Updated: Boris resigns as party leader

Actually, my married name is Mr Risk-Management.

As Mrs Risk-Management said to me, why didn’t we do what the other Major Economies did, which was keep the storage until we were near the end of the transition, reducing the impact of any unforeseen supply events?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I don’t think any government other than Russia could have avoided the Ukraine war.

That’s not the reason we outsourced our energy security to a KGB agent who doesn’t like us. It’s a consequence of it.

Who knows though, in different times we might be putting his son in the House of Lords for services to the Conservative party.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

We would have been ok had it not been for Putin’s aggression.

Are you a Scooby-Doo fan by any chance?

As I said before, our laissez-faire approach to energy has left us heavily exposed to geopolitical risks. You don't need hindsight to understand the risks in our approach.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

We have less storage because we are in the middle of transitioning to clean fuels.

Rather foolish to get rid before the so called "transitioning" has happened.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You can criticise government for getting rid of gas storage capacity too early if you like.

Yes, and rightly so.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

.. you would be ignoring growing public opinion that we needed to speed up our reliance on fossil fuels.

Ummmmm.. You may want to read that again.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

but you would be ignoring growing public opinion that we needed to speed up our reliance on fossil fuels.

You have inadvertently hit the nail.

The planet is dependent on fossil fuels and will be, for a long time.

Our fixation with “net-zero” is an elitist western fallacy, which could destroy our economies.

We should be investing more in fossil fuels, not less.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

You have inadvertently hit the nail.

The planet is dependent on fossil fuels and will be, for a long time.

Our fixation with “net-zero” is an elitist western fallacy, which could destroy our economies.

We should be investing more in fossil fuels, not less.

Yes let's invest more in fossil fuels putting us further at the whims of dictators, as opposed to sustainable energy right here at home. Dare I say even employing some lazy, unskilled Brits in the process. Future PM Liz would be proud.

Our economy being destroyed (compared to what exactly? Now?) would be a good laugh tho. It'd at least prompt the conversation of how we got here and an admission that the free markets don't solve problems despite the myths. They profiteer from them and get taxpayer bailouts when it goes wrong.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Yes let's invest more in fossil fuels putting us further at the whims of dictators, as opposed to sustainable energy right here at home. Dare I say even employing some lazy, unskilled Brits in the process. Future PM Liz would be proud.

We have plenty of domestic fossil fuel reserves.

You can have your laughing emoji, but it doesn’t get away from the fact that the “planet”, cannot function without fossil fuels, and will require fossil fuels far beyond our lifetimes and our childrens lifetimes.

The fact that despots control much of the globes fossil fuel reserves is the West’s folly.

This current crisis is by our design. We have abundant coal, oil and gas reserves. We just lack the will and investment to extract them.

There is no green solution, globally.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

We have plenty of domestic fossil fuel reserves.

You can have your laughing emoji, but it does get bass from the fact that the “planet”, cannot function without fossil fuels, and will require fossil fuels far beyond our lifetimes and our childrens lifetimes.

The fact that despots control much of the globes fossil fuel reserves is the West’s folly.

This current crisis is by our design. We have abundant coal, oil and gas reserves. We just lack the will and investment to extract them.

There is no green solution, globally.

Coal mining. Priceless. Absolutely priceless.

At least we will have the jobs to match the fall in living standards back to the 1970s.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Coal mining. Priceless. Absolutely priceless.

At least we will have the jobs to match the fall in living standards back to the 1970s.

You have no response to the actual issue being discussed, no surprise.

Coal mining…………I’ll think you’ll find it is quite a common thing, globally. I recall Germany has an absolute massive opencast (the worst kind) operation, that they have increased massively due to shutting down nuclear.

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/28/10109...=1661464695710

The planet is dependent on fossil fuel and will be long after us, so why are we constraining our childrens future?

Carry on like this and living standards will be 1870’s not 1970’s.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

You have no response to the actual issue being discussed, no surprise.

Coal mining…………I’m think you’ll find it is quite a common thing, globally. I recall Germany has an absolute massive opencast (the worst kind) operation, that they have increased massively due to shutting down nuclear.

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/28/10109...=1661464695710

The planet is dependent on fossil fuel and will be long after us, so why are we constraining our childrens future?

Carry on like this and living standards will be 1870’s not 1970’s.

If anything is constraining our children’s future it’s the £2 trillion of debt getting passed down to them, unaffordable housing, low wages, yet I don’t hear you offering a solution for any of those.

There’s no point in us returning to extracting fossil fuels we’d only privatise it and sell it to the highest bidder having negligible impact on the market price

Unless Pierre you are having an epiphany on us - that it’s state controlled?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

You have no response to the actual issue being discussed, no surprise.

Coal mining…………I’ll think you’ll find it is quite a common thing, globally. I recall Germany has an absolute massive opencast (the worst kind) operation, that they have increased massively due to shutting down nuclear.

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/28/10109...=1661464695710

The planet is dependent on fossil fuel and will be long after us, so why are we constraining our childrens future?

Carry on like this and living standards will be 1870’s not 1970’s.

Accelerating climate change through burning more fossil fuels will definitely constrain our childrens' future. It will burden them with a need for increased investment in infrastructure to cope with more extreme weather.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Mr Hindsight strikes again!

We have less storage because we are in the middle of transitioning to clean fuels.

You can criticise government for getting rid of gas storage capacity too early if you like, but you would be ignoring growing public opinion that we needed to speed up our reliance on fossil fuels.

We would have been ok had it not been for Putin’s aggression.

Don't think you should be calling anyone Mr Hindsight when you think how often you enjoy rolling out you Gordon Brown gold comment, and as usual it's always someone else's fault, how about blaming your lot for selling all our national resources?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Accelerating climate change through burning more fossil fuels will definitely constrain our childrens' future. It will burden them with a need for increased investment in infrastructure to cope with more extreme weather.

[tweetiepooh]

People don't want nuclear - waste lasts too long.
Don't want unsightly wind turbines spoiling their views.
Don't want tidal systems that get in the way of their boats.
Don't want mining near them - oil/gas/coal.
Don't want fossil fuel burning power stations near them.


Do want power delivered to their homes both gas and electricity at a reasonable (cheap) price.


It's easy to say what we should have done but consecutive governments have listened to the public and ended up where we are. If we had built more nuclear power stations that would have left more gas for home consumption but upset the anti-nuclear brigade.


One good thing in this crisis will be to focus more attention on saving fuel and hopefully research to fusion and hydrogen fuels. Nothing like a crisis to increase inventiveness.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I don’t think any government other than Russia could have avoided the Ukraine war.

---------- Post added at 19:24 ---------- Previous post was at 19:21 ----------



Mr Hindsight strikes again!

We have less storage because we are in the middle of transitioning to clean fuels.

You can criticise government for getting rid of gas storage capacity too early if you like, but you would be ignoring growing public opinion that we needed to speed up our reliance on fossil fuels.

We would have been ok had it not been for Putin’s aggression.

Are you actually still in charge of your own computer OB? Because these posts increasingly read as if they’re being generated by a Twitter parody account.

Literally nobody involved in decimating our gas storage capacity thought they were doing it as part of a green wind-down of our gas network. Centrica (the formerly state-owned owner of this formerly state-owned piece of infrastructure) refused to pay for its renewal because they thought it was too expensive. The government likewise refused to write an enormous cheque for it.

Strategic gas storage is an insurance policy that ought to protect the continuing smooth running of national infrastructure in the event of unforeseen problems. Insurance is there to pay out on contingency - I.e. the whole reason you have it is for those “we would have been ok had it not been for” moments. Your argument is absurd. I bet your house isn’t uninsured.