If you go by median wealth, which seems like it'd be more representative of the average citizen, then a UK adult is more than twice as wealthy than one from Germany or the USA.
I'd like to see figures on net wealth. A lot of my contemporaries are asset rich, but still have eye-wateringly large mortgages and personal debt.
That describes the UK perfectly.
Goodness - I just assumed it must mean net wealth - I don't owe a penny to anyone - can't see the point of paying debt interest if you don't need to.
Friends of mine are mortgaged to the hilt (on interest-only mortgages to boot). They've used their equity to fund school fees plus a (modestly) rock and roll lifestyle. We were always figures of of fun with our shabby, abstemious existence (e.g. 10 year old cars of the Ford/Vauxhall variety, holidays in exotic Sutherland etc). I don't think our friends are particularly unusual.
*edit* Grammar, idiot.
I've never understood how people expect to live on debt. I borrowed a few thousand in my 30s to pay some other debts off and it took nearly 5 years to get straight. Never again. Now I can buy pretty well whatever I want with cash. Having said that my tastes are fairly modest.
Yeah, but if you think about it, if you can manage to die with massively negative net worth then you've successfully spent far more than you've earned over your life.
Yes but I have a sense of right and wrong and that's worth a lot more to me than any amount of money or debt.
In September 2015 it was publicly revealed [224] that the Concorde Club had secured over £160 million to return an aircraft to service. [225]
Concorde Club president Paul James said: “The main obstacle to any Concorde project to date has been ‘Where’s the money?’ – a question we heard ad nauseam, until we found an investor. Now that money is no longer the problem it’s over to those who can help us make it happen.”[226] The organisation aims to buy the Concorde currently on display at Le Bourget airport. A tentative date of 2019 has been put forward for the first flight - 50 years after its maiden journey.[227]
If you go by median wealth, which seems like it'd be more representative of the average citizen, then a UK adult is more than twice as wealthy than one from Germany or the USA.
I'd like to see figures on net wealth. A lot of my contemporaries are asset rich, but still have eye-wateringly large mortgages and personal debt.
That describes the UK perfectly.
Goodness - I just assumed it must mean net wealth - I don't owe a penny to anyone - can't see the point of paying debt interest if you don't need to.
Friends of mine are mortgaged to the hilt (on interest-only mortgages to boot). They've used their equity to fund school fees plus a (modestly) rock and roll lifestyle. We were always figures of of fun with our shabby, abstemious existence (e.g. 10 year old cars of the Ford/Vauxhall variety, holidays in exotic Sutherland etc). I don't think our friends are particularly unusual.
*edit* Grammar, idiot.
I've never understood how people expect to live on debt. I borrowed a few thousand in my 30s to pay some other debts off and it took nearly 5 years to get straight. Never again. Now I can buy pretty well whatever I want with cash. Having said that my tastes are fairly modest.
Yeah, but if you think about it, if you can manage to die with massively negative net worth then you've successfully spent far more than you've earned over your life.
As I'm feeling nostalgic for my late Granny, let's go with 'no pockets in a shroud'. That woman was a walking repository of adages, proverbs and old saws. Damn, I miss her.
I think Zac doesn't really like airports at all but particularly not Heathrow.
Not even Boris island ?
Heathrow is awful and 3 runways will surely only make it worse ?
Maybe, but on the other hand the transport links are vastly better than Gatwick and could be enhanced with relative ease.
Gatwick would also affect some areas of unspoilt countryside, which are scarce enough as it is in SE England.
Disclaimer: I live in Sussex, so I might not be entirely free of interest in this!
Living in Cambridge, Gatwick would be an awful choice for me - horrendous to get there.
Train to King's Cross then Thameslink direct to Gatwick, right? Surely that's easier than Heathrow.
Why bother with Heathrow, getting to Stansted is easy.
Can't fly to the US from Stansted.
Yes you can!
Although it's "seasonal" (ie. not all-year), Thomas Cook can fly you to Vegas, and Orlando (and Cancun in Mexico), and Thomson can also fly you to Orlando.
If you go by median wealth, which seems like it'd be more representative of the average citizen, then a UK adult is more than twice as wealthy than one from Germany or the USA.
I'd like to see figures on net wealth. A lot of my contemporaries are asset rich, but still have eye-wateringly large mortgages and personal debt.
That describes the UK perfectly.
Goodness - I just assumed it must mean net wealth - I don't owe a penny to anyone - can't see the point of paying debt interest if you don't need to.
Friends of mine are mortgaged to the hilt (on interest-only mortgages to boot). They've used their equity to fund school fees plus a (modestly) rock and roll lifestyle. We were always figures of of fun with our shabby, abstemious existence (e.g. 10 year old cars of the Ford/Vauxhall variety, holidays in exotic Sutherland etc). I don't think our friends are particularly unusual.
*edit* Grammar, idiot.
I've never understood how people expect to live on debt. I borrowed a few thousand in my 30s to pay some other debts off and it took nearly 5 years to get straight. Never again. Now I can buy pretty well whatever I want with cash. Having said that my tastes are fairly modest.
Yeah, but if you think about it, if you can manage to die with massively negative net worth then you've successfully spent far more than you've earned over your life.
Crazy amounts of cheap/zero credit sloshing round at the moment, combined with alot of (relatively) high interest bank accounts. Arbers paradise.
I think Zac doesn't really like airports at all but particularly not Heathrow.
Not even Boris island ?
Heathrow is awful and 3 runways will surely only make it worse ?
Maybe, but on the other hand the transport links are vastly better than Gatwick and could be enhanced with relative ease.
Gatwick would also affect some areas of unspoilt countryside, which are scarce enough as it is in SE England.
Disclaimer: I live in Sussex, so I might not be entirely free of interest in this!
Living in Cambridge, Gatwick would be an awful choice for me - horrendous to get there.
Train to King's Cross then Thameslink direct to Gatwick, right? Surely that's easier than Heathrow.
Why bother with Heathrow, getting to Stansted is easy.
Can't fly to the US from Stansted.
Yes you can!
Although it's "seasonal" (ie. not all-year), Thomas Cook can fly you to Vegas, and Orlando (and Cancun in Mexico), and Thomson can also fly you to Orlando.
What is the marginal cost point at which Saudi (And others) start seeing red ink on oil 'contribution' ?
I don't understand the question. Do you mean what is the price at which Saudi Arabia's national oil company is unable to make (any) remittances back to their government?
Saudi Arabia faces a Hobson’s Choice: cut now and improve the outcome for producers in the United States, Russia and Canada; or maintain production and see the oil price remain at the current depressed levels for some time. Irrespective, while oil prices are likely to rebound from their current sub $50 level, they are unlikely to remain above $60 for a sustained period of time, a clear positive for world economic growth.
You'll 'rue the day'......to borrow a phrase......
In September 2015 it was publicly revealed [224] that the Concorde Club had secured over £160 million to return an aircraft to service. [225]
Concorde Club president Paul James said: “The main obstacle to any Concorde project to date has been ‘Where’s the money?’ – a question we heard ad nauseam, until we found an investor. Now that money is no longer the problem it’s over to those who can help us make it happen.”[226] The organisation aims to buy the Concorde currently on display at Le Bourget airport. A tentative date of 2019 has been put forward for the first flight - 50 years after its maiden journey.[227]
AIUI they'll have to persuade Rolls Royce and ?BAE /EASA? to allow them to have type certificate. That's very, very unlikely to happen. There is a lower, experimental, class of certificate, but that wouldn't be able to carry passengers.
But IANAE.
It's more likely that one gets revived for research purposes, as happened to a Konkordski twenty years ago.
What is the marginal cost point at which Saudi (And others) start seeing red ink on oil 'contribution' ?
SA is already running a massive deficit (it's around 20% p.a). In response, King Salman is making poor decisions (cutting capital expenditure, not social subsidies). The Kingdom needs oil to be north of $100 p.b. to break even (it's not alone - no one is profitable @ 45$ p.b.). At this rate it'll run its war chest dry in less than five years.
Of course, their response is based on political, not economic, grounds. One day the Salafist pigeon is going to come home to roost -they'll do anything to postpone that day.
What is the marginal cost point at which Saudi (And others) start seeing red ink on oil 'contribution' ?
I don't understand the question. Do you mean what is the price at which Saudi Arabia's national oil company is unable to make (any) remittances back to their government?
Yes, I guess.
I mean the point at which it costs them more to pump 1 'more' gallon out the ground than the cost of pumping that gallon.
I think Zac doesn't really like airports at all but particularly not Heathrow.
Not even Boris island ?
Heathrow is awful and 3 runways will surely only make it worse ?
Maybe, but on the other hand the transport links are vastly better than Gatwick and could be enhanced with relative ease.
Gatwick would also affect some areas of unspoilt countryside, which are scarce enough as it is in SE England.
Disclaimer: I live in Sussex, so I might not be entirely free of interest in this!
Living in Cambridge, Gatwick would be an awful choice for me - horrendous to get there.
Train to King's Cross then Thameslink direct to Gatwick, right? Surely that's easier than Heathrow.
Why bother with Heathrow, getting to Stansted is easy.
Can't fly to the US from Stansted.
Yes you can!
Although it's "seasonal" (ie. not all-year), Thomas Cook can fly you to Vegas, and Orlando (and Cancun in Mexico), and Thomson can also fly you to Orlando.
In September 2015 it was publicly revealed [224] that the Concorde Club had secured over £160 million to return an aircraft to service. [225]
Concorde Club president Paul James said: “The main obstacle to any Concorde project to date has been ‘Where’s the money?’ – a question we heard ad nauseam, until we found an investor. Now that money is no longer the problem it’s over to those who can help us make it happen.”[226] The organisation aims to buy the Concorde currently on display at Le Bourget airport. A tentative date of 2019 has been put forward for the first flight - 50 years after its maiden journey.[227]
AIUI they'll have to persuade Rolls Royce and ?BAE /EASA? to allow them to have type certificate. That's very, very unlikely to happen. There is a lower, experimental, class of certificate, but that wouldn't be able to carry passengers.
But IANAE.
It's more likely that one gets revived for research purposes, as happened to a Konkordski twenty years ago.
It seems to be Airbus in fact who is the type authority. But another potential issue has to be noise, certainly in airline service (as opposed to a charter flight and back out into the Atlantic). Did it not have a derogation for operation from LHR even in the 1970s-80s? That was quite separate from sonic bangs.
What is the marginal cost point at which Saudi (And others) start seeing red ink on oil 'contribution' ?
I don't understand the question. Do you mean what is the price at which Saudi Arabia's national oil company is unable to make (any) remittances back to their government?
I mean the point at which it costs them more to pump 1 'more' gallon out the ground than the cost of that gallon.
The straight "lifting" cost of the oil is very low; perhaps $4-8 in the Middle East. If you look around the world, lifting cost rises to a high of about $30 in the Canadian oil sands.
What is the marginal cost point at which Saudi (And others) start seeing red ink on oil 'contribution' ?
SA is already running a massive deficit (it's around 20% p.a). In response, King Salman is making poor decisions (cutting capital expenditure, not social subsidies). The Kingdom needs oil to be north of $100 p.b. to break even (it's not alone - no one is profitable @ 45$ p.b.). At this rate it'll run its war chest dry in less than five years.
Of course, their response is based on political, not economic, grounds. One day the Salafist pigeon is going to come home to roost -they'll do anything to postpone that day.
The problem is that if they cut production, then the main winners are US and Canadian companies, who will take up the slack.
What is the marginal cost point at which Saudi (And others) start seeing red ink on oil 'contribution' ?
I don't understand the question. Do you mean what is the price at which Saudi Arabia's national oil company is unable to make (any) remittances back to their government?
Yes, I guess.
I mean the point at which it costs them more to pump 1 'more' gallon out the ground than the cost of pumping that gallon.
As I understand the Marginal cost of Oil Production is exceptionally low, the lowest in the would, from memory in the 15$-20$ range.
I see the Heathrow decision is being kicked down the road again, perhaps to next autumn. Not being political or anything, but isn't this getting silly? Is the Government's strategy to bore us into submission so that when they eventually make a proposal we all accept it in sheer relief?
Do you have a link for that, Nick? I can't see anything on the Beeb or Guardian
Edit: There's something on the Guardian live blog, but it's unclear quite what it means.
Yes, my source is the Bibl...er, the Guardian blog . I agree it's a bit unclear but their comparison with Times and Sun sources looks credible, and it's not exactly a surprise.
I wonder how many people would REALLY change their votes over Heathrow anyway? I know Tories who say they won't vote Zac because they want Heathrow extended, but I suspect they'll go Tory in the end, since a pro-Heathrow candidate is not evident.
There was some odd polling mentioned in passing in CityAM - that 70% of people in the neighbouring constitutencies favoured expansion.
I'm guessing that is defined quite tightly (I assume Richmond, etc are not "neighbouring"?) but if so then perhaps it is because of how it splits (Labour supporting workers like jobs, LibDem/Tory waverering professionals want to protect Flossie's ear-drums)
What is the marginal cost point at which Saudi (And others) start seeing red ink on oil 'contribution' ?
I don't understand the question. Do you mean what is the price at which Saudi Arabia's national oil company is unable to make (any) remittances back to their government?
Yes, I guess.
I mean the point at which it costs them more to pump 1 'more' gallon out the ground than the cost of pumping that gallon.
As I understand the Marginal cost of Oil Production is exceptionally low, the lowest in the would, from memory in the 15$-20$ range.
However that's not the only thing to look at.
No, but it gives you a definitive "potential rock bottom" to the market.
I think Zac doesn't really like airports at all but particularly not Heathrow.
Not even Boris island ?
Heathrow is awful and 3 runways will surely only make it worse ?
Maybe, but on the other hand the transport links are vastly better than Gatwick and could be enhanced with relative ease.
Gatwick would also affect some areas of unspoilt countryside, which are scarce enough as it is in SE England.
Disclaimer: I live in Sussex, so I might not be entirely free of interest in this!
Living in Cambridge, Gatwick would be an awful choice for me - horrendous to get there.
Train to King's Cross then Thameslink direct to Gatwick, right? Surely that's easier than Heathrow.
Why bother with Heathrow, getting to Stansted is easy.
Can't fly to the US from Stansted.
Yes you can!
Although it's "seasonal" (ie. not all-year), Thomas Cook can fly you to Vegas, and Orlando (and Cancun in Mexico), and Thomson can also fly you to Orlando.
Trump is in fact symptomatic of American politics and the zeitgeist ; he represents the intertwining of politics , the entertainment industry and ''charisma '' It started with radio in the 1930s and Roosevelt's fireside chats , Father Coughlin's broadcasts and the seduction by the medium of radio ! ...Incidentally , that was part of Hitler's success with his soft Viennese accent
The rise of cinema and then TV killed the radio star and put a premium on youth , being photogenic and Hollwood-esque that contributed to the success of Kennedy and the Camelot romance
The Hollywood connection rose again in 1980 when a charismatic communicator and handsome former actor Ronald Reagan rode onto the scene ...it resurfaced again in 1992 when a little known but charismatic governor from Arkansas, Bill Clinton , was able to defeat an aging , respected President with the recent Gulf War success
It rose again in 2008 when a young inexperienced but charismatic Senator from Chicago took the Democratic nomination away from the aging Hillary and then soundly defeated the senior Senator and Vietnam war hero John Mccain
There is a pattern forming here whereby youth , charisma and Hollywood-esque ''Star Appeal '' beats age , experience and gravitas ...indeed , Obama was the first ''American Idol President ''..he was young , handsome , had good teeth and a seductive voice , was ''sexy '' and could even sing and dance ...what's not to like about that ? Many of the folks who voted for him used the same criteria they use when voting for A I ....I wonder if they even recognise the difference ? If Obama had not been president he would of been a talk show host like Opr
Interesting post, the one throwaway line which surprised me was the fact that Hitler had a "soft Viennese accent". We mostly see him in clips from the rallies where it's not much in evidence.
++++
The typical bombastic speeches of Hitler cloud the other side of Hitler's personality which was shy , prudish and bashful , in some ways like Michael Jackson who became switched on and animated the moment he stepped on stage but afterwards was shy and reclusive Hitler probably never had sexual relations with a woman until he was in his 30s ....when he was a famous upcoming politician in the late 1920s and approaching 40 he was going out with a 16 yr old girl Mimi Reiter ...some women thought Hitler a ''neuter '' ...apparently he had a soft charming Viennese accent when not animated by politics
It will, of course, take a generation for us to wean ourselves meaningfully off oil and gas. But as we are weaning the price thereof will remain depressed. I don't see that there is an awful lot of light at the end of the tunnel for the Saudis, Russians, Venezuelans, etc as they have constucted for themselves national business models with failure baked in. Technology is also playing a massive role. The USA can get at shale reserves VERY cost effectively - which creates a new ceiling on price as the USA becomes the swing producer. But there is also more fundamentally disruptive technology moving along. Solar is already cost competitive in some locales. Wind too in some places (China). As and when we get way better batteries the whole intermittence problem of renewables becomes less of an issue. At which point the volume not just the price of oil collapses. The petro-kleptocracies and petro-theocracies have only themselves to blame. It was never going to last forever. What will the Middle East have to offer the world in 30 years' time? They're fu<ked. Their elites face the fury of the mob for decades to come. Try not to snigger at the back!
Just read the letter from Tusk. Reads to me like someone preparing to concede on the four years issue but not on a veto for Euro outs (which I always imagined to be impossible to agree). May not happen yet but given everyone said Cameron would never achieve the four year thing, if he does I wonder who will give him credit for it?
Mr. Cromwell, possibly excepting in his youth Basil II didn't seem that interested in sex.
It's worth noting that the most under-represented (in the media) of sexualities is probably asexuality, where people just aren't really interested.
Indeed the only recurring character I cam think of on any shows I watch who I would describe as asexual is Dr Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory. But even there the writers seem to be transitioning his character (at a glacial pace) from asexual to heterosexual.
In this table based on the Scotiabank Equity Research and Scotiabank Economics report published 28 November 2014,[24] economist Mohr compares the cost of cumulative crude oil production in the fall of 2014.
Place Cost of production in northern hemisphere autumn 2014 Saudi Arabia US$10–25 per barrel Montney Oil Alberta and British Columbia US$46 Saskatchewan Bakken US$47 Eagle Ford, USA Shale+ US$40–50 (+ Liquids-rich Eagle Ford plays, assuming natural gas prices of US$3.80 per mmbtu) Lloyd & Seal Conventional Heavy, AB US$50 Conventional Light, Alberta and Saskatchewan US$58.50 Nebraska USA Shale US$58.50 SAGD Bitumen Alberta US$65 North Dakota Bakken, Shale US$54–79 Permian Basin, TX Shale US$59–82 Oil sands legacy projects US$53 Oil sands mining and infrastructure new projects US$90
In 1998 the oil price hit around $17.00 & the Saudi's had massive internal spending cuts.
Problem for the existing producers is around 1 million barrels a day are due to come on the open market from Iran post sanctions and even more from Iraq when the conflict finally ends.
According to the seminar I attended a couple of weeks ago the oil price needs to be around $60 a barrel for Shale producers to open new sites.
In this table based on the Scotiabank Equity Research and Scotiabank Economics report published 28 November 2014,[24] economist Mohr compares the cost of cumulative crude oil production in the fall of 2014.
Place Cost of production in northern hemisphere autumn 2014 Saudi Arabia US$10–25 per barrel Montney Oil Alberta and British Columbia US$46 Saskatchewan Bakken US$47 Eagle Ford, USA Shale+ US$40–50 (+ Liquids-rich Eagle Ford plays, assuming natural gas prices of US$3.80 per mmbtu) Lloyd & Seal Conventional Heavy, AB US$50 Conventional Light, Alberta and Saskatchewan US$58.50 Nebraska USA Shale US$58.50 SAGD Bitumen Alberta US$65 North Dakota Bakken, Shale US$54–79 Permian Basin, TX Shale US$59–82 Oil sands legacy projects US$53 Oil sands mining and infrastructure new projects US$90
In 1998 the oil price hit around $17.00 & the Saudi's had massive internal spending cuts.
Problem for the existing producers is around 1 million barrels a day are due to come on the open market from Iran post sanctions and even more from Iraq when the conflict finally ends.
According to the seminar I attended a couple of weeks ago the oil price needs to be around $60 a barrel for Shale producers to open new sites.
Those numbers are "all in" and contain capital expenditure as well as operating costs.
Just read the letter from Tusk. Reads to me like someone preparing to concede on the four years issue but not on a veto for Euro outs (which I always imagined to be impossible to agree). May not happen yet but given everyone said Cameron would never achieve the four year thing, if he does I wonder who will give him credit for it?
Really? My interpretation is Tusk telling Cameron to feck off.
It will, of course, take a generation for us to wean ourselves meaningfully off oil and gas. But as we are weaning the price thereof will remain depressed. I don't see that there is an awful lot of light at the end of the tunnel for the Saudis, Russians, Venezuelans, etc as they have constucted for themselves national business models with failure baked in. Technology is also playing a massive role. The USA can get at shale reserves VERY cost effectively - which creates a new ceiling on price as the USA becomes the swing producer. But there is also more fundamentally disruptive technology moving along. Solar is already cost competitive in some locales. Wind too in some places (China). As and when we get way better batteries the whole intermittence problem of renewables becomes less of an issue. At which point the volume not just the price of oil collapses. The petro-kleptocracies and petro-theocracies have only themselves to blame. It was never going to last forever. What will the Middle East have to offer the world in 30 years' time? They're fu
It will, of course, take a generation for us to wean ourselves meaningfully off oil and gas. But as we are weaning the price thereof will remain depressed. I don't see that there is an awful lot of light at the end of the tunnel for the Saudis, Russians, Venezuelans, etc as they have constucted for themselves national business models with failure baked in. Technology is also playing a massive role. The USA can get at shale reserves VERY cost effectively - which creates a new ceiling on price as the USA becomes the swing producer. But there is also more fundamentally disruptive technology moving along. Solar is already cost competitive in some locales. Wind too in some places (China). As and when we get way better batteries the whole intermittence problem of renewables becomes less of an issue. At which point the volume not just the price of oil collapses. The petro-kleptocracies and petro-theocracies have only themselves to blame. It was never going to last forever. What will the Middle East have to offer the world in 30 years' time? They're fu
I see the Heathrow decision is being kicked down the road again, perhaps to next autumn. Not being political or anything, but isn't this getting silly? Is the Government's strategy to bore us into submission so that when they eventually make a proposal we all accept it in sheer relief?
Do you have a link for that, Nick? I can't see anything on the Beeb or Guardian
Edit: There's something on the Guardian live blog, but it's unclear quite what it means.
Yes, my source is the Bibl...er, the Guardian blog . I agree it's a bit unclear but their comparison with Times and Sun sources looks credible, and it's not exactly a surprise.
I wonder how many people would REALLY change their votes over Heathrow anyway? I know Tories who say they won't vote Zac because they want Heathrow extended, but I suspect they'll go Tory in the end, since a pro-Heathrow candidate is not evident.
There was some odd polling mentioned in passing in CityAM - that 70% of people in the neighbouring constitutencies favoured expansion.
I'm guessing that is defined quite tightly (I assume Richmond, etc are not "neighbouring"?) but if so then perhaps it is because of how it splits (Labour supporting workers like jobs, LibDem/Tory waverering professionals want to protect Flossie's ear-drums)
I used to leave in the area (a few years ago now) and that sounds about right, most people are broadly in favour of it, however the 30% ish that are against are veamatly against it, and will set up all sorts of campaign groups and go on protest, and ultimately switch there vote against it, the 70% who back expansion, just think on balance things will be better.
Personally, I would approve 2 new runways for Heathrow, one new at each of Gatwick and Stansted, and any other airport that asked. then let the Free market decide witch one (or more than one) and expand it. And do it ASAP!
The extra capacity, would enable grater economic growth for the locale area and the whole country, it would provide the capacity to keep open air links between London and other bits of the UK, and direct air links with many more parts of the would including developing city's in Africa, Asia and South America.
I know some local people will adopt a NIMBY attitude, but we don't have to indulge it, and anyway expanded airports tend to increase house prises, so they could always sell up and move elsewhere.
It will, of course, take a generation for us to wean ourselves meaningfully off oil and gas. But as we are weaning the price thereof will remain depressed. I don't see that there is an awful lot of light at the end of the tunnel for the Saudis, Russians, Venezuelans, etc as they have constucted for themselves national business models with failure baked in. Technology is also playing a massive role. The USA can get at shale reserves VERY cost effectively - which creates a new ceiling on price as the USA becomes the swing producer. But there is also more fundamentally disruptive technology moving along. Solar is already cost competitive in some locales. Wind too in some places (China). As and when we get way better batteries the whole intermittence problem of renewables becomes less of an issue. At which point the volume not just the price of oil collapses. The petro-kleptocracies and petro-theocracies have only themselves to blame. It was never going to last forever. What will the Middle East have to offer the world in 30 years' time? They're fu
I think that's absolutely right.
We may be coming to the end of the oil age.
Robert, thanks for linking your fascinating paper - it's unusual to read something with such a broad sweep. I'm particularly interested to see that the UK uses around 80% of the oil it did twenty years ago, and that trend appears to be continuing.
Musk and the Chinese powering the solar/electric car revolution, ISIS potentially being turned against them. US shale. Shia dominated Iran, Iraq...
Saudi Arabia has it's share of problems.
The problem with battery cars is the question will become not who controls the oil, but who controls the rare earths required to make them in the sort of bulk required ...
(Hint: China)
Although peak-rare-earths might just go the same way as peak-oil. As price goes up, so do exploitable reserves.
* Well, it may work. Or may not. Depends whether those clever people in Australia in February correctly predict which strain of influenza will be dominant one in Europe in autumn.
This may sound exactly the same as the situation with with all other influenza vaccines.
That's because SWINE FLU IS F**KING INFLUENZA. IT'S NOT SPECIAL. The media thinks it's more exciting to call it "swine flu" or "avian influenza" but it's all the same f**king thing.
Musk and the Chinese powering the solar/electric car revolution, ISIS potentially being turned against them. US shale. Shia dominated Iran, Iraq...
Saudi Arabia has it's share of problems.
The problem with battery cars is the question will become not who controls the oil, but who controls the rare earths required to make them in the sort of bulk required ...
(Hint: China)
Although peak-rare-earths might just go the same way as peak-oil. As price goes up, so do exploitable reserves.
How the f##k can a country cope with 1.5 million new people just like that. Housing, schools, etc etc etc.
It can't
It can, it becomes just like the country all the newcomers have left
Well quite, but in the meantime who will teach all the children that can't speak German. Merkel is going to leave an awful mess
The teachers among the refugees I guess.. should help build a cohesive society!
I imagine there are a fair few Germans feeling pretty cheated right now. They were told there would be countless doctors, nurses and engineers. From what I have read, businesses with specific schemes to help the migrants have struggled to recruit as they lack the skills required.
Completely OT. 'Carol'. Set in 1952. Rooney Mara and Cate Blanchett become lovers. The charm of 'Brief Encounter' with the panache of 'Un homme et Une femme' set in an Edward Hopper landscape. My film of the year by a distance
Hello, rcs1000 - thanks for the link to your article, and I agree with John_M that it was most interesting and informative. I have one question, does the current distress in the energy segment of the US high yield bond market affect your argument re future US shale production. If investors lose a lot of money on these bonds in the near future, then wont that deter them from funding new drilling in the years to come, (and isn't that deterrent factor the reason behind the Saudi's decision to drive prices down)?
It will, of course, take a generation for us to wean ourselves meaningfully off oil and gas. But as we are weaning the price thereof will remain depressed. I don't see that there is an awful lot of light at the end of the tunnel for the Saudis, Russians, Venezuelans, etc as they have constucted for themselves national business models with failure baked in. Technology is also playing a massive role. The USA can get at shale reserves VERY cost effectively - which creates a new ceiling on price as the USA becomes the swing producer. But there is also more fundamentally disruptive technology moving along. Solar is already cost competitive in some locales. Wind too in some places (China). As and when we get way better batteries the whole intermittence problem of renewables becomes less of an issue. At which point the volume not just the price of oil collapses. The petro-kleptocracies and petro-theocracies have only themselves to blame. It was never going to last forever. What will the Middle East have to offer the world in 30 years' time? They're fu
I think that's absolutely right.
We may be coming to the end of the oil age.
The Stone age did not end because they ran out of stone.
The Bronze age did not end because they ran out of Bronze
The Iron Age did not end because they ran out of Iron.
and
The Hydrocarbon age will not end because we run out of Hydrocarbons.
It will end when we invent/discover something better, which may well be Wind and/or solar.
I just hope we don't tax and regulate are selves back to the stone age, in a misguided attempt to get us to where we will go anyway.
David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.
Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.
RUBIO is going to be the next US President because he just ticks so many boxes and is the Republican most Hollywood-esque and in the zeitgeist
It may well seem like chaos , a maze of twists and turns . but in retrospect it will come into clear focus that Rubio was always going to win ; as inevitable as water finding its way down a hill ..look upon it as a form of political evolution in process
Naturally , he could still lose but only to a ''black swan event '' IE an event unpredictable but with catastrophic consequences
He could get caught in flagrante dilecti as in Gary Hart in 1988 , or God forbid , be assassinated by a radicalised Arab like Bobby Kennedy was in 1968 , or even be the victim of a tragic aircraft disaster like Paul Wellstone ...it could happen ,but he would have to be very , very unlucky ...it seems to me that Rubio with his sunny optimisn is a lucky politician ; indeed , it's much more likely that he will simply become the next POTUS
Mr. Eagles, mildly amused that the democratically elected leader of the government is being accused of arrogance by not allowing the unelected peers to try and gerrymander a vote.
Incidentally, his stance speaks of at least some confidence in winning for Remain (and rightly so, in my view).
David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.
Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.
Arrogant seems like an odd word choice for that action. Some will think it a good idea, some a bad one, and others might think stopping the plans might be good but this is not the way to do it, but how is it arrogant? It's defeating something he doesn't like, I don't see how arrogance or humility comes into it.
David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.
Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.
Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.
If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.
RUBIO is going to be the next US President because he just ticks so many boxes and is the Republican most Hollywood-esque and in the zeitgeist
It may well seem like chaos , a maze of twists and turns . but in retrospect it will come into clear focus that Rubio was always going to win ; as inevitable as water finding its way down a hill ..look upon it as a form of political evolution in process
Naturally , he could still lose but only to a ''black swan event '' IE an event unpredictable but with catastrophic consequences
He could get caught in flagrante dilecti as in Gary Hart in 1988 , or God forbid , be assassinated by a radicalised Arab like Bobby Kennedy was in 1968 , or even be the victim of a tragic aircraft disaster like Paul Wellstone ...it could happen ,but he would have to be very , very unlucky ...it seems to me that Rubio with his sunny optimisn is a lucky politician ; indeed , it's much more likely that he will simply become the next POTUS
Mr. Eagles, mildly amused that the democratically elected leader of the government is being accused of arrogance by not allowing the unelected peers to try and gerrymander a vote.
Incidentally, his stance speaks of at least some confidence in winning for Remain (and rightly so, in my view).
Indeed, I might be cruel and dig out the comments from some Leavers who were convinced that Cameron was going to give the vote to 16 and 17 year olds.
David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.
Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.
Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.
If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.
There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.
Say what you like about Ken Livingstone but he made London safe for property developers.
Most of the new tall buildings in central London have been good to very good architecturally, IMO (with the notable exception of the 'walkie-talkie'). But the proposed One Undershaft is just an ugly slab which looks as though it's had to be shored up with struts designed by a particularly insensitive structural engineer.
If it is let it at least be renamed. One Undershaft? What kind of name is that.
It would be its address. Undershaft is a road.
I get that but similar skyscrapers that have been built lately have names that supersede the address don't they? The Gherkin is not its address is it? It's the name.
David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.
Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.
Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.
If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.
There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.
That's not a mandate.
We live in a representative democracy.
A majority of representatives do not support the extension of voting rights to children
Mr. Fire, those parties also support not having the Conservatives in government.
Percentage of the vote is irrelevant. MPs make the PM.
And as we hear a lot, just as the Tories cannot assume everyone who voted for them supports everything in their manifesto, nor can all those disparate parties take for granted that everyone who voted for them supports that particular policy (I voted LD and don't support lowering the voting age to 16, though I think it inevitable at this point).
David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.
Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.
Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.
If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.
There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.
That's not a mandate.
We live in a representative democracy.
A majority of representatives do not support the extension of voting rights to children
Exactly! If they want children to get the vote then propose it as primary legislation in its own right in the elected chamber and let the Lords review that legislation. Of course they lack a majority in the elected chamber hence why they're trying to short circuit it by proposing this as an amendment on an unrelated issue.
David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.
Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.
Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.
If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.
There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.
But this is not a proposal to reduce the voting age to 16 for all elections and referendums...!
If it is let it at least be renamed. One Undershaft? What kind of name is that.
It would be its address. Undershaft is a road.
I get that but similar skyscrapers that have been built lately have names that supersede the address don't they? The Gherkin is not its address is it? It's the name.
This ought to have a name too.
And it will, but the names have all been bestowed by Londoners, not by the architects.
If it is let it at least be renamed. One Undershaft? What kind of name is that.
It would be its address. Undershaft is a road.
I get that but similar skyscrapers that have been built lately have names that supersede the address don't they? The Gherkin is not its address is it? It's the name.
This ought to have a name too.
It is a bit boring though. The Gherkin, Shard, Cheesegrater and Walkie Talkie have interesting designs which help get them their well known names.
If it is let it at least be renamed. One Undershaft? What kind of name is that.
It would be its address. Undershaft is a road.
I get that but similar skyscrapers that have been built lately have names that supersede the address don't they? The Gherkin is not its address is it? It's the name.
This ought to have a name too.
The proper name for the Gherkin is 30 St Mary Axe. The Gherkin is just a nickname and I believe that name has no formal standing. This one is going to struggle to get a nickname (though the block it is due to replace isn't exactly particularly eye-catching either).
Mr. Fire, those parties also support not having the Conservatives in government.
Percentage of the vote is irrelevant. MPs make the PM.
Hard to argue there is "no mandate" for a change over half the population support
No it's not. Those parties lost the election which is why this isn't being introduced by their government. If a government is formed that has this in its election manifesto then that would be a mandate that is democracy. But it should be introduced as a reform in its own right to affect all future votes not be tacked on as an amendment to just one.
David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.
Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.
Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.
If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.
There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.
That's not a mandate.
We live in a representative democracy.
A majority of representatives do not support the extension of voting rights to children
Then why have an EU referendum at all? Why not trust our glorious representatives to do the right thing?
Say what you like about Ken Livingstone but he made London safe for property developers.
Most of the new tall buildings in central London have been good to very good architecturally, IMO (with the notable exception of the 'walkie-talkie'). But the proposed One Undershaft is just an ugly slab which looks as though it's had to be shored up with struts designed by a particularly insensitive structural engineer.
David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.
Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.
Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.
If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.
There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.
That's not a mandate.
We live in a representative democracy.
A majority of representatives do not support the extension of voting rights to children
Then why have an EU referendum at all? Why not trust our glorious representatives to do the right thing?
Because we elected a government that had a referendum in its manifesto. Spot a pattern here?
David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.
Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.
Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.
If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.
There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.
That's not a mandate.
We live in a representative democracy.
A majority of representatives do not support the extension of voting rights to children
Then why have an EU referendum at all? Why not trust our glorious representatives to do the right thing?
Because the elected representatives have decided that we should have a referendum.
If it is let it at least be renamed. One Undershaft? What kind of name is that.
It would be its address. Undershaft is a road.
I get that but similar skyscrapers that have been built lately have names that supersede the address don't they? The Gherkin is not its address is it? It's the name.
This ought to have a name too.
1 Canada Square = Canary Wharf 20 Fenchurch Street = Walkie-talkie 30 St Mary Axe = Gherkin 32 London Bridge Street = Das Shard 110 Bishopsgate = Heron Tower 122 Leadenhall St = Cheese-grater
If it is let it at least be renamed. One Undershaft? What kind of name is that.
It would be its address. Undershaft is a road.
I get that but similar skyscrapers that have been built lately have names that supersede the address don't they? The Gherkin is not its address is it? It's the name.
This ought to have a name too.
1 Canada Square = Canary Wharf 20 Fenchurch Street = Walkie-talkie 30 St Mary Axe = Gherkin 32 London Bridge Street = Das Shard 110 Bishopsgate = Heron Tower 122 Leadenhall St = Cheese-grater
If it is let it at least be renamed. One Undershaft? What kind of name is that.
It would be its address. Undershaft is a road.
I get that but similar skyscrapers that have been built lately have names that supersede the address don't they? The Gherkin is not its address is it? It's the name.
This ought to have a name too.
It is a bit boring though. The Gherkin, Shard, Cheesegrater and Walkie Talkie have interesting designs which help get them their well known names.
It's like a stack of Borg cubes. Not sure how to get a catchy name out of that, though
Mr. Fire, those parties also support not having the Conservatives in government.
Percentage of the vote is irrelevant. MPs make the PM.
And as we hear a lot, just as the Tories cannot assume everyone who voted for them supports everything in their manifesto, nor can all those disparate parties take for granted that everyone who voted for them supports that particular policy (I voted LD and don't support lowering the voting age to 16, though I think it inevitable at this point).
I don't think it's inevitable at all. As a curiosity how many Westminster style democracies allow children to vote? I can't think of any off the top of my head.
As politics become more intertwined with Hollywood then it should become clear that Obama has shown the proto-type of politician who can win ; experience, wisdom and gravitas are no longer essentials but charisma , communication skills , being photogenic , young and handsome and in the zeitgeist are
Rubio combines the sunny optimism /happy warrior and communication skills of Reagan with the affable common touch, slick debating skills and ''poor boy came good '' persona of Bill Clinton and the youth , minority status and Hollywood-esque appeal of Obama ...he is in fact the only candidate on either side that combines these winning qualities
If it is let it at least be renamed. One Undershaft? What kind of name is that.
It would be its address. Undershaft is a road.
I get that but similar skyscrapers that have been built lately have names that supersede the address don't they? The Gherkin is not its address is it? It's the name.
This ought to have a name too.
It is a bit boring though. The Gherkin, Shard, Cheesegrater and Walkie Talkie have interesting designs which help get them their well known names.
It's like a stack of Borg cubes. Not sure how to get a catchy name out of that, though
If it is let it at least be renamed. One Undershaft? What kind of name is that.
It would be its address. Undershaft is a road.
I get that but similar skyscrapers that have been built lately have names that supersede the address don't they? The Gherkin is not its address is it? It's the name.
This ought to have a name too.
1 Canada Square = Canary Wharf 20 Fenchurch Street = Walkie-talkie 30 St Mary Axe = Gherkin 32 London Bridge Street = Das Shard 110 Bishopsgate = Heron Tower 122 Leadenhall St = Cheese-grater
Of these, I believe The Shard and Heron Tower are official.
If it is let it at least be renamed. One Undershaft? What kind of name is that.
It would be its address. Undershaft is a road.
I get that but similar skyscrapers that have been built lately have names that supersede the address don't they? The Gherkin is not its address is it? It's the name.
This ought to have a name too.
The proper name for the Gherkin is 30 St Mary Axe. The Gherkin is just a nickname and I believe that name has no formal standing. This one is going to struggle to get a nickname (though the block it is due to replace isn't exactly particularly eye-catching either).
London planners seem determined to ruin the London skyline.
Comments
Concorde Club president Paul James said: “The main obstacle to any Concorde project to date has been ‘Where’s the money?’ – a question we heard ad nauseam, until we found an investor. Now that money is no longer the problem it’s over to those who can help us make it happen.”[226] The organisation aims to buy the Concorde currently on display at Le Bourget airport. A tentative date of 2019 has been put forward for the first flight - 50 years after its maiden journey.[227]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde
NC Report December 4, 2015 29.8 22.7 17.8 15.6
GAD3 December 3, 2015 28.2 21.5 17.9 16.6
Update on Spanish GE polling - apologies editing goes all wonky when i post!
http://www.stanstedairport.com/flight-information/new-routes
There!
You'll 'rue the day'......to borrow a phrase......
But IANAE.
It's more likely that one gets revived for research purposes, as happened to a Konkordski twenty years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144#Use_by_NASA
Of course, their response is based on political, not economic, grounds. One day the Salafist pigeon is going to come home to roost -they'll do anything to postpone that day.
I mean the point at which it costs them more to pump 1 'more' gallon out the ground than the cost of pumping that gallon.
That's on a Thomas cook flight.
Thomson start their trans-Atlantic flights from Stansted in the new Year.
Thomas Cook already started their Cancun/Orlando/Las Vegas services in summer 2015.
Note that these were seasonal, over a limited number of weeks only.
http://airlineroute.net/2015/04/23/tcx-stn-jul15/
I wrote a big piece at the start of this year about why you shouldn't expect oil prices to bounce back quickly: http://www.thstailwinds.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/gushing-oklahoma.pdf
However that's not the only thing to look at.
I'm guessing that is defined quite tightly (I assume Richmond, etc are not "neighbouring"?) but if so then perhaps it is because of how it splits (Labour supporting workers like jobs, LibDem/Tory waverering professionals want to protect Flossie's ear-drums)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_City,_Iowa
The typical bombastic speeches of Hitler cloud the other side of Hitler's personality which was shy , prudish and bashful , in some ways like Michael Jackson who became switched on and animated the moment he stepped on stage but afterwards was shy and reclusive
Hitler probably never had sexual relations with a woman until he was in his 30s ....when he was a famous upcoming politician in the late 1920s and approaching 40 he was going out with a 16 yr old girl Mimi Reiter ...some women thought Hitler a ''neuter '' ...apparently he had a soft charming Viennese accent when not animated by politics
Technology is also playing a massive role. The USA can get at shale reserves VERY cost effectively - which creates a new ceiling on price as the USA becomes the swing producer. But there is also more fundamentally disruptive technology moving along. Solar is already cost competitive in some locales. Wind too in some places (China). As and when we get way better batteries the whole intermittence problem of renewables becomes less of an issue. At which point the volume not just the price of oil collapses. The petro-kleptocracies and petro-theocracies have only themselves to blame. It was never going to last forever. What will the Middle East have to offer the world in 30 years' time? They're fu<ked. Their elites face the fury of the mob for decades to come. Try not to snigger at the back!
"Many Uruguayans fed up with complaints from Syrian refugees"
http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-many-uruguayans-fed-up-with-complaints-from-syrian-refugees-2015-10?IR=T
It's worth noting that the most under-represented (in the media) of sexualities is probably asexuality, where people just aren't really interested.
http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/oil-prices-and-syrian-civil-war.php
I didn't think they would go willingly.
Comparative cost of production[edit]
In this table based on the Scotiabank Equity Research and Scotiabank Economics report published 28 November 2014,[24] economist Mohr compares the cost of cumulative crude oil production in the fall of 2014.
Place Cost of production in northern hemisphere autumn 2014
Saudi Arabia US$10–25 per barrel
Montney Oil Alberta and British Columbia US$46
Saskatchewan Bakken US$47
Eagle Ford, USA Shale+ US$40–50 (+ Liquids-rich Eagle Ford plays, assuming natural gas prices of US$3.80 per mmbtu)
Lloyd & Seal Conventional Heavy, AB US$50
Conventional Light, Alberta and Saskatchewan US$58.50
Nebraska USA Shale US$58.50
SAGD Bitumen Alberta US$65
North Dakota Bakken, Shale US$54–79
Permian Basin, TX Shale US$59–82
Oil sands legacy projects US$53
Oil sands mining and infrastructure new projects US$90
In 1998 the oil price hit around $17.00 & the Saudi's had massive internal spending cuts.
Problem for the existing producers is around 1 million barrels a day are due to come on the open market from Iran post sanctions and even more from Iraq when the conflict finally ends.
According to the seminar I attended a couple of weeks ago the oil price needs to be around $60 a barrel for Shale producers to open new sites.
We may be coming to the end of the oil age.
Personally, I would approve 2 new runways for Heathrow, one new at each of Gatwick and Stansted, and any other airport that asked. then let the Free market decide witch one (or more than one) and expand it. And do it ASAP!
The extra capacity, would enable grater economic growth for the locale area and the whole country, it would provide the capacity to keep open air links between London and other bits of the UK, and direct air links with many more parts of the would including developing city's in Africa, Asia and South America.
I know some local people will adopt a NIMBY attitude, but we don't have to indulge it, and anyway expanded airports tend to increase house prises, so they could always sell up and move elsewhere.
Saudi Arabia has it's share of problems.
https://twitter.com/i24news_EN/status/673902096442335232
(Hint: China)
Although peak-rare-earths might just go the same way as peak-oil. As price goes up, so do exploitable reserves.
(b) It doesn't work*
* Well, it may work. Or may not. Depends whether those clever people in Australia in February correctly predict which strain of influenza will be dominant one in Europe in autumn.
This may sound exactly the same as the situation with with all other influenza vaccines.
That's because SWINE FLU IS F**KING INFLUENZA. IT'S NOT SPECIAL. The media thinks it's more exciting to call it "swine flu" or "avian influenza" but it's all the same f**king thing.
I feel better now
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molycorp
I have one question, does the current distress in the energy segment of the US high yield bond market affect your argument re future US shale production.
If investors lose a lot of money on these bonds in the near future, then wont that deter them from funding new drilling in the years to come, (and isn't that deterrent factor the reason behind the Saudi's decision to drive prices down)?
Turns out the word 'pandemic' has a slightly broader definition than might be commonly assumed.
The Bronze age did not end because they ran out of Bronze
The Iron Age did not end because they ran out of Iron.
and
The Hydrocarbon age will not end because we run out of Hydrocarbons.
It will end when we invent/discover something better, which may well be Wind and/or solar.
I just hope we don't tax and regulate are selves back to the stone age, in a misguided attempt to get us to where we will go anyway.
David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.
Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.
http://bit.ly/1QrkHPR
It may well seem like chaos , a maze of twists and turns . but in retrospect it will come into clear focus that Rubio was always going to win ; as inevitable as water finding its way down a hill ..look upon it as a form of political evolution in process
Naturally , he could still lose but only to a ''black swan event '' IE an event unpredictable but with catastrophic consequences
He could get caught in flagrante dilecti as in Gary Hart in 1988 , or God forbid , be assassinated by a radicalised Arab like Bobby Kennedy was in 1968 , or even be the victim of a tragic aircraft disaster like Paul Wellstone ...it could happen ,but he would have to be very , very unlucky ...it seems to me that Rubio with his sunny optimisn is a lucky politician ; indeed , it's much more likely that he will simply become the next POTUS
Incidentally, his stance speaks of at least some confidence in winning for Remain (and rightly so, in my view).
If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35026103
What are your average odds on him ?
Annually influenza causes 3-5 million cases of severe illness resulting in 250,000 - 500,000 deaths. But "the flu" is less sexy than "swine flu".
This ought to have a name too.
We live in a representative democracy.
A majority of representatives do not support the extension of voting rights to children
Percentage of the vote is irrelevant. MPs make the PM.
For example, I voted LD in May but do not support this.
20 Fenchurch Street = Walkie-talkie
30 St Mary Axe = Gherkin
32 London Bridge Street = Das Shard
110 Bishopsgate = Heron Tower
122 Leadenhall St = Cheese-grater
Rubio combines the sunny optimism /happy warrior and communication skills of Reagan with the affable common touch, slick debating skills and ''poor boy came good '' persona of Bill Clinton and the youth , minority status and Hollywood-esque appeal of Obama ...he is in fact the only candidate on either side that combines these winning qualities