I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
This is why your criticisms aren't serious.
Importing Qatari gas instead of UK gas causes more climate change, not less.
Anyone who quotes climate change as a reason to oppose fracking is not being serious. If you want to stop climate change, lets start with stopping Qatari etc imports which have more emissions than UK domestic generation, not less.
We need to do many things to stop climate change, and we are doing many things (if not enough). Yes, we need to reduce and then stop Qatari imports. But we were talking specifically about fracking. In a context where we’re doing all the things we need to stop climate change, where is the role for fracking?
(Existing UK domestic generation has less emissions than Qatari gas, but developing new fields has an initial cost in emissions (and in £). Developing new fields is rarely a sensible way of reducing emissions.)
Again not true. You keep making these statements which are based on nothing but supposition and are factually inaccurate. Qatari gas does not just seep from the ground by osmosis. It needs to be drilled for and produced in exactly the same way as UK gas. Adding new field emissions to UK fields but ignoring them for imported gas is simply dishonest.
My apologies. You are quite right. I was not seeking to add new field emissions in the UK, but not in Qatar or anywhere else. I was seeking to compare a new field in the UK with an existing field in Qatar. I understand there are a lot of existing fields in Qatar(!). It is, as I understand it, cheaper (financially and in terms of emissions) to get another X cubic metres out of an existing field than it is to get your first X cubic metres out of a new site.
Of course, fields run out, so you need new fields… except we’re going to have to reduce demand so much that, at some point, we stop needing new fields.
Your mistake - and one we have had to correct on here before - is thinking that net zero means no gas. It doesn't. It mean as that overall our CO2 balance is zero. We still can - and should - have gas as a backup for when renewables can't cope. But we should also have nuclear, geothermal, tidal and hydro.
And we will still be drilling oil wells in 30 years time (and more) because we still need all the products that come from oil that we don't burn.
Yes, but we won't necessarily be fracking for gas.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
This is why your criticisms aren't serious.
Importing Qatari gas instead of UK gas causes more climate change, not less.
Anyone who quotes climate change as a reason to oppose fracking is not being serious. If you want to stop climate change, lets start with stopping Qatari etc imports which have more emissions than UK domestic generation, not less.
We need to do many things to stop climate change, and we are doing many things (if not enough). Yes, we need to reduce and then stop Qatari imports. But we were talking specifically about fracking. In a context where we’re doing all the things we need to stop climate change, where is the role for fracking?
(Existing UK domestic generation has less emissions than Qatari gas, but developing new fields has an initial cost in emissions (and in £). Developing new fields is rarely a sensible way of reducing emissions.)
Again not true. You keep making these statements which are based on nothing but supposition and are factually inaccurate. Qatari gas does not just seep from the ground by osmosis. It needs to be drilled for and produced in exactly the same way as UK gas. Adding new field emissions to UK fields but ignoring them for imported gas is simply dishonest.
My apologies. You are quite right. I was not seeking to add new field emissions in the UK, but not in Qatar or anywhere else. I was seeking to compare a new field in the UK with an existing field in Qatar. I understand there are a lot of existing fields in Qatar(!). It is, as I understand it, cheaper (financially and in terms of emissions) to get another X cubic metres out of an existing field than it is to get your first X cubic metres out of a new site.
Of course, fields run out, so you need new fields… except we’re going to have to reduce demand so much that, at some point, we stop needing new fields.
Your mistake - and one we have had to correct on here before - is thinking that net zero means no gas. It doesn't. It mean as that overall our CO2 balance is zero. We still can - and should - have gas as a backup for when renewables can't cope. But we should also have nuclear, geothermal, tidal and hydro.
And we will still be drilling oil wells in 30 years time (and more) because we still need all the products that come from oil that we don't burn.
We will also be using gas in CCGT and blue hydrogen plants with carbon capture.
These will be new build, coming on line towards the end of the decade and running until post-2050. By funding these projects, the government is locking in the long-term demand for natural gas.
Is the carbon capture good enough to make this work?
All the shrewd political minds in this country think she'll be gone in 2023.
The same shrewd political minds who didn't think she'd get in Number 10?
The same shrewd political minds who didn't think Boris could win a majority?
The same shrewd political minds who didn't think Boris would get in Number 10?
The same shrewd political minds who didn't think Brexit would be voted through?
The same shrewd political minds who called May out and said she would be gone before she wanted to go.
The same shrewd political minds who called Johnson out and said he would be gone before he wanted to go.
So yes.
All politicians eventually go, say people will go and you'll eventually be right. But setting a date on it, you're probably not.
Re-read the thread where Mr Nabavi resigned from the Tory Party when Boris became Tory Leader and PM. Its quite amusing to read in hindsight. Lots and lots of comments from people about how awful Boris will be, how this is going to ensure a Corbyn Premiership and that the next General Election under Boris would make May's election look like a big success.
Boris was awful. You resigned from the party because of him. So did I AAMOF.
Both May and Johnson were useless. May because she had no idea how to manage her own office let alone the country, and Johnson because he was a solipsistic lying twat.
Plenty on here called both out almost as soon as they took office and we said why they would be booted out and we were right. They both were brought down for those reasons and over and above the "every political career ends if failure" inevitability.
Utterly delighted to see the Health and Social Care Levy abolished.
It should never have been created.
Well done Truss and Kwarteng. My faith in the Tories has been restored. 👏👏👏
So how is social care going to be paid for?
I'm genuinely curious what level of growth would be needed to cover everything promised whilst also cutting as many taxes as possible and cutting nothing of importance.
Has this country ever had such a level of growth and how consistent would it need to be?
When I am Dictatrix of the country (and, frankly, it is very churlish of the country not to put me in charge instead of all the fuckwits we currently have) I am going to make it mandatory for banks to employ people to ANSWER THE BLOODY PHONE instead of telling you how sorry they are (39 minutes 42 seconds so far).
They will also be expected to employ people who can count, are competent and not dishonest grifting egomaniacs.
Their bonus will be not getting investigated by the likes of me.
All the shrewd political minds in this country think she'll be gone in 2023.
The same shrewd political minds who didn't think she'd get in Number 10?
The same shrewd political minds who didn't think Boris could win a majority?
The same shrewd political minds who didn't think Boris would get in Number 10?
The same shrewd political minds who didn't think Brexit would be voted through?
The same shrewd political minds who called May out and said she would be gone before she wanted to go.
The same shrewd political minds who called Johnson out and said he would be gone before he wanted to go.
So yes.
Predicting a PM will be gone before s/he wanted to go is roughly like predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Very true but we were more precise than that. It was two years for May and slightly longer for Johnson; we said exactly why it would happen. Events as it turned out prolonged Boris' tenure but we said May was useless because running complicated organisations which requires strategic thought and collaboration was beyond her; and Boris because he is a lying self-interested, self-centred, lazy twat.
So we're going to see the CofE howled down by Mr Speaker tomorrow. Hoyle is increasingly fed up with these idiots treating parliament with utter contempt. He hasn't done much about it so far. But it feels like its coming.
Can the Speaker actually do anything other than verbally admonish the Gov't for it ?
The Speaker being annoyed about policies not being announced in parliament but it continuing to happen may as well now be part of our constitutional conventions.
They know it will happen, he knows it will, everyone does. Pretending we live in a time when it doesn't is just ritual behaviour at this point.
When I am Dictatrix of the country (and, frankly, it is very churlish of the country not to put me in charge instead of all the fuckwits we currently have) I am going to make it mandatory for banks to employ people to ANSWER THE BLOODY PHONE instead of telling you how sorry they are (39 minutes 42 seconds so far).
They will also be expected to employ people who can count, are competent and not dishonest grifting egomaniacs.
Their bonus will be not getting investigated by the likes of me.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
This is why your criticisms aren't serious.
Importing Qatari gas instead of UK gas causes more climate change, not less.
Anyone who quotes climate change as a reason to oppose fracking is not being serious. If you want to stop climate change, lets start with stopping Qatari etc imports which have more emissions than UK domestic generation, not less.
We need to do many things to stop climate change, and we are doing many things (if not enough). Yes, we need to reduce and then stop Qatari imports. But we were talking specifically about fracking. In a context where we’re doing all the things we need to stop climate change, where is the role for fracking?
(Existing UK domestic generation has less emissions than Qatari gas, but developing new fields has an initial cost in emissions (and in £). Developing new fields is rarely a sensible way of reducing emissions.)
Again not true. You keep making these statements which are based on nothing but supposition and are factually inaccurate. Qatari gas does not just seep from the ground by osmosis. It needs to be drilled for and produced in exactly the same way as UK gas. Adding new field emissions to UK fields but ignoring them for imported gas is simply dishonest.
My apologies. You are quite right. I was not seeking to add new field emissions in the UK, but not in Qatar or anywhere else. I was seeking to compare a new field in the UK with an existing field in Qatar. I understand there are a lot of existing fields in Qatar(!). It is, as I understand it, cheaper (financially and in terms of emissions) to get another X cubic metres out of an existing field than it is to get your first X cubic metres out of a new site.
Of course, fields run out, so you need new fields… except we’re going to have to reduce demand so much that, at some point, we stop needing new fields.
Your mistake - and one we have had to correct on here before - is thinking that net zero means no gas. It doesn't. It mean as that overall our CO2 balance is zero. We still can - and should - have gas as a backup for when renewables can't cope. But we should also have nuclear, geothermal, tidal and hydro.
And we will still be drilling oil wells in 30 years time (and more) because we still need all the products that come from oil that we don't burn.
You know this stuff better than me. I am happy to be corrected. I was talking specifically about gas because, indeed, we use oil for other things, whereas that’s much less the case with gas (although I understand it does have some uses in certain chemical processes).
We need to achieve net zero. Indeed, it would be better if we were extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. It’s difficult to achieve net zero while you’re burning gas. Carbon capture is a great idea, but we’ve yet to work out how to do it that well. What you want is a system where hydro, nuclear, tidal, etc. can act as a backup when solar/wind aren’t working. In an ideal world (and I recognise we are not in an ideal world), in the 2050s, we will be burning very little gas, way, way less than current global supply.
In that future world, with gas demand a small fraction of today’s, we will need very little supply. Only the cheapest and easiest to extract sources of gas will be worth using. Do you agree/disagree?
I don’t know what’s going to happen. It’s possible the global response to climate change is just to give up and keep pumping out greenhouse gases. If we’re serious about doing something, we’re talking about a completely different fossil fuel extraction industry in a couple of decades. I am sceptical about the idea of continuing anything like the current gas/oil/coal usage but using some magic new tech to suck up all the CO2.
We already have magic tech to suck up all the CO2. Trees. What is amazing about them is that they are self-replicating.
They put in a shift during the carboniferous period, but humankind has been doing its best to undo their hard work.
Even the CBI has "questions" about whether this is the right time to uncap bankers' bonuses. See what its economic policy director tells the Treasury Committee.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Not just gilts. 2-year USTs at 4.10%, 10y at 3.65%
On the positive side the deficits in many pension funds have been created by the extremely low return in gilts which has meant they needed far more in the way of assets to meet the liabilities to the members. This increase in gilts will have substantially reduced the quantity of assets needed with the result many hard pressed businesses, and possibly even the public sector in relation to funded schemes, will no longer have to plough quite so much of their current income into addressing a pension deficit, making more money availble for investment or even higher wages.
The scheme I am a trustee of has seen the value of the fund fall significantly since the start of this year but liabilities have fallen even faster resulting in an increase in our surplus.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
This is why your criticisms aren't serious.
Importing Qatari gas instead of UK gas causes more climate change, not less.
Anyone who quotes climate change as a reason to oppose fracking is not being serious. If you want to stop climate change, lets start with stopping Qatari etc imports which have more emissions than UK domestic generation, not less.
We need to do many things to stop climate change, and we are doing many things (if not enough). Yes, we need to reduce and then stop Qatari imports. But we were talking specifically about fracking. In a context where we’re doing all the things we need to stop climate change, where is the role for fracking?
(Existing UK domestic generation has less emissions than Qatari gas, but developing new fields has an initial cost in emissions (and in £). Developing new fields is rarely a sensible way of reducing emissions.)
Again not true. You keep making these statements which are based on nothing but supposition and are factually inaccurate. Qatari gas does not just seep from the ground by osmosis. It needs to be drilled for and produced in exactly the same way as UK gas. Adding new field emissions to UK fields but ignoring them for imported gas is simply dishonest.
My apologies. You are quite right. I was not seeking to add new field emissions in the UK, but not in Qatar or anywhere else. I was seeking to compare a new field in the UK with an existing field in Qatar. I understand there are a lot of existing fields in Qatar(!). It is, as I understand it, cheaper (financially and in terms of emissions) to get another X cubic metres out of an existing field than it is to get your first X cubic metres out of a new site.
Of course, fields run out, so you need new fields… except we’re going to have to reduce demand so much that, at some point, we stop needing new fields.
Your mistake - and one we have had to correct on here before - is thinking that net zero means no gas. It doesn't. It mean as that overall our CO2 balance is zero. We still can - and should - have gas as a backup for when renewables can't cope. But we should also have nuclear, geothermal, tidal and hydro.
And we will still be drilling oil wells in 30 years time (and more) because we still need all the products that come from oil that we don't burn.
You know this stuff better than me. I am happy to be corrected. I was talking specifically about gas because, indeed, we use oil for other things, whereas that’s much less the case with gas (although I understand it does have some uses in certain chemical processes).
We need to achieve net zero. Indeed, it would be better if we were extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. It’s difficult to achieve net zero while you’re burning gas. Carbon capture is a great idea, but we’ve yet to work out how to do it that well. What you want is a system where hydro, nuclear, tidal, etc. can act as a backup when solar/wind aren’t working. In an ideal world (and I recognise we are not in an ideal world), in the 2050s, we will be burning very little gas, way, way less than current global supply.
In that future world, with gas demand a small fraction of today’s, we will need very little supply. Only the cheapest and easiest to extract sources of gas will be worth using. Do you agree/disagree?
I don’t know what’s going to happen. It’s possible the global response to climate change is just to give up and keep pumping out greenhouse gases. If we’re serious about doing something, we’re talking about a completely different fossil fuel extraction industry in a couple of decades. I am sceptical about the idea of continuing anything like the current gas/oil/coal usage but using some magic new tech to suck up all the CO2.
We already have magic tech to suck up all the CO2. Trees. What is amazing about them is that they are self-replicating.
They put in a shift during the carboniferous period, but humankind has been doing its best to undo their hard work.
Trees are great. Trees are part of the solution. Ditto phytoplankton. But we can’t plant enough trees to compensate for the amount of CO2 we’re still producing. But, yes, you are right to extol the value of trees and they are magic.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
This is why your criticisms aren't serious.
Importing Qatari gas instead of UK gas causes more climate change, not less.
Anyone who quotes climate change as a reason to oppose fracking is not being serious. If you want to stop climate change, lets start with stopping Qatari etc imports which have more emissions than UK domestic generation, not less.
We need to do many things to stop climate change, and we are doing many things (if not enough). Yes, we need to reduce and then stop Qatari imports. But we were talking specifically about fracking. In a context where we’re doing all the things we need to stop climate change, where is the role for fracking?
(Existing UK domestic generation has less emissions than Qatari gas, but developing new fields has an initial cost in emissions (and in £). Developing new fields is rarely a sensible way of reducing emissions.)
Again not true. You keep making these statements which are based on nothing but supposition and are factually inaccurate. Qatari gas does not just seep from the ground by osmosis. It needs to be drilled for and produced in exactly the same way as UK gas. Adding new field emissions to UK fields but ignoring them for imported gas is simply dishonest.
My apologies. You are quite right. I was not seeking to add new field emissions in the UK, but not in Qatar or anywhere else. I was seeking to compare a new field in the UK with an existing field in Qatar. I understand there are a lot of existing fields in Qatar(!). It is, as I understand it, cheaper (financially and in terms of emissions) to get another X cubic metres out of an existing field than it is to get your first X cubic metres out of a new site.
Of course, fields run out, so you need new fields… except we’re going to have to reduce demand so much that, at some point, we stop needing new fields.
Your mistake - and one we have had to correct on here before - is thinking that net zero means no gas. It doesn't. It mean as that overall our CO2 balance is zero. We still can - and should - have gas as a backup for when renewables can't cope. But we should also have nuclear, geothermal, tidal and hydro.
And we will still be drilling oil wells in 30 years time (and more) because we still need all the products that come from oil that we don't burn.
We will also be using gas in CCGT and blue hydrogen plants with carbon capture.
These will be new build, coming on line towards the end of the decade and running until post-2050. By funding these projects, the government is locking in the long-term demand for natural gas.
Is the carbon capture good enough to make this work?
Yes, it works. Adds cost, reduces efficiency (therefore you need to consume more gas than for a plant without capture) and currently the "Levelised Cost of Abatement" is higher than what you have to pay for credits under the ETS, so only viable with government support. In time, there will be cross-over, and CCS will be the lower cost option than buying credits.
Of course, The Moggster and The Kwasmeister might kill the whole thing off. We'll find out soon enough...
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
Absolutely, lower earners already benefit by not paying the tax that higher earners are now saving. But, foot stamp politics demands we find outrage in all things
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
This is why your criticisms aren't serious.
Importing Qatari gas instead of UK gas causes more climate change, not less.
Anyone who quotes climate change as a reason to oppose fracking is not being serious. If you want to stop climate change, lets start with stopping Qatari etc imports which have more emissions than UK domestic generation, not less.
We need to do many things to stop climate change, and we are doing many things (if not enough). Yes, we need to reduce and then stop Qatari imports. But we were talking specifically about fracking. In a context where we’re doing all the things we need to stop climate change, where is the role for fracking?
(Existing UK domestic generation has less emissions than Qatari gas, but developing new fields has an initial cost in emissions (and in £). Developing new fields is rarely a sensible way of reducing emissions.)
Again not true. You keep making these statements which are based on nothing but supposition and are factually inaccurate. Qatari gas does not just seep from the ground by osmosis. It needs to be drilled for and produced in exactly the same way as UK gas. Adding new field emissions to UK fields but ignoring them for imported gas is simply dishonest.
My apologies. You are quite right. I was not seeking to add new field emissions in the UK, but not in Qatar or anywhere else. I was seeking to compare a new field in the UK with an existing field in Qatar. I understand there are a lot of existing fields in Qatar(!). It is, as I understand it, cheaper (financially and in terms of emissions) to get another X cubic metres out of an existing field than it is to get your first X cubic metres out of a new site.
Of course, fields run out, so you need new fields… except we’re going to have to reduce demand so much that, at some point, we stop needing new fields.
Your mistake - and one we have had to correct on here before - is thinking that net zero means no gas. It doesn't. It mean as that overall our CO2 balance is zero. We still can - and should - have gas as a backup for when renewables can't cope. But we should also have nuclear, geothermal, tidal and hydro.
And we will still be drilling oil wells in 30 years time (and more) because we still need all the products that come from oil that we don't burn.
We will also be using gas in CCGT and blue hydrogen plants with carbon capture.
These will be new build, coming on line towards the end of the decade and running until post-2050. By funding these projects, the government is locking in the long-term demand for natural gas.
Is the carbon capture good enough to make this work?
Too early to tell. From the inside, although not directly involved, a lot of the plans are coming unstuck due to basic physics.
Not just gilts. 2-year USTs at 4.10%, 10y at 3.65%
On the positive side the deficits in many pension funds have been created by the extremely low return in gilts which has meant they needed far more in the way of assets to meet the liabilities to the members. This increase in gilts will have substantially reduced the quantity of assets needed with the result many hard pressed businesses, and possibly even the public sector in relation to funded schemes, will no longer have to plough quite so much of their current income into addressing a pension deficit, making more money availble for investment or even higher wages.
The scheme I am a trustee of has seen the value of the fund fall significantly since the start of this year but liabilities have fallen even faster resulting in an increase in our surplus.
Good point. It’s come to be overlooked that there’s a lot of moving parts in finance, which everyone has forgotten after more than a decade without inflation or interest rates.
So we're going to see the CofE howled down by Mr Speaker tomorrow. Hoyle is increasingly fed up with these idiots treating parliament with utter contempt. He hasn't done much about it so far. But it feels like its coming.
Can the Speaker actually do anything other than verbally admonish the Gov't for it ?
The Speaker being annoyed about policies not being announced in parliament but it continuing to happen may as well now be part of our constitutional conventions.
They know it will happen, he knows it will, everyone does. Pretending we live in a time when it doesn't is just ritual behaviour at this point.
What should happen tomorrow is for Kwasi to be banned from Parliament for 5 days as soon as he confirms what he said is true and someone else told to continue his speech.
Not just gilts. 2-year USTs at 4.10%, 10y at 3.65%
On the positive side the deficits in many pension funds have been created by the extremely low return in gilts which has meant they needed far more in the way of assets to meet the liabilities to the members. This increase in gilts will have substantially reduced the quantity of assets needed with the result many hard pressed businesses, and possibly even the public sector in relation to funded schemes, will no longer have to plough quite so much of their current income into addressing a pension deficit, making more money availble for investment or even higher wages.
The scheme I am a trustee of has seen the value of the fund fall significantly since the start of this year but liabilities have fallen even faster resulting in an increase in our surplus.
Utterly delighted to see the Health and Social Care Levy abolished.
It should never have been created.
Well done Truss and Kwarteng. My faith in the Tories has been restored. 👏👏👏
I thought it was more likely to end up at 10% than be abolished. In terms of lasting political impact it could end up being the most consequential decision of the Truss Ministry.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
This is why your criticisms aren't serious.
Importing Qatari gas instead of UK gas causes more climate change, not less.
Anyone who quotes climate change as a reason to oppose fracking is not being serious. If you want to stop climate change, lets start with stopping Qatari etc imports which have more emissions than UK domestic generation, not less.
We need to do many things to stop climate change, and we are doing many things (if not enough). Yes, we need to reduce and then stop Qatari imports. But we were talking specifically about fracking. In a context where we’re doing all the things we need to stop climate change, where is the role for fracking?
(Existing UK domestic generation has less emissions than Qatari gas, but developing new fields has an initial cost in emissions (and in £). Developing new fields is rarely a sensible way of reducing emissions.)
Again not true. You keep making these statements which are based on nothing but supposition and are factually inaccurate. Qatari gas does not just seep from the ground by osmosis. It needs to be drilled for and produced in exactly the same way as UK gas. Adding new field emissions to UK fields but ignoring them for imported gas is simply dishonest.
My apologies. You are quite right. I was not seeking to add new field emissions in the UK, but not in Qatar or anywhere else. I was seeking to compare a new field in the UK with an existing field in Qatar. I understand there are a lot of existing fields in Qatar(!). It is, as I understand it, cheaper (financially and in terms of emissions) to get another X cubic metres out of an existing field than it is to get your first X cubic metres out of a new site.
Of course, fields run out, so you need new fields… except we’re going to have to reduce demand so much that, at some point, we stop needing new fields.
Your mistake - and one we have had to correct on here before - is thinking that net zero means no gas. It doesn't. It mean as that overall our CO2 balance is zero. We still can - and should - have gas as a backup for when renewables can't cope. But we should also have nuclear, geothermal, tidal and hydro.
And we will still be drilling oil wells in 30 years time (and more) because we still need all the products that come from oil that we don't burn.
You know this stuff better than me. I am happy to be corrected. I was talking specifically about gas because, indeed, we use oil for other things, whereas that’s much less the case with gas (although I understand it does have some uses in certain chemical processes).
We need to achieve net zero. Indeed, it would be better if we were extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. It’s difficult to achieve net zero while you’re burning gas. Carbon capture is a great idea, but we’ve yet to work out how to do it that well. What you want is a system where hydro, nuclear, tidal, etc. can act as a backup when solar/wind aren’t working. In an ideal world (and I recognise we are not in an ideal world), in the 2050s, we will be burning very little gas, way, way less than current global supply.
In that future world, with gas demand a small fraction of today’s, we will need very little supply. Only the cheapest and easiest to extract sources of gas will be worth using. Do you agree/disagree?
I don’t know what’s going to happen. It’s possible the global response to climate change is just to give up and keep pumping out greenhouse gases. If we’re serious about doing something, we’re talking about a completely different fossil fuel extraction industry in a couple of decades. I am sceptical about the idea of continuing anything like the current gas/oil/coal usage but using some magic new tech to suck up all the CO2.
We already have magic tech to suck up all the CO2. Trees. What is amazing about them is that they are self-replicating.
They put in a shift during the carboniferous period, but humankind has been doing its best to undo their hard work.
The carboniferous trick depended on wood eating fungi not evolving. They have now.
Utterly delighted to see the Health and Social Care Levy abolished.
It should never have been created.
Well done Truss and Kwarteng. My faith in the Tories has been restored. 👏👏👏
So how is social care going to be paid for?
Taxpayer-funded spending will be paid for by taxpayers, same as has always happened, and always would have happened.
But we should not have a situation where only a select proportion of taxpayers, those who work for a living via PAYE are expected to shoulder the entire burden while other taxpayers who don't get their money via PAYE are able to evade their fair share of responsibilities altogether.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
This is why your criticisms aren't serious.
Importing Qatari gas instead of UK gas causes more climate change, not less.
Anyone who quotes climate change as a reason to oppose fracking is not being serious. If you want to stop climate change, lets start with stopping Qatari etc imports which have more emissions than UK domestic generation, not less.
We need to do many things to stop climate change, and we are doing many things (if not enough). Yes, we need to reduce and then stop Qatari imports. But we were talking specifically about fracking. In a context where we’re doing all the things we need to stop climate change, where is the role for fracking?
(Existing UK domestic generation has less emissions than Qatari gas, but developing new fields has an initial cost in emissions (and in £). Developing new fields is rarely a sensible way of reducing emissions.)
Again not true. You keep making these statements which are based on nothing but supposition and are factually inaccurate. Qatari gas does not just seep from the ground by osmosis. It needs to be drilled for and produced in exactly the same way as UK gas. Adding new field emissions to UK fields but ignoring them for imported gas is simply dishonest.
My apologies. You are quite right. I was not seeking to add new field emissions in the UK, but not in Qatar or anywhere else. I was seeking to compare a new field in the UK with an existing field in Qatar. I understand there are a lot of existing fields in Qatar(!). It is, as I understand it, cheaper (financially and in terms of emissions) to get another X cubic metres out of an existing field than it is to get your first X cubic metres out of a new site.
Of course, fields run out, so you need new fields… except we’re going to have to reduce demand so much that, at some point, we stop needing new fields.
Your mistake - and one we have had to correct on here before - is thinking that net zero means no gas. It doesn't. It mean as that overall our CO2 balance is zero. We still can - and should - have gas as a backup for when renewables can't cope. But we should also have nuclear, geothermal, tidal and hydro.
And we will still be drilling oil wells in 30 years time (and more) because we still need all the products that come from oil that we don't burn.
You know this stuff better than me. I am happy to be corrected. I was talking specifically about gas because, indeed, we use oil for other things, whereas that’s much less the case with gas (although I understand it does have some uses in certain chemical processes).
We need to achieve net zero. Indeed, it would be better if we were extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. It’s difficult to achieve net zero while you’re burning gas. Carbon capture is a great idea, but we’ve yet to work out how to do it that well. What you want is a system where hydro, nuclear, tidal, etc. can act as a backup when solar/wind aren’t working. In an ideal world (and I recognise we are not in an ideal world), in the 2050s, we will be burning very little gas, way, way less than current global supply.
In that future world, with gas demand a small fraction of today’s, we will need very little supply. Only the cheapest and easiest to extract sources of gas will be worth using. Do you agree/disagree?
I don’t know what’s going to happen. It’s possible the global response to climate change is just to give up and keep pumping out greenhouse gases. If we’re serious about doing something, we’re talking about a completely different fossil fuel extraction industry in a couple of decades. I am sceptical about the idea of continuing anything like the current gas/oil/coal usage but using some magic new tech to suck up all the CO2.
We already have magic tech to suck up all the CO2. Trees. What is amazing about them is that they are self-replicating.
They put in a shift during the carboniferous period, but humankind has been doing its best to undo their hard work.
The carboniferous trick depended on wood eating fungi not evolving. They have now.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
If you raised the income tax personal allowance threshold from lets say 12,000 to 13,000, someone on 30k per annum saves 200 quid, someone on 12,001 per annum saves 20p, because they only currently pay 20p
Not just gilts. 2-year USTs at 4.10%, 10y at 3.65%
On the positive side the deficits in many pension funds have been created by the extremely low return in gilts which has meant they needed far more in the way of assets to meet the liabilities to the members. This increase in gilts will have substantially reduced the quantity of assets needed with the result many hard pressed businesses, and possibly even the public sector in relation to funded schemes, will no longer have to plough quite so much of their current income into addressing a pension deficit, making more money availble for investment or even higher wages.
The scheme I am a trustee of has seen the value of the fund fall significantly since the start of this year but liabilities have fallen even faster resulting in an increase in our surplus.
Good point. It’s come to be overlooked that there’s a lot of moving parts in finance, which everyone has forgotten after more than a decade without inflation or interest rates.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?
The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Looking at taxes alone, the poor absolutely do benefit more from a flat rate cut in tax since taxes aren't flat its the poorest that see their marginal rate of tax cut by the most.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
Cutting NI is relatively good in that regard, because poor people pretty much have all their income taxed by NI, whereas rich people living off rental income and dividends do not pay a penny in NI.
This is why I criticised the cynicism of Sunak in putting up NI so that he could cut income tax later.
Utterly delighted to see the Health and Social Care Levy abolished.
It should never have been created.
Well done Truss and Kwarteng. My faith in the Tories has been restored. 👏👏👏
I thought it was more likely to end up at 10% than be abolished. In terms of lasting political impact it could end up being the most consequential decision of the Truss Ministry.
Absolutely!
A nice, kind 1% increase in "Health" tax every year and a 1% cut in mean, nasty "Income Tax" every year and eventually Income Tax is abolished so those on unearned incomes never pay any tax, while those on PAYE are utterly and royally f***ed.
Truss was the right pick for this decision alone. Even if she never does anything else of consequence and loses the next election by a landslide, this decision already vindicates her being PM in full.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
This is why your criticisms aren't serious.
Importing Qatari gas instead of UK gas causes more climate change, not less.
Anyone who quotes climate change as a reason to oppose fracking is not being serious. If you want to stop climate change, lets start with stopping Qatari etc imports which have more emissions than UK domestic generation, not less.
We need to do many things to stop climate change, and we are doing many things (if not enough). Yes, we need to reduce and then stop Qatari imports. But we were talking specifically about fracking. In a context where we’re doing all the things we need to stop climate change, where is the role for fracking?
(Existing UK domestic generation has less emissions than Qatari gas, but developing new fields has an initial cost in emissions (and in £). Developing new fields is rarely a sensible way of reducing emissions.)
Again not true. You keep making these statements which are based on nothing but supposition and are factually inaccurate. Qatari gas does not just seep from the ground by osmosis. It needs to be drilled for and produced in exactly the same way as UK gas. Adding new field emissions to UK fields but ignoring them for imported gas is simply dishonest.
My apologies. You are quite right. I was not seeking to add new field emissions in the UK, but not in Qatar or anywhere else. I was seeking to compare a new field in the UK with an existing field in Qatar. I understand there are a lot of existing fields in Qatar(!). It is, as I understand it, cheaper (financially and in terms of emissions) to get another X cubic metres out of an existing field than it is to get your first X cubic metres out of a new site.
Of course, fields run out, so you need new fields… except we’re going to have to reduce demand so much that, at some point, we stop needing new fields.
Your mistake - and one we have had to correct on here before - is thinking that net zero means no gas. It doesn't. It mean as that overall our CO2 balance is zero. We still can - and should - have gas as a backup for when renewables can't cope. But we should also have nuclear, geothermal, tidal and hydro.
And we will still be drilling oil wells in 30 years time (and more) because we still need all the products that come from oil that we don't burn.
You know this stuff better than me. I am happy to be corrected. I was talking specifically about gas because, indeed, we use oil for other things, whereas that’s much less the case with gas (although I understand it does have some uses in certain chemical processes).
We need to achieve net zero. Indeed, it would be better if we were extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. It’s difficult to achieve net zero while you’re burning gas. Carbon capture is a great idea, but we’ve yet to work out how to do it that well. What you want is a system where hydro, nuclear, tidal, etc. can act as a backup when solar/wind aren’t working. In an ideal world (and I recognise we are not in an ideal world), in the 2050s, we will be burning very little gas, way, way less than current global supply.
In that future world, with gas demand a small fraction of today’s, we will need very little supply. Only the cheapest and easiest to extract sources of gas will be worth using. Do you agree/disagree?
I don’t know what’s going to happen. It’s possible the global response to climate change is just to give up and keep pumping out greenhouse gases. If we’re serious about doing something, we’re talking about a completely different fossil fuel extraction industry in a couple of decades. I am sceptical about the idea of continuing anything like the current gas/oil/coal usage but using some magic new tech to suck up all the CO2.
We already have magic tech to suck up all the CO2. Trees. What is amazing about them is that they are self-replicating.
They put in a shift during the carboniferous period, but humankind has been doing its best to undo their hard work.
The carboniferous trick depended on wood eating fungi not evolving. They have now.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Looking at taxes alone, the poor absolutely do benefit more from a flat rate cut in tax since taxes aren't flat its the poorest that see their marginal rate of tax cut by the most.
I wonder if a good way to reduce the tax burden on 'ordinary' people would be to slash fuel duty....?
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
Cutting NI is relatively good in that regard, because poor people pretty much have all their income taxed by NI, whereas rich people living off rental income and dividends do not pay a penny in NI.
This is why I criticised the cynicism of Sunak in putting up NI so that he could cut income tax later.
Absolutely! x2
NI is the most regressive of all the taxes. A pernicious tax on working people who can't arrange their incomes to evade it, while the well off who get an income from non-working means evade it in full.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Looking at taxes alone, the poor absolutely do benefit more from a flat rate cut in tax since taxes aren't flat its the poorest that see their marginal rate of tax cut by the most.
I wonder if a good way to reduce the tax burden on 'ordinary' people would be to slash fuel duty....?
YES!!!
Fuel Duty is probably the third most regressive tax of them all. Cigarette tax comes in second, and TV licence is a mile ahead in the lead.
Fuel costs also feed into the cost of everything else, that needs to be transported to where it’s needed.
The problem, is that pretty much everyone in the Treasury commutes by train.
One hour and twenty minutes and the Bonds team at Santander doesn't apparently know how to close an account or transfer money out of it. And these people want bonuses!! FFS!!! They shouldn't even get salaries they are so useless.
So they're looking this up in their Ladybird book of how to run a bank .....
"This is a huge line of cars on the border of Russia and Georgia. This is how Russian men want to fight against Ukraine. And rightly so, because here they either face capture or death. #UkraineWillWin"
"This is a huge line of cars on the border of Russia and Georgia. This is how Russian men want to fight against Ukraine. And rightly so, because here they either face capture or death. #UkraineWillWin"
Queues at the border will dissipate as soon as any male of fighting age attempting to cross the border is drafted on the spot into the army. Surprised it isn't happening already.
The f***ing Fed keep jacking up rates which is tanking Sterling, we'd better do a 0.5% rate rise in order to at least do something to keep it relatively in line.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
This is why your criticisms aren't serious.
Importing Qatari gas instead of UK gas causes more climate change, not less.
Anyone who quotes climate change as a reason to oppose fracking is not being serious. If you want to stop climate change, lets start with stopping Qatari etc imports which have more emissions than UK domestic generation, not less.
We need to do many things to stop climate change, and we are doing many things (if not enough). Yes, we need to reduce and then stop Qatari imports. But we were talking specifically about fracking. In a context where we’re doing all the things we need to stop climate change, where is the role for fracking?
(Existing UK domestic generation has less emissions than Qatari gas, but developing new fields has an initial cost in emissions (and in £). Developing new fields is rarely a sensible way of reducing emissions.)
Again not true. You keep making these statements which are based on nothing but supposition and are factually inaccurate. Qatari gas does not just seep from the ground by osmosis. It needs to be drilled for and produced in exactly the same way as UK gas. Adding new field emissions to UK fields but ignoring them for imported gas is simply dishonest.
My apologies. You are quite right. I was not seeking to add new field emissions in the UK, but not in Qatar or anywhere else. I was seeking to compare a new field in the UK with an existing field in Qatar. I understand there are a lot of existing fields in Qatar(!). It is, as I understand it, cheaper (financially and in terms of emissions) to get another X cubic metres out of an existing field than it is to get your first X cubic metres out of a new site.
Of course, fields run out, so you need new fields… except we’re going to have to reduce demand so much that, at some point, we stop needing new fields.
Your mistake - and one we have had to correct on here before - is thinking that net zero means no gas. It doesn't. It mean as that overall our CO2 balance is zero. We still can - and should - have gas as a backup for when renewables can't cope. But we should also have nuclear, geothermal, tidal and hydro.
And we will still be drilling oil wells in 30 years time (and more) because we still need all the products that come from oil that we don't burn.
You know this stuff better than me. I am happy to be corrected. I was talking specifically about gas because, indeed, we use oil for other things, whereas that’s much less the case with gas (although I understand it does have some uses in certain chemical processes).
We need to achieve net zero. Indeed, it would be better if we were extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. It’s difficult to achieve net zero while you’re burning gas. Carbon capture is a great idea, but we’ve yet to work out how to do it that well. What you want is a system where hydro, nuclear, tidal, etc. can act as a backup when solar/wind aren’t working. In an ideal world (and I recognise we are not in an ideal world), in the 2050s, we will be burning very little gas, way, way less than current global supply.
In that future world, with gas demand a small fraction of today’s, we will need very little supply. Only the cheapest and easiest to extract sources of gas will be worth using. Do you agree/disagree?
I don’t know what’s going to happen. It’s possible the global response to climate change is just to give up and keep pumping out greenhouse gases. If we’re serious about doing something, we’re talking about a completely different fossil fuel extraction industry in a couple of decades. I am sceptical about the idea of continuing anything like the current gas/oil/coal usage but using some magic new tech to suck up all the CO2.
We already have magic tech to suck up all the CO2. Trees. What is amazing about them is that they are self-replicating.
They put in a shift during the carboniferous period, but humankind has been doing its best to undo their hard work.
The carboniferous trick depended on wood eating fungi not evolving. They have now.
All the shrewd political minds in this country think she'll be gone in 2023.
The same shrewd political minds who didn't think she'd get in Number 10?
The same shrewd political minds who didn't think Boris could win a majority?
The same shrewd political minds who didn't think Boris would get in Number 10?
The same shrewd political minds who didn't think Brexit would be voted through?
The same shrewd political minds who called May out and said she would be gone before she wanted to go.
The same shrewd political minds who called Johnson out and said he would be gone before he wanted to go.
So yes.
Predicting a PM will be gone before s/he wanted to go is roughly like predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Very true but we were more precise than that. It was two years for May and slightly longer for Johnson; we said exactly why it would happen. Events as it turned out prolonged Boris' tenure but we said May was useless because running complicated organisations which requires strategic thought and collaboration was beyond her; and Boris because he is a lying self-interested, self-centred, lazy twat.
And we were right.
Your critical analysis of May was even more appropriate for Johnson. It's just that he was also "a lying self-interested, self-centred, lazy twat".
Although after the first two weeks of Truss, Mogg, Kwartang and Coffey, I'm missing the flsoj already.
I simply can't wait for Braverman to engage first gear.
"This is a huge line of cars on the border of Russia and Georgia. This is how Russian men want to fight against Ukraine. And rightly so, because here they either face capture or death. #UkraineWillWin"
Queues at the border will dissipate as soon as any male of fighting age attempting to cross the border is drafted on the spot into the army. Surprised it isn't happening already.
The Politburo needed the extra day to get their sons out.
All the shrewd political minds in this country think she'll be gone in 2023.
The same shrewd political minds who didn't think she'd get in Number 10?
The same shrewd political minds who didn't think Boris could win a majority?
The same shrewd political minds who didn't think Boris would get in Number 10?
The same shrewd political minds who didn't think Brexit would be voted through?
The same shrewd political minds who called May out and said she would be gone before she wanted to go.
The same shrewd political minds who called Johnson out and said he would be gone before he wanted to go.
So yes.
Predicting a PM will be gone before s/he wanted to go is roughly like predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Very true but we were more precise than that. It was two years for May and slightly longer for Johnson; we said exactly why it would happen. Events as it turned out prolonged Boris' tenure but we said May was useless because running complicated organisations which requires strategic thought and collaboration was beyond her; and Boris because he is a lying self-interested, self-centred, lazy twat.
And we were right.
Your critical analysis of May was even more appropriate for Johnson. It's just that he was also "a lying self-interested, self-centred, lazy twat".
Although after the first two weeks of Truss, Mogg, Kwartang and Coffey, I'm missing the flsoj already.
"This is a huge line of cars on the border of Russia and Georgia. This is how Russian men want to fight against Ukraine. And rightly so, because here they either face capture or death. #UkraineWillWin"
Queues at the border will dissipate as soon as any male of fighting age attempting to cross the border is drafted on the spot into the army. Surprised it isn't happening already.
Apparently the roads are now being closed. Russia is sealing itself off
Putin is preparing for Total War. He will do everything needed to defeat Ukraine
Utterly delighted to see the Health and Social Care Levy abolished.
It should never have been created.
Well done Truss and Kwarteng. My faith in the Tories has been restored. 👏👏👏
So how is social care going to be paid for?
Who cares? People die, so what.
I know you are being sarcastic, but to be pedantic social care isn't about people dying mainly. It is about quality of life, personal dignity, being able to remain at home longer, keeping out of hospital, being able to be discharged from hospital, helping relatives cope with care and so on.
They’re thinking along the same lines as @Philip_Thompson - also, Adam Tooze. And lots of other economists of varying influence.
Fundamentally, these people were on the “team transitory” side of the inflation argument, late last year/earlier this year. They appear to have lost the argument in America, are in the process of losing it in Europe, but still have influence in Britain.
It’s a fascinating period for central banking. They’re playing big stakes. The credibility of lots of influential people is on the line. Who is right? We’ll find out soon…
All the shrewd political minds in this country think she'll be gone in 2023.
The same shrewd political minds who didn't think she'd get in Number 10?
The same shrewd political minds who didn't think Boris could win a majority?
The same shrewd political minds who didn't think Boris would get in Number 10?
The same shrewd political minds who didn't think Brexit would be voted through?
The same shrewd political minds who called May out and said she would be gone before she wanted to go.
The same shrewd political minds who called Johnson out and said he would be gone before he wanted to go.
So yes.
Predicting a PM will be gone before s/he wanted to go is roughly like predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Very true but we were more precise than that. It was two years for May and slightly longer for Johnson; we said exactly why it would happen. Events as it turned out prolonged Boris' tenure but we said May was useless because running complicated organisations which requires strategic thought and collaboration was beyond her; and Boris because he is a lying self-interested, self-centred, lazy twat.
And we were right.
Your critical analysis of May was even more appropriate for Johnson. It's just that he was also "a lying self-interested, self-centred, lazy twat".
Although after the first two weeks of Truss, Mogg, Kwartang and Coffey, I'm missing the flsoj already.
I simply can't wait for Braverman to engage first gear.
Yes that is true. Although his idea of collaboration was to say yes to the person he most recently had been speaking to, whereas May was simply unable to function in such a socialised situation.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
If you raised the income tax personal allowance threshold from lets say 12,000 to 13,000, someone on 30k per annum saves 200 quid, someone on 12,001 per annum saves 20p, because they only currently pay 20p
Indeed. But you could cut taxes in a different way.
"This is a huge line of cars on the border of Russia and Georgia. This is how Russian men want to fight against Ukraine. And rightly so, because here they either face capture or death. #UkraineWillWin"
Queues at the border will dissipate as soon as any male of fighting age attempting to cross the border is drafted on the spot into the army. Surprised it isn't happening already.
That assumes a level of competence and skill in organisation that the Russian state has not been exhibiting recently.
And honesty. If they actually started doing that, there would be an increase in the bribe required for the border guards, and little else.
Utterly delighted to see the Health and Social Care Levy abolished.
It should never have been created.
Well done Truss and Kwarteng. My faith in the Tories has been restored. 👏👏👏
So how is social care going to be paid for?
Who cares? People die, so what.
I know you are being sarcastic, but to be pedantic social care isn't about people dying mainly. It is about quality of life, personal dignity, being able to remain at home longer, keeping out of hospital, being able to be discharged from hospital, helping relatives cope with care and so on.
I've found out where the £500m being given to Social care is coming from. It's from an unchanged NHS budget which asks the question which part of the NHS has to find £500m of budget cuts?
"This is a huge line of cars on the border of Russia and Georgia. This is how Russian men want to fight against Ukraine. And rightly so, because here they either face capture or death. #UkraineWillWin"
The number of American draft dodgers in the pointless Vietnam war was hundreds of thousands. The use of "agent orange" by the US was a perversion with knock-on effects. And don't forget napalm.. And they lost anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_evasion_in_the_Vietnam_War
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?
The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.
You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.
Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
Absolutely, lower earners already benefit by not paying the tax that higher earners are now saving. But, foot stamp politics demands we find outrage in all things
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
If you raised the income tax personal allowance threshold from lets say 12,000 to 13,000, someone on 30k per annum saves 200 quid, someone on 12,001 per annum saves 20p, because they only currently pay 20p
Indeed. But you could cut taxes in a different way.
How else would you cut them?
Given income tax is staggered higher at higher incomes, a flat 1.25% cut in tax reduces taxes on the poorest proportionately more than the richest. Given that the poorest get their income via PAYE while the wealthiest have non-PAYE income, a flat NI tax cut benefits the poorest more than any other income-related tax cut would.
Shipping costs plummeting towards the status quo ante.
There's going to be a very large fall in inflation next year, potentially even deflation.
The Fed are being too aggressive in their rate rises.
I think you are correct, I can see significant deflation in 9-12 months time.
Its highly likley that the war in Ukraine will be over as Russia simply does not have the equipment to keep going, the exchange of the prisoners overnight is a huge deal, especially the fighters from Mariupol, hardline Russians are in disbelief at this. Putin may be mad but I think he might realise that he cannot win in Ukraine and this release of prisoners may be the first step on the way to peace. I can't work out why else he would do it, did he really need the Russians who have been released? Can you imagine Hitler releasing a British hero in exchange for non-descript Germans.
Labour’s lead has slipped from 14 points in July to ten, with the party down four points to 40 per cent, the Conservatives are unchanged on 30 per cent, the Liberal Democrats up three points to 13 per cent and the Greens unchanged on eight per cent.
Shipping costs plummeting towards the status quo ante.
There's going to be a very large fall in inflation next year, potentially even deflation.
The Fed are being too aggressive in their rate rises.
Thing is investors are maybe looking at history. Last time inflation was a serious problem, US rates got to 20%.
Last time inflation was a serious problem commodity prices shot up and kept going up. The oil price shock in the mid seventies was followed by escalating oil prices for the next six years. Oil prices more than doubled in 1974 but they continued rising to more than double that again by 1980.
This time most commodity prices went up but are already starting to reverse. Unlike the seventies, if prices are falling next year instead of continuing to rise further and further, then that's going to play out very, very differently.
Shipping costs plummeting towards the status quo ante.
There's going to be a very large fall in inflation next year, potentially even deflation.
The Fed are being too aggressive in their rate rises.
I think you are correct, I can see significant deflation in 9-12 months time.
Its highly likley that the war in Ukraine will be over as Russia simply does not have the equipment to keep going, the exchange of the prisoners overnight is a huge deal, especially the fighters from Mariupol, hardline Russians are in disbelief at this. Putin may be mad but I think he might realise that he cannot win in Ukraine and this release of prisoners may be the first step on the way to peace. I can't work out why else he would do it, did he really need the Russians who have been released? Can you imagine Hitler releasing a British hero in exchange for non-descript Germans.
Gas prices will collapse Oil prices will fall
Its a perfect storm for deflation.
I think Putin probably needs any competent soldiers back (POW's); given the apparent losses.
"This is a huge line of cars on the border of Russia and Georgia. This is how Russian men want to fight against Ukraine. And rightly so, because here they either face capture or death. #UkraineWillWin"
Queues at the border will dissipate as soon as any male of fighting age attempting to cross the border is drafted on the spot into the army. Surprised it isn't happening already.
Apparently the roads are now being closed. Russia is sealing itself off
Putin is preparing for Total War. He will do everything needed to defeat Ukraine
The problem is that whilst he can get men (who don't want to fight) he doesn't have the logistics to support them or the equipment which they can fight with. Most of the "modern" military equipment the Russians had has been shown to be inadequate and destroyed. What they have left are 50+ year old cold war relics and an inability to manufacture now that sanctions have cut off suppliers.
I have started to feel sympathy with the new Russian conscripts who are being dragged away from their families and most likely sent to their deaths.
"This is a huge line of cars on the border of Russia and Georgia. This is how Russian men want to fight against Ukraine. And rightly so, because here they either face capture or death. #UkraineWillWin"
Queues at the border will dissipate as soon as any male of fighting age attempting to cross the border is drafted on the spot into the army. Surprised it isn't happening already.
That assumes a level of competence and skill in organisation that the Russian state has not been exhibiting recently.
And honesty. If they actually started doing that, there would be an increase in the bribe required for the border guards, and little else.
I have a mental image of a smartly-dressed lady in a Mercedes, saying to the guard “My friend ‘Benjamin’ says it’s only me in the car.”
When they formally close the border, it will be “My five friends Benjamin, all say it’s only me in the car”, and by the weekend the border guard will have bought a Mercedes for himself.
Shipping costs plummeting towards the status quo ante.
There's going to be a very large fall in inflation next year, potentially even deflation.
The Fed are being too aggressive in their rate rises.
Thing is investors are maybe looking at history. Last time inflation was a serious problem, US rates got to 20%.
Last time inflation was a serious problem commodity prices shot up and kept going up. The oil price shock in the mid seventies was followed by escalating oil prices for the next six years. Oil prices more than doubled in 1974 but they continued rising to more than double that again by 1980.
This time most commodity prices went up but are already starting to reverse. Unlike the seventies, if prices are falling next year instead of continuing to rise further and further, then that's going to play out very, very differently.
Fair point.
Also, if you were around that the time, the message in 1980 was there WAS no more oil and gas. We were running out.
Shipping costs plummeting towards the status quo ante.
There's going to be a very large fall in inflation next year, potentially even deflation.
The Fed are being too aggressive in their rate rises.
I think you are correct, I can see significant deflation in 9-12 months time.
Its highly likley that the war in Ukraine will be over as Russia simply does not have the equipment to keep going, the exchange of the prisoners overnight is a huge deal, especially the fighters from Mariupol, hardline Russians are in disbelief at this. Putin may be mad but I think he might realise that he cannot win in Ukraine and this release of prisoners may be the first step on the way to peace. I can't work out why else he would do it, did he really need the Russians who have been released? Can you imagine Hitler releasing a British hero in exchange for non-descript Germans.
Gas prices will collapse Oil prices will fall
Its a perfect storm for deflation.
If you’re right, then it might be an idea to lock money away for 3 years at 4.1%;
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
If you raised the income tax personal allowance threshold from lets say 12,000 to 13,000, someone on 30k per annum saves 200 quid, someone on 12,001 per annum saves 20p, because they only currently pay 20p
Indeed. But you could cut taxes in a different way.
How else would you cut them?
Given income tax is staggered higher at higher incomes, a flat 1.25% cut in tax reduces taxes on the poorest proportionately more than the richest. Given that the poorest get their income via PAYE while the wealthiest have non-PAYE income, a flat NI tax cut benefits the poorest more than any other income-related tax cut would.
I'm not in charge, so I'm not certain there's much value in asking me what I'd do! I'd not start from here. Merge NI into income tax, as you've also argued for. Introduce a property-based wealth tax.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?
The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.
You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.
Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.
Again it's the same issue - VAT isn't really a big cost to low paid workers - so the winners would again be the better paid workers with more discretionary none food spending.
They’re thinking along the same lines as @Philip_Thompson - also, Adam Tooze. And lots of other economists of varying influence.
Fundamentally, these people were on the “team transitory” side of the inflation argument, late last year/earlier this year. They appear to have lost the argument in America, are in the process of losing it in Europe, but still have influence in Britain.
It’s a fascinating period for central banking. They’re playing big stakes. The credibility of lots of influential people is on the line. Who is right? We’ll find out soon…
They are all on big fat salaries. They'll be alright whatever the outcome of their decisions.
Shipping costs plummeting towards the status quo ante.
There's going to be a very large fall in inflation next year, potentially even deflation.
The Fed are being too aggressive in their rate rises.
I think you are correct, I can see significant deflation in 9-12 months time.
Its highly likley that the war in Ukraine will be over as Russia simply does not have the equipment to keep going, the exchange of the prisoners overnight is a huge deal, especially the fighters from Mariupol, hardline Russians are in disbelief at this. Putin may be mad but I think he might realise that he cannot win in Ukraine and this release of prisoners may be the first step on the way to peace. I can't work out why else he would do it, did he really need the Russians who have been released? Can you imagine Hitler releasing a British hero in exchange for non-descript Germans.
Gas prices will collapse Oil prices will fall
Its a perfect storm for deflation.
Gas prices would only collapse if Europe started buying Russian gas from the pipelines again. This won’t happen, since even if someone throws Putin out of a window on live TV and announcers they want Russia to join the EU… who’s going to believe them.
A reduction in oil price is more likely.
The prisoner exchange is probably due to power brokers in the Putin regimes structure selling such a deal as keeping a channel open, giving the Saudis a diplomatic win to make a fried and getting their people back. Pitched as a win to Putin.
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
You’re starting from the premise of the domestic impact on climate change, others are starting from the premise of maximising domestic production at a time of high prices.
It’s difficult to predict the future. (It’s much easier predicting the past…) If I knew what was going to happen to gas prices, I’d be very rich. However, we can observe some general points.
Gas prices are currently very high because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, the war will be over with a Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. Of course, that may not happen, but commentators generally think the price shock from the war will reduce over time, either because something happens in the war or because alternative supply routes to Europe are established.
Fracking will take time to produce gas. That depends on particular sites etc., but fracking isn’t going to have a significant effect on domestic production this winter and probably not next winter. As I understand it.
So fracking doesn’t seem like a good way to tackle the current energy crisis. On shore solar and wind are the quickest ways of increasing domestic energy production. By the time fracking is producing serious quantities of gas in the UK, if that ever happens, gas prices are likely to be back to normal.
Longer term, if we in the UK and the rest of the world are serious about climate change, then the demand for gas will have to be significantly decreased soon. Demand will decrease faster than supply. Prices should fall. A large gas reserve will become almost worthless. I don’t think that has a sunk in for a lot of people.
It's worth noting that UK usage of gas peaked in 2004.
In 2004 we used 1020 TWh of gas. In 2021 we used 769 TWh of gas.
It needs to come down more of course. It goes mainly on 3 things iirc, electricity generation (29%), domestic heating (38%) and industrial (11%).
The first will be driven down renewables swapping out CCGT power stations. The second will be driven down by improved building quality, and other sources replacing gas cookers and boilers. The third is services an processes, and industrial buildings are a big problem. I once worked out the costs of insulating a portal frame 7000sqft gym, and it was a big number.
Prospects? I can see usage down by a further 30% by 2035. There should be a big fall between 2020 and 2025 given the very large amount of renewables coming on stream.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
If you raised the income tax personal allowance threshold from lets say 12,000 to 13,000, someone on 30k per annum saves 200 quid, someone on 12,001 per annum saves 20p, because they only currently pay 20p
Indeed. But you could cut taxes in a different way.
How else would you cut them?
Given income tax is staggered higher at higher incomes, a flat 1.25% cut in tax reduces taxes on the poorest proportionately more than the richest. Given that the poorest get their income via PAYE while the wealthiest have non-PAYE income, a flat NI tax cut benefits the poorest more than any other income-related tax cut would.
I'm not in charge, so I'm not certain there's much value in asking me what I'd do! I'd not start from here. Merge NI into income tax, as you've also argued for. Introduce a property-based wealth tax.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?
The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.
You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.
Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.
Again it's the same issue - VAT isn't really a big cost to low paid workers - so the winners would again be the better paid workers with more discretionary none food spending.
But I wasn't expecting to provide detailed tax plans of my own. I was just pointing out that there are always alternative. Saying, "Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" is silly when there are so many different ways you could change taxes.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?
The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.
You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.
Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.
Plenty of problems with a VAT cut. Is it temporary or permanent (if the former formulate in your head the political appeal of promising to raise taxes)? Also if it's temporary (somehow) then that will mean price reversion when it is reversed and hence higher inflation. Plus the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth on VAT than the rich. Food, for example, represents a larger share of income for poorer households than richer ones.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
Absolutely, lower earners already benefit by not paying the tax that higher earners are now saving. But, foot stamp politics demands we find outrage in all things
Feck me. The poor are the lucky ones!
Not at all, but the point is we pay a % based on income over a certain level, not a levy, so tax cuts will mean more savings for those that pay more. If you are on low income, thats already recognised in the system in that you pay little or no income taxes. Tax cuts are not MEANT to be redistributive, they are for generating growth, or attempting to do so. If everything is boiled down to 'the rich vs the poor' and what each policy means for them you might as well confiscate all income and possessions and dole out necessities. Who decides where we cut off tax cuts? Are those on 17,000 to be punished for saving more tax than those on 14,000? Its infantile.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
If you raised the income tax personal allowance threshold from lets say 12,000 to 13,000, someone on 30k per annum saves 200 quid, someone on 12,001 per annum saves 20p, because they only currently pay 20p
Indeed. But you could cut taxes in a different way.
How else would you cut them?
Given income tax is staggered higher at higher incomes, a flat 1.25% cut in tax reduces taxes on the poorest proportionately more than the richest. Given that the poorest get their income via PAYE while the wealthiest have non-PAYE income, a flat NI tax cut benefits the poorest more than any other income-related tax cut would.
I'm not in charge, so I'm not certain there's much value in asking me what I'd do! I'd not start from here. Merge NI into income tax, as you've also argued for. Introduce a property-based wealth tax.
If you're going to do that then cutting NI is a good first step in transitioning to that, since a merge in one go is going to be very dramatic.
Realistically all taxes that can be cut, except possible tobacco duty, will benefit the richest the most since they pay the most taxes. Cut VAT and people who spend a lot of money on VAT-rated goods and services will get a bigger tax cut.
Apart from things like tobacco or fuel duty, the only tax that's not a tax that would be more progressive in my view than an NI tax cut is cutting the taper rate on UC. That should be done in my view, but NI is next best to that and the most progressive of the actual taxes to cut.
Shipping costs plummeting towards the status quo ante.
There's going to be a very large fall in inflation next year, potentially even deflation.
The Fed are being too aggressive in their rate rises.
I think you are correct, I can see significant deflation in 9-12 months time.
Its highly likley that the war in Ukraine will be over as Russia simply does not have the equipment to keep going, the exchange of the prisoners overnight is a huge deal, especially the fighters from Mariupol, hardline Russians are in disbelief at this. Putin may be mad but I think he might realise that he cannot win in Ukraine and this release of prisoners may be the first step on the way to peace. I can't work out why else he would do it, did he really need the Russians who have been released? Can you imagine Hitler releasing a British hero in exchange for non-descript Germans.
Gas prices will collapse Oil prices will fall
Its a perfect storm for deflation.
Gas prices would only collapse if Europe started buying Russian gas from the pipelines again. This won’t happen, since even if someone throws Putin out of a window on live TV and announcers they want Russia to join the EU… who’s going to believe them.
A reduction in oil price is more likely.
The prisoner exchange is probably due to power brokers in the Putin regimes structure selling such a deal as keeping a channel open, giving the Saudis a diplomatic win to make a fried and getting their people back. Pitched as a win to Putin.
He has released the Azov fighters including 2 battalion commanders. These guys are heros in Ukraine and hated in Russia. Its definitely not something I would have expected and its hard to see it as a win for Putin.
Comments
Both May and Johnson were useless. May because she had no idea how to manage her own office let alone the country, and Johnson because he was a solipsistic lying twat.
Plenty on here called both out almost as soon as they took office and we said why they would be booted out and we were right. They both were brought down for those reasons and over and above the "every political career ends if failure" inevitability.
Has this country ever had such a level of growth and how consistent would it need to be?
Funny old world.
They will also be expected to employ people who can count, are competent and not dishonest grifting egomaniacs.
Their bonus will be not getting investigated by the likes of me.
And we were right.
They know it will happen, he knows it will, everyone does. Pretending we live in a time when it doesn't is just ritual behaviour at this point.
I said the NI hike would be either a) strangled at birth or b) reversed in short order.
For this prediction, I was flamed by the PB Credulants, such as G, who said I was being naive and that the hike was needed and would stay.
I was right, the Credulants were wrong.
It lasted all of (checks notes) seven months.
They put in a shift during the carboniferous period, but humankind has been doing its best to undo their hard work.
Everyone in favour of more immigration should be in favour of it too.
The scheme I am a trustee of has seen the value of the fund fall significantly since the start of this year but liabilities have fallen even faster resulting in an increase in our surplus.
Of course, The Moggster and The Kwasmeister might kill the whole thing off. We'll find out soon enough...
But, foot stamp politics demands we find outrage in all things
Of course HE has always been a gaffe machine (too).
But we should not have a situation where only a select proportion of taxpayers, those who work for a living via PAYE are expected to shoulder the entire burden while other taxpayers who don't get their money via PAYE are able to evade their fair share of responsibilities altogether.
The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.
This is why I criticised the cynicism of Sunak in putting up NI so that he could cut income tax later.
A nice, kind 1% increase in "Health" tax every year and a 1% cut in mean, nasty "Income Tax" every year and eventually Income Tax is abolished so those on unearned incomes never pay any tax, while those on PAYE are utterly and royally f***ed.
Truss was the right pick for this decision alone. Even if she never does anything else of consequence and loses the next election by a landslide, this decision already vindicates her being PM in full.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291342043_Delayed_fungal_evolution_did_not_cause_the_Paleozoic_peak_in_coal_production
NI is the most regressive of all the taxes. A pernicious tax on working people who can't arrange their incomes to evade it, while the well off who get an income from non-working means evade it in full.
Fuel Duty is probably the third most regressive tax of them all. Cigarette tax comes in second, and TV licence is a mile ahead in the lead.
Fuel costs also feed into the cost of everything else, that needs to be transported to where it’s needed.
The problem, is that pretty much everyone in the Treasury commutes by train.
So they're looking this up in their Ladybird book of how to run a bank .....
Shipping costs plummeting towards the status quo ante.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1572966202049175553
I guess the womens' votes might help Joe.
The Fed are being too aggressive in their rate rises.
"This is a huge line of cars on the border of Russia and Georgia. This is how Russian men want to fight against Ukraine. And rightly so, because here they either face capture or death. #UkraineWillWin"
https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1572866227856642055?s=20&t=FHfNORf0JKaeXK2fvBxqXg
"Queue to enter Kazakhstan this morning
Information from Telegram channels of the Russian Federation.
[В][О][Й][Н][А] [2][0][2][2]
https://t.me/voyna_2022/35694
#SlavaUkraini"
https://twitter.com/anno1540/status/1572846379365724164?s=20&t=FHfNORf0JKaeXK2fvBxqXg
"This is not a game... It's time to take this seriously. Hoping something turns up is not what adult decision-making looks like." ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1572965311762112517/video/1
Although after the first two weeks of Truss, Mogg, Kwartang and Coffey, I'm missing the flsoj already.
I simply can't wait for Braverman to engage first gear.
Putin is preparing for Total War. He will do everything needed to defeat Ukraine
Fundamentally, these people were on the “team transitory” side of the inflation argument, late last year/earlier this year. They appear to have lost the argument in America, are in the process of losing it in Europe, but still have influence in Britain.
It’s a fascinating period for central banking. They’re playing big stakes. The credibility of lots of influential people is on the line. Who is right? We’ll find out soon…
And honesty. If they actually started doing that, there would be an increase in the bribe required for the border guards, and little else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_evasion_in_the_Vietnam_War
Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.
Surely the Home Office knows who's a reservist and when a passport is scanned they'll be flagged.
Given income tax is staggered higher at higher incomes, a flat 1.25% cut in tax reduces taxes on the poorest proportionately more than the richest. Given that the poorest get their income via PAYE while the wealthiest have non-PAYE income, a flat NI tax cut benefits the poorest more than any other income-related tax cut would.
Thing is investors are maybe looking at history. Last time inflation was a serious problem, US rates got to 20%.
Its highly likley that the war in Ukraine will be over as Russia simply does not have the equipment to keep going, the exchange of the prisoners overnight is a huge deal, especially the fighters from Mariupol, hardline Russians are in disbelief at this. Putin may be mad but I think he might realise that he cannot win in Ukraine and this release of prisoners may be the first step on the way to peace. I can't work out why else he would do it, did he really need the Russians who have been released? Can you imagine Hitler releasing a British hero in exchange for non-descript Germans.
Gas prices will collapse
Oil prices will fall
Its a perfect storm for deflation.
This time most commodity prices went up but are already starting to reverse. Unlike the seventies, if prices are falling next year instead of continuing to rise further and further, then that's going to play out very, very differently.
I have started to feel sympathy with the new Russian conscripts who are being dragged away from their families and most likely sent to their deaths.
When they formally close the border, it will be “My five friends Benjamin, all say it’s only me in the car”, and by the weekend the border guard will have bought a Mercedes for himself.
Also, if you were around that the time, the message in 1980 was there WAS no more oil and gas. We were running out.
https://mhbs.co.uk/savings/fixed-term-bond-accounts/
Pretty big risk if you’re wrong, though!
A reduction in oil price is more likely.
The prisoner exchange is probably due to power brokers in the Putin regimes structure selling such a deal as keeping a channel open, giving the Saudis a diplomatic win to make a fried and getting their people back. Pitched as a win to Putin.
In 2004 we used 1020 TWh of gas.
In 2021 we used 769 TWh of gas.
It needs to come down more of course. It goes mainly on 3 things iirc, electricity generation (29%), domestic heating (38%) and industrial (11%).
The first will be driven down renewables swapping out CCGT power stations.
The second will be driven down by improved building quality, and other sources replacing gas cookers and boilers.
The third is services an processes, and industrial buildings are a big problem. I once worked out the costs of insulating a portal frame 7000sqft gym, and it was a big number.
Prospects? I can see usage down by a further 30% by 2035. There should be a big fall between 2020 and 2025 given the very large amount of renewables coming on stream.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-gas-supply-explainer#:~:text=Over 22 million households are,for industrial and commercial use.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-region?stackMode=absolute&country=~GBR
But I wasn't expecting to provide detailed tax plans of my own. I was just pointing out that there are always alternative. Saying, "Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" is silly when there are so many different ways you could change taxes.
Quite a few people avoided Afghanistan and Iraq, in the later stages, I believe.
From the HAC people I know, it is about being willing to serve that is their reason for being in the reserves.
Tax cuts are not MEANT to be redistributive, they are for generating growth, or attempting to do so.
If everything is boiled down to 'the rich vs the poor' and what each policy means for them you might as well confiscate all income and possessions and dole out necessities.
Who decides where we cut off tax cuts? Are those on 17,000 to be punished for saving more tax than those on 14,000?
Its infantile.
Realistically all taxes that can be cut, except possible tobacco duty, will benefit the richest the most since they pay the most taxes. Cut VAT and people who spend a lot of money on VAT-rated goods and services will get a bigger tax cut.
Apart from things like tobacco or fuel duty, the only tax that's not a tax that would be more progressive in my view than an NI tax cut is cutting the taper rate on UC. That should be done in my view, but NI is next best to that and the most progressive of the actual taxes to cut.