a week in summer, factoring in travel, accommodation, cost of food and drink and activities?”
I'd say Morocco. Close, poor, and good amount of shitty package holidays.
And scoring top marks in my nuclear war escape location analysis spreadsheet. Last updated in 2022 but probably still top.
Ooh. Not sure. Still think I'd be in the western isles with a few tons of rice and some dried sea birds. But suppose you really want to be somewhere with a chance of growing food? Pacific Islands could be good.
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?
It is not just oil but gas as well. 32% of our power generation was from gas last year.
The UK spent almost £50 billion on oil and gas imports last year. This decision will not reduce consumption by a single barrel but will just increase our balance of trade deficit and make us more reliable on imports, many from unstable places whose environmental controls are far below our own.
It will also do immense damage to our petrochemical industry. Good luck building using electric cars without hydrocarbons.
It is a fecking stupid thing to do with no redeeming factors. Virtue signalling to a suicidal level.
But the decision is not about what we do now, but about what we do some years in the future.
Yes and some years in the future we are still going to need petrochemicals, NHS medicines and everything else the industry supports.
We should be looking to end imports and the fungible profits that go to Russia and the Middle East before we look to cut our own production.
Amazing that people do not realise that a ban on using oil and gas as fuel would just result in it being burned off in flares and huge inflation in (and shortages of) the million and one other essential things made from oil as they would no longer be subsidised by profits from the petrol and gas distilled from the crude oil.
I am normally a really measured poster, but I do believe that this is the biggest load of tosh I've read on PB.
Oil and gas are going to be continued to be produced irrespective of whether there is any fuel demand for them*, because they have uses beyond fuel. (Which you get.)
But why would that make them more expensive?
You seem to be suggesting that the supply curve for oil points in a different direction to every other commodity in the world. Can I recommend this excellent piece: http://theoildrum.com/node/2899
* And of course, fuel demand will continue for 100 years anyway, but that's another story.
Are there any non fuel petroleum products which are markedly less damaging than fuel? Plastics don't have a great rep, nor fertilizers
A whole range of medicines. Lubricants, greases, coolants. Modern society simply cannot exist without petroleum products. And plastics are vital for basically the whole of modern infrastructure. Not ghe disposable bottle type stuff but basic stuff like insulation around wiring. The list of things made from petroleum products is truly terrifying in the face of idiots who want us to stop drilling for the stuff.
You don't need oil for this stuff its just acquiring the feedstock from carbon capture or biological means and building up the molecular complexity is much more expensive.
So food and medicines etc. become much more expensive. Good result.
PB brains trust: If I wanted to go somewhere in Europe for a week on my own, wanting some sunshine and perhaps some socialising with 25-35 year olds, for not a large sum of money, where should I go?
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?
It is not just oil but gas as well. 32% of our power generation was from gas last year.
The UK spent almost £50 billion on oil and gas imports last year. This decision will not reduce consumption by a single barrel but will just increase our balance of trade deficit and make us more reliable on imports, many from unstable places whose environmental controls are far below our own.
It will also do immense damage to our petrochemical industry. Good luck building using electric cars without hydrocarbons.
It is a fecking stupid thing to do with no redeeming factors. Virtue signalling to a suicidal level.
But the decision is not about what we do now, but about what we do some years in the future.
Yes and some years in the future we are still going to need petrochemicals, NHS medicines and everything else the industry supports.
We should be looking to end imports and the fungible profits that go to Russia and the Middle East before we look to cut our own production.
Amazing that people do not realise that a ban on using oil and gas as fuel would just result in it being burned off in flares and huge inflation in (and shortages of) the million and one other essential things made from oil as they would no longer be subsidised by profits from the petrol and gas distilled from the crude oil.
I am normally a really measured poster, but I do believe that this is the biggest load of tosh I've read on PB.
Oil and gas are going to be continued to be produced irrespective of whether there is any fuel demand for them*, because they have uses beyond fuel. (Which you get.)
But why would that make them more expensive?
You seem to be suggesting that the supply curve for oil points in a different direction to every other commodity in the world. Can I recommend this excellent piece: http://theoildrum.com/node/2899
* And of course, fuel demand will continue for 100 years anyway, but that's another story.
Are there any non fuel petroleum products which are markedly less damaging than fuel? Plastics don't have a great rep, nor fertilizers
A whole range of medicines. Lubricants, greases, coolants. Modern society simply cannot exist without petroleum products. And plastics are vital for basically the whole of modern infrastructure. Not ghe disposable bottle type stuff but basic stuff like insulation around wiring. The list of things made from petroleum products is truly terrifying in the face of idiots who want us to stop drilling for the stuff.
You don't need oil for this stuff its just acquiring the feedstock from carbon capture or biological means and building up the molecular complexity is much more expensive.
So food and medicines etc. become much more expensive. Good result.
Better result than planet death. When I were a lad it cost a years average salary to fly economy to the US. We got by just fine.
Biden's demented genie with Parkinson's isn't going back in the bottle.
Question is whether Trump's addled-brained genie is getting back in his.
Rather ironic if Trump is the only gaga one on the ticket come November.
Can the Democrats escape reputational damage from having covered it up?
From that CNN article:
“There’s this general sense of just, unbelievable holding your breath every time he does an event, every time he’s with people,” one top Democrat in close touch with Biden’s inner circle of advisers told CNN. This person added that some of those advisers have privately acknowledged: “This is going to get worse.”
That Democrat was blunt about how the president’s closest advisers have responded to any criticism or concerns expressed about the president – including his age and fitness: “Everyone who expresses any level of suspicion or contrary views? They call everyone and they beat the s*** out of them and say: ‘Stay on message.’”
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?
It is not just oil but gas as well. 32% of our power generation was from gas last year.
The UK spent almost £50 billion on oil and gas imports last year. This decision will not reduce consumption by a single barrel but will just increase our balance of trade deficit and make us more reliable on imports, many from unstable places whose environmental controls are far below our own.
It will also do immense damage to our petrochemical industry. Good luck building using electric cars without hydrocarbons.
It is a fecking stupid thing to do with no redeeming factors. Virtue signalling to a suicidal level.
But the decision is not about what we do now, but about what we do some years in the future.
Yes and some years in the future we are still going to need petrochemicals, NHS medicines and everything else the industry supports.
We should be looking to end imports and the fungible profits that go to Russia and the Middle East before we look to cut our own production.
Amazing that people do not realise that a ban on using oil and gas as fuel would just result in it being burned off in flares and huge inflation in (and shortages of) the million and one other essential things made from oil as they would no longer be subsidised by profits from the petrol and gas distilled from the crude oil.
I am normally a really measured poster, but I do believe that this is the biggest load of tosh I've read on PB.
Oil and gas are going to be continued to be produced irrespective of whether there is any fuel demand for them*, because they have uses beyond fuel. (Which you get.)
But why would that make them more expensive?
You seem to be suggesting that the supply curve for oil points in a different direction to every other commodity in the world. Can I recommend this excellent piece: http://theoildrum.com/node/2899
* And of course, fuel demand will continue for 100 years anyway, but that's another story.
Are there any non fuel petroleum products which are markedly less damaging than fuel? Plastics don't have a great rep, nor fertilizers
Fertilisers are critical for ensuring people are fed.
But if you want a different sector how about pharmaceuticals? 99% of pharmaceuticals contain petrochemicals, so shut down petrochemicals you shut down the NHS and over the counter the counter medicines too.
Hope you don't need a paracetamol or ibuprofen any time soon, let alone anything more serious.
I remember being at an oil conference about fifteen years ago, and a Canadian E&P executive stood up and said "Oil and gas are so essential for a modern economy that it makes me crazy to think that we just burn the stuff."
Yes, the move towards electric cars is going to reduce the amount of fuel we need, but given how difficult finding entirely new sources of oil is, that's rather good news. Instead of having to replace 5 million barrels a day of production each year, perhaps it's only 1 or 2 million,
Its more difficult than it was but not that difficult yet.
The gradual rampdown through market forces (as opposed to idiot ministers banning exploration) is fine at first, but becomes a major problem when profitable fuel sales decline to the point that the waste sludge left over from distilling off gas and petroleum becomes *the* product and has to shoulder the exporation and drilling costs.
A bit like branch railway lines. They were built for goods. Passenger services used them but were only viable when the goods paid for the infrastructure. When the goods went the passenger services became an economic basket case.
In this parable the Petrol/Gas is the goods traffic, the other uses for oil the passenger traffic and the oil industry the railway.
I'm sorry, but this is still utter gibberish.
Ultimately, this is simple economics and everything else is flim flam. If there is demand for oil and gas for petrochemicals, then there will be supply. The idea that the supply will be more expensive because there is less total demand is utter rubbish. (And the idea there is cross subsidy is just insane. Why would Shell sell petrochemical products at a loss to relative to fuel.)
Sorry to belabour the point, but crude oil is a bunch of long chain hydrocarbons of various different flavors. But those long chain hydrocarbons can be either split up or joined together.
At one extreme end of this, you have the shortest chain hydrocarbon of all (CH4, methane) being chained together to make low sulphur diesel. And at the other, you have cracking where longer chain hydrocarbons are reduced to smaller ones.
In the event fuel demand were to fall to zero*, then you would still be able to use all of the contents of the barrel of oil for chemical purposes. So, even ignoring economics, your characterization is simply wrong.
* Which it won't
Why then was most gas flared off until the LPG industry made it usable?
Errr, because getting gas from fields to where it was used was difficult. It's a lot harder to store than a simple liquid.
Thats the whole point. I'm making. If it can't be sold off then it becomes a waste product. Its still produced when you extract oil but dosent contribute. So the rest of the oil products are proportionately more expensive.
No because that is only the case under the economics of the time. So for example we used to flare of gas on all the North Sea rigs. It wasn't worth doing anything else. Until the Government said you can't do that and people actually looked at it and realised that it was far more useful and cost effective to use it. So we reinject it into wells to drive the poil out or use it to run the turbines that power the platforms. Go stand on Leman Alpha and it is like standing next to the main runway at Heathrow. All powered by gas.
There is a small amount of flaring still done but that is safety valve stuff. You change the economic environment and it changes your outlook. Gas is no longer a waste product.
Biden's demented genie with Parkinson's isn't going back in the bottle.
Question is whether Trump's addled-brained genie is getting back in his.
Rather ironic if Trump is the only gaga one on the ticket come November.
Can the Democrats escape reputational damage from having covered it up?
From that CNN article:
“There’s this general sense of just, unbelievable holding your breath every time he does an event, every time he’s with people,” one top Democrat in close touch with Biden’s inner circle of advisers told CNN. This person added that some of those advisers have privately acknowledged: “This is going to get worse.”
That Democrat was blunt about how the president’s closest advisers have responded to any criticism or concerns expressed about the president – including his age and fitness: “Everyone who expresses any level of suspicion or contrary views? They call everyone and they beat the s*** out of them and say: ‘Stay on message.’”
PB brains trust: If I wanted to go somewhere in Europe for a week on my own, wanting some sunshine and perhaps some socialising with 25-35 year olds, for not a large sum of money, where should I go?
There’s some lovely cities in Eastern Europe, cheap as chips to stay and enjoy life there for a few days.
Krakow Budapest Prague Bucharest Istanbul Bratislava
Bonus points for Lviv.
I think the question needs further narrowing down. It’s only a couple of steps from “I would like to go in holiday. Where would you suggest”.
Actually an interesting question would be “where is the absolutely cheapest place to go on holiday for a week in summer, factoring in travel, accommodation, cost of food and drink and activities?”
I'd say Morocco. Close, poor, and good amount of shitty package holidays.
And scoring top marks in my nuclear war escape location analysis spreadsheet. Last updated in 2022 but probably still top.
Ooh. Not sure. Still think I'd be in the western isles with a few tons of rice and some dried sea birds. But suppose you really want to be somewhere with a chance of growing food? Pacific Islands could be good.
Long haul doesn’t work in my scenario. I was looking for somewhere the family could get to easily and cheaply at the first sign of possible nuclear war, cheap enough and self-sufficient enough in agriculture to be able to hang around in for a while until the danger passed (or to stay in if the danger turned into actual Armageddon), but close enough to get back from if it turned out to be a false alarm.
Also:
- Not liable to be bombed by Russia - Not a huge arrival point for refugees from NATO countries - Not involving flying over or close to the conflict zone to get there - Visa free with few restrictions on Brits staying for an extended period - Not downwind of fallout
PB brains trust: If I wanted to go somewhere in Europe for a week on my own, wanting some sunshine and perhaps some socialising with 25-35 year olds, for not a large sum of money, where should I go?
How about Napoli? Plenty of sun, cheaper than most other parts of western europe, a young crowd in the centre (older folk go to Sorrento or Capri), plenty of buzzy cafes and bars, v.good transport, and lots to see and do.
Biden's demented genie with Parkinson's isn't going back in the bottle.
Question is whether Trump's addled-brained genie is getting back in his.
Rather ironic if Trump is the only gaga one on the ticket come November.
Can the Democrats escape reputational damage from having covered it up?
From that CNN article:
“There’s this general sense of just, unbelievable holding your breath every time he does an event, every time he’s with people,” one top Democrat in close touch with Biden’s inner circle of advisers told CNN. This person added that some of those advisers have privately acknowledged: “This is going to get worse.”
That Democrat was blunt about how the president’s closest advisers have responded to any criticism or concerns expressed about the president – including his age and fitness: “Everyone who expresses any level of suspicion or contrary views? They call everyone and they beat the s*** out of them and say: ‘Stay on message.’”
It's ok, they just claim that he was fine till yesterday and had a stroke or something. This forces a response of respectful.condolence and sympathy for his family etc etc.
PB brains trust: If I wanted to go somewhere in Europe for a week on my own, wanting some sunshine and perhaps some socialising with 25-35 year olds, for not a large sum of money, where should I go?
There’s some lovely cities in Eastern Europe, cheap as chips to stay and enjoy life there for a few days.
Krakow Budapest Prague Bucharest Istanbul Bratislava
Bonus points for Lviv.
All good suggestions
I would add Porto, Lisbon, Thessaloniki (but it might be really hot)
Athens?
It's horribly hot right now, and less cheap than it used to be. I would avoid it in July August for sure.
Always been tempted. Maybe one for Sep-Oct?
It's a fantastic city with much improved food. I spent two blissful weeks there in the summer of 2022, when Covid still meant very few tourists. I had entire temples to myself!
Yes Sept-Oct will be perfect: everyone should go at least once in their life, and give Athens at least a week. There is SO much to see
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?
It is not just oil but gas as well. 32% of our power generation was from gas last year.
The UK spent almost £50 billion on oil and gas imports last year. This decision will not reduce consumption by a single barrel but will just increase our balance of trade deficit and make us more reliable on imports, many from unstable places whose environmental controls are far below our own.
It will also do immense damage to our petrochemical industry. Good luck building using electric cars without hydrocarbons.
It is a fecking stupid thing to do with no redeeming factors. Virtue signalling to a suicidal level.
But the decision is not about what we do now, but about what we do some years in the future.
Yes and some years in the future we are still going to need petrochemicals, NHS medicines and everything else the industry supports.
We should be looking to end imports and the fungible profits that go to Russia and the Middle East before we look to cut our own production.
Amazing that people do not realise that a ban on using oil and gas as fuel would just result in it being burned off in flares and huge inflation in (and shortages of) the million and one other essential things made from oil as they would no longer be subsidised by profits from the petrol and gas distilled from the crude oil.
I am normally a really measured poster, but I do believe that this is the biggest load of tosh I've read on PB.
Oil and gas are going to be continued to be produced irrespective of whether there is any fuel demand for them*, because they have uses beyond fuel. (Which you get.)
But why would that make them more expensive?
You seem to be suggesting that the supply curve for oil points in a different direction to every other commodity in the world. Can I recommend this excellent piece: http://theoildrum.com/node/2899
* And of course, fuel demand will continue for 100 years anyway, but that's another story.
Are there any non fuel petroleum products which are markedly less damaging than fuel? Plastics don't have a great rep, nor fertilizers
A whole range of medicines. Lubricants, greases, coolants. Modern society simply cannot exist without petroleum products. And plastics are vital for basically the whole of modern infrastructure. Not he disposable bottle type stuff but basic stuff like insulation around wiring. The list of things made from petroleum products is truly terrifying in the face of idiots who want us to stop drilling for the stuff.
You don't need oil for this stuff its just acquiring the feedstock from carbon capture or biological means and building up the molecular complexity is much more expensive.
By much more expensive what you actually mean is mind bendingly, utterly impractically more expensive on an industrial scale.
Closing down ordinary peoples jobs just so he can grandstand in front of his Londony mates.
I hope his rancid cock drops off
Except the reports earlier today were at best premature, at worst complete fabrication.
But believable because it is exactly what he has himself said he is going to do. And the mere act of suggesting it is already costing jobs and the UK economy.
Biden's demented genie with Parkinson's isn't going back in the bottle.
Question is whether Trump's addled-brained genie is getting back in his.
Rather ironic if Trump is the only gaga one on the ticket come November.
Can the Democrats escape reputational damage from having covered it up?
From that CNN article:
“There’s this general sense of just, unbelievable holding your breath every time he does an event, every time he’s with people,” one top Democrat in close touch with Biden’s inner circle of advisers told CNN. This person added that some of those advisers have privately acknowledged: “This is going to get worse.”
That Democrat was blunt about how the president’s closest advisers have responded to any criticism or concerns expressed about the president – including his age and fitness: “Everyone who expresses any level of suspicion or contrary views? They call everyone and they beat the s*** out of them and say: ‘Stay on message.’”
Yep. They've let this fester so long it now endangers the entire Democrat party apparatus. This was definitelty a cover-up, no one should lie to American voters that the president is sane when he is not. Criminal charges?
US actress Shelley Duvall, known for films like The Shining, Annie Hall and Nashville, has died at the age of 75.
Her partner Dan Gilroy confirmed the news to The Hollywood Reporter.
"My dear, sweet, wonderful life partner and friend left us. Too much suffering lately, now she’s free. Fly away, beautiful Shelley," he said, according to the outlet.
She died in her sleep of complications from diabetes at her home in Texas, Gilroy said.
Duvall's other credits included 1977 drama 3 Women, directed by Robert Altman, for which she won the Cannes Film Festival's best actress award and was nominated for a Bafta.
Three years later, she starred as Olive Oyl opposite Robin Williams in Altman's musical version of Popeye.
Biden's demented genie with Parkinson's isn't going back in the bottle.
Question is whether Trump's addled-brained genie is getting back in his.
Rather ironic if Trump is the only gaga one on the ticket come November.
Can the Democrats escape reputational damage from having covered it up?
From that CNN article:
“There’s this general sense of just, unbelievable holding your breath every time he does an event, every time he’s with people,” one top Democrat in close touch with Biden’s inner circle of advisers told CNN. This person added that some of those advisers have privately acknowledged: “This is going to get worse.”
That Democrat was blunt about how the president’s closest advisers have responded to any criticism or concerns expressed about the president – including his age and fitness: “Everyone who expresses any level of suspicion or contrary views? They call everyone and they beat the s*** out of them and say: ‘Stay on message.’”
Yep. They've let this fester so long it now endangers the entire Democrat party apparatus. This was definitelty a cover-up, no one should lie to American voters that the president is sane when he is not. Criminal charges?
Ironically, even if what you and William were saying is true (which given your track record it probably isn't) the Supreme Court has just done its best to make that impossible.
Probably also as well for the Republicans however given how many tests Trump has failed recently.
Biden's demented genie with Parkinson's isn't going back in the bottle.
Question is whether Trump's addled-brained genie is getting back in his.
Rather ironic if Trump is the only gaga one on the ticket come November.
Can the Democrats escape reputational damage from having covered it up?
From that CNN article:
“There’s this general sense of just, unbelievable holding your breath every time he does an event, every time he’s with people,” one top Democrat in close touch with Biden’s inner circle of advisers told CNN. This person added that some of those advisers have privately acknowledged: “This is going to get worse.”
That Democrat was blunt about how the president’s closest advisers have responded to any criticism or concerns expressed about the president – including his age and fitness: “Everyone who expresses any level of suspicion or contrary views? They call everyone and they beat the s*** out of them and say: ‘Stay on message.’”
Yep. They've let this fester so long it now endangers the entire Democrat party apparatus. This was definitelty a cover-up, no one should lie to American voters that the president is sane when he is not. Criminal charges?
Ironically, even if what you and William were saying is true (which given your track record it probably isn't) the Supreme Court has just done its best to make that impossible.
Probably also as well for the Republicans however given how many tests Trump has failed recently.
You're still doubting me even when I got this completely and exactly right and much of PB was in fierce denial. Sure, OK, whatever
I think this nearly over. Biden will not be the nominee. I suppose that Harris is pretty nailed on to replace because out of respect for Biden they have to let her take up the reins, unless he endorses someone else? And she can beat Trump I think.
I'm pretty sure Harris can win. I think it's entirely possible she wins quite easily.
I think it'll be fascinating to see Trump crumble.
For anyone who thinks that there should be a betting opportunity, because the implied probabilities are currently 45% for her candidacy but only 16% for her being elected.
Harris is 6 on BF to win POTUS.
I topped up.
That looks like value to me.
Yep. Trump will lose for sure. I really think Americans will tire of the psychodrama.
If it's Kamala so be it. Hopefully she won't be quite as awful as she sometimes seems. And picks a decent veep who can go for Trump. Someone white, male and military.
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?
It is not just oil but gas as well. 32% of our power generation was from gas last year.
The UK spent almost £50 billion on oil and gas imports last year. This decision will not reduce consumption by a single barrel but will just increase our balance of trade deficit and make us more reliable on imports, many from unstable places whose environmental controls are far below our own.
It will also do immense damage to our petrochemical industry. Good luck building using electric cars without hydrocarbons.
It is a fecking stupid thing to do with no redeeming factors. Virtue signalling to a suicidal level.
But the decision is not about what we do now, but about what we do some years in the future.
Yes and some years in the future we are still going to need petrochemicals, NHS medicines and everything else the industry supports.
We should be looking to end imports and the fungible profits that go to Russia and the Middle East before we look to cut our own production.
Amazing that people do not realise that a ban on using oil and gas as fuel would just result in it being burned off in flares and huge inflation in (and shortages of) the million and one other essential things made from oil as they would no longer be subsidised by profits from the petrol and gas distilled from the crude oil.
I am normally a really measured poster, but I do believe that this is the biggest load of tosh I've read on PB.
Oil and gas are going to be continued to be produced irrespective of whether there is any fuel demand for them*, because they have uses beyond fuel. (Which you get.)
But why would that make them more expensive?
You seem to be suggesting that the supply curve for oil points in a different direction to every other commodity in the world. Can I recommend this excellent piece: http://theoildrum.com/node/2899
* And of course, fuel demand will continue for 100 years anyway, but that's another story.
Are there any non fuel petroleum products which are markedly less damaging than fuel? Plastics don't have a great rep, nor fertilizers
A whole range of medicines. Lubricants, greases, coolants. Modern society simply cannot exist without petroleum products. And plastics are vital for basically the whole of modern infrastructure. Not ghe disposable bottle type stuff but basic stuff like insulation around wiring. The list of things made from petroleum products is truly terrifying in the face of idiots who want us to stop drilling for the stuff.
You don't need oil for this stuff its just acquiring the feedstock from carbon capture or biological means and building up the molecular complexity is much more expensive.
So food and medicines etc. become much more expensive. Good result.
Better result than planet death. When I were a lad it cost a years average salary to fly economy to the US. We got by just fine.
My Great Grandfather used to walk 6 miles to work and 6 miles back again every evening. Doesn't mean we should hope to go back to it. And dying at 40 because ofthe lack of medicines is also something I would much rather avoid. Basically without hydrocarbon products we are back in the mid 19th century as far as technology is concerned.
Why did reform get almost 15% in Aberdeenshire North and Moray East? They didn't get near that much in the other Tory seats in the north east of Scotland
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?
It is not just oil but gas as well. 32% of our power generation was from gas last year.
The UK spent almost £50 billion on oil and gas imports last year. This decision will not reduce consumption by a single barrel but will just increase our balance of trade deficit and make us more reliable on imports, many from unstable places whose environmental controls are far below our own.
It will also do immense damage to our petrochemical industry. Good luck building using electric cars without hydrocarbons.
It is a fecking stupid thing to do with no redeeming factors. Virtue signalling to a suicidal level.
But the decision is not about what we do now, but about what we do some years in the future.
Yes and some years in the future we are still going to need petrochemicals, NHS medicines and everything else the industry supports.
We should be looking to end imports and the fungible profits that go to Russia and the Middle East before we look to cut our own production.
Amazing that people do not realise that a ban on using oil and gas as fuel would just result in it being burned off in flares and huge inflation in (and shortages of) the million and one other essential things made from oil as they would no longer be subsidised by profits from the petrol and gas distilled from the crude oil.
I am normally a really measured poster, but I do believe that this is the biggest load of tosh I've read on PB.
Oil and gas are going to be continued to be produced irrespective of whether there is any fuel demand for them*, because they have uses beyond fuel. (Which you get.)
But why would that make them more expensive?
You seem to be suggesting that the supply curve for oil points in a different direction to every other commodity in the world. Can I recommend this excellent piece: http://theoildrum.com/node/2899
* And of course, fuel demand will continue for 100 years anyway, but that's another story.
Are there any non fuel petroleum products which are markedly less damaging than fuel? Plastics don't have a great rep, nor fertilizers
A whole range of medicines. Lubricants, greases, coolants. Modern society simply cannot exist without petroleum products. And plastics are vital for basically the whole of modern infrastructure. Not he disposable bottle type stuff but basic stuff like insulation around wiring. The list of things made from petroleum products is truly terrifying in the face of idiots who want us to stop drilling for the stuff.
You don't need oil for this stuff its just acquiring the feedstock from carbon capture or biological means and building up the molecular complexity is much more expensive.
By much more expensive what you actually mean is mind bendingly, utterly impractically more expensive on an industrial scale.
Depends what you want really. Alcohols and sugary stuff not so hard. Large Aromatics trickier. But yes unless we invent the tappable crude tree its not going to be cheap.
Why did reform get almost 15% in Aberdeenshire North and Moray East? They didn't get near that much in the other Tory seats in the north east of Scotland
It was a protest vote against the Lib Dem candidate
The only question now has to be how Biden gets out.
I can’t see how he avoids resigning the office, to be frank.
Yep. Resignation surely
You can't say "Yes I'm too demented to stand for office but I'm fine to run the most powerful country on earth for another six months"
He resigns, Kamala Harris becomes POTUS, then she appoints a centrist white male as VEEP
I can see them winning as Trump is so Marmite. HOWEVER no one can know how this scandal will play out (and it is an enormous scandal: hiding the president's unfitness for office from the voters, and even other Democrats)
The public might react very badly and elect Trump with a landslide simply out of anger. Who knows
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?
It is not just oil but gas as well. 32% of our power generation was from gas last year.
The UK spent almost £50 billion on oil and gas imports last year. This decision will not reduce consumption by a single barrel but will just increase our balance of trade deficit and make us more reliable on imports, many from unstable places whose environmental controls are far below our own.
It will also do immense damage to our petrochemical industry. Good luck building using electric cars without hydrocarbons.
It is a fecking stupid thing to do with no redeeming factors. Virtue signalling to a suicidal level.
But the decision is not about what we do now, but about what we do some years in the future.
Yes and some years in the future we are still going to need petrochemicals, NHS medicines and everything else the industry supports.
We should be looking to end imports and the fungible profits that go to Russia and the Middle East before we look to cut our own production.
Amazing that people do not realise that a ban on using oil and gas as fuel would just result in it being burned off in flares and huge inflation in (and shortages of) the million and one other essential things made from oil as they would no longer be subsidised by profits from the petrol and gas distilled from the crude oil.
I am normally a really measured poster, but I do believe that this is the biggest load of tosh I've read on PB.
Oil and gas are going to be continued to be produced irrespective of whether there is any fuel demand for them*, because they have uses beyond fuel. (Which you get.)
But why would that make them more expensive?
You seem to be suggesting that the supply curve for oil points in a different direction to every other commodity in the world. Can I recommend this excellent piece: http://theoildrum.com/node/2899
* And of course, fuel demand will continue for 100 years anyway, but that's another story.
Are there any non fuel petroleum products which are markedly less damaging than fuel? Plastics don't have a great rep, nor fertilizers
A whole range of medicines. Lubricants, greases, coolants. Modern society simply cannot exist without petroleum products. And plastics are vital for basically the whole of modern infrastructure. Not he disposable bottle type stuff but basic stuff like insulation around wiring. The list of things made from petroleum products is truly terrifying in the face of idiots who want us to stop drilling for the stuff.
You don't need oil for this stuff its just acquiring the feedstock from carbon capture or biological means and building up the molecular complexity is much more expensive.
By much more expensive what you actually mean is mind bendingly, utterly impractically more expensive on an industrial scale.
Depends what you want really. Alcohols and sugary stuff not so hard. Large Aromatics trickier. But yes unless we invent the tappable crude tree its not going to be cheap.
Even if we started now we are decades, maybe even more away from even being able to replace a fraction of the hydrocarbon products with alternatives. And the thing is no-one is even thinking about it in Government - any Government. Just stop oil is a great slogan. Just go back to the Victorian era may not be quite so attractive.
In the last ten years pay has increased by 46% and prices by 30% whereas in the decade before that it was a 34% pay increase and a 31% price increase.
Now I understand that's only an average with people affected in different ways and those with mortgages have suffered a big financial hit in the last two years (with savers likewise gaining).
But it does explain why many people, and I am one of them, are doing so well currently despite the bewailing of others.
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?
It is not just oil but gas as well. 32% of our power generation was from gas last year.
The UK spent almost £50 billion on oil and gas imports last year. This decision will not reduce consumption by a single barrel but will just increase our balance of trade deficit and make us more reliable on imports, many from unstable places whose environmental controls are far below our own.
It will also do immense damage to our petrochemical industry. Good luck building using electric cars without hydrocarbons.
It is a fecking stupid thing to do with no redeeming factors. Virtue signalling to a suicidal level.
But the decision is not about what we do now, but about what we do some years in the future.
Yes and some years in the future we are still going to need petrochemicals, NHS medicines and everything else the industry supports.
We should be looking to end imports and the fungible profits that go to Russia and the Middle East before we look to cut our own production.
Amazing that people do not realise that a ban on using oil and gas as fuel would just result in it being burned off in flares and huge inflation in (and shortages of) the million and one other essential things made from oil as they would no longer be subsidised by profits from the petrol and gas distilled from the crude oil.
I am normally a really measured poster, but I do believe that this is the biggest load of tosh I've read on PB.
Oil and gas are going to be continued to be produced irrespective of whether there is any fuel demand for them*, because they have uses beyond fuel. (Which you get.)
But why would that make them more expensive?
You seem to be suggesting that the supply curve for oil points in a different direction to every other commodity in the world. Can I recommend this excellent piece: http://theoildrum.com/node/2899
* And of course, fuel demand will continue for 100 years anyway, but that's another story.
Are there any non fuel petroleum products which are markedly less damaging than fuel? Plastics don't have a great rep, nor fertilizers
Fertilisers are critical for ensuring people are fed.
But if you want a different sector how about pharmaceuticals? 99% of pharmaceuticals contain petrochemicals, so shut down petrochemicals you shut down the NHS and over the counter the counter medicines too.
Hope you don't need a paracetamol or ibuprofen any time soon, let alone anything more serious.
I remember being at an oil conference about fifteen years ago, and a Canadian E&P executive stood up and said "Oil and gas are so essential for a modern economy that it makes me crazy to think that we just burn the stuff."
Yes, the move towards electric cars is going to reduce the amount of fuel we need, but given how difficult finding entirely new sources of oil is, that's rather good news. Instead of having to replace 5 million barrels a day of production each year, perhaps it's only 1 or 2 million,
Its more difficult than it was but not that difficult yet.
The gradual rampdown through market forces (as opposed to idiot ministers banning exploration) is fine at first, but becomes a major problem when profitable fuel sales decline to the point that the waste sludge left over from distilling off gas and petroleum becomes *the* product and has to shoulder the exporation and drilling costs.
A bit like branch railway lines. They were built for goods. Passenger services used them but were only viable when the goods paid for the infrastructure. When the goods went the passenger services became an economic basket case.
In this parable the Petrol/Gas is the goods traffic, the other uses for oil the passenger traffic and the oil industry the railway.
I'm sorry, but this is still utter gibberish.
Ultimately, this is simple economics and everything else is flim flam. If there is demand for oil and gas for petrochemicals, then there will be supply. The idea that the supply will be more expensive because there is less total demand is utter rubbish. (And the idea there is cross subsidy is just insane. Why would Shell sell petrochemical products at a loss to relative to fuel.)
Sorry to belabour the point, but crude oil is a bunch of long chain hydrocarbons of various different flavors. But those long chain hydrocarbons can be either split up or joined together.
At one extreme end of this, you have the shortest chain hydrocarbon of all (CH4, methane) being chained together to make low sulphur diesel. And at the other, you have cracking where longer chain hydrocarbons are reduced to smaller ones.
In the event fuel demand were to fall to zero*, then you would still be able to use all of the contents of the barrel of oil for chemical purposes. So, even ignoring economics, your characterization is simply wrong.
* Which it won't
Why then was most gas flared off until the LPG industry made it usable?
Errr, because getting gas from fields to where it was used was difficult. It's a lot harder to store than a simple liquid.
Thats the whole point. I'm making. If it can't be sold off then it becomes a waste product. Its still produced when you extract oil but dosent contribute. So the rest of the oil products are proportionately more expensive.
No because that is only the case under the economics of the time. So for example we used to flare of gas on all the North Sea rigs. It wasn't worth doing anything else. Until the Government said you can't do that and people actually looked at it and realised that it was far more useful and cost effective to use it. So we reinject it into wells to drive the poil out or use it to run the turbines that power the platforms. Go stand on Leman Alpha and it is like standing next to the main runway at Heathrow. All powered by gas.
There is a small amount of flaring still done but that is safety valve stuff. You change the economic environment and it changes your outlook. Gas is no longer a waste product.
And if Petroluem also becsme a waste product then the viability of the heavier feedstock "sludge" like Napatha that is used to make plastics is undermined. They would have to bear a much greater proportion of the exploration/drilling costs or if the market wouldn't wear the increased price then production would cease and there would be increasing shortages until the price did go up enough.
Similarly the fertilizer is made from petroleum coke, another otherwise waste product from refining petroleum which if there is no use for the petroleum has to bear the cost.
You cant just switch to making fertiliser and plastics from petroleum.
PB brains trust: If I wanted to go somewhere in Europe for a week on my own, wanting some sunshine and perhaps some socialising with 25-35 year olds, for not a large sum of money, where should I go?
As daft as it sounds, Sweden is very nice in the summer and usually gets a fair bit of sunshine.
Otherwise, one of the younger members of my team at work recently went to Albania and found the sea there quite lovely (Maldives-esque apparently). And cheap.
You're not the same person who advised me to go on the Sweden to Finland boat about 10 years ago?
Closing down ordinary peoples jobs just so he can grandstand in front of his Londony mates.
I hope his rancid cock drops off
Top marks for really juvenile, and somewhat contradictory, invective.
Thanks.
Were back in a :Labour government and can point out the effing obvious. Miliband should not be let anywhere near a government.
Slightly different view from 'I hope his rancid cock drops off', you utter plonker.
Oh dear now youre resorting to insults.
Get used to having the twats in Labour called out we've been here before.
We've just had 14 years of government by spoilt brats. Thankfully the grown-ups are back in charge again.
Point one out for me, Ive missed him.
Your inability to spot the difference between, on the one hand: the children engrossed in plotting against each other when they were supposed to be running the country, and on the other: the adults who took over last week, will come as absolutely no surprise to anybody. But let me help you:
Johnson, Truss, Sunak, Braverman, Badenoch, Rees-Mogg, Jenrick, Dorries, I could go on - self-serving idiots more focused on jostling for position with each other than running the country.
In contrast, the Labour cabinet - focused on running the country and fixing the mess the Tories have got us into.
PB brains trust: If I wanted to go somewhere in Europe for a week on my own, wanting some sunshine and perhaps some socialising with 25-35 year olds, for not a large sum of money, where should I go?
As daft as it sounds, Sweden is very nice in the summer and usually gets a fair bit of sunshine.
Otherwise, one of the younger members of my team at work recently went to Albania and found the sea there quite lovely (Maldives-esque apparently). And cheap.
You're not the same person who advised me to go on the Sweden to Finland boat about 10 years ago?
Momtenegro is spectacular, and very cheap once you get 3km away from one or two hotspots (like Tivat)
Beautiful coastline, grandiose interior, hardly anyone there, superb. The only downer is the slightly boring food, but France is probably worse
Closing down ordinary peoples jobs just so he can grandstand in front of his Londony mates.
I hope his rancid cock drops off
Top marks for really juvenile, and somewhat contradictory, invective.
The mine hasn't employed anyone yet and is economically silly anyway. There's no demand in the UK for coking coal. Yes Cumberland should diversify from relying on sellafield but coal is not the way to do it. Plus it was Angela who said they wouldn't defend the position in court it hasn't been cancelled yet nothing to do with Miliband
Closing down ordinary peoples jobs just so he can grandstand in front of his Londony mates.
I hope his rancid cock drops off
Top marks for really juvenile, and somewhat contradictory, invective.
Thanks.
Were back in a :Labour government and can point out the effing obvious. Miliband should not be let anywhere near a government.
Slightly different view from 'I hope his rancid cock drops off', you utter plonker.
Oh dear now youre resorting to insults.
Get used to having the twats in Labour called out we've been here before.
We've just had 14 years of government by spoilt brats. Thankfully the grown-ups are back in charge again.
It's that 'again" I struggle with. Blair committed this country to killing at least 6 figures of Iraqi civilians because it got him personally to look besties with Bush. If he had caused the violent death of 100000 British people you would have regarded that as comment worthy? It's not easy for me to think of reasons for discounting for Iraqiness. I mean presumably you didn't campaign in favour of apartheid back in the day, so why do you celebrate Blair's achievement?
Closing down ordinary peoples jobs just so he can grandstand in front of his Londony mates.
I hope his rancid cock drops off
Top marks for really juvenile, and somewhat contradictory, invective.
Thanks.
Were back in a :Labour government and can point out the effing obvious. Miliband should not be let anywhere near a government.
Slightly different view from 'I hope his rancid cock drops off', you utter plonker.
Oh dear now youre resorting to insults.
Get used to having the twats in Labour called out we've been here before.
We've just had 14 years of government by spoilt brats. Thankfully the grown-ups are back in charge again.
Point one out for me, Ive missed him.
Your inability to spot the difference between, on the one hand: the children engrossed in plotting against each other when they were supposed to be running the country, and on the other: the adults who took over last week, will come as absolutely no surprise to anybody. But let me help you:
Johnson, Truss, Sunak, Braverman, Badenoch, Rees-Mogg, Jenrick, Dorries, I could go on - self-serving idiots more focused on jostling for position with each other than running the country.
In contrast, the Labour cabinet - focused on running the country and fixing the mess the Tories have got us into.
Rave on John Dunne.
Your days of howling at the moon are over. Now your defending your crew. They havent done anything yet and have yet to demonstrate the skills you claim they have.
But it's starting to look like Tony and the spin machine are back.
I think this nearly over. Biden will not be the nominee. I suppose that Harris is pretty nailed on to replace because out of respect for Biden they have to let her take up the reins, unless he endorses someone else? And she can beat Trump I think.
I'm pretty sure Harris can win. I think it's entirely possible she wins quite easily.
I think it'll be fascinating to see Trump crumble.
For anyone who thinks that there should be a betting opportunity, because the implied probabilities are currently 45% for her candidacy but only 16% for her being elected.
Yes - so I've laid Trump to win. Which is essentially the same thing.
If Biden contrives to stand (SPOILER: he won't, it's over) all Trump has to do is run a poster campaign with the quote FROM Biden "it's just my brain"
Then underneath, IT'S JUST HIS BRAIN
With a pic of him looking utterly vacant and demented at the debate
A landslide will ensue. But Biden is going to resign fairly shortly
Its all over bar the formalities.
Harris is the 47th President of the USA.
Leon will be singing her praises I'm sure .......
I reckon she's pretty mediocre, at best, but there are far worse candidates: like Joe Biden and Donald Trump
She is sane, and she can delegate, and she can appoint clever staff to run things
But again the unanswered question is How will US voters react when the Dems admit "yeah we lied about Biden for a year at least"
It seems likely that the Biden's team should have come clean some time ago and are therefore culpable, but I think you overestimate the impact that will have.
If Biden contrives to stand (SPOILER: he won't, it's over) all Trump has to do is run a poster campaign with the quote FROM Biden "it's just my brain"
Then underneath, IT'S JUST HIS BRAIN
With a pic of him looking utterly vacant and demented at the debate
A landslide will ensue. But Biden is going to resign fairly shortly
Its all over bar the formalities.
Harris is the 47th President of the USA.
Leon will be singing her praises I'm sure .......
I reckon she's pretty mediocre, at best, but there are far worse candidates: like Joe Biden and Donald Trump
She is sane, and she can delegate, and she can appoint clever staff to run things
But again the unanswered question is How will US voters react when the Dems admit "yeah we lied about Biden for a year at least"
It seems likely that the Biden's team should have come clean some time ago and are therefore culpable, but I think you overestimate the impact that will have.
It will be largely forgotten by November.
Imagine a whole White House that can make Trump look honest.
If Biden contrives to stand (SPOILER: he won't, it's over) all Trump has to do is run a poster campaign with the quote FROM Biden "it's just my brain"
Then underneath, IT'S JUST HIS BRAIN
With a pic of him looking utterly vacant and demented at the debate
A landslide will ensue. But Biden is going to resign fairly shortly
Its all over bar the formalities.
Harris is the 47th President of the USA.
Leon will be singing her praises I'm sure .......
I reckon she's pretty mediocre, at best, but there are far worse candidates: like Joe Biden and Donald Trump
She is sane, and she can delegate, and she can appoint clever staff to run things
But again the unanswered question is How will US voters react when the Dems admit "yeah we lied about Biden for a year at least"
It seems likely that the Biden's team should have come clean some time ago and are therefore culpable, but I think you overestimate the impact that will have.
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?
It is not just oil but gas as well. 32% of our power generation was from gas last year.
The UK spent almost £50 billion on oil and gas imports last year. This decision will not reduce consumption by a single barrel but will just increase our balance of trade deficit and make us more reliable on imports, many from unstable places whose environmental controls are far below our own.
It will also do immense damage to our petrochemical industry. Good luck building using electric cars without hydrocarbons.
It is a fecking stupid thing to do with no redeeming factors. Virtue signalling to a suicidal level.
But the decision is not about what we do now, but about what we do some years in the future.
Yes and some years in the future we are still going to need petrochemicals, NHS medicines and everything else the industry supports.
We should be looking to end imports and the fungible profits that go to Russia and the Middle East before we look to cut our own production.
Amazing that people do not realise that a ban on using oil and gas as fuel would just result in it being burned off in flares and huge inflation in (and shortages of) the million and one other essential things made from oil as they would no longer be subsidised by profits from the petrol and gas distilled from the crude oil.
I am normally a really measured poster, but I do believe that this is the biggest load of tosh I've read on PB.
Oil and gas are going to be continued to be produced irrespective of whether there is any fuel demand for them*, because they have uses beyond fuel. (Which you get.)
But why would that make them more expensive?
You seem to be suggesting that the supply curve for oil points in a different direction to every other commodity in the world. Can I recommend this excellent piece: http://theoildrum.com/node/2899
* And of course, fuel demand will continue for 100 years anyway, but that's another story.
Are there any non fuel petroleum products which are markedly less damaging than fuel? Plastics don't have a great rep, nor fertilizers
A whole range of medicines. Lubricants, greases, coolants. Modern society simply cannot exist without petroleum products. And plastics are vital for basically the whole of modern infrastructure. Not ghe disposable bottle type stuff but basic stuff like insulation around wiring. The list of things made from petroleum products is truly terrifying in the face of idiots who want us to stop drilling for the stuff.
You don't need oil for this stuff its just acquiring the feedstock from carbon capture or biological means and building up the molecular complexity is much more expensive.
So food and medicines etc. become much more expensive. Good result.
Better result than planet death. When I were a lad it cost a years average salary to fly economy to the US. We got by just fine.
My Great Grandfather used to walk 6 miles to work and 6 miles back again every evening. Doesn't mean we should hope to go back to it. And dying at 40 because ofthe lack of medicines is also something I would much rather avoid. Basically without hydrocarbon products we are back in the mid 19th century as far as technology is concerned.
Calm down. We have a lot of North Sea oil capacity already in place. This is *new* drilling (which may or may not yield new reserves BTW). Plenty of hydrocarbons for essentials for many years IF we stop burning FFs for electricity and fully transition to low carbon sources and renewables.
If we simply keep trying to suck more FFs from the North Sea we maintain our reliance and put ourselves more at risk from foreign dependency in the longer term.
Or are you seriously suggesting that we are so helplessly addicted to oil that we have no choice but to keep sourcing the stuff even if it kills all of us, boiling frog style?
Closing down ordinary peoples jobs just so he can grandstand in front of his Londony mates.
I hope his rancid cock drops off
Top marks for really juvenile, and somewhat contradictory, invective.
Thanks.
Were back in a :Labour government and can point out the effing obvious. Miliband should not be let anywhere near a government.
Slightly different view from 'I hope his rancid cock drops off', you utter plonker.
Oh dear now youre resorting to insults.
Get used to having the twats in Labour called out we've been here before.
We've just had 14 years of government by spoilt brats. Thankfully the grown-ups are back in charge again.
It's that 'again" I struggle with. Blair committed this country to killing at least 6 figures of Iraqi civilians because it got him personally to look besties with Bush. If he had caused the violent death of 100000 British people you would have regarded that as comment worthy? It's not easy for me to think of reasons for discounting for Iraqiness. I mean presumably you didn't campaign in favour of apartheid back in the day, so why do you celebrate Blair's achievement?
Blair made a serious mistake with Iraq. He made a judgement call, I think he got it wrong.
But compared with the fuckwits we have had to put up with for the past 5 years (giving a special mention to Johnson and Truss) Blair was a serious politician.
Comments
Tragic, but also funny. Soz boz
Perceptions matter as well.
Many/most voters think they've become poorer than they actually have.
Every price rise is exaggerated, every subsidy immediately forgotten, every pay rise taken for granted.
@NewsWire_US
·
1h
Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO) says calls to his office about Biden are breaking 9-1 in favor of wanting him to withdraw - Semafor
More New New Labour shit to come no doubt.
Even when I showed videos of him basically crapping himself and wearing a chair for a hat there was always a PBer to explain it way
They may get away with it because Trump is the alternative but it is really really really really Not Good
Criticism of Biden 'misguided'
https://news.sky.com/video/share-13176678
Now I am back to square one.
He can't criticise Biden.
He can't equivocate.
He has no choice but to be diplomatic.
It took Biden setting himself his own test - an early debate in June to show he was totally capable of being POTUS for four more years - and utterly and totally failing for me to switch.
Chapeau to you sir. I dont think any of us can now argue that you were right.
Then underneath, IT'S JUST HIS BRAIN
With a pic of him looking utterly vacant and demented at the debate
A landslide will ensue. But Biden is going to resign fairly shortly
Question is whether Trump's addled-brained genie is getting back in his.
Rather ironic if Trump is the only gaga one on the ticket come November.
But unfortunately he is also still the presumptive nominee despite all this.
https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/product/sainsburys-british-pork-tenderloin-fillet-approx-460g-?istCompanyId=1e096408-041f-4238-994e-a7cf46bf9413&istFeedId=689af7a8-5842-4d88-be59-1ee5688a81b5&istItemId=wxwqqawax&istBid=t&&cmpid=cpc&utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=20333793068&utm_content=shopping&utm_term=%7Bsku%7D&utm_custom1=&utm_custom2=759-449-0952&gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMInrGJzdifhwMVaZlQBh1R3QffEAQYASABEgL9tfD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
That's the same price as before covid, effectively a real terms price drop of about 30%.
From that CNN article:
“There’s this general sense of just, unbelievable holding your breath every time he does an event, every time he’s with people,” one top Democrat in close touch with Biden’s inner circle of advisers told CNN. This person added that some of those advisers have privately acknowledged: “This is going to get worse.”
That Democrat was blunt about how the president’s closest advisers have responded to any criticism or concerns expressed about the president – including his age and fitness: “Everyone who expresses any level of suspicion or contrary views? They call everyone and they beat the s*** out of them and say: ‘Stay on message.’”
Were back in a :Labour government and can point out the effing obvious. Miliband should not be let anywhere near a government.
Harris is the 47th President of the USA.
There is a small amount of flaring still done but that is safety valve stuff. You change the economic environment and it changes your outlook. Gas is no longer a waste product.
What a mess America is in.
Also:
- Not liable to be bombed by Russia
- Not a huge arrival point for refugees from NATO countries
- Not involving flying over or close to the conflict zone to get there
- Visa free with few restrictions on Brits staying for an extended period
- Not downwind of fallout
How about Napoli? Plenty of sun, cheaper than most other parts of western europe, a young crowd in the centre (older folk go to Sorrento or Capri), plenty of buzzy cafes and bars, v.good transport, and lots to see and do.
Yes Sept-Oct will be perfect: everyone should go at least once in their life, and give Athens at least a week. There is SO much to see
Get used to having the twats in Labour called out we've been here before.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy77p22jr5lo
The Shining actress Shelley Duvall dies at 75
US actress Shelley Duvall, known for films like The Shining, Annie Hall and Nashville, has died at the age of 75.
Her partner Dan Gilroy confirmed the news to The Hollywood Reporter.
"My dear, sweet, wonderful life partner and friend left us. Too much suffering lately, now she’s free. Fly away, beautiful Shelley," he said, according to the outlet.
She died in her sleep of complications from diabetes at her home in Texas, Gilroy said.
Duvall's other credits included 1977 drama 3 Women, directed by Robert Altman, for which she won the Cannes Film Festival's best actress award and was nominated for a Bafta.
Three years later, she starred as Olive Oyl opposite Robin Williams in Altman's musical version of Popeye.
Probably also as well for the Republicans however given how many tests Trump has failed recently.
If it's Kamala so be it. Hopefully she won't be quite as awful as she sometimes seems. And picks a decent veep who can go for Trump. Someone white, male and military.
https://x.com/ianbremmer/status/1811478309810897267?s=61
I can’t see how he avoids resigning the office, to be frank.
You can't say "Yes I'm too demented to stand for office but I'm fine to run the most powerful country on earth for another six months"
He resigns, Kamala Harris becomes POTUS, then she appoints a centrist white male as VEEP
I can see them winning as Trump is so Marmite. HOWEVER no one can know how this scandal will play out (and it is an enormous scandal: hiding the president's unfitness for office from the voters, and even other Democrats)
The public might react very badly and elect Trump with a landslide simply out of anger. Who knows
Stupid Fucking Democrats
Joined up government.
https://x.com/CantEverDie/status/1811449531038355835
CPI
May 2024 133.9
May 2014 100.0
May 2004 76.6
Weakly Earnings
Apr 2024 £687
Apr 2014 £469
Apr 2004 £362
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7bt/mm23
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/timeseries/kab9/emp
In the last ten years pay has increased by 46% and prices by 30% whereas in the decade before that it was a 34% pay increase and a 31% price increase.
Now I understand that's only an average with people affected in different ways and those with mortgages have suffered a big financial hit in the last two years (with savers likewise gaining).
But it does explain why many people, and I am one of them, are doing so well currently despite the bewailing of others.
She is sane, and she can delegate, and she can appoint clever staff to run things
But again the unanswered question is How will US voters react when the Dems admit "yeah we lied about Biden for a year at least"
Similarly the fertilizer is made from petroleum coke, another otherwise waste product from refining petroleum which if there is no use for the petroleum has to bear the cost.
You cant just switch to making fertiliser and plastics from petroleum.
Johnson, Truss, Sunak, Braverman, Badenoch, Rees-Mogg, Jenrick, Dorries, I could go on - self-serving idiots more focused on jostling for position with each other than running the country.
In contrast, the Labour cabinet - focused on running the country and fixing the mess the Tories have got us into.
And Biden as he is today is a world better than Trump.
Beautiful coastline, grandiose interior, hardly anyone there, superb. The only downer is the slightly boring food, but France is probably worse
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9x8w9pxwllo
Plus it was Angela who said they wouldn't defend the position in court it hasn't been cancelled yet nothing to do with Miliband
Your days of howling at the moon are over. Now your defending your crew. They havent done anything yet and have yet to demonstrate the skills you claim they have.
But it's starting to look like Tony and the spin machine are back.
It will be largely forgotten by November.
Giorgia Meloni on top eye-rolling form as leaders at the @Nato
summit wait for Stoltenberg and Biden to arrive for today's first session
https://x.com/HenryJFoy/status/1811412483610996808
I still fancy her
Not shilling for Putin/Trump.
If we simply keep trying to suck more FFs from the North Sea we maintain our reliance and put ourselves more at risk from foreign dependency in the longer term.
Or are you seriously suggesting that we are so helplessly addicted to oil that we have no choice but to keep sourcing the stuff even if it kills all of us, boiling frog style?
But compared with the fuckwits we have had to put up with for the past 5 years (giving a special mention to Johnson and Truss) Blair was a serious politician.
Putin was held at bay while Trump was in the White House, but after a summit meeting with Biden, he launched a full-scale invasion.
Whatever you think of Biden or Trump as individuals, it's a point of fact that Biden, not Trump, failed to deter the invasion.