I don’t want to give the mullahs any ideas (especially as I’m far from home in Shanghai) but given that all major Gulf Airports are now dark, and Russian/Ukrainian airspace is closed, that leaves one route east-west for most airlines
The Baku Gap
If Tehran launched a couple of missiles at Azerbaijan that would basically close down half the world’s air travel
Thick black smoke seen rising from the site of Iranian drone and/or missile strike on Camp de la Paix, a French naval base in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
The French will be raising the white flag any moment.
'Donald Trump is dragging the United States into a war the American people do not want. Let me be clear: I am opposed to a regime-change war in Iran, and our troops are being put in harm’s way for the sake of Trump’s war of choice.
Being as it's Trump I am sure he will sell an Iraq-style fiasco as a win. Early days, and he might be lucky. With Qatar and the UAE on fire, the early signs are not great
Remarkably some people will buy it too.
Are you hoping some people will buy what you just wrote ?
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
To what extent? We produce about 0.7% of the world's oil. If we exploited every possible reserve, included future discoveries, we could increase our production by perhaps 10-15% in the next 10 years, relative to a steeply declining baseline. This would have infinitesimally small impact on world oil prices.
I disagree with the restriction of new developments but I disagree even more with the bampot idea that reversing that decision would have any material impact on our energy costs.
We should be maximising production from our existing wells, not leaving the oil in the ground.
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
To what extent? We produce about 0.7% of the world's oil. If we exploited every possible reserve, included future discoveries, we could increase our production by perhaps 10-15% in the next 10 years, relative to a steeply declining baseline. This would have infinitesimally small impact on world oil prices.
I disagree with the restriction of new developments but I disagree even more with the bampot idea that reversing that decision would have any material impact on our energy costs. It would be a good thing for the NE of Scotland but nothing more. The only solution we have is reducing our exposure as quickly as possible.
I don’t want to give the mullahs any ideas (especially as I’m far from home in Shanghai) but given that all major Gulf Airports are now dark, and Russian/Ukrainian airspace is closed, that leaves one route east-west for most airlines
The Baku Gap
If Tehran launched a couple of missiles at Azerbaijan that would basically close down half the world’s air travel
And even more oil. Directly into Europe via pipelines.
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
To what extent? We produce about 0.7% of the world's oil. If we exploited every possible reserve, included future discoveries, we could increase our production by perhaps 10-15% in the next 10 years, relative to a steeply declining baseline. This would have infinitesimally small impact on world oil prices.
I disagree with the restriction of new developments but I disagree even more with the bampot idea that reversing that decision would have any material impact on our energy costs. It would be a good thing for the NE of Scotland but nothing more. The only solution we have is reducing our exposure as quickly as possible.
I never claimed it would reduce our energy costs
What did you mean by "More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere" then?
'Donald Trump is dragging the United States into a war the American people do not want. Let me be clear: I am opposed to a regime-change war in Iran, and our troops are being put in harm’s way for the sake of Trump’s war of choice.
Being as it's Trump I am sure he will sell an Iraq-style fiasco as a win. Early days, and he might be lucky. With Qatar and the UAE on fire, the early signs are not great
Remarkably some people will buy it too.
Are you hoping some people will buy what you just wrote ?
Qatar and UAE on fire ???
A truly bizarre comment.
“On fire”
LOL. A few minor incidents don’t make for a country “on fire”.
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
To what extent? We produce about 0.7% of the world's oil. If we exploited every possible reserve, included future discoveries, we could increase our production by perhaps 10-15% in the next 10 years, relative to a steeply declining baseline. This would have infinitesimally small impact on world oil prices.
I disagree with the restriction of new developments but I disagree even more with the bampot idea that reversing that decision would have any material impact on our energy costs.
We should be maximising production from our existing wells, not leaving the oil in the ground.
LOL. The NSTA are a bunch of idiots (I know, I have to deal with them almost every day). No one suspends viable wells which are still capable of production if it is economic. But it is only economic if you can add additional production from new wells. It is called maintaining the plateau and it needs new wells to be drilled to compensate for falling production on existing wells so that the platform remains economic.
I am currently involved in shutting down two of the largest North Sea oil fields. Abandoning hundreds of millions of barrels of recoverable oil. We are doing that for two important reasons. Firstly because the Government has banned new drilling so that the plateau can not be maintained and secondly because they have insisted on the electrification of all North Sea platforms by 2030. So platforms will no longer be able to power themselves by burning the gas they produce as a by-product from their wells. Instead they will have to link themselves to the national grid and be powered by electriicty rather than gas turbines or diesel. As a result loads of fields are no longer economic and are shutting down.
'Donald Trump is dragging the United States into a war the American people do not want. Let me be clear: I am opposed to a regime-change war in Iran, and our troops are being put in harm’s way for the sake of Trump’s war of choice.
Being as it's Trump I am sure he will sell an Iraq-style fiasco as a win. Early days, and he might be lucky. With Qatar and the UAE on fire, the early signs are not great
Remarkably some people will buy it too.
Are you hoping some people will buy what you just wrote ?
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
To what extent? We produce about 0.7% of the world's oil. If we exploited every possible reserve, included future discoveries, we could increase our production by perhaps 10-15% in the next 10 years, relative to a steeply declining baseline. This would have infinitesimally small impact on world oil prices.
I disagree with the restriction of new developments but I disagree even more with the bampot idea that reversing that decision would have any material impact on our energy costs. It would be a good thing for the NE of Scotland but nothing more. The only solution we have is reducing our exposure as quickly as possible.
I never claimed it would reduce our energy costs
What did you mean by "More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere" then?
Now that’s a good question. Next time ask not sssume. More supply just means more availability. Availability not constrained by a pinch point like Hormuz. The price will be controlled by global markets.
It’s now official: former Iranian president and Israel-hater Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was eliminated last night in the opening strike.
The amazing fact is that his whereabouts were known because he had been under house arrest since he tried to carry out a coup a few weeks ago.
Ah-me-dinner-jacket
I will mourn him solely for his name
Good riddance to even more vile rubbish.
His name was fun though. Inspired the Jimmy Jab games.
Jake: The first Jimmy Jabs were held in 2008, when the King of Iraq- Rosa: President, Iran. Jake: Armen Jimmy Jab. Rosa: Ahmadinejad. Jake: Came to New York, and were on call for nine glorious hours in case there were protests.
The contrast between Jimmy Carter's military fiasco in Iran and Trump's success will make useful propaganda for the GOP.
Rather unfair comparison. In the case of Carter, they were trying to rescue hostages by actually inserting forces into Iran. In the case of Trump they are just trying to kill Iranians (selected Iranians admittedly but with little regard for collateral damage) wihout having to put any troops into the country. The first of those is infinitely harder to achieve than the second.
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
To what extent? We produce about 0.7% of the world's oil. If we exploited every possible reserve, included future discoveries, we could increase our production by perhaps 10-15% in the next 10 years, relative to a steeply declining baseline. This would have infinitesimally small impact on world oil prices.
I disagree with the restriction of new developments but I disagree even more with the bampot idea that reversing that decision would have any material impact on our energy costs. It would be a good thing for the NE of Scotland but nothing more. The only solution we have is reducing our exposure as quickly as possible.
I never claimed it would reduce our energy costs
What did you mean by "More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere" then?
Now that’s a good question. Next time ask not sssume. More supply just means more availability. Availability not constrained by a pinch point like Hormuz. The price will be controlled by global markets.
Yeah, so I understood your point. And it's silly for the reasons I pointed out - increased UK production is going to have next to no impact on oil prices.
Presumably by SKS logic Iran has the right to defend itself?
Oh hang on
Iran provoked it by weaponising uranium, attacking other countries (both directly and indirectly) and attacking its own citizens.
Does none of that matter to you? It does to me and others, fully justifying what the US and Israel have done who should have our full support.
Listen to what Carney had to say, quite eloquently, on the matter.
Course they did. What US and Israel have done is definitely fine in your book
Its definitely not against International law is it?
It breaches US law for starters.
Mind you if these f****** fell I suspect Trump would be given a pass. If they don't, not so much.
How does it breach US law when every single US POTUS in the modern era has taken similar actions, as they are authorised to do?
Name a single SCOTUS ruling or otherwise that says that every single US POTUS lately is acting illegally?
Simply re-interpreting the constitution and saying "this is not allowed" when precedent says it is and the Courts and Congress and laws don't say otherwise does not make you right.
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
To what extent? We produce about 0.7% of the world's oil. If we exploited every possible reserve, included future discoveries, we could increase our production by perhaps 10-15% in the next 10 years, relative to a steeply declining baseline. This would have infinitesimally small impact on world oil prices.
I disagree with the restriction of new developments but I disagree even more with the bampot idea that reversing that decision would have any material impact on our energy costs.
We should be maximising production from our existing wells, not leaving the oil in the ground.
LOL. The NSTA are a bunch of idiots (I know, I have to deal with them almost every day). No one suspends viable wells which are still capable of production if it is economic. But it is only economic if you can add additional production from new wells. It is called maintaining the plateau and it needs new wells to be drilled to compensate for falling production on existing wells so that the platform remains economic.
I am currently involved in shutting down two of the largest North Sea oil fields. Abandoning hundreds of millions of barrels of recoverable oil. We are doing that for two important reasons. Firstly because the Government has banned new drilling so that the plateau can not be maintained and secondly because they have insisted on the electrification of all North Sea platforms by 2030. So platforms will no longer be able to power themselves by burning the gas they produce as a by-product from their wells. Instead they will have to link themselves to the national grid and be powered by electriicty rather than gas turbines or diesel. As a result loads of fields are no longer economic and are shutting down.
Wasn't there a announcement back in November saying new wells would be allowed? I didn't know about the electrification thing.
Ooer, cat amongst artistic pigeons (a smallish flock I accept).
WALDEMAR JANUSZCZAK @JANUSZCZAK The National Gallery of Scotland has announced it is paying tribute to the Scottish painter Jack Vettriano with a big display of his self portraits. What a collapse of judgement! Here's a ghastly 'smoker's' portrait they're showing. And something I wrote about Jack in 2004.
It is a somewhat modern take that art must disturb and challenge to be regarded as art. Art used to be commissioned by wealthy patrons just to give pleasure. Vettriano's work does that. The disdain for beauty applied to architecture in the post-war era has left our cities scarred with monstrosities.
I knew someone who was furiously attacked by her “teachers” at the Slade, for her love of producing representational paintings.
Why? It’s not as if abstract art is cowering in a corner, unrepresented.
Ghouls.
Massive insecurity is my thought. The obsessed anger with anyone not conforming to their “rules”.
Bit like the thought process of the Iranian Mullahs - everyone must conform to my revolution. Otherwise the revolution is at risk.
The sort of people that read 1984 and think “what a good idea”.
I think humans are divided into three groups -
1) Those that just accept how things are 2) Those that understand that life is non-linear 3) Those that fight against any manifestation of non-linearity.
Non-linear is about how the world is layers of predictable and unpredictable. See a Mandelbrot set.
All those “Burn the heretics”, “Line everyone up in one uniform, shouting hail to the One Leader” etc. are about attempting to impose linearity on the non-linear world.
Which is ultimately why Fascism, Communism and all other implementations of ideology, with totalitarian ambition, fail.
And as they stubble along, they create a feeling of similarity - many have described how 1984 spoke to them, in various repressive systems. That the ideology is secondary to the feeling of the attempt to enforce uniformity.
Presumably by SKS logic Iran has the right to defend itself?
Oh hang on
Iran provoked it by weaponising uranium, attacking other countries (both directly and indirectly) and attacking its own citizens.
Does none of that matter to you? It does to me and others, fully justifying what the US and Israel have done who should have our full support.
Listen to what Carney had to say, quite eloquently, on the matter.
Course they did. What US and Israel have done is definitely fine in your book
Its definitely not against International law is it?
No it most definitely is not - and I could not care less if it was either.
Thanks for the admission.
International law not important to you.
How about the right to defend yourself as a Nation attacked by foreign forces against international law. Is that not important to you either despite banging on about it for well over 2 years?
I missed my flight home. Yep. I hear you all wisely sighing: “that’s war for you”
Actually, it was food poisoning. Woke up with weird shivers and chills then vomited for an hour
Unideal for a 15 hour flight
Make sure you replace electrolytes before flying.
Thanks. It was most unpleasant - and quite expensive - no refund on my flight
But I’m already feeling a bit better and, actually, a few more days in Shanghai is not a great burden. The city is compelling and the hotels remain absurdly cheap
Have you been to Suzhou, Wuxi, or Huzhou on the bullet train? Or closer (end of the metro) Zhuijaijaio?
I haven’t. Would you recommend? I have 7 days left on my visa if I stay
Xi’an to see the model army of you haven’t been before
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
To what extent? We produce about 0.7% of the world's oil. If we exploited every possible reserve, included future discoveries, we could increase our production by perhaps 10-15% in the next 10 years, relative to a steeply declining baseline. This would have infinitesimally small impact on world oil prices.
I disagree with the restriction of new developments but I disagree even more with the bampot idea that reversing that decision would have any material impact on our energy costs. It would be a good thing for the NE of Scotland but nothing more. The only solution we have is reducing our exposure as quickly as possible.
I never claimed it would reduce our energy costs
What did you mean by "More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere" then?
Now that’s a good question. Next time ask not sssume. More supply just means more availability. Availability not constrained by a pinch point like Hormuz. The price will be controlled by global markets.
Yeah, so I understood your point. And it's silly for the reasons I pointed out - increased UK production is going to have next to no impact on oil prices.
Which I never said it would. 🤷♂️
My point was about additional sourcing from a less risky jurisdiction but if you want to argue a point I never made feel free to
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
To what extent? We produce about 0.7% of the world's oil. If we exploited every possible reserve, included future discoveries, we could increase our production by perhaps 10-15% in the next 10 years, relative to a steeply declining baseline. This would have infinitesimally small impact on world oil prices.
I disagree with the restriction of new developments but I disagree even more with the bampot idea that reversing that decision would have any material impact on our energy costs.
We should be maximising production from our existing wells, not leaving the oil in the ground.
LOL. The NSTA are a bunch of idiots (I know, I have to deal with them almost every day). No one suspends viable wells which are still capable of production if it is economic. But it is only economic if you can add additional production from new wells. It is called maintaining the plateau and it needs new wells to be drilled to compensate for falling production on existing wells so that the platform remains economic.
I am currently involved in shutting down two of the largest North Sea oil fields. Abandoning hundreds of millions of barrels of recoverable oil. We are doing that for two important reasons. Firstly because the Government has banned new drilling so that the plateau can not be maintained and secondly because they have insisted on the electrification of all North Sea platforms by 2030. So platforms will no longer be able to power themselves by burning the gas they produce as a by-product from their wells. Instead they will have to link themselves to the national grid and be powered by electriicty rather than gas turbines or diesel. As a result loads of fields are no longer economic and are shutting down.
Wasn't there a announcement back in November saying new wells would be allowed? I didn't know about the electrification thing.
They said they would allow near field exploration in specific circumstances. But nothing has actually come of it yet and in the meantime companies are simply shutting up shop, fulfilling their obligations by properly abandoning wells and removing platforms and buggering off to spend their investment money in other parts of the world where people still want oil and gas production and also (as an additional consideration) where they won't tax them out of existence. Like Norway.
So we don't burn any less oil and gas, we just buy it from Norway, who get all the tax revenue and the jobs.
🚫Iran’s IRGC claims to have struck USS Abraham Lincoln with ballistic missiles. LIE. ✅The Lincoln was not hit. The missiles launched didn’t even come close. The Lincoln continues to launch aircraft in support of CENTCOM’s relentless campaign to defend the American people by eliminating threats from the Iranian regime.
Presumably by SKS logic Iran has the right to defend itself?
Oh hang on
Iran provoked it by weaponising uranium, attacking other countries (both directly and indirectly) and attacking its own citizens.
Does none of that matter to you? It does to me and others, fully justifying what the US and Israel have done who should have our full support.
Listen to what Carney had to say, quite eloquently, on the matter.
Course they did. What US and Israel have done is definitely fine in your book
Its definitely not against International law is it?
No it most definitely is not - and I could not care less if it was either.
Thanks for the admission.
International law not important to you.
How about the right to defend yourself as a Nation attacked by foreign forces against international law. Is that not important to you either despite banging on about it for well over 2 years?
To be fair, although, as he knows, I actually disagree with him, Bart has always been consistent in his claim that International Law is a myth.
I don’t want to give the mullahs any ideas (especially as I’m far from home in Shanghai) but given that all major Gulf Airports are now dark, and Russian/Ukrainian airspace is closed, that leaves one route east-west for most airlines
The Baku Gap
If Tehran launched a couple of missiles at Azerbaijan that would basically close down half the world’s air travel
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
To what extent? We produce about 0.7% of the world's oil. If we exploited every possible reserve, included future discoveries, we could increase our production by perhaps 10-15% in the next 10 years, relative to a steeply declining baseline. This would have infinitesimally small impact on world oil prices.
I disagree with the restriction of new developments but I disagree even more with the bampot idea that reversing that decision would have any material impact on our energy costs.
We should be maximising production from our existing wells, not leaving the oil in the ground.
LOL. The NSTA are a bunch of idiots (I know, I have to deal with them almost every day). No one suspends viable wells which are still capable of production if it is economic. But it is only economic if you can add additional production from new wells. It is called maintaining the plateau and it needs new wells to be drilled to compensate for falling production on existing wells so that the platform remains economic.
I am currently involved in shutting down two of the largest North Sea oil fields. Abandoning hundreds of millions of barrels of recoverable oil. We are doing that for two important reasons. Firstly because the Government has banned new drilling so that the plateau can not be maintained and secondly because they have insisted on the electrification of all North Sea platforms by 2030. So platforms will no longer be able to power themselves by burning the gas they produce as a by-product from their wells. Instead they will have to link themselves to the national grid and be powered by electriicty rather than gas turbines or diesel. As a result loads of fields are no longer economic and are shutting down.
Wasn't there a announcement back in November saying new wells would be allowed? I didn't know about the electrification thing.
They said they would allow near field exploration in specific circumstances. But nothing has actually come of it yet and in the meantime companies are simply shutting up shop, fulfilling their obligations by properly abandoning wells and removing platforms and buggering off to spend their investment money in other parts of the world where people still want oil and gas production and also (as an additional consideration) where they won't tax them out of existence. Like Norway.
So we don't burn any less oil and gas, we just buy it from Norway, who get all the tax revenue and the jobs.
I disagree with that policy, but I'm going to guess that the Norway has similar electrification standard? And don't they have a similar tax regime too?
My sense of this is that whatever policies you have in place will be overall immaterial in the path of prodiction over the next 20 years. Norway have got it right though in terms of having tiny domestic consumption - unlike us they won't be significantly damaged by whatever happens when the markets open.
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
To what extent? We produce about 0.7% of the world's oil. If we exploited every possible reserve, included future discoveries, we could increase our production by perhaps 10-15% in the next 10 years, relative to a steeply declining baseline. This would have infinitesimally small impact on world oil prices.
I disagree with the restriction of new developments but I disagree even more with the bampot idea that reversing that decision would have any material impact on our energy costs.
We should be maximising production from our existing wells, not leaving the oil in the ground.
LOL. The NSTA are a bunch of idiots (I know, I have to deal with them almost every day). No one suspends viable wells which are still capable of production if it is economic. But it is only economic if you can add additional production from new wells. It is called maintaining the plateau and it needs new wells to be drilled to compensate for falling production on existing wells so that the platform remains economic.
I am currently involved in shutting down two of the largest North Sea oil fields. Abandoning hundreds of millions of barrels of recoverable oil. We are doing that for two important reasons. Firstly because the Government has banned new drilling so that the plateau can not be maintained and secondly because they have insisted on the electrification of all North Sea platforms by 2030. So platforms will no longer be able to power themselves by burning the gas they produce as a by-product from their wells. Instead they will have to link themselves to the national grid and be powered by electriicty rather than gas turbines or diesel. As a result loads of fields are no longer economic and are shutting down.
Do any other countries carry out such performative economic madness, or is it just the UK that chooses to shoot itself in the foot?
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
To what extent? We produce about 0.7% of the world's oil. If we exploited every possible reserve, included future discoveries, we could increase our production by perhaps 10-15% in the next 10 years, relative to a steeply declining baseline. This would have infinitesimally small impact on world oil prices.
I disagree with the restriction of new developments but I disagree even more with the bampot idea that reversing that decision would have any material impact on our energy costs.
We should be maximising production from our existing wells, not leaving the oil in the ground.
LOL. The NSTA are a bunch of idiots (I know, I have to deal with them almost every day). No one suspends viable wells which are still capable of production if it is economic. But it is only economic if you can add additional production from new wells. It is called maintaining the plateau and it needs new wells to be drilled to compensate for falling production on existing wells so that the platform remains economic.
I am currently involved in shutting down two of the largest North Sea oil fields. Abandoning hundreds of millions of barrels of recoverable oil. We are doing that for two important reasons. Firstly because the Government has banned new drilling so that the plateau can not be maintained and secondly because they have insisted on the electrification of all North Sea platforms by 2030. So platforms will no longer be able to power themselves by burning the gas they produce as a by-product from their wells. Instead they will have to link themselves to the national grid and be powered by electriicty rather than gas turbines or diesel. As a result loads of fields are no longer economic and are shutting down.
Wasn't there a announcement back in November saying new wells would be allowed? I didn't know about the electrification thing.
They said they would allow near field exploration in specific circumstances. But nothing has actually come of it yet and in the meantime companies are simply shutting up shop, fulfilling their obligations by properly abandoning wells and removing platforms and buggering off to spend their investment money in other parts of the world where people still want oil and gas production and also (as an additional consideration) where they won't tax them out of existence. Like Norway.
So we don't burn any less oil and gas, we just buy it from Norway, who get all the tax revenue and the jobs.
I disagree with that policy, but I'm going to guess that the Norway has similar electrification standard? And don't they have a similar tax regime too?
My sense of this is that whatever policies you have in place will be overall immaterial in the path of prodiction over the next 20 years. Norway have got it right though in terms of having tiny domestic consumption - unlike us they won't be significantly damaged by whatever happens when the markets open.
Their taxation policy is *stable* - rather than "must grab 'windfall profits'"
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
To what extent? We produce about 0.7% of the world's oil. If we exploited every possible reserve, included future discoveries, we could increase our production by perhaps 10-15% in the next 10 years, relative to a steeply declining baseline. This would have infinitesimally small impact on world oil prices.
I disagree with the restriction of new developments but I disagree even more with the bampot idea that reversing that decision would have any material impact on our energy costs.
We should be maximising production from our existing wells, not leaving the oil in the ground.
LOL. The NSTA are a bunch of idiots (I know, I have to deal with them almost every day). No one suspends viable wells which are still capable of production if it is economic. But it is only economic if you can add additional production from new wells. It is called maintaining the plateau and it needs new wells to be drilled to compensate for falling production on existing wells so that the platform remains economic.
I am currently involved in shutting down two of the largest North Sea oil fields. Abandoning hundreds of millions of barrels of recoverable oil. We are doing that for two important reasons. Firstly because the Government has banned new drilling so that the plateau can not be maintained and secondly because they have insisted on the electrification of all North Sea platforms by 2030. So platforms will no longer be able to power themselves by burning the gas they produce as a by-product from their wells. Instead they will have to link themselves to the national grid and be powered by electriicty rather than gas turbines or diesel. As a result loads of fields are no longer economic and are shutting down.
Wasn't there a announcement back in November saying new wells would be allowed? I didn't know about the electrification thing.
They said they would allow near field exploration in specific circumstances. But nothing has actually come of it yet and in the meantime companies are simply shutting up shop, fulfilling their obligations by properly abandoning wells and removing platforms and buggering off to spend their investment money in other parts of the world where people still want oil and gas production and also (as an additional consideration) where they won't tax them out of existence. Like Norway.
So we don't burn any less oil and gas, we just buy it from Norway, who get all the tax revenue and the jobs.
I disagree with that policy, but I'm going to guess that the Norway has similar electrification standard? And don't they have a similar tax regime too?
My sense of this is that whatever policies you have in place will be overall immaterial in the path of prodiction over the next 20 years. Norway have got it right though in terms of having tiny domestic consumption - unlike us they won't be significantly damaged by whatever happens when the markets open.
Their taxation policy is *stable* - rather than "must grab 'windfall profits'"
There's has been the same since 1975, while ours was only brought in by Sunak in 2022 (for 8 years, ending in 2030). So it's been stable at a much higher rate.
Presumably by SKS logic Iran has the right to defend itself?
Oh hang on
Iran provoked it by weaponising uranium, attacking other countries (both directly and indirectly) and attacking its own citizens.
Does none of that matter to you? It does to me and others, fully justifying what the US and Israel have done who should have our full support.
Listen to what Carney had to say, quite eloquently, on the matter.
Course they did. What US and Israel have done is definitely fine in your book
Its definitely not against International law is it?
No it most definitely is not - and I could not care less if it was either.
Are you now an expert in the thing that according to you doesn't exist?
I don't deny it exists, I just insist that like the pirate code it is more guidelines than actual rules and that other nations don't abide by it as actual rules and nor should we except when it matches our politics.
Carney has been cited as an expert repeatedly by people who like to claim it does exist firmly and should be followed and he has come out firmly in favour of the actions.
I would be curious to hear anyone able to explain why Carney is wrong? I have not seen anyone try.
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
Crank up the solar Crank up the wind turbines Crank up the tidal buoys Build another 5 electric hydro mountain like Llanberis
Renewable Renewable Renewable
Ed knows!
It's not either/or. People are going to be needing oil for at least the next 50-100 years, not maxing out the North Sea but instead paying the Russians/Iranians/Saudis etc for oil we could help ourselves to is completely barmy.
The North Sea won't have any significant effect on the oil price, but that doesn't matter - the point of drilling for our oil is that HMG will get lots of lovely oil revenue, and the oil companies will create lots of well paid jobs in places like Aberdeen, both of which would do our economic situation a world of good.
Also, you do realise that building 5 more Dinorwic's will be 30 years and several billion just for the planning process?
Having a sneaking suspicion that the US is randomly raining death on foreigners because there are domestic stories they would like to sideline makes it hard to cheer enthusiastically.
The Iranian regime has been wishing death on America (and us) for almost 50 years so it's not entirely random.
That is true, although the question "why now?" is a pertinent one.
The Telegraph and NYT have the same story on “why now” so I suspect it’s true
1. There were fears Iran was preparing its own unilateral attack on Israel
2. Trump decided the Iranians really weren’t interested in serious talks on nukes
3. The Israelis said - “we have an incredible opportunity coming up, may not happen again, the entire Iranian leadership is gathering in one place, on this one day”
So they seized the moment. However twits like @DavidL think Trump should have gone to Congress, the UN, left wing British judges, Sky News TV and Lily Allen and her mum to get their “permission” before killing the most evil regime on earth
Why do you think it will kill it?
One of Trump's starting positions is that he will not send in soldiers to put boots on the ground, which is pretty much a guarantee of it not succeeding.
Well they did literally slaughter almost all the upper echelon of the regime. In one day
An incredible military success, whatever your thoughts on Trump, Bibi etc (and they are both odious - but then recall we supported Stalin over Hitler)
Will this overthrow the regime in toto? It MIGHT. If America says “we will keep killing your leaders until you free your people” it could actually work
A more moderate group might emerge, perhaps in the Iranian army, against the IRGC. Polls show that tens of millions of Iranians LOATHE the mullahs, so they wouldn’t lack support
I don't know - those may be decent reasons. But my understanding is that they are organisationally dug in with 3 or 4 levels of deputies for everything.
I think that there's a strong element of playing roulette hoping for a zero, here.
I can't help wondering if the USA is actually as strong as Trump thinks it is - without reaching for my heavy skepticism on Trump, the US armed forces are thin in many respects. I am not sure that they cannot be reached to be given a bloody nose.
I also wonder about attacks on the US mainland, but that depends if the Iranian regime has sleepers. We all know what a seismic event 9/11 turned out to be, and the last serious war events on US soil were 150 years ago.
I guess we will find out.
Is having 3 or 4 levels of deputies even particularly unusual? The US Presidential line of succession has 18 levels. The line of succession for the UK's head of state has 7 people ready to go before we hit any problems.
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
To what extent? We produce about 0.7% of the world's oil. If we exploited every possible reserve, included future discoveries, we could increase our production by perhaps 10-15% in the next 10 years, relative to a steeply declining baseline. This would have infinitesimally small impact on world oil prices.
I disagree with the restriction of new developments but I disagree even more with the bampot idea that reversing that decision would have any material impact on our energy costs.
We should be maximising production from our existing wells, not leaving the oil in the ground.
LOL. The NSTA are a bunch of idiots (I know, I have to deal with them almost every day). No one suspends viable wells which are still capable of production if it is economic. But it is only economic if you can add additional production from new wells. It is called maintaining the plateau and it needs new wells to be drilled to compensate for falling production on existing wells so that the platform remains economic.
I am currently involved in shutting down two of the largest North Sea oil fields. Abandoning hundreds of millions of barrels of recoverable oil. We are doing that for two important reasons. Firstly because the Government has banned new drilling so that the plateau can not be maintained and secondly because they have insisted on the electrification of all North Sea platforms by 2030. So platforms will no longer be able to power themselves by burning the gas they produce as a by-product from their wells. Instead they will have to link themselves to the national grid and be powered by electriicty rather than gas turbines or diesel. As a result loads of fields are no longer economic and are shutting down.
Wasn't there a announcement back in November saying new wells would be allowed? I didn't know about the electrification thing.
They said they would allow near field exploration in specific circumstances. But nothing has actually come of it yet and in the meantime companies are simply shutting up shop, fulfilling their obligations by properly abandoning wells and removing platforms and buggering off to spend their investment money in other parts of the world where people still want oil and gas production and also (as an additional consideration) where they won't tax them out of existence. Like Norway.
So we don't burn any less oil and gas, we just buy it from Norway, who get all the tax revenue and the jobs.
I disagree with that policy, but I'm going to guess that the Norway has similar electrification standard? And don't they have a similar tax regime too?
My sense of this is that whatever policies you have in place will be overall immaterial in the path of prodiction over the next 20 years. Norway have got it right though in terms of having tiny domestic consumption - unlike us they won't be significantly damaged by whatever happens when the markets open.
Nope the Norway tax regime is very different. Whilst the headline rate is similar, the costs that can be deferred against that tax are huge compared to the UK. So around 90% of an exploration wells costs can be written off against the tax. As just one example. In the UK there are none of those concessions so operating in many cases just becomes unviable. Nor is the electrification scheme compulsory as it is in the UK. They understand this will simply render a lot of fields uneconomic.
The direct actions of the current (and to a lesser extent previous) UK government, have massively accelerated the decline of the UK oil and gas industry, driven investment out of the basin and made us far more reliant on imports. They are also destroying the petrochemical industry and a significant proportion of our manufacturing production base.
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
To what extent? We produce about 0.7% of the world's oil. If we exploited every possible reserve, included future discoveries, we could increase our production by perhaps 10-15% in the next 10 years, relative to a steeply declining baseline. This would have infinitesimally small impact on world oil prices.
I disagree with the restriction of new developments but I disagree even more with the bampot idea that reversing that decision would have any material impact on our energy costs.
We should be maximising production from our existing wells, not leaving the oil in the ground.
LOL. The NSTA are a bunch of idiots (I know, I have to deal with them almost every day). No one suspends viable wells which are still capable of production if it is economic. But it is only economic if you can add additional production from new wells. It is called maintaining the plateau and it needs new wells to be drilled to compensate for falling production on existing wells so that the platform remains economic.
I am currently involved in shutting down two of the largest North Sea oil fields. Abandoning hundreds of millions of barrels of recoverable oil. We are doing that for two important reasons. Firstly because the Government has banned new drilling so that the plateau can not be maintained and secondly because they have insisted on the electrification of all North Sea platforms by 2030. So platforms will no longer be able to power themselves by burning the gas they produce as a by-product from their wells. Instead they will have to link themselves to the national grid and be powered by electriicty rather than gas turbines or diesel. As a result loads of fields are no longer economic and are shutting down.
Wasn't there a announcement back in November saying new wells would be allowed? I didn't know about the electrification thing.
They said they would allow near field exploration in specific circumstances. But nothing has actually come of it yet and in the meantime companies are simply shutting up shop, fulfilling their obligations by properly abandoning wells and removing platforms and buggering off to spend their investment money in other parts of the world where people still want oil and gas production and also (as an additional consideration) where they won't tax them out of existence. Like Norway.
So we don't burn any less oil and gas, we just buy it from Norway, who get all the tax revenue and the jobs.
I disagree with that policy, but I'm going to guess that the Norway has similar electrification standard? And don't they have a similar tax regime too?
My sense of this is that whatever policies you have in place will be overall immaterial in the path of prodiction over the next 20 years. Norway have got it right though in terms of having tiny domestic consumption - unlike us they won't be significantly damaged by whatever happens when the markets open.
Their taxation policy is *stable* - rather than "must grab 'windfall profits'"
There's has been the same since 1975, while ours was only brought in by Sunak in 2022 (for 8 years, ending in 2030). So it's been stable at a much higher rate.
Not the entire group of taxes and costs on the oil & gas industry. Norway has had a deliberate policy of slow, signalled changes. The UK Governments have not.
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
To what extent? We produce about 0.7% of the world's oil. If we exploited every possible reserve, included future discoveries, we could increase our production by perhaps 10-15% in the next 10 years, relative to a steeply declining baseline. This would have infinitesimally small impact on world oil prices.
I disagree with the restriction of new developments but I disagree even more with the bampot idea that reversing that decision would have any material impact on our energy costs.
We should be maximising production from our existing wells, not leaving the oil in the ground.
LOL. The NSTA are a bunch of idiots (I know, I have to deal with them almost every day). No one suspends viable wells which are still capable of production if it is economic. But it is only economic if you can add additional production from new wells. It is called maintaining the plateau and it needs new wells to be drilled to compensate for falling production on existing wells so that the platform remains economic.
I am currently involved in shutting down two of the largest North Sea oil fields. Abandoning hundreds of millions of barrels of recoverable oil. We are doing that for two important reasons. Firstly because the Government has banned new drilling so that the plateau can not be maintained and secondly because they have insisted on the electrification of all North Sea platforms by 2030. So platforms will no longer be able to power themselves by burning the gas they produce as a by-product from their wells. Instead they will have to link themselves to the national grid and be powered by electriicty rather than gas turbines or diesel. As a result loads of fields are no longer economic and are shutting down.
Do any other countries carry out such performative economic madness, or is it just the UK that chooses to shoot itself in the foot?
Ireland did the same a few years ago but their oil and gas industry had barely started. New Zealand and Denmark both had similar ideas but realised how stupid they were and reversed them.
"We have, before this began, been very clear about not having our territories be used to attack Iran. We have always encouraged dialogue and we have wanted to make sure that it doesn't amount to this because our region doesn't need another war."
"By the same token, if it needs to come to that, it will come to that. And really the ball is in Iran's court right now about how they want to deal with a neighborhood and a neighbor that has traditionally been a very fair and good neighbor to them."
"We're not going to sit idly by as we continue to be recipients of such a barrage of attacks that are unlawful and unjustified."
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
To what extent? We produce about 0.7% of the world's oil. If we exploited every possible reserve, included future discoveries, we could increase our production by perhaps 10-15% in the next 10 years, relative to a steeply declining baseline. This would have infinitesimally small impact on world oil prices.
I disagree with the restriction of new developments but I disagree even more with the bampot idea that reversing that decision would have any material impact on our energy costs.
We should be maximising production from our existing wells, not leaving the oil in the ground.
LOL. The NSTA are a bunch of idiots (I know, I have to deal with them almost every day). No one suspends viable wells which are still capable of production if it is economic. But it is only economic if you can add additional production from new wells. It is called maintaining the plateau and it needs new wells to be drilled to compensate for falling production on existing wells so that the platform remains economic.
I am currently involved in shutting down two of the largest North Sea oil fields. Abandoning hundreds of millions of barrels of recoverable oil. We are doing that for two important reasons. Firstly because the Government has banned new drilling so that the plateau can not be maintained and secondly because they have insisted on the electrification of all North Sea platforms by 2030. So platforms will no longer be able to power themselves by burning the gas they produce as a by-product from their wells. Instead they will have to link themselves to the national grid and be powered by electriicty rather than gas turbines or diesel. As a result loads of fields are no longer economic and are shutting down.
Which rather goes to show that this government are either moronic or downright wicked. Intentionally destroying our oil industry in this way should be an offence charged as treason.
(It's my impression that -- for now-- the pro-strike folks outnumber the anti-strike folks, even in this relatively leftist area.)
In principle going after the Mullahs is a great idea. I am not so sure it will be as collateral free as the hawks on here are suggesting. I hope they are correct.
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
Crank up the solar Crank up the wind turbines Crank up the tidal buoys Build another 5 electric hydro mountain like Llanberis
Renewable Renewable Renewable
Ed knows!
It's not either/or. People are going to be needing oil for at least the next 50-100 years, not maxing out the North Sea but instead paying the Russians/Iranians/Saudis etc for oil we could help ourselves to is completely barmy.
The North Sea won't have any significant effect on the oil price, but that doesn't matter - the point of drilling for our oil is that HMG will get lots of lovely oil revenue, and the oil companies will create lots of well paid jobs in places like Aberdeen, both of which would do our economic situation a world of good.
Also, you do realise that building 5 more Dinorwic's will be 30 years and several billion just for the planning process?
It would actually be cheaper to build a couple of battery factories and make 5 more Dinoric's out of batteries. The numbers crossed over some years ago.
In addition, you wouldn't site them all in one place. And you don't need a decade long planning enquiry for a few shipping containers of batteries - the Greens got very upset, IIRC, because the previous Conservative government put in an exception for power storage projects below 30 MWh - they aren't considered a power station. That would be about 10 ISO containers.
(It's my impression that -- for now-- the pro-strike folks outnumber the anti-strike folks, even in this relatively leftist area.)
In principle going after the Mullahs is a great idea. I am not so sure it will be as collateral free as the hawks on here are suggesting. I hope they are correct.
Who has suggested it will be collateral free?
There will be collateral damage, of course there is, there always is.
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
To what extent? We produce about 0.7% of the world's oil. If we exploited every possible reserve, included future discoveries, we could increase our production by perhaps 10-15% in the next 10 years, relative to a steeply declining baseline. This would have infinitesimally small impact on world oil prices.
I disagree with the restriction of new developments but I disagree even more with the bampot idea that reversing that decision would have any material impact on our energy costs.
We should be maximising production from our existing wells, not leaving the oil in the ground.
LOL. The NSTA are a bunch of idiots (I know, I have to deal with them almost every day). No one suspends viable wells which are still capable of production if it is economic. But it is only economic if you can add additional production from new wells. It is called maintaining the plateau and it needs new wells to be drilled to compensate for falling production on existing wells so that the platform remains economic.
I am currently involved in shutting down two of the largest North Sea oil fields. Abandoning hundreds of millions of barrels of recoverable oil. We are doing that for two important reasons. Firstly because the Government has banned new drilling so that the plateau can not be maintained and secondly because they have insisted on the electrification of all North Sea platforms by 2030. So platforms will no longer be able to power themselves by burning the gas they produce as a by-product from their wells. Instead they will have to link themselves to the national grid and be powered by electriicty rather than gas turbines or diesel. As a result loads of fields are no longer economic and are shutting down.
Which rather goes to show that this government are either moronic or downright wicked. Intentionally destroying our oil industry in this way should be an offence charged as treason.
The 78% tax rate and the reduction of the tax allowance from 80% to 29% both happened under the Conservatives. So whatever you think of this government has to be applied to the last too.
(It's my impression that -- for now-- the pro-strike folks outnumber the anti-strike folks, even in this relatively leftist area.)
In principle going after the Mullahs is a great idea. I am not so sure it will be as collateral free as the hawks on here are suggesting. I hope they are correct.
Who has suggested it will be collateral free?
There will be collateral damage, of course there is, there always is.
Inaction is not damage free though.
The benefits outweigh the costs.
As ever that remains to be seen.
Apparently the Shah's grandson who lives in DC is a somewhat surprised he hasn't been approached...
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
To what extent? We produce about 0.7% of the world's oil. If we exploited every possible reserve, included future discoveries, we could increase our production by perhaps 10-15% in the next 10 years, relative to a steeply declining baseline. This would have infinitesimally small impact on world oil prices.
I disagree with the restriction of new developments but I disagree even more with the bampot idea that reversing that decision would have any material impact on our energy costs.
We should be maximising production from our existing wells, not leaving the oil in the ground.
LOL. The NSTA are a bunch of idiots (I know, I have to deal with them almost every day). No one suspends viable wells which are still capable of production if it is economic. But it is only economic if you can add additional production from new wells. It is called maintaining the plateau and it needs new wells to be drilled to compensate for falling production on existing wells so that the platform remains economic.
I am currently involved in shutting down two of the largest North Sea oil fields. Abandoning hundreds of millions of barrels of recoverable oil. We are doing that for two important reasons. Firstly because the Government has banned new drilling so that the plateau can not be maintained and secondly because they have insisted on the electrification of all North Sea platforms by 2030. So platforms will no longer be able to power themselves by burning the gas they produce as a by-product from their wells. Instead they will have to link themselves to the national grid and be powered by electriicty rather than gas turbines or diesel. As a result loads of fields are no longer economic and are shutting down.
Wasn't there a announcement back in November saying new wells would be allowed? I didn't know about the electrification thing.
They said they would allow near field exploration in specific circumstances. But nothing has actually come of it yet and in the meantime companies are simply shutting up shop, fulfilling their obligations by properly abandoning wells and removing platforms and buggering off to spend their investment money in other parts of the world where people still want oil and gas production and also (as an additional consideration) where they won't tax them out of existence. Like Norway.
So we don't burn any less oil and gas, we just buy it from Norway, who get all the tax revenue and the jobs.
I disagree with that policy, but I'm going to guess that the Norway has similar electrification standard? And don't they have a similar tax regime too?
My sense of this is that whatever policies you have in place will be overall immaterial in the path of prodiction over the next 20 years. Norway have got it right though in terms of having tiny domestic consumption - unlike us they won't be significantly damaged by whatever happens when the markets open.
Their taxation policy is *stable* - rather than "must grab 'windfall profits'"
There's has been the same since 1975, while ours was only brought in by Sunak in 2022 (for 8 years, ending in 2030). So it's been stable at a much higher rate.
But again, theirs is not the same as ours as it allows and encourages exploration and development through tax concessions.
The proof is in the pudding. Norway drilled 49 new exploration wells last year and made 21 news discoveries. We drilled none. They drilled more than twice that number of production wells. We drilled less than a dozen.
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
To what extent? We produce about 0.7% of the world's oil. If we exploited every possible reserve, included future discoveries, we could increase our production by perhaps 10-15% in the next 10 years, relative to a steeply declining baseline. This would have infinitesimally small impact on world oil prices.
I disagree with the restriction of new developments but I disagree even more with the bampot idea that reversing that decision would have any material impact on our energy costs.
We should be maximising production from our existing wells, not leaving the oil in the ground.
LOL. The NSTA are a bunch of idiots (I know, I have to deal with them almost every day). No one suspends viable wells which are still capable of production if it is economic. But it is only economic if you can add additional production from new wells. It is called maintaining the plateau and it needs new wells to be drilled to compensate for falling production on existing wells so that the platform remains economic.
I am currently involved in shutting down two of the largest North Sea oil fields. Abandoning hundreds of millions of barrels of recoverable oil. We are doing that for two important reasons. Firstly because the Government has banned new drilling so that the plateau can not be maintained and secondly because they have insisted on the electrification of all North Sea platforms by 2030. So platforms will no longer be able to power themselves by burning the gas they produce as a by-product from their wells. Instead they will have to link themselves to the national grid and be powered by electriicty rather than gas turbines or diesel. As a result loads of fields are no longer economic and are shutting down.
Which rather goes to show that this government are either moronic or downright wicked. Intentionally destroying our oil industry in this way should be an offence charged as treason.
The 78% tax rate and the reduction of the tax allowance from 80% to 29% both happened under the Conservatives. So whatever you think of this government has to be applied to the last too.
And I was saying the same thing about the last government. Though Milibrains has gone much further with the non-tax disincentives.
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
Crank up the solar Crank up the wind turbines Crank up the tidal buoys Build another 5 electric hydro mountain like Llanberis
Renewable Renewable Renewable
Ed knows!
It's not either/or. People are going to be needing oil for at least the next 50-100 years, not maxing out the North Sea but instead paying the Russians/Iranians/Saudis etc for oil we could help ourselves to is completely barmy.
The North Sea won't have any significant effect on the oil price, but that doesn't matter - the point of drilling for our oil is that HMG will get lots of lovely oil revenue, and the oil companies will create lots of well paid jobs in places like Aberdeen, both of which would do our economic situation a world of good.
Also, you do realise that building 5 more Dinorwic's will be 30 years and several billion just for the planning process?
It would actually be cheaper to build a couple of battery factories and make 5 more Dinoric's out of batteries. The numbers crossed over some years ago.
In addition, you wouldn't site them all in one place. And you don't need a decade long planning enquiry for a few shipping containers of batteries - the Greens got very upset, IIRC, because the previous Conservative government put in an exception for power storage projects below 30 MWh - they aren't considered a power station. That would be about 10 ISO containers.
It's quite extraordinary how upset people get about batteries. They can be hidden away quite easily - it's not like chucking lots of pylons up, or turbines, or a nuclear power station.
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
Crank up the solar Crank up the wind turbines Crank up the tidal buoys Build another 5 electric hydro mountain like Llanberis
Renewable Renewable Renewable
Ed knows!
It's not either/or. People are going to be needing oil for at least the next 50-100 years, not maxing out the North Sea but instead paying the Russians/Iranians/Saudis etc for oil we could help ourselves to is completely barmy.
The North Sea won't have any significant effect on the oil price, but that doesn't matter - the point of drilling for our oil is that HMG will get lots of lovely oil revenue, and the oil companies will create lots of well paid jobs in places like Aberdeen, both of which would do our economic situation a world of good.
Also, you do realise that building 5 more Dinorwic's will be 30 years and several billion just for the planning process?
It would actually be cheaper to build a couple of battery factories and make 5 more Dinoric's out of batteries. The numbers crossed over some years ago.
In addition, you wouldn't site them all in one place. And you don't need a decade long planning enquiry for a few shipping containers of batteries - the Greens got very upset, IIRC, because the previous Conservative government put in an exception for power storage projects below 30 MWh - they aren't considered a power station. That would be about 10 ISO containers.
It's quite extraordinary how upset people get about batteries. They can be hidden away quite easily - it's not like chucking lots of pylons up, or turbines, or a nuclear power station.
I agree. Though I think much of the concern comes from the fire hazard.
Mind you I am probably in the minority as I think we should have a far more dispersed power generation system with mini nukes on the outskirts of every town. Pretty sure I am never going to get majority support for that one.
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
Crank up the solar Crank up the wind turbines Crank up the tidal buoys Build another 5 electric hydro mountain like Llanberis
Renewable Renewable Renewable
Ed knows!
It's not either/or. People are going to be needing oil for at least the next 50-100 years, not maxing out the North Sea but instead paying the Russians/Iranians/Saudis etc for oil we could help ourselves to is completely barmy.
The North Sea won't have any significant effect on the oil price, but that doesn't matter - the point of drilling for our oil is that HMG will get lots of lovely oil revenue, and the oil companies will create lots of well paid jobs in places like Aberdeen, both of which would do our economic situation a world of good.
Also, you do realise that building 5 more Dinorwic's will be 30 years and several billion just for the planning process?
It would actually be cheaper to build a couple of battery factories and make 5 more Dinoric's out of batteries. The numbers crossed over some years ago.
In addition, you wouldn't site them all in one place. And you don't need a decade long planning enquiry for a few shipping containers of batteries - the Greens got very upset, IIRC, because the previous Conservative government put in an exception for power storage projects below 30 MWh - they aren't considered a power station. That would be about 10 ISO containers.
It's quite extraordinary how upset people get about batteries. They can be hidden away quite easily - it's not like chucking lots of pylons up, or turbines, or a nuclear power station.
I agree. Though I think much of the concern comes from the fire hazard.
Mind you I am probably in the minority as I think we should have a far more dispersed power generation system with mini nukes on the outskirts of every town. Pretty sure I am never going to get majority support for that one.
In the past I would have agreed with you, but I don't think it makes economic sense anymore.
Wind turbines, solar and batteries seem a cheaper solution.
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
Crank up the solar Crank up the wind turbines Crank up the tidal buoys Build another 5 electric hydro mountain like Llanberis
Renewable Renewable Renewable
Ed knows!
It's not either/or. People are going to be needing oil for at least the next 50-100 years, not maxing out the North Sea but instead paying the Russians/Iranians/Saudis etc for oil we could help ourselves to is completely barmy.
The North Sea won't have any significant effect on the oil price, but that doesn't matter - the point of drilling for our oil is that HMG will get lots of lovely oil revenue, and the oil companies will create lots of well paid jobs in places like Aberdeen, both of which would do our economic situation a world of good.
Also, you do realise that building 5 more Dinorwic's will be 30 years and several billion just for the planning process?
It would actually be cheaper to build a couple of battery factories and make 5 more Dinoric's out of batteries. The numbers crossed over some years ago.
In addition, you wouldn't site them all in one place. And you don't need a decade long planning enquiry for a few shipping containers of batteries - the Greens got very upset, IIRC, because the previous Conservative government put in an exception for power storage projects below 30 MWh - they aren't considered a power station. That would be about 10 ISO containers.
It's quite extraordinary how upset people get about batteries. They can be hidden away quite easily - it's not like chucking lots of pylons up, or turbines, or a nuclear power station.
I agree. Though I think much of the concern comes from the fire hazard.
Mind you I am probably in the minority as I think we should have a far more dispersed power generation system with mini nukes on the outskirts of every town. Pretty sure I am never going to get majority support for that one.
Lol. Mini-nuke in the Tesco car park.
But batteries is another example of where the lack of link between local energy production and consumption blocks progress. If people in the town I grew up in could harness all the excess (free) power from the local wind farm via a community battery centre, you'd have 95% support.
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
Crank up the solar Crank up the wind turbines Crank up the tidal buoys Build another 5 electric hydro mountain like Llanberis
Renewable Renewable Renewable
Ed knows!
It's not either/or. People are going to be needing oil for at least the next 50-100 years, not maxing out the North Sea but instead paying the Russians/Iranians/Saudis etc for oil we could help ourselves to is completely barmy.
The North Sea won't have any significant effect on the oil price, but that doesn't matter - the point of drilling for our oil is that HMG will get lots of lovely oil revenue, and the oil companies will create lots of well paid jobs in places like Aberdeen, both of which would do our economic situation a world of good.
Also, you do realise that building 5 more Dinorwic's will be 30 years and several billion just for the planning process?
It would actually be cheaper to build a couple of battery factories and make 5 more Dinoric's out of batteries. The numbers crossed over some years ago.
In addition, you wouldn't site them all in one place. And you don't need a decade long planning enquiry for a few shipping containers of batteries - the Greens got very upset, IIRC, because the previous Conservative government put in an exception for power storage projects below 30 MWh - they aren't considered a power station. That would be about 10 ISO containers.
It's quite extraordinary how upset people get about batteries. They can be hidden away quite easily - it's not like chucking lots of pylons up, or turbines, or a nuclear power station.
I agree. Though I think much of the concern comes from the fire hazard.
Mind you I am probably in the minority as I think we should have a far more dispersed power generation system with mini nukes on the outskirts of every town. Pretty sure I am never going to get majority support for that one.
It's faked up facebook version of concern about fire risk.
I think a good part of it comes from the idea that it's something that they can't control. The Green councillors who are prodding away at the chap I know, who is solar farming, seem really frightened by his idea to supply 'leecy direct to the small business centre (re-purposed stable block) he runs.
Presumably by SKS logic Iran has the right to defend itself?
Oh hang on
Iran provoked it by weaponising uranium, attacking other countries (both directly and indirectly) and attacking its own citizens.
Does none of that matter to you? It does to me and others, fully justifying what the US and Israel have done who should have our full support.
Listen to what Carney had to say, quite eloquently, on the matter.
Course they did. What US and Israel have done is definitely fine in your book
Its definitely not against International law is it?
No it most definitely is not - and I could not care less if it was either.
Are you now an expert in the thing that according to you doesn't exist?
I don't deny it exists, I just insist that like the pirate code it is more guidelines than actual rules and that other nations don't abide by it as actual rules and nor should we except when it matches our politics.
Carney has been cited as an expert repeatedly by people who like to claim it does exist firmly and should be followed and he has come out firmly in favour of the actions.
I would be curious to hear anyone able to explain why Carney is wrong? I have not seen anyone try.
OK, allow me.
Carney is saying it's legal and justified because the attack is to stop Iran building a nuke which they would then fire at the US and Israel. So it's self-defence.
The contra argument is that this is bullshit for three reasons:
First, the threat is distant and hypothetical, esp since their capability was obliterated (per Trump) in the targetted bombing last year.
Second, there were viable ongoing negotiations on the nuclear point and it wasn't clear the objective couldn't have been reached via that route.
Third, both the US and Israel have stated that they are seeking not just preemptive nuclear disarmament but also (and in fact mainly) regime change.
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
Crank up the solar Crank up the wind turbines Crank up the tidal buoys Build another 5 electric hydro mountain like Llanberis
Renewable Renewable Renewable
Ed knows!
It's not either/or. People are going to be needing oil for at least the next 50-100 years, not maxing out the North Sea but instead paying the Russians/Iranians/Saudis etc for oil we could help ourselves to is completely barmy.
The North Sea won't have any significant effect on the oil price, but that doesn't matter - the point of drilling for our oil is that HMG will get lots of lovely oil revenue, and the oil companies will create lots of well paid jobs in places like Aberdeen, both of which would do our economic situation a world of good.
Also, you do realise that building 5 more Dinorwic's will be 30 years and several billion just for the planning process?
It would actually be cheaper to build a couple of battery factories and make 5 more Dinoric's out of batteries. The numbers crossed over some years ago.
In addition, you wouldn't site them all in one place. And you don't need a decade long planning enquiry for a few shipping containers of batteries - the Greens got very upset, IIRC, because the previous Conservative government put in an exception for power storage projects below 30 MWh - they aren't considered a power station. That would be about 10 ISO containers.
It's quite extraordinary how upset people get about batteries. They can be hidden away quite easily - it's not like chucking lots of pylons up, or turbines, or a nuclear power station.
I agree. Though I think much of the concern comes from the fire hazard.
Mind you I am probably in the minority as I think we should have a far more dispersed power generation system with mini nukes on the outskirts of every town. Pretty sure I am never going to get majority support for that one.
The massive Gasoneters on the M6 raised carriageway right near Sphaghetti Junction used to freak me out. Now Star City Area
You could almost touch them from the hard shoulder. .
If the IRA had put a bomb under the carriageway there, Birmingham and the Black Country would have resembled Hiroshima.
"We have, before this began, been very clear about not having our territories be used to attack Iran. We have always encouraged dialogue and we have wanted to make sure that it doesn't amount to this because our region doesn't need another war."
"By the same token, if it needs to come to that, it will come to that. And really the ball is in Iran's court right now about how they want to deal with a neighborhood and a neighbor that has traditionally been a very fair and good neighbor to them."
"We're not going to sit idly by as we continue to be recipients of such a barrage of attacks that are unlawful and unjustified."
Other passive beneficiaries of UAE’s troubles this week: Singapore and Switzerland.
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
Crank up the solar Crank up the wind turbines Crank up the tidal buoys Build another 5 electric hydro mountain like Llanberis
Renewable Renewable Renewable
Ed knows!
It's not either/or. People are going to be needing oil for at least the next 50-100 years, not maxing out the North Sea but instead paying the Russians/Iranians/Saudis etc for oil we could help ourselves to is completely barmy.
The North Sea won't have any significant effect on the oil price, but that doesn't matter - the point of drilling for our oil is that HMG will get lots of lovely oil revenue, and the oil companies will create lots of well paid jobs in places like Aberdeen, both of which would do our economic situation a world of good.
Also, you do realise that building 5 more Dinorwic's will be 30 years and several billion just for the planning process?
It would actually be cheaper to build a couple of battery factories and make 5 more Dinoric's out of batteries. The numbers crossed over some years ago.
In addition, you wouldn't site them all in one place. And you don't need a decade long planning enquiry for a few shipping containers of batteries - the Greens got very upset, IIRC, because the previous Conservative government put in an exception for power storage projects below 30 MWh - they aren't considered a power station. That would be about 10 ISO containers.
It's quite extraordinary how upset people get about batteries. They can be hidden away quite easily - it's not like chucking lots of pylons up, or turbines, or a nuclear power station.
I agree. Though I think much of the concern comes from the fire hazard.
Mind you I am probably in the minority as I think we should have a far more dispersed power generation system with mini nukes on the outskirts of every town. Pretty sure I am never going to get majority support for that one.
It's faked up facebook version of concern about fire risk.
I think a good part of it comes from the idea that it's something that they can't control. The Green councillors who are prodding away at the chap I know, who is solar farming, seem really frightened by his idea to supply 'leecy direct to the small business centre (re-purposed stable block) he runs.
Because the old-fashioned Greens appear to care more about reducing economic activity than carbon emissions.
A future of SMR nuclear and battery storage supplying cheap energy to industry, is their worst nightmare.
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
To what extent? We produce about 0.7% of the world's oil. If we exploited every possible reserve, included future discoveries, we could increase our production by perhaps 10-15% in the next 10 years, relative to a steeply declining baseline. This would have infinitesimally small impact on world oil prices.
I disagree with the restriction of new developments but I disagree even more with the bampot idea that reversing that decision would have any material impact on our energy costs.
We should be maximising production from our existing wells, not leaving the oil in the ground.
LOL. The NSTA are a bunch of idiots (I know, I have to deal with them almost every day). No one suspends viable wells which are still capable of production if it is economic. But it is only economic if you can add additional production from new wells. It is called maintaining the plateau and it needs new wells to be drilled to compensate for falling production on existing wells so that the platform remains economic.
I am currently involved in shutting down two of the largest North Sea oil fields. Abandoning hundreds of millions of barrels of recoverable oil. We are doing that for two important reasons. Firstly because the Government has banned new drilling so that the plateau can not be maintained and secondly because they have insisted on the electrification of all North Sea platforms by 2030. So platforms will no longer be able to power themselves by burning the gas they produce as a by-product from their wells. Instead they will have to link themselves to the national grid and be powered by electriicty rather than gas turbines or diesel. As a result loads of fields are no longer economic and are shutting down.
Which rather goes to show that this government are either moronic or downright wicked. Intentionally destroying our oil industry in this way should be an offence charged as treason.
The 78% tax rate and the reduction of the tax allowance from 80% to 29% both happened under the Conservatives. So whatever you think of this government has to be applied to the last too.
Don't tell them truths like that
They'll need to change their Joe 90 tory blue glaases
Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, for the first time, has authorized the Royal Saudi Armed Forces to strike back against Iran if necessary, calling attempted attacks by Iran against the east of the country and Riyadh “cowardly,” and stating that Iran knows that Saudi Airspace was not used for strikes against it by Israel or the United States, according to CNN.
Quick question. Brother who is a long time resident of Australia refers to Trump as a Sentinel. Not a phrase I have come across and assume it is a positive view.
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
Crank up the solar Crank up the wind turbines Crank up the tidal buoys Build another 5 electric hydro mountain like Llanberis
Renewable Renewable Renewable
Ed knows!
It's not either/or. People are going to be needing oil for at least the next 50-100 years, not maxing out the North Sea but instead paying the Russians/Iranians/Saudis etc for oil we could help ourselves to is completely barmy.
The North Sea won't have any significant effect on the oil price, but that doesn't matter - the point of drilling for our oil is that HMG will get lots of lovely oil revenue, and the oil companies will create lots of well paid jobs in places like Aberdeen, both of which would do our economic situation a world of good.
Also, you do realise that building 5 more Dinorwic's will be 30 years and several billion just for the planning process?
I agree re Llanberis
Been down there several times.
Fascinating
Should have ordered 4 more at the time. I was told on a visit that sites had been identified
I went down in 1992 and none of the turbines were running. The only time more than one had run was when Ken had found out that Mike Baldwin had been shagging Deirdre. It was emergency contingency
Last time I went down in 2016 mid June all were running the chamber was shaking, they said at that time almost always on.
"We have, before this began, been very clear about not having our territories be used to attack Iran. We have always encouraged dialogue and we have wanted to make sure that it doesn't amount to this because our region doesn't need another war."
"By the same token, if it needs to come to that, it will come to that. And really the ball is in Iran's court right now about how they want to deal with a neighborhood and a neighbor that has traditionally been a very fair and good neighbor to them."
"We're not going to sit idly by as we continue to be recipients of such a barrage of attacks that are unlawful and unjustified."
Other passive beneficiaries of UAE’s troubles this week: Singapore and Switzerland.
And London
Dubai really is in a pickle. Their whole shtick is “oasis of safety and stability” and sure, you can leave your phone on a table and it won’t be nicked, but people are super sensitive and averse to the possibility of being randomly bombed
If the war ends tomorrow it would still take a while for them to repair the reputational damage. But it seems unlikely the war will end tomorrow
1. The Iranians are going for the Samson Option - tear down the world - especially the Gulf States (not least because they can’t attack the USA directly, so the UAE etc is the next best thing)
2. If we get regime change then that will still be months or years of instability - right next to Dubai
3. If we don’t get regime change then a newly angry hostile Iran will make Dubai very uncomfortable
So I don’t see how the UAE, Qatar, etc, avoid serious damage of various kinds
I rather think destroying Iran's ability to close the straits should have been number one on the agenda.
This is great news for oil producing countries - Putin's Russia included.
And yet another reason to get fracking.
And exploit our oil in the north sea
This is insane. The damage an oil shock will do to the UK economy is many multiples the potential gains to our domestic oil industry. That's the the case in the US, where oil production is about 30x times higher than it is here. We are not Russia or Saudi Arabia, even if we maxxed out development and production.
Thankfully, our domestic renewables are on fixed price contracts and are invulnerable to Iranian drone strikes . It's mad that we could live through a gas shock (Ukraine) and an oIl shock (Iran) and you'll still be banging on about fossil fuels.
It’s not ‘insane’ you just disagree.
More supply would help when there’s a constraint somewhere
Crank up the solar Crank up the wind turbines Crank up the tidal buoys Build another 5 electric hydro mountain like Llanberis
Renewable Renewable Renewable
Ed knows!
It's not either/or. People are going to be needing oil for at least the next 50-100 years, not maxing out the North Sea but instead paying the Russians/Iranians/Saudis etc for oil we could help ourselves to is completely barmy.
The North Sea won't have any significant effect on the oil price, but that doesn't matter - the point of drilling for our oil is that HMG will get lots of lovely oil revenue, and the oil companies will create lots of well paid jobs in places like Aberdeen, both of which would do our economic situation a world of good.
Also, you do realise that building 5 more Dinorwic's will be 30 years and several billion just for the planning process?
It would actually be cheaper to build a couple of battery factories and make 5 more Dinoric's out of batteries. The numbers crossed over some years ago.
In addition, you wouldn't site them all in one place. And you don't need a decade long planning enquiry for a few shipping containers of batteries - the Greens got very upset, IIRC, because the previous Conservative government put in an exception for power storage projects below 30 MWh - they aren't considered a power station. That would be about 10 ISO containers.
It's quite extraordinary how upset people get about batteries. They can be hidden away quite easily - it's not like chucking lots of pylons up, or turbines, or a nuclear power station.
I agree. Though I think much of the concern comes from the fire hazard.
Mind you I am probably in the minority as I think we should have a far more dispersed power generation system with mini nukes on the outskirts of every town. Pretty sure I am never going to get majority support for that one.
It's faked up facebook version of concern about fire risk.
I think a good part of it comes from the idea that it's something that they can't control. The Green councillors who are prodding away at the chap I know, who is solar farming, seem really frightened by his idea to supply 'leecy direct to the small business centre (re-purposed stable block) he runs.
Because the old-fashioned Greens appear to care more about reducing economic activity than carbon emissions.
A future of SMR nuclear and battery storage supplying cheap energy to industry, is their worst nightmare.
No, it's more benign than that in 90% of cases. People have a deep emotional attachment to the countryside, and do not like seeing it developed. People not keen on the idea of nuclear waste and have an irrational fear of a nuclear disaster.
On 1) replacing a monoculture field with solar panels or batteries is usually better, overall, for the environment. But this is lost on these folks. They are also the sort of people who complain about beavers taking out trees, or removing sheep from uplands. On 2) not even worth trying to argue against this one. Nuclear has a very bad rep and it's difficult to shift.
Quick question. Brother who is a long time resident of Australia refers to Trump as a Sentinel. Not a phrase I have come across and assume it is a positive view.
Translation please
Sentinel (Marvel comics).
Large humanoid robot designed to hunt down and kill mutants.
(It's my impression that -- for now-- the pro-strike folks outnumber the anti-strike folks, even in this relatively leftist area.)
In principle going after the Mullahs is a great idea. I am not so sure it will be as collateral free as the hawks on here are suggesting. I hope they are correct.
Yep. Killing people and blowing things up is the easy part.
Building a decent and successful society in a divided, traumatised and heavily armed country with no tradition of good government is infinitely harder, and Trump and Netanyahu are the two last people in the world who should be trying to do it.
But we are where we are, and for the sake of Iran and the Middle East I wish them luck now they've started.
(It's my impression that -- for now-- the pro-strike folks outnumber the anti-strike folks, even in this relatively leftist area.)
In principle going after the Mullahs is a great idea. I am not so sure it will be as collateral free as the hawks on here are suggesting. I hope they are correct.
Yep. Killing people and blowing things up is the easy part.
Building a decent and successful society in a divided, traumatised and heavily armed country with no tradition of good government is infinitely harder, and Trump and Netanyahu are the two last people in the world who should be trying to do it.
But we are where we are, and for the sake of Iran and the Middle East I wish them luck now they've started.
Tear the whole rotten edifice down, then let the locals rebuild something new.
"We have, before this began, been very clear about not having our territories be used to attack Iran. We have always encouraged dialogue and we have wanted to make sure that it doesn't amount to this because our region doesn't need another war."
"By the same token, if it needs to come to that, it will come to that. And really the ball is in Iran's court right now about how they want to deal with a neighborhood and a neighbor that has traditionally been a very fair and good neighbor to them."
"We're not going to sit idly by as we continue to be recipients of such a barrage of attacks that are unlawful and unjustified."
Other passive beneficiaries of UAE’s troubles this week: Singapore and Switzerland.
And London
Dubai really is in a pickle. Their whole shtick is “oasis of safety and stability” and sure, you can leave your phone on a table and it won’t be nicked, but people are super sensitive and averse to the possibility of being randomly bombed
If the war ends tomorrow it would still take a while for them to repair the reputational damage. But it seems unlikely the war will end tomorrow
1. The Iranians are going for the Samson Option - tear down the world - especially the Gulf States (not least because they can’t attack the USA directly, so the UAE etc is the next best thing)
2. If we get regime change then that will still be months or years of instability - right next to Dubai
3. If we don’t get regime change then a newly angry hostile Iran will make Dubai very uncomfortable
So I don’t see how the UAE, Qatar, etc, avoid serious damage of various kinds
Do we want all those Dubai ex-pats back?
The picture for the Gulf nations is clear - don't piss off the US, but they really have no security from their friendship with the Great Oaf. It's going to be increasingly attractive for them to build better relations with China. US diplomats are going to have to work very hard in the region.
"We have, before this began, been very clear about not having our territories be used to attack Iran. We have always encouraged dialogue and we have wanted to make sure that it doesn't amount to this because our region doesn't need another war."
"By the same token, if it needs to come to that, it will come to that. And really the ball is in Iran's court right now about how they want to deal with a neighborhood and a neighbor that has traditionally been a very fair and good neighbor to them."
"We're not going to sit idly by as we continue to be recipients of such a barrage of attacks that are unlawful and unjustified."
Other passive beneficiaries of UAE’s troubles this week: Singapore and Switzerland.
And London
Dubai really is in a pickle. Their whole shtick is “oasis of safety and stability” and sure, you can leave your phone on a table and it won’t be nicked, but people are super sensitive and averse to the possibility of being randomly bombed
If the war ends tomorrow it would still take a while for them to repair the reputational damage. But it seems unlikely the war will end tomorrow
1. The Iranians are going for the Samson Option - tear down the world - especially the Gulf States (not least because they can’t attack the USA directly, so the UAE etc is the next best thing)
2. If we get regime change then that will still be months or years of instability - right next to Dubai
3. If we don’t get regime change then a newly angry hostile Iran will make Dubai very uncomfortable
So I don’t see how the UAE, Qatar, etc, avoid serious damage of various kinds
Do we want all those Dubai ex-pats back?
The picture for the Gulf nations is clear - don't piss off the US, but they really have no security from their friendship with the Great Oaf. It's going to be increasingly attractive for them to build better relations with China. US diplomats are going to have to work very hard in the region.
"We have, before this began, been very clear about not having our territories be used to attack Iran. We have always encouraged dialogue and we have wanted to make sure that it doesn't amount to this because our region doesn't need another war."
"By the same token, if it needs to come to that, it will come to that. And really the ball is in Iran's court right now about how they want to deal with a neighborhood and a neighbor that has traditionally been a very fair and good neighbor to them."
"We're not going to sit idly by as we continue to be recipients of such a barrage of attacks that are unlawful and unjustified."
Other passive beneficiaries of UAE’s troubles this week: Singapore and Switzerland.
And London
Dubai really is in a pickle. Their whole shtick is “oasis of safety and stability” and sure, you can leave your phone on a table and it won’t be nicked, but people are super sensitive and averse to the possibility of being randomly bombed
If the war ends tomorrow it would still take a while for them to repair the reputational damage. But it seems unlikely the war will end tomorrow
1. The Iranians are going for the Samson Option - tear down the world - especially the Gulf States (not least because they can’t attack the USA directly, so the UAE etc is the next best thing)
2. If we get regime change then that will still be months or years of instability - right next to Dubai
3. If we don’t get regime change then a newly angry hostile Iran will make Dubai very uncomfortable
So I don’t see how the UAE, Qatar, etc, avoid serious damage of various kinds
Do we want all those Dubai ex-pats back?
The picture for the Gulf nations is clear - don't piss off the US, but they really have no security from their friendship with the Great Oaf. It's going to be increasingly attractive for them to build better relations with China. US diplomats are going to have to work very hard in the region.
Tax on re-entry, I'd suggest.
Entry via the HMRC office in East Kilbride. It was always inevitable this was going to happen, and no-one likes a freeloader.
(It's my impression that -- for now-- the pro-strike folks outnumber the anti-strike folks, even in this relatively leftist area.)
In principle going after the Mullahs is a great idea. I am not so sure it will be as collateral free as the hawks on here are suggesting. I hope they are correct.
Yep. Killing people and blowing things up is the easy part.
Building a decent and successful society in a divided, traumatised and heavily armed country with no tradition of good government is infinitely harder, and Trump and Netanyahu are the two last people in the world who should be trying to do it.
But we are where we are, and for the sake of Iran and the Middle East I wish them luck now they've started.
Seconded - but sadly they won't be trying to do that.
Comments
far from home in Shanghai) but given that all major Gulf Airports are now dark, and Russian/Ukrainian airspace is closed, that leaves one route east-west for most airlines
The Baku Gap
If Tehran launched a couple of missiles at Azerbaijan that would basically close down half the world’s air travel
Zack Polanski
@ZackPolanski
·
Feb 28
This is an illegal, unprovoked and brutal attack that shows once again that the USA and Israel are rogue states.
The UK must end our cosy relationship with the USA and our ongoing support for Israel.
Early days to confirm a victory. I hope you are tight, but I doubt it.
Iran gets its leadership killed and its military destroyed while UAE gets trivial damage to a few buildings.
Do you think a Sharjah warehouse burning for an hour is going to shift a single vote in the USA ?
And IIRC, they put something out about adjacent wells late last year.
Apparently that is all that counts
See October 2023 for further information
Presumably by SKS logic Iran has the right to defend itself?
Oh hang on
LOL. A few minor incidents don’t make for a country “on fire”.
Does none of that matter to you? It does to me and others, fully justifying what the US and Israel have done who should have our full support.
Listen to what Carney had to say, quite eloquently, on the matter.
I am currently involved in shutting down two of the largest North Sea oil fields. Abandoning hundreds of millions of barrels of recoverable oil. We are doing that for two important reasons. Firstly because the Government has banned new drilling so that the plateau can not be maintained and secondly because they have insisted on the electrification of all North Sea platforms by 2030. So platforms will no longer be able to power themselves by burning the gas they produce as a by-product from their wells. Instead they will have to link themselves to the national grid and be powered by electriicty rather than gas turbines or diesel. As a result loads of fields are no longer economic and are shutting down.
This might shift some votes if it happens too often.
https://www.euronews.com/2026/03/01/iran-security-official-says-khamenei-transition-process-to-begin-on-sunday
Its definitely not against International law is it?
His name was fun though. Inspired the Jimmy Jab games.
Jake: The first Jimmy Jabs were held in 2008, when the King of Iraq-
Rosa: President, Iran.
Jake: Armen Jimmy Jab.
Rosa: Ahmadinejad.
Jake: Came to New York, and were on call for nine glorious hours in case there were protests.
A shitty place for a holiday.
Mind you if these f****** fell I suspect Trump would be given a pass. If they don't, not so much.
Name a single SCOTUS ruling or otherwise that says that every single US POTUS lately is acting illegally?
Simply re-interpreting the constitution and saying "this is not allowed" when precedent says it is and the Courts and Congress and laws don't say otherwise does not make you right.
1) Those that just accept how things are
2) Those that understand that life is non-linear
3) Those that fight against any manifestation of non-linearity.
Non-linear is about how the world is layers of predictable and unpredictable. See a Mandelbrot set.
All those “Burn the heretics”, “Line everyone up in one uniform, shouting hail to the One Leader” etc. are about attempting to impose linearity on the non-linear world.
Which is ultimately why Fascism, Communism and all other implementations of ideology, with totalitarian ambition, fail.
And as they stubble along, they create a feeling of similarity - many have described how 1984 spoke to them, in various repressive systems. That the ideology is secondary to the feeling of the attempt to enforce uniformity.
International law not important to you.
How about the right to defend yourself as a Nation attacked by foreign forces against international law. Is that not important to you either despite banging on about it for well over 2 years?
My point was about additional sourcing from a less risky jurisdiction but if you want to argue a point I never made feel free to
So we don't burn any less oil and gas, we just buy it from Norway, who get all the tax revenue and the jobs.
Pro tip, never date a teacher, scheduling holidays is a challenge, also don't date an English teacher, they dump you for improper use of a colon.
✅The Lincoln was not hit. The missiles launched didn’t even come close. The Lincoln continues to launch aircraft in support of CENTCOM’s relentless campaign to defend the American people by eliminating threats from the Iranian regime.
https://x.com/CENTCOM/status/2028124242273767557?s=20
https://www.flightradar24.com/29.67,21.69/3
My sense of this is that whatever policies you have in place will be overall immaterial in the path of prodiction over the next 20 years. Norway have got it right though in terms of having tiny domestic consumption - unlike us they won't be significantly damaged by whatever happens when the markets open.
Please show your workings of both the 50,000 number you quote and my support for Iran killing them.
While you are at it are you now in support of another illegal war, and not too fussed about International law?
Back to the seventies we go
https://x.com/clashreport/status/2028114840770773418?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ
Carney has been cited as an expert repeatedly by people who like to claim it does exist firmly and should be followed and he has come out firmly in favour of the actions.
I would be curious to hear anyone able to explain why Carney is wrong? I have not seen anyone try.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/rally-seattle-freeways-us-strikes-iran/281-fa73afb9-3953-452d-a45c-7a2dbca82ff1
(It's my impression that -- for now-- the pro-strike folks outnumber the anti-strike folks, even in this relatively leftist area.)
The North Sea won't have any significant effect on the oil price, but that doesn't matter - the point of drilling for our oil is that HMG will get lots of lovely oil revenue, and the oil companies will create lots of well paid jobs in places like Aberdeen, both of which would do our economic situation a world of good.
Also, you do realise that building 5 more Dinorwic's will be 30 years and several billion just for the planning process?
The direct actions of the current (and to a lesser extent previous) UK government, have massively accelerated the decline of the UK oil and gas industry, driven investment out of the basin and made us far more reliant on imports. They are also destroying the petrochemical industry and a significant proportion of our manufacturing production base.
https://x.com/dansemperepico/status/2028100794864840831
"We have, before this began, been very clear about not having our territories be used to attack Iran. We have always encouraged dialogue and we have wanted to make sure that it doesn't amount to this because our region doesn't need another war."
"By the same token, if it needs to come to that, it will come to that. And really the ball is in Iran's court right now about how they want to deal with a neighborhood and a neighbor that has traditionally been a very fair and good neighbor to them."
"We're not going to sit idly by as we continue to be recipients of such a barrage of attacks that are unlawful and unjustified."
In addition, you wouldn't site them all in one place. And you don't need a decade long planning enquiry for a few shipping containers of batteries - the Greens got very upset, IIRC, because the previous Conservative government put in an exception for power storage projects below 30 MWh - they aren't considered a power station. That would be about 10 ISO containers.
There will be collateral damage, of course there is, there always is.
Inaction is not damage free though.
The benefits outweigh the costs.
Apparently the Shah's grandson who lives in DC is a somewhat surprised he hasn't been approached...
The proof is in the pudding. Norway drilled 49 new exploration wells last year and made 21 news discoveries. We drilled none. They drilled more than twice that number of production wells. We drilled less than a dozen.
Mind you I am probably in the minority as I think we should have a far more dispersed power generation system with mini nukes on the outskirts of every town. Pretty sure I am never going to get majority support for that one.
Wind turbines, solar and batteries seem a cheaper solution.
But batteries is another example of where the lack of link between local energy production and consumption blocks progress. If people in the town I grew up in could harness all the excess (free) power from the local wind farm via a community battery centre, you'd have 95% support.
I think a good part of it comes from the idea that it's something that they can't control. The Green councillors who are prodding away at the chap I know, who is solar farming, seem really frightened by his idea to supply 'leecy direct to the small business centre (re-purposed stable block) he runs.
Carney is saying it's legal and justified because the attack is to stop Iran building a nuke which they would then fire at the US and Israel. So it's self-defence.
The contra argument is that this is bullshit for three reasons:
First, the threat is distant and hypothetical, esp since their capability was obliterated (per Trump) in the targetted bombing last year.
Second, there were viable ongoing negotiations on the nuclear point and it wasn't clear the objective couldn't have been reached via that route.
Third, both the US and Israel have stated that they are seeking not just preemptive nuclear disarmament but also (and in fact mainly) regime change.
You could almost touch them from the hard shoulder. .
If the IRA had put a bomb under the carriageway there, Birmingham and the Black Country would have resembled Hiroshima.
Mini nuclear is far safer.
A future of SMR nuclear and battery storage supplying cheap energy to industry, is their worst nightmare.
They'll need to change their Joe 90 tory blue glaases
To paraphrase Kissinger:
To be Russia’s enemy is dangerous. To be their ally is lethal.
Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, for the first time, has authorized the Royal Saudi Armed Forces to strike back against Iran if necessary, calling attempted attacks by Iran against the east of the country and Riyadh “cowardly,” and stating that Iran knows that Saudi Airspace was not used for strikes against it by Israel or the United States, according to CNN.
Translation please
Been down there several times.
Fascinating
Should have ordered 4 more at the time. I was told on a visit that sites had been identified
I went down in 1992 and none of the turbines were running. The only time more than one had run was when Ken had found out that Mike Baldwin had been shagging Deirdre. It was emergency contingency
Last time I went down in 2016 mid June all were running the chamber was shaking, they said at that time almost always on.
Dubai really is in a pickle. Their whole shtick is “oasis of safety and stability” and sure, you can leave your phone on a table and it won’t be nicked, but people are super sensitive and averse to the possibility of being randomly bombed
If the war ends tomorrow it would still take a while for them to repair the reputational damage. But it seems unlikely the war will end tomorrow
1. The Iranians are going for the Samson Option - tear down the world - especially the Gulf States (not least because they can’t attack the USA directly, so the UAE etc is the next best thing)
2. If we get regime change then that will still be months or years of instability - right next to Dubai
3. If we don’t get regime change then a newly angry hostile Iran will make Dubai very uncomfortable
So I don’t see how the UAE, Qatar, etc, avoid serious damage of various kinds
On 1) replacing a monoculture field with solar panels or batteries is usually better, overall, for the environment. But this is lost on these folks. They are also the sort of people who complain about beavers taking out trees, or removing sheep from uplands.
On 2) not even worth trying to argue against this one. Nuclear has a very bad rep and it's difficult to shift.
"Our forces are now striking at the heart of Tehran with increasing intensity, and this will only intensify further in the coming days.
We are in a campaign in which we are bringing the full power of the IDF to bear, as never before, in order to ensure our existence and our future.
The combined effort with the United States enables us to do what I have long sought to do for 40 years — to decisively strike the terror regime."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn5ge95q6y7t
We should be using the RAF and our full military and intelligence power to support them.
Building a decent and successful society in a divided, traumatised and heavily armed country with no tradition of good government is infinitely harder, and Trump and Netanyahu are the two last people in the world who should be trying to do it.
But we are where we are, and for the sake of Iran and the Middle East I wish them luck now they've started.
Persia has a long and dignified history.
The picture for the Gulf nations is clear - don't piss off the US, but they really have no security from their friendship with the Great Oaf. It's going to be increasingly attractive for them to build better relations with China. US diplomats are going to have to work very hard in the region.