We stopped mining coal for environmental reasons and there was hundreds of years worth of that left in the ground. How is this different?
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
I wouldn't want to bet my freedom on the impartiality of a British judge when you're accused of being anti-establishment
Oh yes because he isn't involved right only accused of being involved?
The truth is he did it and planned it and other events like it and is probably proud of it.
"Julian Roger Hallam (born 1965/1966) is a British environmental activist who co-founded Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil, Insulate Britain,"
51,000 hours is 5.8219178 years. Do unto others I guess.
We stopped mining coal because it was much cheaper to import it, so it became uneconomic.
If you look at the govt papers from the time it is clear there was a political motivation which went beyond the direct economic case.
I do get your point though and that was the prevailing opinion at the time but the counter argument made at the time about energy security and the long term costs have proven to be correct.
We can't rerun history but if you are going to sign up to CO2 emission limits, based on emissions at a certain date a longer draw down of domestic coal generated power rather than a dash for gas would have been beneficial for the UK up to present. Pushing back our gas and oil production by ten years would have caused any world market price differential detriments in coal in the early eighties to pale into insignificance compared to later oil and gas costs/sales benefits since.
If you get what I mean?
What calculations will you use for the eye-for-an-eye punishments for the .... disruption casued by global warming? Will individuals be liable for their emissions, will it be oil CEOs, or prime ministers?
I don't remember anyone giving much of a shit about emissions in the 1980s, but I was young at the time. One thing I never did quite understand was how we let the coal mines get in such a state apparently they'd be exceedingly difficult to get going again because they're flooded etc...Maybe it wasn't feasible or economic.
Britain has always been world-leading in giving zero fecks about energy security or any other important service, eg selling water, electricity, gas, nuclear supply, ports and airports to any overseas bidder, and now chip companies too.
I'm making a broader point
We stopped mining coal because it became too expensive. We kept importing it for years.
And oil will go the same way before any new North Sea oil fields come properly on line.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/12/just-stop-oil-bp/
1973 and OPEC raising the price of oil kicked off most of the interest in fossil fuels. Up until then Oil/petrol etc was ridiculously cheap, then almost overnight it became ridiculously expensive. Everybody took an interest, and a position, including scientists studying climate issues.... the rest as they say, is history.
No there isn't.
Well you're right in some ways. That's only the UK sector of the North Sea.
Cite me the figures.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
Science advancing in the 70s isn't the same as "taking a position". They just learned more about what caused it, something they'd been working towards for 150 years.
Yep.
Yes , if the scientists had been a bit quicker (150 years???) off the mark before the 1973 oil price hike, then we might be further down the road, the kick up the backside was OPEC's actions, everybody sat up and took notice.
You have such a great grasp of science, I can tell.
Christopher Chope playing the hero. Wonders never cease.
Didn’t even know he was deputy speaker.
They always take a couple of weeks to formally elect deputies, so Chope is an acting deputy, alongside Edward Leigh and Siobhan McDonagh.
They are just doing it for 5 sec social media clips. Speaker should've thrown them out.
From NSTA government figures:
4 billion barrels proven and recoverable
6 billion discovered
15 billion estimated yet to be discovered
So 25 billion barrels at a market price of give or take £60 a barrel. Noticed i got the currency symbol wrong in the last post. It's actually £1.5 trillion.
UK coal deposits contained higher levels of Sulphur which was implicated in the acid rain issue killing forests and lakes in Scandinavia.
It became cheaper to use lower Sulphur baring deposits from elsewhere than deal with it at the stacks on the powerplants.
Having passed the clean air / smokeless fuel acts. Followed by the switch from coal gas to natural gas for domestic use power generation became the biggest consumer of UK coal.
Then we switched to gas power plants and the game was up.
We were using UK coal in power stations until 2013 when the carbon price support scheme was introduced which made it too expensive at £18 a tonne of CO2.
If for environmental reasons you make something too expensive to use then it doesn't get used.
All people remember is it was more expensive not that the UK govt made it too expensive and also killed its markets. We started buying Russian coal instead which worked out well didn't it?
Last edited:
About 30% of that total is in gas. Gas trades at a much lower $/boe than oil.
Also, I don’t think you can just lump together reserves, contingents and prospectives and add them up. The likelihood of extraction diminishes the further you go down the list. You have to take into account the methodology of arriving at the headline figures.
For instance of 15bn in prospective resources around 11bn is in plays. When evaluating plays the NSTA doesn’t apply any limiting standards at all. Neither a commercial nor a geological chance of success. That headline figure therefore includes all prospects with a less than 15% chance of accessibility. It also includes all potential wells too small to be commercially viable.
Of the other 4bn in undiscovered resources NSTA does apply geological and commercial standards but the headline figure still includes all prospects down to those that have a 15% chance of success.
In other words the amount of oil and gas likely to be extracted is always going to be a fraction of that which is deemed technically “recoverable”. Basing your end dollar value on the latter is wildly optimistic.
What's commercially viable changes over time. We are drilling wells now that were once considered untouchable.
Contingent and prospect resources all have a degree of uncertainty and the plays are an unknown unknown based on best estimates. 25b is just the governments guess of whats left. Over time those reserves become viable and get developed.
However you want to chop and change the figures, there is a shit load of oil still left in the UKCS.
Thank you
He went to see Trump after the shooting but didn’t actually get to see Trump at all
Sits back down again and chuckles to herself like a naughty schoolkid as she gets chastised.
Not a surprise that both of her parents were Tory politicians and she went to private school. No doubt spent her entire life thinking she deserved to be in the ruling classes.
While this is true, it doesn’t mean they are free from criticism and pressure to change.
Saying that I think they’ve been off to a flyer (mostly) and are actually doing stuff! Crazy I know.
From day one I said his dream is to be a second cheap copy of his idol, the WMD liar and war criminal piece of s**t Blair. It took him 2 weeks to participate in bombing the middle east.
The irony of the hypocrite talking about apartheid, working side by side with Netanyahu yesterday
. If Mandela was stil alive today he would be disgusted of this hypocrite.What are you talking about? We and most of our allies have been bombing Yemen for months because the Houthis in Yemen are attacking civilian ships in the Red Sea.
Giggsyking is your average telegraph subscriber, no need to take anything he posts seriously.
"Allies", Netanyahu. Who is retaliating for the attacks on Tel Aviv, but yes, it is about the "ships"
.You can call me whatever you want. I will not be on the side of genocide, feel free if you want to be on that side. You want to help Netanyahu kill more civilians, go ahead.