I find that very surprising. Lotus is faster than Ferrari now, and has been for most of the season. Plus the team doesn't have a history of driver equality, and Alonso doesn't have a history of getting along with a competitive teammate. Raikkonen also seemed unhappy when he was with them last.
However, Jordan was spot on with Hamilton and Mercedes.
GeoffM - Indeed, and were he by some miracle to win the nomination Hillary would eat him alive. Not that he will get it of course, he is way too much of a RINO for the present GOP and Christie is already hovering up the votes of the few moderates who remain within it
NP - Indeed, who is going to take several days off work to shell out several hundred pounds to attend a party conference, including accommodation, passes etc. You could get a good holiday on the continent for that price. As most delegates don't have much influence in policy anymore anyway the majority of attendees are political careerists, MPs, MSPs, AMs, councillors, parliamentary candidates etc and the rest are all lobbyists or journalists
Oh! Fracking was patented back around 1868 or so, and for the scientifically deficient, whether from gas, solid or liquid, if the hydro carbons are available, then it is possible to crack it to virtually what ever is required. Anyone ever wonder about margarine?
Er, thank you, I think.
I'm still none the wiser. From what you say, it is possible to get oil via the fracking process but in what quantities and how much refining does it need to produce petrol ?
I also read the fracking process requires large amounts of water - presumably it doesn't have to be fresh water or does it ?
I'm trying to improve my knowledge to form a view - it's not proving easy.
Evening Stodge,
I'll try to be a bit more helpful in my reply than Edin.
It is possible to get oil as well as gas out by fracking but it is generally used as a secondary system in permeable formations such as sandstone or Limestones (where acid fracking is common) to improve recovery rather than a primary system in shales to obtain large quantities of oil in the first place. Whilst fracking has been around for a long time in oil exploration and production as a recovery enhancement technique, it is now being used to obtain gas from formations which previously were considered barren of hydrocarbons.
There are some formations - notably the Kimmeridge clay which forms one of the main source rocks for North Sea Oil - which could benefit from fracking for oil but it really isn't a practical; proposition given the relatively large molecule sizes of oil compared to gas and the generally impermeable nature of the shales.
Oh! Fracking was patented back around 1868 or so, and for the scientifically deficient, whether from gas, solid or liquid, if the hydro carbons are available, then it is possible to crack it to virtually what ever is required. Anyone ever wonder about margarine?
Er, thank you, I think.
I'm still none the wiser. From what you say, it is possible to get oil via the fracking process but in what quantities and how much refining does it need to produce petrol ?
I also read the fracking process requires large amounts of water - presumably it doesn't have to be fresh water or does it ?
I'm trying to improve my knowledge to form a view - it's not proving easy.
Pt 2...
As to the water question. The process does use a relatively large amount of water but it certainly doesn't have to be fresh and can be used again and again. A typical 10,000 foot well bore will use an initial 700 odd barrels of water to fill the hole. You then need to push that water into the formation along fractures but since water is a non compressible fluid and you are only using it for the initial pressure ramp (you then replace it with sand to keep the fractures open) the amount of water needed is again not all that excessive. Once the water is recovered it will be reused since it will have been treated with chemicals and it gets pretty expensive to dispose of it and then start again with more fluid.
I am currently sceptical of the controls over fracking even though I am in the oil industry as I know from inside how often things can go wrong. Offshore we have an immense system of barriers both physical, functional and procedural to try and prevent major pollution events (and for example the spilling of a single litre of oil of any sort to the sea from a rig is a notifiable event to DECC on what is known as a PON 1. I simply don't yet see that level of control and regulation being exerted on the land operations and for that reason I think there are valid concerns about the lack of regulation. The principles are sound, the idea is great but there needs to be far more scrutiny and government oversight of systems to avoid contamination of aquifers.
And when you consider my Libertarian views you can possibly see how serious I consider this that I am promoting more statutory control.
If you have more questions let me know and I will try to answer them.
Just heard a 30-minute presentation from the UK IP attached to Brazil during which she referred throughout to "o govern ingles", when she was actually talking about the British government. She spoke excellent Portuguese though.
But I suppose in some ways he can count himself lucky.
The last innocent Brazillian who came up against our secret service was shot dead.
Weren't Labour in charge back then?
Yep and the laws that allowed the authorities to hold and question Miranda for no good reason with no lawyer and no right to silence were also introduced by Labour in 2000.
But I suppose in some ways he can count himself lucky.
The last innocent Brazillian who came up against our secret service was shot dead.
Except Roger that he didn't come up against our secret service but rather the Metropolitan Police who officers dissembled and colluded with each other at the inquest to try and avoid the truth, and who commanding officer was promoted and decorated by HM.
As to the water question. The process does use a relatively large amount of water but it certainly doesn't have to be fresh and can be used again and again. A typical 10,000 foot well bore will use an initial 700 odd barrels of water to fill the hole. You then need to push that water into the formation along fractures but since water is a non compressible fluid and you are only using it for the initial pressure ramp (you then replace it with sand to keep the fractures open) the amount of water needed is again not all that excessive. Once the water is recovered it will be reused since it will have been treated with chemicals and it gets pretty expensive to dispose of it and then start again with more fluid.
I am currently sceptical of the controls over fracking even though I am in the oil industry as I know from inside how often things can go wrong. Offshore we have an immense system of barriers both physical, functional and procedural to try and prevent major pollution events (and for example the spilling of a single litre of oil of any sort to the sea from a rig is a notifiable event to DECC on what is known as a PON 1. I simply don't yet see that level of control and regulation being exerted on the land operations and for that reason I think there are valid concerns about the lack of regulation. The principles are sound, the idea is great but there needs to be far more scrutiny and government oversight of systems to avoid contamination of aquifers.
And when you consider my Libertarian views you can possibly see how serious I consider this that I am promoting more statutory control.
If you have more questions let me know and I will try to answer them.
No way are they going to let a party with zero MPs into the debates.
Maybe, maybe not. UKIP are making a good showing of outperforming the Lib Dems at the moment, at least on share of the vote. If they can maintain third place in the polls, take more votes in the 2014 locals than the Lib Dems (repeating their achievement of 2013), secure first or at least second in the Euroelection, and continue to consistently take seconds and thirds in by-elections, they will have a very strong case. Sky could be tempted because the Murdochs seem Kipperish, the Beeb could be tempted to stuff the Tories, both will be tempted to mix things up simply for the story - and both will claim it's representing public opinion. ITV will tag along.
What the effect of Farage taking part in the debates would be is hard to predict, other than probably dramatic. They might take votes off their right-of-centre rivals. They might take votes from the socially conservative left. They might take votes from the disillusioned and uninspired. They might crash and burn (with apologies to Farage for the metaphor). What they won't be is dull.
James Forsyth says that keeping Farage/UKIP off the telly during the GE campaign is an important part of the Conservatives' strategy. That seems nuts. UKIP are a good story for the TV news during a general election, and the Conservatives can't control what the TV companies do.
@DailyMirror Fewer than half of Labour supporters want Ed Miliband to lead party into next election, poll for the Mirror reveals http://mirr.im/14Wz8qv
GeoffM - Indeed, and were he by some miracle to win the nomination Hillary would eat him alive. Not that he will get it of course, he is way too much of a RINO for the present GOP and Christie is already hovering up the votes of the few moderates who remain within it
Having failed twice now with RINOs it would be just typical of the RNC to decide that yet another centrist northeastern Republican is perfect for the national GOP ticket. No, now is the time for a radical candidate to have a go.
Anyway, he's not running. At this stage *everyone* drops hints that they are running just for the free publicity. He's after governor of Massachusetts or senator from New Hampshire. Creating a mini-buzz now is the best way to slow the descent of his star. That or a reality show...
@DailyMirror Fewer than half of Labour supporters want Ed Miliband to lead party into next election, poll for the Mirror reveals http://mirr.im/14Wz8qv
"Voters also said Labour and the Conservatives were equally divided. Asked which of the main parties is the most united, Labour and the Tories score 21% while the Lib Dems get a dismal 7%."
I simply don't yet see that level of control and regulation being exerted on the land operations and for that reason I think there are valid concerns about the lack of regulation. The principles are sound, the idea is great but there needs to be far more scrutiny and government oversight of systems to avoid contamination of aquifers.
Indeed.
Drilling set back, regulator caught out, as fracking opponents draw first blood
But the third is the most important, since the episode calls into question the competence, alertness and impartiality of the Environment Agency itself. This is crucial since an enormous amount is riding on these very qualities. When protesters have raised fears that the incidents of serious pollution that have occurred in the United States might be repeated here, the official response has been to insist that the industry would be much better regulated in Britain. And – since the Agency has enjoyed a good reputation – this assurance has carried weight and reassured many who might otherwise have been doubtful.
Now the Agency – as one Friends of the Earth expert puts it – has been found to be “asleep on the job” at the very outset, to have fallen – to mix metaphors – virtually at the first fence. Suddenly all those reassurances look much more shaky. No doubt it is under pressure from ministers to smooth the path of shale gas and oil, but the whole point of a regulator is that it should impartially and conscientiously apply the rules – and if it fails to do so it will, rightly, lose public confidence.
The Environment Agency urgently needs to get its act together, not just to regulate shale oil and gas better, but to be seen to do so. It is in the interests of the industry, as well as the environment, that it does so. – not to speak of being vital for its own credibility.
The costs of getting it wrong early on would be catastrophic for the industry and it is clearly in their best interests to ensure their operations are well managed with appropriate oversight and precautions throughout.
Interesting about Gilpin. When I was trying to find someone in UKIP to accept my stand booking, I was put onto him. He said briskly that he didn't know about stands, but would find someone who did who would contact me. Sounded OK, but a prolonged silence then followed until we eventually got a response through a different route.
NP - Indeed, who is going to take several days off work to shell out several hundred pounds to attend a party conference, including accommodation, passes etc. You could get a good holiday on the continent for that price. As most delegates don't have much influence in policy anymore anyway the majority of attendees are political careerists, MPs, MSPs, AMs, councillors, parliamentary candidates etc and the rest are all lobbyists or journalists
No, I think party conferences are wonderful for political anoraks ONCE - you get several days of total immersion in as many fringe events as you could possibly want, often with the decision-makers present and available for questions. With repetition a certain sameness starts to creep in.
GeoffM - Indeed, I actually think Rand Paul could get the nomination in a Goldwater v Rockefeller battle with Christie. Hillary however would probably win the biggest Democratic landslide since LBJ beat Goldwater in 1964!
@JackofKent: Jack of Kent - why advance notice to the US means the schedule 7 power seems to have been wrongly used on Miranda: http://t.co/ISywNtNYtd
Jack of Kent is talking through his hat, isn't he?
if the officers knew in advance that Miranda was to be arrested, they knew who he was. He was not some random passenger.
Accordingly, if they knew who he was, then it would seem to me that they would not therefore need to question and detain him to see if he fulfilled the section 40(1)(b) definition. They knew full well whether he did, or if he did not. The questioning would be artificial.
The fact that they knew who he was is hardly evidence that they knew that he was "a person who…is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism." That interpretation would mean they could never question anyone about whom they had information - a perverse interpretation, to say the least.
[For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not defending the questioning - just pointing out the spuriousness of that particular argument].
Utterly off-topic, but just saw a strange sky outside. For a moment I thought there was a column of smoke, but it happened that two cloud formations were close to one another, creating (in the gap between them) a V shape that looked almost exactly like rising smoke. very odd.
GeoffM - Indeed, I actually think Rand Paul could get the nomination in a Goldwater v Rockefeller battle with Christie. Hillary however would probably win the biggest Democratic landslide since LBJ beat Goldwater in 1964!
Not only do I agree with you completely but that's already my betting position. My biggest profit outcome right now would be a Rand Paul nomination, Hillary to win the Dem nomination and then overall (plus A Woman To Win). I'm green or break-even in most plausible outcomes at the moment but that's my champagne betting scenario.
That's a long long way from what I would *like* to see happen, but betting with the heart is the road to ruin.
Can anyone put 40 trn becquerels into some sort of a context? Is it really a lot and, if so, what are the implications? Will EiT be rejoining us back in the UK again? I honestly thought the Japanese were better at engineering than this.
GeoffM - Indeed, that is very likely to be my betting position too although will wait a bit to confirm Hillary declares etc. Looks like we will both be having wallets crossed in the same direction in 2016!
Can anyone put 40 trn becquerels into some sort of a context? Is it really a lot and, if so, what are the implications? Will EiT be rejoining us back in the UK again? I honestly thought the Japanese were better at engineering than this.
Hmmm! I next expect to see Godzilla rising from the waves. But seriously, what you report is typical of Government inertia and the horrific thing is perhaps the Japs don't really know what to do.
@JackofKent: Jack of Kent - why advance notice to the US means the schedule 7 power seems to have been wrongly used on Miranda: http://t.co/ISywNtNYtd
Jack of Kent is talking through his hat, isn't he?
if the officers knew in advance that Miranda was to be arrested, they knew who he was. He was not some random passenger.
Accordingly, if they knew who he was, then it would seem to me that they would not therefore need to question and detain him to see if he fulfilled the section 40(1)(b) definition. They knew full well whether he did, or if he did not. The questioning would be artificial.
The fact that they knew who he was is hardly evidence that they knew that he was "a person who…is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism." That interpretation would mean they could never question anyone about whom they had information - a perverse interpretation, to say the least.
[For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not defending the questioning - just pointing out the spuriousness of that particular argument].
I think the implication - which I agree with - is that if they knew enough about Miranda to know that the US would be interested in him specifically to do with the Snowdon case then they knew enough to know he was not a likely target as a terrorist suspect and so should not be held under laws specifically designed for terrorism.
Can anyone put 40 trn becquerels into some sort of a context? Is it really a lot and, if so, what are the implications? Will EiT be rejoining us back in the UK again? I honestly thought the Japanese were better at engineering than this.
Hmmm! I next expect to see Godzilla rising from the waves. But seriously, what you report is typical of Government inertia and the horrific thing is perhaps the Japs don't really know what to do.
What you seem to be getting is bleeding fish at the moment. Apparently the reading is only 6x the "safe" level for drinking water in the US but this rather ignores the concentration capacity of fish and other sea life.
It would be really interesting if EiT could give some indication about how this is being reported in Japan.
Can anyone put 40 trn becquerels into some sort of a context? Is it really a lot and, if so, what are the implications? Will EiT be rejoining us back in the UK again? I honestly thought the Japanese were better at engineering than this.
Well, I won't be going swimming in that particular bay.
I have a bit of sympathy for the people at TEPCO working on the cleanup on this one. The whole place is a toxic mess. There's only so much engineering they can do. Basically they need to keep pouring large amounts of water on things, and some of it's inevitably going to leak out and flow downhill.
Looking on the bright side, the Pacific Ocean is very big.
Can anyone put 40 trn becquerels into some sort of a context? Is it really a lot and, if so, what are the implications? Will EiT be rejoining us back in the UK again? I honestly thought the Japanese were better at engineering than this.
Hmmm! I next expect to see Godzilla rising from the waves. But seriously, what you report is typical of Government inertia and the horrific thing is perhaps the Japs don't really know what to do.
What you seem to be getting is bleeding fish at the moment. Apparently the reading is only 6x the "safe" level for drinking water in the US but this rather ignores the concentration capacity of fish and other sea life.
It would be really interesting if EiT could give some indication about how this is being reported in Japan.
It's being reported as a problem, but a problem well below the full Godzilla in terms of scale.
Can anyone put 40 trn becquerels into some sort of a context? Is it really a lot and, if so, what are the implications? Will EiT be rejoining us back in the UK again? I honestly thought the Japanese were better at engineering than this.
Well, I won't be going swimming in that particular bay.
I have a bit of sympathy for the people at TEPCO working on the cleanup on this one. The whole place is a toxic mess. There's only so much engineering they can do. Basically they need to keep pouring large amounts of water on things, and some of it's inevitably going to leak out and flow downhill.
Looking on the bright side, the Pacific Ocean is very big.
There are lots of silly rumours about how much fuel they actually had in the cooling tanks etc. It does seem somewhat chaotic.
Can anyone put 40 trn becquerels into some sort of a context? Is it really a lot and, if so, what are the implications? Will EiT be rejoining us back in the UK again? I honestly thought the Japanese were better at engineering than this.
Well, I won't be going swimming in that particular bay.
I have a bit of sympathy for the people at TEPCO working on the cleanup on this one. The whole place is a toxic mess. There's only so much engineering they can do. Basically they need to keep pouring large amounts of water on things, and some of it's inevitably going to leak out and flow downhill.
Looking on the bright side, the Pacific Ocean is very big.
I've handled biological molecules radioactively labelled (mostly 32P) and would say that the becquerel is a kind of funny measurement- the amount we used to buy for an experiment was 50 MBq i.e. 50 million, and the disposal regime was basically to stick it down the sink with plenty of water (this is in the UK. In Japan it's much stricter).
As Edmund says, its all about the dilution. Although the lack of a clear long term solution to this is kind of worrying, the chance of any major trouble looks fairly slim.
I'm happily eating vegetables grown in fukushima prefecture tho I perhaps would hesistate taking the fish
Can anyone put 40 trn becquerels into some sort of a context? Is it really a lot and, if so, what are the implications? Will EiT be rejoining us back in the UK again? I honestly thought the Japanese were better at engineering than this.
Well, I won't be going swimming in that particular bay.
I have a bit of sympathy for the people at TEPCO working on the cleanup on this one. The whole place is a toxic mess. There's only so much engineering they can do. Basically they need to keep pouring large amounts of water on things, and some of it's inevitably going to leak out and flow downhill.
Looking on the bright side, the Pacific Ocean is very big.
I've handled biological molecules radioactively labelled (mostly 32P) and would say that the becquerel is a kind of funny measurement- the amount we used to buy for an experiment was 50 MBq i.e. 50 million, and the disposal regime was basically to stick it down the sink with plenty of water (this is in the UK. In Japan it's much stricter).
As Edmund says, its all about the dilution. Although the lack of a clear long term solution to this is kind of worrying, the chance of any major trouble looks fairly slim.
I'm happily eating vegetables grown in fukushima prefecture tho I perhaps would hesistate taking the fish
There is a rather big difference between 50 million and 40 trillion but that is still encouraging.
Can anyone put 40 trn becquerels into some sort of a context? Is it really a lot and, if so, what are the implications? Will EiT be rejoining us back in the UK again? I honestly thought the Japanese were better at engineering than this.
Well, I won't be going swimming in that particular bay.
I have a bit of sympathy for the people at TEPCO working on the cleanup on this one. The whole place is a toxic mess. There's only so much engineering they can do. Basically they need to keep pouring large amounts of water on things, and some of it's inevitably going to leak out and flow downhill.
Looking on the bright side, the Pacific Ocean is very big.
There are lots of silly rumours about how much fuel they actually had in the cooling tanks etc. It does seem somewhat chaotic.
Right, there was a bit of coverage a while back on what would happen in the spend fuel pool collapsed, accusing TEPCO of being incompetent for failing to remove the fuel rods already. I didn't really understand the criticism, which simultaneously seemed to say the fuel rods would overheat and spontaneously catch fire if they fell out, but also that they could be put in steel containers and would be OK.
Anyhow my impression is that there are all kinds of things that could potentially go wrong, and every now and then the media will pick up on one at random and make it into a big deal, and TEPCO have to pretend to make a plan to deal with it. The real plan is to keep pouring water on things for a few decades and hope nothing bad happens. This is probably the right plan.
Glad you enjoyed it SeanT. I still think dinner for 2 on the top floor of the Gherkin beats it though - true I'm biased though having had a really enjoyable spell working at Swiss Re when I did!
It's still one heck on an amazing record of how these great skyscrapers are invariably built just before the time of great financial collapses. Take the Empire State Building in 1931, the World Trade Centre in 1972 before the mid-1970's tailspin, and then the mega craze of buildings around the world over the past 15 years or so.
And on the markets, its a fascinating time right now. Bonds selling off (rising yields) alongside stocks. Its absolutely what has been predicted by me here as the precursor to get things moving downhill. As for the bulls argument that rising yields are a reflection of rising growth prospects, they've clearly not learnt from the financial history of great credit deflation episodes. Its quite an amazing spectacle to see bond yields rising even in the face of the Federal Reserve's $85bn monthly QE program. In a low debt environment, stocks can rise in the face of rising bond yields - that happened from 1949 to 1966 for example, but most decisively not in a mega-debt environment like we have currently. And when the bulls realise that........well watch out below. The terribly weak market internals over the past few weeks, together with a litany of other evidence really make me believe now that this is finally the time.
I certainly never believed that we'd see just over a year of rising yields on the US 10 year Treasury note (this is the benchmark rate that sets long term credit / mortgages etc) before the market topped out - I expected to see a fair lag. Its as if the Federal Reserve and other central banks have held back the tide of deflation, but just like building a huge sand wall to hold back the tide on a beach, you can do it for so long, and apparently have success at first, but the tide will only be the stronger in the long run for having done so. I think the end of this week / next week could be quite volatile, and I think the period around late October / early November is going to be troublesome. Right now, I'm looking at the period around April 21 2014 when this whole deck of cards really falls apart in a mighty way that will make Autumn 2008 look like a picnic on the beach. You heard it here first of all!
I think the implication - which I agree with - is that if they knew enough about Miranda to know that the US would be interested in him specifically to do with the Snowdon case then they knew enough to know he was not a likely target as a terrorist suspect and so should not be held under laws specifically designed for terrorism.
The problem with this is that the definition of terrorism used in the law seems to be broad enough to include helping people write articles in newspapers.
I think the implication - which I agree with - is that if they knew enough about Miranda to know that the US would be interested in him specifically to do with the Snowdon case then they knew enough to know he was not a likely target as a terrorist suspect and so should not be held under laws specifically designed for terrorism.
The problem with this is that the definition of terrorism used in the law seems to be broad enough to include helping people write articles in newspapers.
Rather helpfully it looks like the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation may well agree with you and I that this is a definition too far.
Glad you enjoyed it SeanT. I still think dinner for 2 on the top floor of the Gherkin beats it though - true I'm biased though having had a really enjoyable spell working at Swiss Re when I did!
And on the markets, its a fascinating time right now. Bonds selling off (rising yields) alongside stocks. Its absolutely what has been predicted by me here as the precursor to get things moving downhill. As for the bulls argument that rising yields are a reflection of rising growth prospects, they've clearly not learnt from the financial history of great credit deflation episodes. Its quite an amazing spectacle to see bond yields rising even in the face of the Federal Reserve's $85bn monthly QE program. In a low debt environment, stocks can rise in the face of rising bond yields - that happened from 1949 to 1966 for example, but most decisively not in a mega-debt environment like we have currently. And when the bulls realise that........well watch out below. The terribly weak market internals over the past few weeks, together with a litany of other evidence really make me believe now that this is finally the time.
I certainly never believed that we'd see just over a year of rising yields on the US 10 year Treasury note (this is the benchmark rate that sets long term credit / mortgages etc) before the market topped out - I expected to see a fair lag. Its as if the Federal Reserve and other central banks have held back the tide of deflation, but just like building a huge sand wall to hold back the tide on a beach, you can do it for so long, and apparently have success at first, but the tide will only be the stronger in the long run for having done so. I think the end of this week / next week could be quite volatile, and I think the period around late October / early November is going to be troublesome. Right now, I'm looking at the period around April 21 2014 when this whole deck of cards really falls apart in a mighty way that will make Autumn 2008 look like a picnic on the beach. You heard it here first of all!
If it did go bad in April 2014 it would have a knock on effect on Euro elections and the indy campaign, perhaps in both cases leaving the 3 UK mainstream parties for solace elsewhere.
Comments
The targets still to select are
Pendle (1 September)
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale (1 September)
Rossendale & Darwen (1 September)
East Dunbartonshire (2 September)
Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire (7 September)
Argyll & Bute (7 September)
Pudsey (8 September)
Elmet & Rothwell (8 September)
Finchley and Golders Green
Bradford East
Dewsbury
Brent Central
Brentford & Isleworth
Dundee East
Keighley
Harrow East
Ealing Central & Acton
Carmarthen East & Dinefwr
Cleethorpes
Ilford North
Brigg & Goole
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDRiT1FSRTF2bjVYRThSTnRaNzFXMlE#gid=0
Eddie Jordan reckons Raikkonen wants a return to Ferrari: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23761323
I find that very surprising. Lotus is faster than Ferrari now, and has been for most of the season. Plus the team doesn't have a history of driver equality, and Alonso doesn't have a history of getting along with a competitive teammate. Raikkonen also seemed unhappy when he was with them last.
However, Jordan was spot on with Hamilton and Mercedes.
But I suppose in some ways he can count himself lucky.
The last innocent Brazillian who came up against our secret service was shot dead.
Maybe he could sort out the Labour Party for Ed.
I'd love to how EdM's office views the situation.
I'll try to be a bit more helpful in my reply than Edin.
It is possible to get oil as well as gas out by fracking but it is generally used as a secondary system in permeable formations such as sandstone or Limestones (where acid fracking is common) to improve recovery rather than a primary system in shales to obtain large quantities of oil in the first place. Whilst fracking has been around for a long time in oil exploration and production as a recovery enhancement technique, it is now being used to obtain gas from formations which previously were considered barren of hydrocarbons.
There are some formations - notably the Kimmeridge clay which forms one of the main source rocks for North Sea Oil - which could benefit from fracking for oil but it really isn't a practical; proposition given the relatively large molecule sizes of oil compared to gas and the generally impermeable nature of the shales.
Pt 2 to follow...
As to the water question. The process does use a relatively large amount of water but it certainly doesn't have to be fresh and can be used again and again. A typical 10,000 foot well bore will use an initial 700 odd barrels of water to fill the hole. You then need to push that water into the formation along fractures but since water is a non compressible fluid and you are only using it for the initial pressure ramp (you then replace it with sand to keep the fractures open) the amount of water needed is again not all that excessive. Once the water is recovered it will be reused since it will have been treated with chemicals and it gets pretty expensive to dispose of it and then start again with more fluid.
I am currently sceptical of the controls over fracking even though I am in the oil industry as I know from inside how often things can go wrong. Offshore we have an immense system of barriers both physical, functional and procedural to try and prevent major pollution events (and for example the spilling of a single litre of oil of any sort to the sea from a rig is a notifiable event to DECC on what is known as a PON 1. I simply don't yet see that level of control and regulation being exerted on the land operations and for that reason I think there are valid concerns about the lack of regulation. The principles are sound, the idea is great but there needs to be far more scrutiny and government oversight of systems to avoid contamination of aquifers.
And when you consider my Libertarian views you can possibly see how serious I consider this that I am promoting more statutory control.
If you have more questions let me know and I will try to answer them.
He backtracked quickly though
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/politics/8994771/ed-miliband-may-be-stumbling-but-dont-forget-his-huge-headstart/
Glad to see a robust government response.
Nothing will go round and round social media more than something like that. Tories' voting record on its repeal still features heavily.
@DailyMirror
Fewer than half of Labour supporters want Ed Miliband to lead party into next election, poll for the Mirror reveals http://mirr.im/14Wz8qv
Anyway, he's not running. At this stage *everyone* drops hints that they are running just for the free publicity. He's after governor of Massachusetts or senator from New Hampshire. Creating a mini-buzz now is the best way to slow the descent of his star. That or a reality show...
Miliband 20%
Cameron 18%
Clegg 13%
Don’t know 49%
What should I learn from this question?
Still, earlier you were calling me a pb tory
Accuracy and consistency really are foreign to you aren't they.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H7BTKTOwLE&feature=share
Tell you what, go and find some posts from me being excitable over immigrants.
Making things up as you go along, you really are Labour through and through.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
How do the following politicians change a light bulb?
Nick Clegg: According to E U regulations but definitely not the Tory way.
David Cameron: pours glass of wine while on the phone to electrician.
Edward Milliband: Makes the case that living in darkness is better for the environment.
Nigel Farage: lights a fag. Real men are not afraid of the dark.
Alex Salmond: Holds lightbulb and waits for the world to revolve around him.
Etc...
if the officers knew in advance that Miranda was to be arrested, they knew who he was. He was not some random passenger.
Accordingly, if they knew who he was, then it would seem to me that they would not therefore need to question and detain him to see if he fulfilled the section 40(1)(b) definition. They knew full well whether he did, or if he did not. The questioning would be artificial.
The fact that they knew who he was is hardly evidence that they knew that he was "a person who…is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism." That interpretation would mean they could never question anyone about whom they had information - a perverse interpretation, to say the least.
[For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not defending the questioning - just pointing out the spuriousness of that particular argument].
"The lightbulb has sowed the seeds of its own revolution."
That's a long long way from what I would *like* to see happen, but betting with the heart is the road to ruin.
Can anyone put 40 trn becquerels into some sort of a context? Is it really a lot and, if so, what are the implications? Will EiT be rejoining us back in the UK again? I honestly thought the Japanese were better at engineering than this.
It would be really interesting if EiT could give some indication about how this is being reported in Japan.
I have a bit of sympathy for the people at TEPCO working on the cleanup on this one. The whole place is a toxic mess. There's only so much engineering they can do. Basically they need to keep pouring large amounts of water on things, and some of it's inevitably going to leak out and flow downhill.
Looking on the bright side, the Pacific Ocean is very big.
As Edmund says, its all about the dilution. Although the lack of a clear long term solution to this is kind of worrying, the chance of any major trouble looks fairly slim.
I'm happily eating vegetables grown in fukushima prefecture tho I perhaps would hesistate taking the fish
Anyhow my impression is that there are all kinds of things that could potentially go wrong, and every now and then the media will pick up on one at random and make it into a big deal, and TEPCO have to pretend to make a plan to deal with it. The real plan is to keep pouring water on things for a few decades and hope nothing bad happens. This is probably the right plan.
It's still one heck on an amazing record of how these great skyscrapers are invariably built just before the time of great financial collapses. Take the Empire State Building in 1931, the World Trade Centre in 1972 before the mid-1970's tailspin, and then the mega craze of buildings around the world over the past 15 years or so.
And on the markets, its a fascinating time right now. Bonds selling off (rising yields) alongside stocks. Its absolutely what has been predicted by me here as the precursor to get things moving downhill. As for the bulls argument that rising yields are a reflection of rising growth prospects, they've clearly not learnt from the financial history of great credit deflation episodes. Its quite an amazing spectacle to see bond yields rising even in the face of the Federal Reserve's $85bn monthly QE program. In a low debt environment, stocks can rise in the face of rising bond yields - that happened from 1949 to 1966 for example, but most decisively not in a mega-debt environment like we have currently. And when the bulls realise that........well watch out below. The terribly weak market internals over the past few weeks, together with a litany of other evidence really make me believe now that this is finally the time.
I certainly never believed that we'd see just over a year of rising yields on the US 10 year Treasury note (this is the benchmark rate that sets long term credit / mortgages etc) before the market topped out - I expected to see a fair lag. Its as if the Federal Reserve and other central banks have held back the tide of deflation, but just like building a huge sand wall to hold back the tide on a beach, you can do it for so long, and apparently have success at first, but the tide will only be the stronger in the long run for having done so. I think the end of this week / next week could be quite volatile, and I think the period around late October / early November is going to be troublesome. Right now, I'm looking at the period around April 21 2014 when this whole deck of cards really falls apart in a mighty way that will make Autumn 2008 look like a picnic on the beach. You heard it here first of all!
http://danericselliottwaves.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/elliott-wave-update-19-august-2013.html
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/aug/18/hutong-restaurant-review
http://the-shard.com/restaurants/bookings
"1. "I heard a rumour that Cadbury is bringing out an oriental chocolate bar. Could be a Chinese Wispa." - Rob Auton
2. "I used to work in a shoe-recycling shop. It was sole-destroying." - Alex Horne
3. "I'm in a same-sex marriage... the sex is always the same." - Alfie Moore
4. "My friend told me he was going to a fancy dress party as an Italian island. I said to him 'Don't be Sicily.'" - Tim Vine
5. "I can give you the cause of anaphylactic shock in a nutshell." - Gary Delaney
6. "The Pope is a lot like Dr Who. He never dies, just keeps being replaced by white men." - Phil Wang
7. "You know you are fat when you hug a child and it gets lost." - Marcus Brigstocke
8. "The universe implodes. No matter." - Liam Williams
9. "I was adopted at birth and have never met my mum. That makes it very difficult to enjoy any lapdance." - Bobby Mair
10. "The good thing about lending someone your time machine is that you basically get it back immediately." - Chris Coltrane"
http://news.sky.com/story/1130749/prince-george-first-official-photos-released