FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Oil Prices and Scotland
Oil Prices and Scotland
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet the Scottish government are now glad the vote was no... Their plans for independent Scotland were all based on increasing oil revenues! Latest news is the oil industry there is going down the pan rapidly. SNP now asking Westminster for more subsidies for the oil/gas industry!" Don't worry it won't be long before we are all back paying £1.50 again....this is short lived. 
Oil and gas will sit in the ground until the price creeps uo...just remember who really controls the prices in the world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a two pronged attack by Saudi Arabia who have waited patiently for a slight dip in global gdp for prices to get stabilised at 120$a barrel and then to continue flat out production to force oil prices to plummet. This gets at their two biggest enemies. Russia and Iran both of whom had planned their economies on 100$ barrels, first prong of attack, their second part was to cripple oil production rivals who have invested heavily in fracking and are now losing vast amounts of money as it costs around about 65$ to produce fracked oil. But the Saudis can't keep producing oil at this rate for long of if global GDP picks up rapidly it will soon be back to 150$ barrels. This is what's known as Hubbard's bumpy plateau where demand is driven by price but demand can't always keep up and price goes high causing a then short lived dip in price and so on the cycle goes" On the upside I can now fill my tank of 70 quid Whoop whoop I couldn't give a shit which country is bumming which country - whatever happens I still need to fill my tank whether it's high or low priced, to go to work to put food on the table (and pay for chams entrance) so I will moan when it high and rejoice when it's low Because I can have no effect on the price, but I know it's a necessity | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a two pronged attack by Saudi Arabia who have waited patiently for a slight dip in global gdp for prices to get stabilised at 120$a barrel and then to continue flat out production to force oil prices to plummet. This gets at their two biggest enemies. Russia and Iran both of whom had planned their economies on 100$ barrels, first prong of attack, their second part was to cripple oil production rivals who have invested heavily in fracking and are now losing vast amounts of money as it costs around about 65$ to produce fracked oil. But the Saudis can't keep producing oil at this rate for long of if global GDP picks up rapidly it will soon be back to 150$ barrels. This is what's known as Hubbard's bumpy plateau where demand is driven by price but demand can't always keep up and price goes high causing a then short lived dip in price and so on the cycle goes On the upside I can now fill my tank of 70 quid Whoop whoop I couldn't give a shit which country is bumming which country - whatever happens I still need to fill my tank whether it's high or low priced, to go to work to put food on the table (and pay for chams entrance) so I will moan when it high and rejoice when it's low Because I can have no effect on the price, but I know it's a necessity " . The question is what happens when you can't afford to fill your tank | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet the Scottish government are now glad the vote was no... Their plans for independent Scotland were all based on increasing oil revenues! Latest news is the oil industry there is going down the pan rapidly. SNP now asking Westminster for more subsidies for the oil/gas industry!" The jocks were never going to be independant , they dont have the balls to stand up and make their own decisions , they are more than happy for us to tell them what to do just so long as they can keep on sucking up as much cash from us as possable, all talk of them not wanting to break up the union is just kak , as long as the sea is full of fish shit the jocks will never be anything else other than subsidy junkies who get a hard on at being ruled by England  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet the Scottish government are now glad the vote was no... Their plans for independent Scotland were all based on increasing oil revenues! Latest news is the oil industry there is going down the pan rapidly. SNP now asking Westminster for more subsidies for the oil/gas industry! Don't worry it won't be long before we are all back paying £1.50 again....this is short lived.
Oil and gas will sit in the ground until the price creeps uo...just remember who really controls the prices in the world."The Saudis...and they have deliberately engineered this to stop the yanks going further with shake oil/gas. At $60/barrel the shale oil is not worth extracting. Currently the yanks are also happy as it is weakening Putin. If prices go back up to $80/barrel then shale production will kick in bug style and keep the price at that kind of level. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a two pronged attack by Saudi Arabia who have waited patiently for a slight dip in global gdp for prices to get stabilised at 120$a barrel and then to continue flat out production to force oil prices to plummet. This gets at their two biggest enemies. Russia and Iran both of whom had planned their economies on 100$ barrels, first prong of attack, their second part was to cripple oil production rivals who have invested heavily in fracking and are now losing vast amounts of money as it costs around about 65$ to produce fracked oil. But the Saudis can't keep producing oil at this rate for long of if global GDP picks up rapidly it will soon be back to 150$ barrels. This is what's known as Hubbard's bumpy plateau where demand is driven by price but demand can't always keep up and price goes high causing a then short lived dip in price and so on the cycle goes On the upside I can now fill my tank of 70 quid Whoop whoop I couldn't give a shit which country is bumming which country - whatever happens I still need to fill my tank whether it's high or low priced, to go to work to put food on the table (and pay for chams entrance) so I will moan when it high and rejoice when it's low Because I can have no effect on the price, but I know it's a necessity . The question is what happens when you can't afford to fill your tank" When/ if that happens, people will cut back on non essential motoring. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet the Scottish government are now glad the vote was no... Their plans for independent Scotland were all based on increasing oil revenues! Latest news is the oil industry there is going down the pan rapidly. SNP now asking Westminster for more subsidies for the oil/gas industry! The jocks were never going to be independant , they dont have the balls to stand up and make their own decisions , they are more than happy for us to tell them what to do just so long as they can keep on sucking up as much cash from us as possable, all talk of them not wanting to break up the union is just kak , as long as the sea is full of fish shit the jocks will never be anything else other than subsidy junkies who get a hard on at being ruled by England " lets hope the next election is sooner and you can see if your wish is getting granted | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet the Scottish government are now glad the vote was no... Their plans for independent Scotland were all based on increasing oil revenues! Latest news is the oil industry there is going down the pan rapidly. SNP now asking Westminster for more subsidies for the oil/gas industry! The jocks were never going to be independant , they dont have the balls to stand up and make their own decisions , they are more than happy for us to tell them what to do just so long as they can keep on sucking up as much cash from us as possable, all talk of them not wanting to break up the union is just kak , as long as the sea is full of fish shit the jocks will never be anything else other than subsidy junkies who get a hard on at being ruled by England
lets hope the next election is sooner and you can see if your wish is getting granted "the jocks have had 300 years bleating about being independant from us and never had the balls to do it , it will be the same for the next 300 years | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet the Scottish government are now glad the vote was no... Their plans for independent Scotland were all based on increasing oil revenues! Latest news is the oil industry there is going down the pan rapidly. SNP now asking Westminster for more subsidies for the oil/gas industry! The jocks were never going to be independant , they dont have the balls to stand up and make their own decisions , they are more than happy for us to tell them what to do just so long as they can keep on sucking up as much cash from us as possable, all talk of them not wanting to break up the union is just kak , as long as the sea is full of fish shit the jocks will never be anything else other than subsidy junkies who get a hard on at being ruled by England
lets hope the next election is sooner and you can see if your wish is getting granted
the jocks have had 300 years bleating about being independant from us and never had the balls to do it , it will be the same for the next 300 years "What's this US? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So now the British not just the Scottish will have a drop in revenue its hits us all you know now. " Know it won't affect Britain as much. Britain is now a Net importer of Oil and Gas so the drop in price is good for Britain. However Scotland by its self, is a net exporter of oil so a drop in price for an independent Scotland would have been almost as devastating as it has been for Russia. The only down side for Britain is that, if the oil price drops too low it may become un economical to extract the remaining reserves from the North Sea, thus adding to our trade deficit and dependence on un reliable foreign suppliers oil. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regardless of the who and the why of the huge drop in the price of Brent Crude, there's no escaping the fact that it was held as a virility symbol by certain Nationalist nutters who have now been comprehensively castrated." to right , the oil belongs to us English , the jocks should be grateful we let them have any of the money it generates , if they had the balls to actualy stand up and be a nation again like they keep on singing every time we thrash them at rugby then mabye they would qualify for a bit of respect but as it stands they are just a bunch of hangers on looking for a free meal ticket | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regardless of the who and the why of the huge drop in the price of Brent Crude, there's no escaping the fact that it was held as a virility symbol by certain Nationalist nutters who have now been comprehensively castrated." .It will be back to a 100++ some time soon. The prudent thing would be to sit on that oil for 20 years and then sell it for a thousand dollars a barrel  .
Or just nationalise it and put it to use building something to replace it when it's gone  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Jello Biafra name tag doesn't really fit,do you know who the guy really is,i think you might be a bit right wing politically compared to him! Zeb" i am not him , saw the band play when i was in the stsates years ago , seen him talk , but those things aside , doesnt detract from my views that the jocks talk the talk of " freedom " but lack the balls to go for it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regardless of the who and the why of the huge drop in the price of Brent Crude, there's no escaping the fact that it was held as a virility symbol by certain Nationalist nutters who have now been comprehensively castrated..It will be back to a 100++ some time soon. The prudent thing would be to sit on that oil for 20 years and then sell it for a thousand dollars a barrel .
Or just nationalise it and put it to use building something to replace it when it's gone "I don't doubt it'll be back to $100+ sometime but not necessarily soon. Leaving the oil in the ground for 20 years prompts the question - where will the money come from to maintain the infrastructure needed to get it out and sold, not to mention the loss of skills and the effect on employment? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regardless of the who and the why of the huge drop in the price of Brent Crude, there's no escaping the fact that it was held as a virility symbol by certain Nationalist nutters who have now been comprehensively castrated." The reason for the drop in oil prices is because the US has adopted fracking in a big way. This has meant that they are in surplus in very cheep Gas (UK meaning of the word) and are heading into surplus in relatively cheep oil ($60 barrel). I think it's unlikely that we will see oil at anything much above $70 a barrel in real terms again for 10, 20 maybe even 30 years. What we probably will see again much sooner is petrol at £1.50 per lt because, who ever wins in May there is no way there not going to increase fuel duty on it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regardless of the who and the why of the huge drop in the price of Brent Crude, there's no escaping the fact that it was held as a virility symbol by certain Nationalist nutters who have now been comprehensively castrated..It will be back to a 100++ some time soon. The prudent thing would be to sit on that oil for 20 years and then sell it for a thousand dollars a barrel .
Or just nationalise it and put it to use building something to replace it when it's gone "Yer nationalise it. that worked so well for the Steel Industry, the Car Industry, the train services, the Haulage Industry, British Airways, the telecoms Industry and almost everything else that by 1979 they were earning so much money for the country Britain was considered the economic miracle of the Western World. Wonder why they stopped it. Wake up fgs and look at what nationalisation really caused. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't see what our Scottish friends did or did not do, as a question of balls and think it pretty insulting to most of them to just reduce it to that level. "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"With petrol being as relatively cheap as it is, I'm surprised Osborne's autumn statement didnt include a small hike in duty." That will come after the election regardless of who wins | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't see what our Scottish friends did or did not do, as a question of balls and think it pretty insulting to most of them to just reduce it to that level. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't see what our Scottish friends did or did not do, as a question of balls and think it pretty insulting to most of them to just reduce it to that level. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regardless of the who and the why of the huge drop in the price of Brent Crude, there's no escaping the fact that it was held as a virility symbol by certain Nationalist nutters who have now been comprehensively castrated. The reason for the drop in oil prices is because the US has adopted fracking in a big way. This has meant that they are in surplus in very cheep Gas (UK meaning of the word) and are heading into surplus in relatively cheep oil ($60 barrel). I think it's unlikely that we will see oil at anything much above $70 a barrel in real terms again for 10, 20 maybe even 30 years. What we probably will see again much sooner is petrol at £1.50 per lt because, who ever wins in May there is no way there not going to increase fuel duty on it." . What a bunch of nonsense. The average fracked barrel of oil costs 65$dollars to produce!. I'll have you a small wager it's back above 80 in no more than 3 months | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The SNP came out with some incredible fantasy figures during their campaign. Apparently oil production was going to increase (despite dropping for the last 10 years in a row) and the finances were based on oil being at least $110 a barrell. Oil income for the whole of the UK this financial year will probably be less than 1/4 of what the SNP predicted for the fields within Scottish waters. It was a massive lie that many of their followers swallowed based on the fact that anyone who disputed their figures was 'scaremongering'" north sea oil production peaked in 1999 and has fallen quite steeply in the following 15 years,uk gas peaked in the 80,s and also has seen massive drops in production since | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regardless of the who and the why of the huge drop in the price of Brent Crude, there's no escaping the fact that it was held as a virility symbol by certain Nationalist nutters who have now been comprehensively castrated..It will be back to a 100++ some time soon. The prudent thing would be to sit on that oil for 20 years and then sell it for a thousand dollars a barrel .
Or just nationalise it and put it to use building something to replace it when it's gone
Yer nationalise it. that worked so well for the Steel Industry, the Car Industry, the train services, the Haulage Industry, British Airways, the telecoms Industry and almost everything else that by 1979 they were earning so much money for the country Britain was considered the economic miracle of the Western World. Wonder why they stopped it.
Wake up fgs and look at what nationalisation really caused."you don't think that the two oil crises of the 70s 1973 saw oil quadruple and and 1979 saw it treble again had anything to do with the demise of those products by any chance | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why don't we just tell the jocks to stand on their own " Because England want to share in the glory of Britain's best Tennis player, golfer and footballer! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why don't we just tell the jocks to stand on their own Because England want to share in the glory of Britain's best Tennis player, golfer and footballer!" thought Rooney was born in Liverpool.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why don't we just tell the jocks to stand on their own Because England want to share in the glory of Britain's best Tennis player, golfer and footballer! thought Rooney was born in Liverpool.." Is Liverpool not part of Ireland? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why don't we just tell the jocks to stand on their own Because England want to share in the glory of Britain's best Tennis player, golfer and footballer! thought Rooney was born in Liverpool.." Bale, McIlroy and Murray, Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish when they lose, all British when they are winners!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why don't we just tell the jocks to stand on their own Because England want to share in the glory of Britain's best Tennis player, golfer and footballer! thought Rooney was born in Liverpool.. Bale, McIlroy and Murray, Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish when they lose, all British when they are winners!!" Even the BBC presenter in Belfast was annoyed when McIlroy was described as being English! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why don't we just tell the jocks to stand on their own Because England want to share in the glory of Britain's best Tennis player, golfer and footballer! thought Rooney was born in Liverpool.. Is Liverpool not part of Ireland?" only on St Pats day.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why don't we just tell the jocks to stand on their own Because England want to share in the glory of Britain's best Tennis player, golfer and footballer! thought Rooney was born in Liverpool.. Bale, McIlroy and Murray, Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish when they lose, all British when they are winners!!" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regardless of the who and the why of the huge drop in the price of Brent Crude, there's no escaping the fact that it was held as a virility symbol by certain Nationalist nutters who have now been comprehensively castrated..It will be back to a 100++ some time soon. The prudent thing would be to sit on that oil for 20 years and then sell it for a thousand dollars a barrel .
Or just nationalise it and put it to use building something to replace it when it's gone
Yer nationalise it. that worked so well for the Steel Industry, the Car Industry, the train services, the Haulage Industry, British Airways, the telecoms Industry and almost everything else that by 1979 they were earning so much money for the country Britain was considered the economic miracle of the Western World. Wonder why they stopped it.
Wake up fgs and look at what nationalisation really caused.you don't think that the two oil crises of the 70s 1973 saw oil quadruple and and 1979 saw it treble again had anything to do with the demise of those products by any chance"
Not really. The price of oil went up for France, Germany and every other country in the developed world. Our nationalised industries were uncompetitive even before the oil price rises of the 70's and remained uncompetitive after. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet the Scottish government are now glad the vote was no... Their plans for independent Scotland were all based on increasing oil revenues! Latest news is the oil industry there is going down the pan rapidly. SNP now asking Westminster for more subsidies for the oil/gas industry! The jocks were never going to be independant , they dont have the balls to stand up and make their own decisions , they are more than happy for us to tell them what to do just so long as they can keep on sucking up as much cash from us as possable, all talk of them not wanting to break up the union is just kak , as long as the sea is full of fish shit the jocks will never be anything else other than subsidy junkies who get a hard on at being ruled by England " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regardless of the who and the why of the huge drop in the price of Brent Crude, there's no escaping the fact that it was held as a virility symbol by certain Nationalist nutters who have now been comprehensively castrated..It will be back to a 100++ some time soon. The prudent thing would be to sit on that oil for 20 years and then sell it for a thousand dollars a barrel .
Or just nationalise it and put it to use building something to replace it when it's gone
Yer nationalise it. that worked so well for the Steel Industry, the Car Industry, the train services, the Haulage Industry, British Airways, the telecoms Industry and almost everything else that by 1979 they were earning so much money for the country Britain was considered the economic miracle of the Western World. Wonder why they stopped it.
Wake up fgs and look at what nationalisation really caused.you don't think that the two oil crises of the 70s 1973 saw oil quadruple and and 1979 saw it treble again had anything to do with the demise of those products by any chance
Not really. The price of oil went up for France, Germany and every other country in the developed world. Our nationalised industries were uncompetitive even before the oil price rises of the 70's and remained uncompetitive after."Nationalised industries aren't uncompetitive because they're nationalised. They tend to be uncompetitive because they're badly run. East Coast Main Line was returning profit to the Treasury while under public ownership. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet the Scottish government are now glad the vote was no... Their plans for independent Scotland were all based on increasing oil revenues! Latest news is the oil industry there is going down the pan rapidly. SNP now asking Westminster for more subsidies for the oil/gas industry! The jocks were never going to be independant , they dont have the balls to stand up and make their own decisions , they are more than happy for us to tell them what to do just so long as they can keep on sucking up as much cash from us as possable, all talk of them not wanting to break up the union is just kak , as long as the sea is full of fish shit the jocks will never be anything else other than subsidy junkies who get a hard on at being ruled by England "you come across as a racist bigot | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet the Scottish government are now glad the vote was no... Their plans for independent Scotland were all based on increasing oil revenues! Latest news is the oil industry there is going down the pan rapidly. SNP now asking Westminster for more subsidies for the oil/gas industry! The jocks were never going to be independant , they dont have the balls to stand up and make their own decisions , they are more than happy for us to tell them what to do just so long as they can keep on sucking up as much cash from us as possable, all talk of them not wanting to break up the union is just kak , as long as the sea is full of fish shit the jocks will never be anything else other than subsidy junkies who get a hard on at being ruled by England
you come across as a racist bigot "It's probably just an outpouring of sexual frustration | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet the Scottish government are now glad the vote was no... Their plans for independent Scotland were all based on increasing oil revenues! Latest news is the oil industry there is going down the pan rapidly. SNP now asking Westminster for more subsidies for the oil/gas industry! The jocks were never going to be independant , they dont have the balls to stand up and make their own decisions , they are more than happy for us to tell them what to do just so long as they can keep on sucking up as much cash from us as possable, all talk of them not wanting to break up the union is just kak , as long as the sea is full of fish shit the jocks will never be anything else other than subsidy junkies who get a hard on at being ruled by England
you come across as a racist bigot
It's probably just an outpouring of sexual frustration "Im sure it is lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet the Scottish government are now glad the vote was no... Their plans for independent Scotland were all based on increasing oil revenues! Latest news is the oil industry there is going down the pan rapidly. SNP now asking Westminster for more subsidies for the oil/gas industry! The jocks were never going to be independant , they dont have the balls to stand up and make their own decisions , they are more than happy for us to tell them what to do just so long as they can keep on sucking up as much cash from us as possable, all talk of them not wanting to break up the union is just kak , as long as the sea is full of fish shit the jocks will never be anything else other than subsidy junkies who get a hard on at being ruled by England
you come across as a racist bigot
It's probably just an outpouring of sexual frustration
Im sure it is lol"He makes you want the west country yokels to campaign for a yes vote...the comments are pathetic as were all British  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regardless of the who and the why of the huge drop in the price of Brent Crude, there's no escaping the fact that it was held as a virility symbol by certain Nationalist nutters who have now been comprehensively castrated..It will be back to a 100++ some time soon. The prudent thing would be to sit on that oil for 20 years and then sell it for a thousand dollars a barrel .
Or just nationalise it and put it to use building something to replace it when it's gone
Yer nationalise it. that worked so well for the Steel Industry, the Car Industry, the train services, the Haulage Industry, British Airways, the telecoms Industry and almost everything else that by 1979 they were earning so much money for the country Britain was considered the economic miracle of the Western World. Wonder why they stopped it.
Wake up fgs and look at what nationalisation really caused.you don't think that the two oil crises of the 70s 1973 saw oil quadruple and and 1979 saw it treble again had anything to do with the demise of those products by any chance
Not really. The price of oil went up for France, Germany and every other country in the developed world. Our nationalised industries were uncompetitive even before the oil price rises of the 70's and remained uncompetitive after."was they because we owned it or because it was badly run?. Either way if you want to replace oil with something the private sector isn't going to do it while oils cheap, how long oil is cheap for? Well if you believe the industry we've got 50 years, if you listen to the analysts.. Maybe 5 or ten or maybe it's over already!. I mean your taking about 60 dollars as if it's cheap, and it ain't, you've just had five years at a hundred+. The big mistake people make is saying oil as if it's all the same and the reality is there's a huge difference between Brent sweet and heavy tar oil.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Jello Biafra name tag doesn't really fit,do you know who the guy really is,i think you might be a bit right wing politically compared to him! Zeb i am not him , saw the band play when i was in the stsates years ago , seen him talk , but those things aside , doesnt detract from my views that the jocks talk the talk of " freedom " but lack the balls to go for it "Jello, I know you're at the wind up and yer man's right, if you knew anything in the slightest about the REAL jello Biafra you'd have another name I think, but I've only one thing to say to you, away an bile yer heid ya numpty! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"With petrol being as relatively cheap as it is, I'm surprised Osborne's autumn statement didnt include a small hike in duty." Relatively cheap ?????? Where do you live ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"With petrol being as relatively cheap as it is, I'm surprised Osborne's autumn statement didnt include a small hike in duty. Relatively cheap ?????? Where do you live ?" Glasgow. By all accounts it's a lot cheaper than a few months back. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"With petrol being as relatively cheap as it is, I'm surprised Osborne's autumn statement didnt include a small hike in duty. Relatively cheap ?????? Where do you live ? Glasgow. By all accounts it's a lot cheaper than a few months back." Maybe so , but it is still massively over inflated due to excessive taxation in my opinion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a two pronged attack by Saudi Arabia who have waited patiently for a slight dip in global gdp for prices to get stabilised at 120$a barrel and then to continue flat out production to force oil prices to plummet. This gets at their two biggest enemies. Russia and Iran both of whom had planned their economies on 100$ barrels, first prong of attack, their second part was to cripple oil production rivals who have invested heavily in fracking and are now losing vast amounts of money as it costs around about 65$ to produce fracked oil. But the Saudis can't keep producing oil at this rate for long of if global GDP picks up rapidly it will soon be back to 150$ barrels. This is what's known as Hubbard's bumpy plateau where demand is driven by price but demand can't always keep up and price goes high causing a then short lived dip in price and so on the cycle goes On the upside I can now fill my tank of 70 quid Whoop whoop I couldn't give a shit which country is bumming which country - whatever happens I still need to fill my tank whether it's high or low priced, to go to work to put food on the table (and pay for chams entrance) so I will moan when it high and rejoice when it's low Because I can have no effect on the price, but I know it's a necessity " You do have an effect on the price, stop needing to use petrol, see what happens to the price then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"With petrol being as relatively cheap as it is, I'm surprised Osborne's autumn statement didnt include a small hike in duty. Relatively cheap ?????? Where do you live ? Glasgow. By all accounts it's a lot cheaper than a few months back. Maybe so , but it is still massively over inflated due to excessive taxation in my opinion" I paid $36 (£22) to fill a Ford a Mustang yesterday. $2.37 a gallon. Can't wait to be back next week and paying nearly $160 (£100) to fill the car at home! Just how ripped off are we with tax? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"With petrol being as relatively cheap as it is, I'm surprised Osborne's autumn statement didnt include a small hike in duty. Relatively cheap ?????? Where do you live ? Glasgow. By all accounts it's a lot cheaper than a few months back. Maybe so , but it is still massively over inflated due to excessive taxation in my opinion I paid $36 (£22) to fill a Ford a Mustang yesterday. $2.37 a gallon. Can't wait to be back next week and paying nearly $160 (£100) to fill the car at home! Just how ripped off are we with tax? " .You can get nearly 30 gallons of fuel diesel/petrol roughly 30/70 split between the two, from one barrel of crude oil, now if you produced that oil in Saudi the rough cost of production per barrel is $3:20 with a refining cost of about $1:75. Saudi oil is very good oil in general, those costs jump massively when you look at tar oil or fracked oil. When you "crack" a barrel of crude oil you get a whole range of chemicals/products from it and not just a specific one ie you can't just get petrol or diesels. Roughly speaking there's about 25,000 man hours of energy(12.5 years doing 40 hours a week) in one barrel with a 5 buck production cost.... That's not just cheap it's practically free. And we've got used to those costs for the last 100 years while it was abundant. Now when those costs rise (and they will obviously it's a finite product) will cheap cheap prices or an overly inflated price via tax be better or worse. I suggest you try taking a train in the states although good luck they have practically no electrified track so there'll cost more running on diesels too, and there travel distances are worse (they commute on average 12 times further than Europeans). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"With petrol being as relatively cheap as it is, I'm surprised Osborne's autumn statement didnt include a small hike in duty. Relatively cheap ?????? Where do you live ? Glasgow. By all accounts it's a lot cheaper than a few months back. Maybe so , but it is still massively over inflated due to excessive taxation in my opinion I paid $36 (£22) to fill a Ford a Mustang yesterday. $2.37 a gallon. Can't wait to be back next week and paying nearly $160 (£100) to fill the car at home! Just how ripped off are we with tax? " If the tax wasn't on fuel, it'd have to be on something else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"With petrol being as relatively cheap as it is, I'm surprised Osborne's autumn statement didnt include a small hike in duty. Relatively cheap ?????? Where do you live ? Glasgow. By all accounts it's a lot cheaper than a few months back. Maybe so , but it is still massively over inflated due to excessive taxation in my opinion I paid $36 (£22) to fill a Ford a Mustang yesterday. $2.37 a gallon. Can't wait to be back next week and paying nearly $160 (£100) to fill the car at home! Just how ripped off are we with tax? If the tax wasn't on fuel, it'd have to be on something else." Ok but just how much? Income tax, national insurance and VAT amount to nearly 70% of disposable income if you are a high rate payer. Then you pay ridiculous tax on fuel as well? Time to cut down on government expenditure and give us a break. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regardless of the who and the why of the huge drop in the price of Brent Crude, there's no escaping the fact that it was held as a virility symbol by certain Nationalist nutters who have now been comprehensively castrated..It will be back to a 100++ some time soon. The prudent thing would be to sit on that oil for 20 years and then sell it for a thousand dollars a barrel .
Or just nationalise it and put it to use building something to replace it when it's gone
Yer nationalise it. that worked so well for the Steel Industry, the Car Industry, the train services, the Haulage Industry, British Airways, the telecoms Industry and almost everything else that by 1979 they were earning so much money for the country Britain was considered the economic miracle of the Western World. Wonder why they stopped it.
Wake up fgs and look at what nationalisation really caused.you don't think that the two oil crises of the 70s 1973 saw oil quadruple and and 1979 saw it treble again had anything to do with the demise of those products by any chance
Not really. The price of oil went up for France, Germany and every other country in the developed world. Our nationalised industries were uncompetitive even before the oil price rises of the 70's and remained uncompetitive after.
Nationalised industries aren't uncompetitive because they're nationalised. They tend to be uncompetitive because they're badly run.
East Coast Main Line was returning profit to the Treasury while under public ownership."There is always an exception to every generality | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"With petrol being as relatively cheap as it is, I'm surprised Osborne's autumn statement didnt include a small hike in duty. Relatively cheap ?????? Where do you live ? Glasgow. By all accounts it's a lot cheaper than a few months back. Maybe so , but it is still massively over inflated due to excessive taxation in my opinion I paid $36 (£22) to fill a Ford a Mustang yesterday. $2.37 a gallon. Can't wait to be back next week and paying nearly $160 (£100) to fill the car at home! Just how ripped off are we with tax? If the tax wasn't on fuel, it'd have to be on something else." I'm not sure that you would. Fuel tax is a particularly pernicious tax as it indirectly pushes up the price of almost everything else in the economy and in doing that reduces overall economic activity. If fuel was sold for about 20p to 30p a litter, which it could be without all the VAT and fuel duty applied to it, overall economic activity would increase massively. It's more than possible that the extra money raised through increased VAT returns, Corporation Tax, Income Tax, National Insurance etc. would more than make up for the revenue lost by removing VAT and duty from fuel. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the beginning of the thread - yes, a bullet dodged. The SNP 'go it alone' promises of a 'just society' (whatever that means but sounds expensive) were based on high or sustained oil prices. If the dollar value fell just a bit then it would have caused massive problems for an independent Scottish economy. However, it's fallen by around 50%. No sign of it going back up quickly either. Better together indeed." Well definitely better for the Scots. Not sure the English and Welsh are getting a very good deal out of it right now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"With petrol being as relatively cheap as it is, I'm surprised Osborne's autumn statement didnt include a small hike in duty. Relatively cheap ?????? Where do you live ? Glasgow. By all accounts it's a lot cheaper than a few months back. Maybe so , but it is still massively over inflated due to excessive taxation in my opinion I paid $36 (£22) to fill a Ford a Mustang yesterday. $2.37 a gallon. Can't wait to be back next week and paying nearly $160 (£100) to fill the car at home! Just how ripped off are we with tax? If the tax wasn't on fuel, it'd have to be on something else. I'm not sure that you would. Fuel tax is a particularly pernicious tax as it indirectly pushes up the price of almost everything else in the economy and in doing that reduces overall economic activity. If fuel was sold for about 20p to 30p a litter, which it could be without all the VAT and fuel duty applied to it, overall economic activity would increase massively. It's more than possible that the extra money raised through increased VAT returns, Corporation Tax, Income Tax, National Insurance etc. would more than make up for the revenue lost by removing VAT and duty from fuel." . That was the whole point of the fuel escalator though so firstly you would have the ability to reduce tax and keep prices stable, and secondly your industry would get used to paying a realistic price for energy and not rely on one particular cheap one (oil). Unfortunately they just got used to the high revenue from it and are now stuck both way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet the Scottish government are now glad the vote was no... Their plans for independent Scotland were all based on increasing oil revenues! Latest news is the oil industry there is going down the pan rapidly. SNP now asking Westminster for more subsidies for the oil/gas industry! The jocks were never going to be independant , they dont have the balls to stand up and make their own decisions , they are more than happy for us to tell them what to do just so long as they can keep on sucking up as much cash from us as possable, all talk of them not wanting to break up the union is just kak , as long as the sea is full of fish shit the jocks will never be anything else other than subsidy junkies who get a hard on at being ruled by England
you come across as a racist bigot "Is that not just a polite way of saying he's a prick? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the beginning of the thread - yes, a bullet dodged. The SNP 'go it alone' promises of a 'just society' (whatever that means but sounds expensive) were based on high or sustained oil prices. If the dollar value fell just a bit then it would have caused massive problems for an independent Scottish economy. However, it's fallen by around 50%. No sign of it going back up quickly either. Better together indeed." . You miss the point that all oil in the world is traded in dollars, that why it's called the petrodollar but you can't spend dollars in Glasgow (well not if your buying legal stuff) so really it's the currency exchange between your currency and the dollar which would lose or gain you the most. The current currency wars by world wide governments effects oil prices more than supply or demand at the moment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"With petrol being as relatively cheap as it is, I'm surprised Osborne's autumn statement didnt include a small hike in duty. Relatively cheap ?????? Where do you live ? Glasgow. By all accounts it's a lot cheaper than a few months back. Maybe so , but it is still massively over inflated due to excessive taxation in my opinion I paid $36 (£22) to fill a Ford a Mustang yesterday. $2.37 a gallon. Can't wait to be back next week and paying nearly $160 (£100) to fill the car at home! Just how ripped off are we with tax? If the tax wasn't on fuel, it'd have to be on something else. I'm not sure that you would. Fuel tax is a particularly pernicious tax as it indirectly pushes up the price of almost everything else in the economy and in doing that reduces overall economic activity. If fuel was sold for about 20p to 30p a litter, which it could be without all the VAT and fuel duty applied to it, overall economic activity would increase massively. It's more than possible that the extra money raised through increased VAT returns, Corporation Tax, Income Tax, National Insurance etc. would more than make up for the revenue lost by removing VAT and duty from fuel.. That was the whole point of the fuel escalator though so firstly you would have the ability to reduce tax and keep prices stable, and secondly your industry would get used to paying a realistic price for energy and not rely on one particular cheap one (oil). Unfortunately they just got used to the high revenue from it and are now stuck both way" I know. Added to that the possible negative impact on the environment of a massive increase in carbon fuel burning, I'm not suggesting that that's what should be done. I'm just pointing out that the revenue raised from fuel duty could probably be easily replaced by increased economic activity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the beginning of the thread - yes, a bullet dodged. The SNP 'go it alone' promises of a 'just society' (whatever that means but sounds expensive) were based on high or sustained oil prices. If the dollar value fell just a bit then it would have caused massive problems for an independent Scottish economy. However, it's fallen by around 50%. No sign of it going back up quickly either. Better together indeed.. You miss the point that all oil in the world is traded in dollars, that why it's called the petrodollar but you can't spend dollars in Glasgow (well not if your buying legal stuff) so really it's the currency exchange between your currency and the dollar which would lose or gain you the most. The current currency wars by world wide governments effects oil prices more than supply or demand at the moment." Technically you can spend dollars in Glasgow ! Most big stores will accept foreign currency and exchange in store electronically but at a cak rate. B&q is an example , was a store manager for years and we would take dollars .......to be a pedant | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the beginning of the thread - yes, a bullet dodged. The SNP 'go it alone' promises of a 'just society' (whatever that means but sounds expensive) were based on high or sustained oil prices. If the dollar value fell just a bit then it would have caused massive problems for an independent Scottish economy. However, it's fallen by around 50%. No sign of it going back up quickly either. Better together indeed.. You miss the point that all oil in the world is traded in dollars, that why it's called the petrodollar but you can't spend dollars in Glasgow (well not if your buying legal stuff) so really it's the currency exchange between your currency and the dollar which would lose or gain you the most. The current currency wars by world wide governments effects oil prices more than supply or demand at the moment. Technically you can spend dollars in Glasgow ! Most big stores will accept foreign currency and exchange in store electronically but at a cak rate. B&q is an example , was a store manager for years and we would take dollars .......to be a pedant ". That's funny I once got refused serving in b&q and wicks for wanting to pay in £100 notes. After a bit of arguing in B&Q with the manger and then the accountant they actually refused me on grounds that there no column in the cashing up sheets for £100 notes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" On the upside I can now fill my tank of 70 quid Whoop whoop I couldn't give a shit which country is bumming which country - whatever happens I still need to fill my tank whether it's high or low priced, to go to work to put food on the table (and pay for chams entrance) so I will moan when it high and rejoice when it's low Because I can have no effect on the price, but I know it's a necessity " Comments like this wind me up a bit. I live in Aberdeen, and like most of the workforce up here work directly for the o&g sector. With the oil price plummeting 45% people are losing their jobs, in a city that has the 2nd highest standard of living costs in the UK. Its starting to look pretty bleak up here. So while you enjoy your cheap petrol think of the thousands... And yes I mean thousands of people that will be made redundant by the end of Q1 2015 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" On the upside I can now fill my tank of 70 quid Whoop whoop I couldn't give a shit which country is bumming which country - whatever happens I still need to fill my tank whether it's high or low priced, to go to work to put food on the table (and pay for chams entrance) so I will moan when it high and rejoice when it's low Because I can have no effect on the price, but I know it's a necessity Comments like this wind me up a bit. I live in Aberdeen, and like most of the workforce up here work directly for the o&g sector. With the oil price plummeting 45% people are losing their jobs, in a city that has the 2nd highest standard of living costs in the UK. Its starting to look pretty bleak up here. So while you enjoy your cheap petrol think of the thousands... And yes I mean thousands of people that will be made redundant by the end of Q1 2015" I am going to be careful how I word this as I don't want to upset you but im afraid for the last few years we have been fleeced on fuel prices ,,,, we needed lower fuel prices ,,,, my fuel bill is around £800 a day when we are flat out yet the product I produce has had its price slashed by 40% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the beginning of the thread - yes, a bullet dodged. The SNP 'go it alone' promises of a 'just society' (whatever that means but sounds expensive) were based on high or sustained oil prices. If the dollar value fell just a bit then it would have caused massive problems for an independent Scottish economy. However, it's fallen by around 50%. No sign of it going back up quickly either. Better together indeed.. You miss the point that all oil in the world is traded in dollars, that why it's called the petrodollar but you can't spend dollars in Glasgow (well not if your buying legal stuff) so really it's the currency exchange between your currency and the dollar which would lose or gain you the most. The current currency wars by world wide governments effects oil prices more than supply or demand at the moment." Not missing the point, you're making a spurious one. Yes, there will be currency fluctuations but the dollar to sterling exchange rate is pretty stable and in no way accounts for the current low price of oil on the international market. Shale gas/oil exploration, lower demand and continued high output has resulted in the world price of crude falling. The value of sterling has not crashed relative to the petrol dollar. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the beginning of the thread - yes, a bullet dodged. The SNP 'go it alone' promises of a 'just society' (whatever that means but sounds expensive) were based on high or sustained oil prices. If the dollar value fell just a bit then it would have caused massive problems for an independent Scottish economy. However, it's fallen by around 50%. No sign of it going back up quickly either. Better together indeed.. You miss the point that all oil in the world is traded in dollars, that why it's called the petrodollar but you can't spend dollars in Glasgow (well not if your buying legal stuff) so really it's the currency exchange between your currency and the dollar which would lose or gain you the most. The current currency wars by world wide governments effects oil prices more than supply or demand at the moment. Not missing the point, you're making a spurious one. Yes, there will be currency fluctuations but the dollar to sterling exchange rate is pretty stable and in no way accounts for the current low price of oil on the international market. Shale gas/oil exploration, lower demand and continued high output has resulted in the world price of crude falling. The value of sterling has not crashed relative to the petrol dollar. " . No I wasn't disagreeing with you I was pointing out that your more likely to be fleeced producing north sea oil in pounds selling it in dollars and then converting it back to pounds again, than merely worrying about the actual price in dollars. Low demand and high output has brought the price down, but it won't last forever or should I say it will only last as long as we have low demand, then prices will shoot upwards once again, if low demand stays then low oil prices will be the least of your worries as that will cause even more currency devaluations, but it could be exactly what the maths said it would be a bumpy plateau where high oil prices cause low demand and when prices rise demand will fall again etc etc. This is the worrying bit as this would signal we can no longer provide extra demand for economic expansion.... And then we're all fucked and not just Scotland or oil workers  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The most relieved person in Britain on 19th September was John Swinney, the SNP Finance Minister. He knew the truth but kept teling lies. " Makes a change from being the most reviled. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You said I was missing the point - take it that's not disagreeing then? Currency fluctuations and the mechanisms by which one currency is transferred into another, with the associated charges, is not the reason the world oil price is low." First rule of economics is something about supply and demand - think that is what we are thinking about! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the beginning of the thread - yes, a bullet dodged. The SNP 'go it alone' promises of a 'just society' (whatever that means but sounds expensive) were based on high or sustained oil prices. If the dollar value fell just a bit then it would have caused massive problems for an independent Scottish economy. However, it's fallen by around 50%. No sign of it going back up quickly either. Better together indeed.. You miss the point that all oil in the world is traded in dollars, that why it's called the petrodollar but you can't spend dollars in Glasgow (well not if your buying legal stuff) so really it's the currency exchange between your currency and the dollar which would lose or gain you the most. The current currency wars by world wide governments effects oil prices more than supply or demand at the moment. Technically you can spend dollars in Glasgow ! Most big stores will accept foreign currency and exchange in store electronically but at a cak rate. B&q is an example , was a store manager for years and we would take dollars .......to be a pedant .
That's funny I once got refused serving in b&q and wicks for wanting to pay in £100 notes.
After a bit of arguing in B&Q with the manger and then the accountant they actually refused me on grounds that there no column in the cashing up sheets for £100 notes. "In fairness no retailer is obliged to take your money. For whatever reason. The goods are on the shelf as an offer to treat with the customer but the retailer has the final right to refuse the sale. Simples | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the beginning of the thread - yes, a bullet dodged. The SNP 'go it alone' promises of a 'just society' (whatever that means but sounds expensive) were based on high or sustained oil prices. If the dollar value fell just a bit then it would have caused massive problems for an independent Scottish economy. However, it's fallen by around 50%. No sign of it going back up quickly either. Better together indeed.. You miss the point that all oil in the world is traded in dollars, that why it's called the petrodollar but you can't spend dollars in Glasgow (well not if your buying legal stuff) so really it's the currency exchange between your currency and the dollar which would lose or gain you the most. The current currency wars by world wide governments effects oil prices more than supply or demand at the moment. Technically you can spend dollars in Glasgow ! Most big stores will accept foreign currency and exchange in store electronically but at a cak rate. B&q is an example , was a store manager for years and we would take dollars .......to be a pedant .
That's funny I once got refused serving in b&q and wicks for wanting to pay in £100 notes.
After a bit of arguing in B&Q with the manger and then the accountant they actually refused me on grounds that there no column in the cashing up sheets for £100 notes. "And how many years ago was this by the way. B&q been electronic for best part of a decade with no balance sheet in the cash office. In fact the floats are not even checked daily . and the " accountant " I assume you mean yours ? Bq stores don't have accountants  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the price of oil is going to stay low in the long term for very simple reason. The amount of oil reserves in the US now from fracking is larger than the original total amount of oil reserves was from drilling back at about this time last century. This, like the original Texas find, is a complete game changer. Add to this the even more massive gas reserves and there is only one way the price of oil is going. The only possible fly in the ointment is if the middle easy oil producer increase production and let the price fall to a level were fracking is no longer viable, production stops and then they push the price up again. This could be what is happening now." Yes. Fracking needs much higher prices. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the beginning of the thread - yes, a bullet dodged. The SNP 'go it alone' promises of a 'just society' (whatever that means but sounds expensive) were based on high or sustained oil prices. If the dollar value fell just a bit then it would have caused massive problems for an independent Scottish economy. However, it's fallen by around 50%. No sign of it going back up quickly either. Better together indeed.. You miss the point that all oil in the world is traded in dollars, that why it's called the petrodollar but you can't spend dollars in Glasgow (well not if your buying legal stuff) so really it's the currency exchange between your currency and the dollar which would lose or gain you the most. The current currency wars by world wide governments effects oil prices more than supply or demand at the moment. Technically you can spend dollars in Glasgow ! Most big stores will accept foreign currency and exchange in store electronically but at a cak rate. B&q is an example , was a store manager for years and we would take dollars .......to be a pedant .
That's funny I once got refused serving in b&q and wicks for wanting to pay in £100 notes.
After a bit of arguing in B&Q with the manger and then the accountant they actually refused me on grounds that there no column in the cashing up sheets for £100 notes.
And how many years ago was this by the way. B&q been electronic for best part of a decade with no balance sheet in the cash office. In fact the floats are not even checked daily . and the " accountant " I assume you mean yours ? Bq stores don't have accountants ". It was about 8 years ago. And no the money person was b&q,s I say accountant she was in charge of cashing up and alike.. I must admit I hadn't seen £100 notes much before being paid them and b&q plus wicks point blankly refused them lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the price of oil is going to stay low in the long term for very simple reason. The amount of oil reserves in the US now from fracking is larger than the original total amount of oil reserves was from drilling back at about this time last century. This, like the original Texas find, is a complete game changer. Add to this the even more massive gas reserves and there is only one way the price of oil is going. The only possible fly in the ointment is if the middle easy oil producer increase production and let the price fall to a level were fracking is no longer viable, production stops and then they push the price up again. This could be what is happening now." . Yeah fracked oil/tar oil costs way more to produce, somewhere around $65 a barrel, the so called fracking is a bit of a misleader most finds have alot smaller reserves than first estimated the wells dry up much faster (usually within 6 months the run off is 30%of original production, which is why you need to constantly drill new wells and the cost is much higher) the environmental cost is staggering alone, I don't think anyone believes we will run out of oil anytime soon but what we will run out of(run out is the wrong wording... We won't be able to provide extra increased supply)is cheap to produce cheap to refine oil, probably some time around now. And that means we're stuck with the $100 dollar barrels. Somebody said above naively that supply and demand conclude price, well yes in the long term but in the short term they can be extremely manipulated as the banks proved with 4x and gold | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet the Scottish government are now glad the vote was no... Their plans for independent Scotland were all based on increasing oil revenues! Latest news is the oil industry there is going down the pan rapidly. SNP now asking Westminster for more subsidies for the oil/gas industry! The jocks were never going to be independant , they dont have the balls to stand up and make their own decisions , they are more than happy for us to tell them what to do just so long as they can keep on sucking up as much cash from us as possable, all talk of them not wanting to break up the union is just kak , as long as the sea is full of fish shit the jocks will never be anything else other than subsidy junkies who get a hard on at being ruled by England "Bollocks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" On the upside I can now fill my tank of 70 quid Whoop whoop I couldn't give a shit which country is bumming which country - whatever happens I still need to fill my tank whether it's high or low priced, to go to work to put food on the table (and pay for chams entrance) so I will moan when it high and rejoice when it's low Because I can have no effect on the price, but I know it's a necessity Comments like this wind me up a bit. I live in Aberdeen, and like most of the workforce up here work directly for the o&g sector. With the oil price plummeting 45% people are losing their jobs, in a city that has the 2nd highest standard of living costs in the UK. Its starting to look pretty bleak up here. So while you enjoy your cheap petrol think of the thousands... And yes I mean thousands of people that will be made redundant by the end of Q1 2015 I am going to be careful how I word this as I don't want to upset you but im afraid for the last few years we have been fleeced on fuel prices ,,,, we needed lower fuel prices ,,,, my fuel bill is around £800 a day when we are flat out yet the product I produce has had its price slashed by 40% " I totally understand where you are coming from, but when the oil prices were high fuel duty should have been lowered to compensate business like yourselves. My main bug bear is people seem to be fixated on cheaper fuel but forget about the knock on to the uk economy and the predicted 45000 job losses over the next 12 months | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Before the blockage about 70p to 80p a litter I think." . 78p a litre... Bang on the money. And the country was livid... Oh if we only knew then hey  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Before the blockage about 70p to 80p a litter I think.. 78p a litre... Bang on the money. And the country was livid... Oh if we only knew then hey "Which does raise the question, if North Sra oil could be produced and sold then at a profit on $10 per barrel how come they can't now at $50+ a barrel? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Before the blockage about 70p to 80p a litter I think.. 78p a litre... Bang on the money. And the country was livid... Oh if we only knew then hey
Which does raise the question, if North Sra oil could be produced and sold then at a profit on $10 per barrel how come they can't now at $50+ a barrel?". It's not that, it's alot of the oil companies have invested billions in the last 8 years in finding new fields and they haven't really found any of significance. That's why they've been pouring money into unconventional oil which was pretty profitable at 100 but there losing money at 60 so there just trying to cover costs now. Plus north sea is what's called deep water drilling it's not as pricey as "fracking" but it's alot more than Saudi/iraq onshore oil. Like I said at the beginning this is a temporary price war caused by the Saudis deliberately to cut the competition. If global demand stays weak for maybe a year they might be able to pump enough to keep prices low but if winter bites hard in January I think there'll struggle | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Only a small point but it seems the uncertainty over oil prices sped the demise of Pelamis. More at http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-30560980" . Yeah which is a shame because I thought they were really making good progress with the prototype but these things are always incredibly hard to fund at the start. And that's the trouble with energy production, capitalism just d doesn't work for it, I mean would any business or investor in their right minds that would have put the billions into nuclear even the government wouldn't have done it without that bi product they love so much | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As the SNP is opposed to fracking and a low oil price is death to North Sea oil an independent Scotland would now be looking financial melt down straight in the face. So they'd have a fairer society alright, they'd all be poor together." Absolutely, the political rhetoric Salmond poured out, and he hasn't stopped, was all about the just society. Massive pensions for all, free education, free health care, higher standards of living on benefits and the list went on. With an ageing working population (less income taxes paid) and a falling all prices means an independent Scotland would have had to live way beyond its means. Would have gone bust. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Only a small point but it seems the uncertainty over oil prices sped the demise of Pelamis. More at http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-30560980. Yeah which is a shame because I thought they were really making good progress with the prototype but these things are always incredibly hard to fund at the start. And that's the trouble with energy production, capitalism just d doesn't work for it, I mean would any business or investor in their right minds that would have put the billions into nuclear even the government wouldn't have done it without that bi product they love so much" I'm still surprised Scotland hasn't concentrated more on hydro electric power. It may not be the most efficient but it's safe, we know how it works and it's not too objectionable to most folk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Only a small point but it seems the uncertainty over oil prices sped the demise of Pelamis. More at http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-30560980. Yeah which is a shame because I thought they were really making good progress with the prototype but these things are always incredibly hard to fund at the start. And that's the trouble with energy production, capitalism just d doesn't work for it, I mean would any business or investor in their right minds that would have put the billions into nuclear even the government wouldn't have done it without that bi product they love so much I'm still surprised Scotland hasn't concentrated more on hydro electric power. It may not be the most efficient but it's safe, we know how it works and it's not too objectionable to most folk." . It's a great way to store energy when you can use other energy to pump the water and rely on it when you need it. I still think the future will be small scale generation of renewables wind/wave/solar on a large scale deployment. But the reality is there's so much we could try given the will too. Like thorium reactors | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"HAD Scotland voted Yes to independence, it would be looking at oil revenues of £1.25bn instead of £6.9bn in 2016-17, while facing a deficit of close to 6 per cent of national income. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/business-consumer/slump-oil-prices-would-left-4852629 " Snp folk have gone awfully quiet recently | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""It will be back at a 100 dollars some time soon." Izzat another Salmond 'promise'?" no just maths and economics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""It will be back at a 100 dollars some time soon." Izzat another Salmond 'promise'? no just maths and economics." That's what he said before he got his arse kicked on Sept 18th. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""It will be back at a 100 dollars some time soon." Izzat another Salmond 'promise'? no just maths and economics. That's what he said before he got his arse kicked on Sept 18th." Bit less of an arse kicking and more of a severe tickling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
".......... I am not sure whether I am glad the Scots voted 'No' and stayed or would have preferred to see Wee Eck's face as his economic miracle that only HE could deliver unravelled while he navigated his Scotland into a moneyless future. ............." His face, pictured in the back of his official car, as he was driven to Edinburgh on Sept 19th looked for all the world like a man on the way to the scaffold. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can anyone remember or have a guess at what unleaded petrol was when we had the fuel blockades when we were all outraged at how expensive it was!!. Go on have a guess it was sep 2000 and the weather was lovely." In 1971 (decimalisation) 33p per GALLON! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can anyone remember or have a guess at what unleaded petrol was when we had the fuel blockades when we were all outraged at how expensive it was!!. Go on have a guess it was sep 2000 and the weather was lovely. In 1971 (decimalisation) 33p per GALLON!" .. What was it in 1974 after the first oil shock! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can anyone remember or have a guess at what unleaded petrol was when we had the fuel blockades when we were all outraged at how expensive it was!!. Go on have a guess it was sep 2000 and the weather was lovely. In 1971 (decimalisation) 33p per GALLON!" . Or more to the point what was it ten years later in 1981 after wee had seen the end of the second oil shock in 78... Like to guess! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this oil stuff has fascinated me for years. There are plenty of viable alternative technologies (e.g. hydrogen for vehicles) available but their widespread introduction has been suppressed because there is still plenty of money to be made from oil (I am a scientist by profession). What actually winds me up more than the actions of, say, Saudi Arabia, are the 'speculators' in the finance markets. I think it's Toyota, but I'm happy to be corrected on that, which is planning to market a hydrogen car next year and it will be interesting to see what the response is this time around. I suspect the oil companies have 'alternative energy' divisions they can galvanise in the event of oil going permanently 'south'. Moose." . If they have alternative technology I think there'd be rolling it at around now, bp didn't take up the arse ultra deep drilling in the gulf for 95 dollar oil when they've got this neat new stuff that they could make money on, if you know what I mean. Hydrogen cars are great the problem is the hydrogen. Although it's the most abundant element, It doesn't exist on its own anywhere, it's bonded to other elements which means you have to strip it away from it and that takes... Yes you guessed it energy, in fact it takes more energy to strip it back to hydrogen then you get from it once you've done it, having said that if we had some very efficient solar panels it might be a way to alleviate some small % of vehicles. The problem with replacing oil is not replacing it perse but replacing it at similar cost. There's 12000 man hours labour in a barrel of oil that costs 50 bucks that's not cheap it's practically a free commodity. Somebody else mentioned cheap gasoline in the states and that's there biggest crux as well as there biggest advantage, there miles behind Europe in terms of soving on because they've got so used to it being cheap and when it goes up, like it did last year to 4 dollars a gallon it really really hurt and that's because there entire infrastructure runs on it. They literally have no alternative, they haven't built a nuclear power station since the 3 mile island disaster in the 70s, 96% of their trains are diesel they carry twice as much cargo by road than most other countries and it's why they will do anything to keep oil cheap , like exempting fracking from their clean air and water act! I mean if any industry needed that act fracking does, but if they did then fracked oil would cost 150-200 dollars a barrel, so they don't they keep it cheaper by poisoning all the land and water and the general public are grateful for that 2 dollar gasoline. If your interested I'd recommend a very good book from the 70s done by Stanford university called the limits of growth. It's good because its prediction were for 30-50 years in the future so you can see for yourself how they turned out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this oil stuff has fascinated me for years. There are plenty of viable alternative technologies (e.g. hydrogen for vehicles) available but their widespread introduction has been suppressed because there is still plenty of money to be made from oil (I am a scientist by profession). What actually winds me up more than the actions of, say, Saudi Arabia, are the 'speculators' in the finance markets. I think it's Toyota, but I'm happy to be corrected on that, which is planning to market a hydrogen car next year and it will be interesting to see what the response is this time around. I suspect the oil companies have 'alternative energy' divisions they can galvanise in the event of oil going permanently 'south'. Moose.. If they have alternative technology I think there'd be rolling it at around now, bp didn't take up the arse ultra deep drilling in the gulf for 95 dollar oil when they've got this neat new stuff that they could make money on, if you know what I mean. Hydrogen cars are great the problem is the hydrogen. Although it's the most abundant element, It doesn't exist on its own anywhere, it's bonded to other elements which means you have to strip it away from it and that takes... Yes you guessed it energy, in fact it takes more energy to strip it back to hydrogen then you get from it once you've done it, having said that if we had some very efficient solar panels it might be a way to alleviate some small % of vehicles. The problem with replacing oil is not replacing it perse but replacing it at similar cost. There's 12000 man hours labour in a barrel of oil that costs 50 bucks that's not cheap it's practically a free commodity. Somebody else mentioned cheap gasoline in the states and that's there biggest crux as well as there biggest advantage, there miles behind Europe in terms of soving on because they've got so used to it being cheap and when it goes up, like it did last year to 4 dollars a gallon it really really hurt and that's because there entire infrastructure runs on it. They literally have no alternative, they haven't built a nuclear power station since the 3 mile island disaster in the 70s, 96% of their trains are diesel they carry twice as much cargo by road than most other countries and it's why they will do anything to keep oil cheap , like exempting fracking from their clean air and water act! I mean if any industry needed that act fracking does, but if they did then fracked oil would cost 150-200 dollars a barrel, so they don't they keep it cheaper by poisoning all the land and water and the general public are grateful for that 2 dollar gasoline. If your interested I'd recommend a very good book from the 70s done by Stanford university called the limits of growth. It's good because its prediction were for 30-50 years in the future so you can see for yourself how they turned out." Having read it back in the 70's the main thing of interest about 'The Limits of growth' is that it said the same thing then as many doom merchants are saying now. It was dead wrong then and I reckon the doom merchants are probably still wrong now. No doubt one day the doom merchants will be right, just like the guys with sandwich boards on street corners telling us 'The end is nigh' will one day be right. But I don't believe it will be this day, year, decade or century even. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this oil stuff has fascinated me for years. There are plenty of viable alternative technologies (e.g. hydrogen for vehicles) available but their widespread introduction has been suppressed because there is still plenty of money to be made from oil (I am a scientist by profession). What actually winds me up more than the actions of, say, Saudi Arabia, are the 'speculators' in the finance markets. I think it's Toyota, but I'm happy to be corrected on that, which is planning to market a hydrogen car next year and it will be interesting to see what the response is this time around. I suspect the oil companies have 'alternative energy' divisions they can galvanise in the event of oil going permanently 'south'. Moose.. If they have alternative technology I think there'd be rolling it at around now, bp didn't take up the arse ultra deep drilling in the gulf for 95 dollar oil when they've got this neat new stuff that they could make money on, if you know what I mean. Hydrogen cars are great the problem is the hydrogen. Although it's the most abundant element, It doesn't exist on its own anywhere, it's bonded to other elements which means you have to strip it away from it and that takes... Yes you guessed it energy, in fact it takes more energy to strip it back to hydrogen then you get from it once you've done it, having said that if we had some very efficient solar panels it might be a way to alleviate some small % of vehicles. The problem with replacing oil is not replacing it perse but replacing it at similar cost. There's 12000 man hours labour in a barrel of oil that costs 50 bucks that's not cheap it's practically a free commodity. Somebody else mentioned cheap gasoline in the states and that's there biggest crux as well as there biggest advantage, there miles behind Europe in terms of soving on because they've got so used to it being cheap and when it goes up, like it did last year to 4 dollars a gallon it really really hurt and that's because there entire infrastructure runs on it. They literally have no alternative, they haven't built a nuclear power station since the 3 mile island disaster in the 70s, 96% of their trains are diesel they carry twice as much cargo by road than most other countries and it's why they will do anything to keep oil cheap , like exempting fracking from their clean air and water act! I mean if any industry needed that act fracking does, but if they did then fracked oil would cost 150-200 dollars a barrel, so they don't they keep it cheaper by poisoning all the land and water and the general public are grateful for that 2 dollar gasoline. If your interested I'd recommend a very good book from the 70s done by Stanford university called the limits of growth. It's good because its prediction were for 30-50 years in the future so you can see for yourself how they turned out. Having read it back in the 70's the main thing of interest about 'The Limits of growth' is that it said the same thing then as many doom merchants are saying now. It was dead wrong then and I reckon the doom merchants are probably still wrong now. No doubt one day the doom merchants will be right, just like the guys with sandwich boards on street corners telling us 'The end is nigh' will one day be right. But I don't believe it will be this day, year, decade or century even." . Oh... Have you read the update from 2004 ... You do know that Melbourne university did a study that proved nearly every computer model from the book was correct. In fact the guardian, new York times, wall St journal, the economist and nearly every other main stream paper wrote widely about their hypothesis and it's accuracy.. Of course your assertion that it was dead wrong then and dead wrong now could be right. It's just that I trust there figures and facts which have been read and re-read by experts and their conclusion and projected forecasts for 2000 were exactly where we were,and we're exactly on target to make every forecast for 2020. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The SNP position has always been that oil is the icing on the cake if the Scottish economy. A position that even the likes of Standard & Poor's agreed with when they stated that even without oil Scotland would have a triple-A rated economy. So we'd have a smaller pot for a while. Not so big a problem when it's needed to support a smaller country. " It's actually a bigger problem when you're a smaller country as it makes up a larger % of your income. For example, using the SNP's figures income from oil would've been 3 times as much as the defence budget for an independent Scotland. So far it's looking as though this years income from oil (for the whole of the UK) won't even cover half of an independent Scotland's defence budget. The implications of getting such figures so wrong in a small nation would be catastophic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this oil stuff has fascinated me for years. There are plenty of viable alternative technologies (e.g. hydrogen for vehicles) available but their widespread introduction has been suppressed because there is still plenty of money to be made from oil (I am a scientist by profession). What actually winds me up more than the actions of, say, Saudi Arabia, are the 'speculators' in the finance markets. I think it's Toyota, but I'm happy to be corrected on that, which is planning to market a hydrogen car next year and it will be interesting to see what the response is this time around. I suspect the oil companies have 'alternative energy' divisions they can galvanise in the event of oil going permanently 'south'. Moose.. If they have alternative technology I think there'd be rolling it at around now, bp didn't take up the arse ultra deep drilling in the gulf for 95 dollar oil when they've got this neat new stuff that they could make money on, if you know what I mean. Hydrogen cars are great the problem is the hydrogen. Although it's the most abundant element, It doesn't exist on its own anywhere, it's bonded to other elements which means you have to strip it away from it and that takes... Yes you guessed it energy, in fact it takes more energy to strip it back to hydrogen then you get from it once you've done it, having said that if we had some very efficient solar panels it might be a way to alleviate some small % of vehicles. The problem with replacing oil is not replacing it perse but replacing it at similar cost. There's 12000 man hours labour in a barrel of oil that costs 50 bucks that's not cheap it's practically a free commodity. Somebody else mentioned cheap gasoline in the states and that's there biggest crux as well as there biggest advantage, there miles behind Europe in terms of soving on because they've got so used to it being cheap and when it goes up, like it did last year to 4 dollars a gallon it really really hurt and that's because there entire infrastructure runs on it. They literally have no alternative, they haven't built a nuclear power station since the 3 mile island disaster in the 70s, 96% of their trains are diesel they carry twice as much cargo by road than most other countries and it's why they will do anything to keep oil cheap , like exempting fracking from their clean air and water act! I mean if any industry needed that act fracking does, but if they did then fracked oil would cost 150-200 dollars a barrel, so they don't they keep it cheaper by poisoning all the land and water and the general public are grateful for that 2 dollar gasoline. If your interested I'd recommend a very good book from the 70s done by Stanford university called the limits of growth. It's good because its prediction were for 30-50 years in the future so you can see for yourself how they turned out. Having read it back in the 70's the main thing of interest about 'The Limits of growth' is that it said the same thing then as many doom merchants are saying now. It was dead wrong then and I reckon the doom merchants are probably still wrong now. No doubt one day the doom merchants will be right, just like the guys with sandwich boards on street corners telling us 'The end is nigh' will one day be right. But I don't believe it will be this day, year, decade or century even.. Oh... Have you read the update from 2004 ... You do know that Melbourne university did a study that proved nearly every computer model from the book was correct. In fact the guardian, new York times, wall St journal, the economist and nearly every other main stream paper wrote widely about their hypothesis and it's accuracy.. Of course your assertion that it was dead wrong then and dead wrong now could be right. It's just that I trust there figures and facts which have been read and re-read by experts and their conclusion and projected forecasts for 2000 were exactly where we were,and we're exactly on target to make every forecast for 2020. " I trust my own reading of the book it's self but I understand why anybody else would trust far more authoritative sources than me. I still have the book so I may go and re read it again just for fun. If you haven't read it then I suggest you do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this oil stuff has fascinated me for years. There are plenty of viable alternative technologies (e.g. hydrogen for vehicles) available but their widespread introduction has been suppressed because there is still plenty of money to be made from oil (I am a scientist by profession). What actually winds me up more than the actions of, say, Saudi Arabia, are the 'speculators' in the finance markets. I think it's Toyota, but I'm happy to be corrected on that, which is planning to market a hydrogen car next year and it will be interesting to see what the response is this time around. I suspect the oil companies have 'alternative energy' divisions they can galvanise in the event of oil going permanently 'south'. Moose.. If they have alternative technology I think there'd be rolling it at around now, bp didn't take up the arse ultra deep drilling in the gulf for 95 dollar oil when they've got this neat new stuff that they could make money on, if you know what I mean. Hydrogen cars are great the problem is the hydrogen. Although it's the most abundant element, It doesn't exist on its own anywhere, it's bonded to other elements which means you have to strip it away from it and that takes... Yes you guessed it energy, in fact it takes more energy to strip it back to hydrogen then you get from it once you've done it, having said that if we had some very efficient solar panels it might be a way to alleviate some small % of vehicles. The problem with replacing oil is not replacing it perse but replacing it at similar cost. There's 12000 man hours labour in a barrel of oil that costs 50 bucks that's not cheap it's practically a free commodity. Somebody else mentioned cheap gasoline in the states and that's there biggest crux as well as there biggest advantage, there miles behind Europe in terms of soving on because they've got so used to it being cheap and when it goes up, like it did last year to 4 dollars a gallon it really really hurt and that's because there entire infrastructure runs on it. They literally have no alternative, they haven't built a nuclear power station since the 3 mile island disaster in the 70s, 96% of their trains are diesel they carry twice as much cargo by road than most other countries and it's why they will do anything to keep oil cheap , like exempting fracking from their clean air and water act! I mean if any industry needed that act fracking does, but if they did then fracked oil would cost 150-200 dollars a barrel, so they don't they keep it cheaper by poisoning all the land and water and the general public are grateful for that 2 dollar gasoline. If your interested I'd recommend a very good book from the 70s done by Stanford university called the limits of growth. It's good because its prediction were for 30-50 years in the future so you can see for yourself how they turned out. Having read it back in the 70's the main thing of interest about 'The Limits of growth' is that it said the same thing then as many doom merchants are saying now. It was dead wrong then and I reckon the doom merchants are probably still wrong now. No doubt one day the doom merchants will be right, just like the guys with sandwich boards on street corners telling us 'The end is nigh' will one day be right. But I don't believe it will be this day, year, decade or century even.. Oh... Have you read the update from 2004 ... You do know that Melbourne university did a study that proved nearly every computer model from the book was correct. In fact the guardian, new York times, wall St journal, the economist and nearly every other main stream paper wrote widely about their hypothesis and it's accuracy.. Of course your assertion that it was dead wrong then and dead wrong now could be right. It's just that I trust there figures and facts which have been read and re-read by experts and their conclusion and projected forecasts for 2000 were exactly where we were,and we're exactly on target to make every forecast for 2020. I trust my own reading of the book it's self but I understand why anybody else would trust far more authoritative sources than me. I still have the book so I may go and re read it again just for fun. If you haven't read it then I suggest you do." I've got all three books, I'm a huge fan of the club of Rome and have been too two lectures on the very books by Dennis meadows and jorgan Randers. I consider the book to be an epitome moment of my life when I first read it in 1989 as it's philosophy has been a huge point of interest for the next 25 years for me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The implications of getting such figures so wrong in a small nation would be catastophic." Only of it was being relied upon as the bedrock of the economy. Which it wasn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The implications of getting such figures so wrong in a small nation would be catastophic. Only of it was being relied upon as the bedrock of the economy. Which it wasn't. " To lose £5,000,000,000 out of aprx £100,000,000,000. is a pretty sizable chunck. You really don't think that would make much difference. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The implications of getting such figures so wrong in a small nation would be catastophic. Only of it was being relied upon as the bedrock of the economy. Which it wasn't. " Which it very much WAS! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The implications of getting such figures so wrong in a small nation would be catastophic. Only of it was being relied upon as the bedrock of the economy. Which it wasn't. " Oh really? Sorry but all I ever heard from the two fishes Salmand and Sturgeon was oil, oil, oil! Now given your financial sector would have upped and headed for the rUK and shipbuilding would have died I wonder what else there is in Scotland other than feeding yourselves. Oh and we would of course have billed you for the cost of bailing out RBS and HBOS. the only two banks to actually fail and both Scottish based. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The implications of getting such figures so wrong in a small nation would be catastophic. Only of it was being relied upon as the bedrock of the economy. Which it wasn't. " We can argue re the bedrock of the economy till the cows come home but there's no doubt it was the bedrock of the defeated Yes campaign. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this oil stuff has fascinated me for years. There are plenty of viable alternative technologies (e.g. hydrogen for vehicles) available but their widespread introduction has been suppressed because there is still plenty of money to be made from oil (I am a scientist by profession). What actually winds me up more than the actions of, say, Saudi Arabia, are the 'speculators' in the finance markets. I think it's Toyota, but I'm happy to be corrected on that, which is planning to market a hydrogen car next year and it will be interesting to see what the response is this time around. I suspect the oil companies have 'alternative energy' divisions they can galvanise in the event of oil going permanently 'south'. Moose.. If they have alternative technology I think there'd be rolling it at around now, bp didn't take up the arse ultra deep drilling in the gulf for 95 dollar oil when they've got this neat new stuff that they could make money on, if you know what I mean. Hydrogen cars are great the problem is the hydrogen. Although it's the most abundant element, It doesn't exist on its own anywhere, it's bonded to other elements which means you have to strip it away from it and that takes... Yes you guessed it energy, in fact it takes more energy to strip it back to hydrogen then you get from it once you've done it, having said that if we had some very efficient solar panels it might be a way to alleviate some small % of vehicles. The problem with replacing oil is not replacing it perse but replacing it at similar cost. There's 12000 man hours labour in a barrel of oil that costs 50 bucks that's not cheap it's practically a free commodity. Somebody else mentioned cheap gasoline in the states and that's there biggest crux as well as there biggest advantage, there miles behind Europe in terms of soving on because they've got so used to it being cheap and when it goes up, like it did last year to 4 dollars a gallon it really really hurt and that's because there entire infrastructure runs on it. They literally have no alternative, they haven't built a nuclear power station since the 3 mile island disaster in the 70s, 96% of their trains are diesel they carry twice as much cargo by road than most other countries and it's why they will do anything to keep oil cheap , like exempting fracking from their clean air and water act! I mean if any industry needed that act fracking does, but if they did then fracked oil would cost 150-200 dollars a barrel, so they don't they keep it cheaper by poisoning all the land and water and the general public are grateful for that 2 dollar gasoline. If your interested I'd recommend a very good book from the 70s done by Stanford university called the limits of growth. It's good because its prediction were for 30-50 years in the future so you can see for yourself how they turned out. Having read it back in the 70's the main thing of interest about 'The Limits of growth' is that it said the same thing then as many doom merchants are saying now. It was dead wrong then and I reckon the doom merchants are probably still wrong now. No doubt one day the doom merchants will be right, just like the guys with sandwich boards on street corners telling us 'The end is nigh' will one day be right. But I don't believe it will be this day, year, decade or century even.. Oh... Have you read the update from 2004 ... You do know that Melbourne university did a study that proved nearly every computer model from the book was correct. In fact the guardian, new York times, wall St journal, the economist and nearly every other main stream paper wrote widely about their hypothesis and it's accuracy.. Of course your assertion that it was dead wrong then and dead wrong now could be right. It's just that I trust there figures and facts which have been read and re-read by experts and their conclusion and projected forecasts for 2000 were exactly where we were,and we're exactly on target to make every forecast for 2020. I trust my own reading of the book it's self but I understand why anybody else would trust far more authoritative sources than me. I still have the book so I may go and re read it again just for fun. If you haven't read it then I suggest you do.I've got all three books, I'm a huge fan of the club of Rome and have been too two lectures on the very books by Dennis meadows and jorgan Randers. I consider the book to be an epitome moment of my life when I first read it in 1989 as it's philosophy has been a huge point of interest for the next 25 years for me." On this subject you may well know more than me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't see what our Scottish friends did or did not do, as a question of balls and think it pretty insulting to most of them to just reduce it to that level. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The implications of getting such figures so wrong in a small nation would be catastophic. Only of it was being relied upon as the bedrock of the economy. Which it wasn't. " See you're making the mistake of throwing around phrases about it being the 'icing on the cake' and not being the 'bedrock of the economy' but ultimately these are meaningless statements as the figures show the oil is making up a large chunk of our income. I had this discussion previously with someone in the Scotland forum who claimed it wasn't even taken into account in the possible budget as Salmond had claimed oil 'was just a nice bonus'. Wen the reality was very different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salmond's resignation 'was just a nice bonus'." Well sadly not for us English... the twat is up for election to Westminster in May and will probably get in. So we will have 5 years of the gobshite lecturing us on how WE should conduct matters in England and Wales. Most people with a sense of humility would have quietly disappeared. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salmond's resignation 'was just a nice bonus'. Well sadly not for us English... the twat is up for election to Westminster in May and will probably get in. So we will have 5 years of the gobshite lecturing us on how WE should conduct matters in England and Wales. Most people with a sense of humility would have quietly disappeared." His sole purpose at Westminster is to be as divisive as possible in the hope that he can somehow win extra powers. Of course he doesn't care in the least the impact this has on relations between the nations within the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" His sole purpose at Westminster is to be as divisive as possible in the hope that he can somehow win extra powers. Of course he doesn't care in the least the impact this has on relations between the nations within the UK." He has already opened up a huge rift between the Scots and the rest of the UK. And what has happened is that the rest of us have woken up to the utter deceit of the Barnett Formula and devolution. "We are all equal just some are more equal than others" seems to be how it is now.... Maybe when the SNP have to explain to the Scottish voters why they have to pay higher taxes than the English to fund all their lovely Socialist ideas like free tuition, free prescriptions and all the other wee baubies rather than blame Westminster when it went wrong and take the credit when it went right as before their chickens will come home to roost. The SNP have been allowed to blame Westminster for 'cuts' while being given more per person than the rest of the UK and then kid the Scots its only the SNP that can pull of this magic.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet the Scottish government are now glad the vote was no... Their plans for independent Scotland were all based on increasing oil revenues! Latest news is the oil industry there is going down the pan rapidly. SNP now asking Westminster for more subsidies for the oil/gas industry!" I take it you forget the oil price in 1999 / 2000 was as low as $12 a barrel and companies still made profit What isn't produced today will be produced tomorrow at a higher price The oil price is simply God saying he is on the side of the Scots and awaits their Independence before the price rises again but on a serious note; do not believe what the papers & broadcasters tell you, there are plenty jobs available in the North Sea. . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 Whos next..  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Tourism, whisky, green energy, selling southern England water before you all die of thirst, actually getting the revenue from exports going through English ports and therefore being counted as English income, shipbuilding would not have died and, yes, oil, would all have meant we'd be better off alone. The financial sector would not have 'fled south', despite their hollow threats (which they all claimed they would do if we got devolution) and I've given up on explaining how it was the Americans who bailed out the banking sector, that Northetn Rock failed first and that they're is no such thing as a Scottish bank any more as they're all multinational companies now. But you all carry on with those we delusions that make you feel superior and aggrieved that we dared to stand up for ourselves even for a while. Then go off and support Cameron and Farrage's anti-europe arguments despite them being the very ones you pooh-pooh when applied to the Union. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The price of Oil - Is a Corruption to Cripple Russia... Once Russia Complies or Folds or Give in... Taa daa.. Whos next.. "This. Been saying it for months. Sky loosely touched on it two weeks ago. Was on their site for literally a few hours before being take down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The price of Oil - Is a Corruption to Cripple Russia... Once Russia Complies or Folds or Give in... Taa daa.. Whos next.. "It's more about the U.S. than Russia. The Saudis want to maintain their market share and one way of doing this is by making it unprofitable to extract shale. Thereafter prices will stabilise and the Saudis will still emerge with their large market share. It's self interest rather than international politics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh here we go again..... Just for the record Id still vote yes 100% it would still and always will be !!!!" . People should stand on their own feet, it's good for them, I'd rather have a small government that listens to the people and gets things wrong occasionally, than a vast federal blanket that neither listens nor cares to what people want, and guess they get it wrong as well occasionally anyhow!. That was the biggest mistake the Scots ever made and a once in a life opportunity to do it your own way that they blew from listening to all the mainstream media | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I take it Chishy gets his understanding of how Westminster, the Barnett Formula and Scotland's budget work from the Daily Mail. "Funnily enough I don't actually read the Daily Mail and I would suggest if you want your views to be taken seriously you don't stereotype people into a block and then disrespect them for holding views they don't. Do I blame all Scots people for Alex Salmand? Nope .. so with respect sod off with your labelling me as something I am not. Now if you want a very technical discussion on UK economics I'd be happy to engage you but I fear you are woefully ill equipped if you think UK exports have anything to do with the Barnett Formula. And you are also playing the rather sad little racist game Salmand tried by suggesting we evil 'English' are 'stealing' revenue from Scottish produced goods. Try getting your head out of your kilt and use the words 'Great Britain' for a change. And again we see the Salmand theory of discussion when you say the Financial Sector made 'hollow threats' to move South. At least you didn't call them 'bullies' but they were deadly serious. Heads up so it wasn't british taxpayers that bailed out RBS and HBOS at all then? It was the Yanks.. Oh great. So why do we own half of Lloyds (because they were conned by a Scottish PM Brown to take over HBOS no questions asked) and all of RBS? did the Yanks make a gift of it all? D'UH! I never said RBS and HBOS were first I said they were Scottish which they were as they were HQ'd and registered in Scotland and subject to Scottish Law! If Scotland had been independent your economy would not have been big enough to bail them out or stand the guarantees their account holders enjoy from the British Treasury. And as for "you all carry on with those we delusions that make you feel superior and aggrieved.." you just played the 'bully' and 'envy' game Salmand was always playing. Personally I couldn't have cared less if you had gone. I just wanted to stop hearing whingeing Scots banging on about us evil English. And lastly here is a quote dated Sept. 19th 2014 from a noted journal you may know: "One of the reasons it is so controversial is that it has led to public spending per head being typically 20% higher in Scotland than in England. Last year under the formula, Scotland got £10,152 per head, Wales, despite being much poorer, got £9,709, and England got £8,529." The journal was called The Guardian... Not that I read it of course. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I take it Chishy gets his understanding of how Westminster, the Barnett Formula and Scotland's budget work from the Daily Mail.
Funnily enough I don't actually read the Daily Mail and I would suggest if you want your views to be taken seriously you don't stereotype people into a block and then disrespect them for holding views they don't. Do I blame all Scots people for Alex Salmand? Nope .. so with respect sod off with your labelling me as something I am not.
Now if you want a very technical discussion on UK economics I'd be happy to engage you but I fear you are woefully ill equipped if you think UK exports have anything to do with the Barnett Formula. And you are also playing the rather sad little racist game Salmand tried by suggesting we evil 'English' are 'stealing' revenue from Scottish produced goods. Try getting your head out of your kilt and use the words 'Great Britain' for a change.
And again we see the Salmand theory of discussion when you say the Financial Sector made 'hollow threats' to move South. At least you didn't call them 'bullies' but they were deadly serious.
Heads up so it wasn't british taxpayers that bailed out RBS and HBOS at all then? It was the Yanks.. Oh great. So why do we own half of Lloyds (because they were conned by a Scottish PM Brown to take over HBOS no questions asked) and all of RBS? did the Yanks make a gift of it all? D'UH!
I never said RBS and HBOS were first I said they were Scottish which they were as they were HQ'd and registered in Scotland and subject to Scottish Law! If Scotland had been independent your economy would not have been big enough to bail them out or stand the guarantees their account holders enjoy from the British Treasury.
And as for "you all carry on with those we delusions that make you feel superior and aggrieved.." you just played the 'bully' and 'envy' game Salmand was always playing. Personally I couldn't have cared less if you had gone. I just wanted to stop hearing whingeing Scots banging on about us evil English.
And lastly here is a quote dated Sept. 19th 2014 from a noted journal you may know:
"One of the reasons it is so controversial is that it has led to public spending per head being typically 20% higher in Scotland than in England. Last year under the formula, Scotland got £10,152 per head, Wales, despite being much poorer, got £9,709, and England got £8,529."
The journal was called The Guardian...
Not that I read it of course. "And we are a population of..... Compared to what in England.......  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So now the British not just the Scottish will have a drop in revenue its hits us all you know now. " Correct :-/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So now the British not just the Scottish will have a drop in revenue its hits us all you know now. Correct :-/" Think the point here is that a United Kingdom can perhaps absorb the shocks of oil price fluctuation rather better than a stand alone, smaller economy, with whatever currency it set up. Especially since it's utopian vision of 'the just society' and all it's associated costs depended on the oil price being substantially higher than it is now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And we are a population of..... Compared to what in England....... "And your point is exactly? So its perfectly OK for a Scots person to have more money spent on them from our taxes than a Welsh person or an English person? And you justify it because of the size of the population? You do know what 'Per Capita' actually means? And seeing as you mentioned how 'few' you are why should the 92% of the UK population be dictated to by the Scottish 8%? What is SO damned special about you lot that you feel you are entitled to more public spending (and I mean 20% higher) than I am in England And what part of the 'Majority Rules' in a Democracy don't you quite understand? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"With petrol being as relatively cheap as it is, I'm surprised Osborne's autumn statement didnt include a small hike in duty. Relatively cheap ?????? Where do you live ? Glasgow. By all accounts it's a lot cheaper than a few months back. Maybe so , but it is still massively over inflated due to excessive taxation in my opinion" . Very valid point but if we reduce tax on petrol , which taxes should be increased to compensate . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Think the point here is that a United Kingdom can perhaps absorb the shocks of oil price fluctuation rather better than a stand alone, smaller economy, with whatever currency it set up. Especially since it's utopian vision of 'the just society' and all it's associated costs depended on the oil price being substantially higher than it is now." Right with you there. And the warning signs were there in March of this year 6 months before the Referendum: "In a new [March 2014] analysis on the current state of the UK economy, the IFS said that the OBR had downgraded Scotland's oil revenues in 2016/17 to £3.3bn, leaving an independent Scotland having to borrow the equivalent of 3.6% of its GDP that year" http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/04/snp-exaggerate-oil-revenues Now given the oil price in March was $110 a barrel: http://www.infomine.com/ChartsAndData/GraphEngine.ashx?z=f&gf=110537.USD.bbl&dr=1y And as it is now $60 you can see if Salmand was out by 3.6% GDP when it was $20 lower how much his economy would be in freefall right now. Russia is in recession and even Saudi is predicting the biggest deficit in its history. The USA is now laying off thousands of oil workers. But Salmand was never wrong. Oh No. It was everyone else. And they are bullies ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"to argue about what may have happened or could have happened had a referendum result been different is irrelevant... the only thing that matters now is the facts .... and they begin with the one that the SNP will form the third largest party in the commons making any government by the present incompetent lot impossible if they are asked to form a coalition" This is the trap the SNP fell into. Taking a 'maybe' and insisting its a fact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So now the British not just the Scottish will have a drop in revenue its hits us all you know now. Correct :-/ Think the point here is that a United Kingdom can perhaps absorb the shocks of oil price fluctuation rather better than a stand alone, smaller economy, with whatever currency it set up. Especially since it's utopian vision of 'the just society' and all it's associated costs depended on the oil price being substantially higher than it is now." Agreed,the UK has a far broader economy than Scotlands, and yes we will take a hit on the tax revenue loss as the price falls, but it is only a small percentage of the total tax take.We are far more capable of weathering that than an independant Scotland would be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't know where people keep getting this fact that "we can take the hit"... Last time i looked we were the second most indebted nation in the world, hardly the sign of somebody who can take a hit!. Personally I think Scotland on their own would have raised the extra revenue through bonds just as easy as the uk could." In para 2 you condemn indebtedness yet in para 3 you suggest it as a route for Scotland. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And we are a population of..... Compared to what in England.......
And your point is exactly? So its perfectly OK for a Scots person to have more money spent on them from our taxes than a Welsh person or an English person? And you justify it because of the size of the population?
You do know what 'Per Capita' actually means?
And seeing as you mentioned how 'few' you are why should the 92% of the UK population be dictated to by the Scottish 8%? What is SO damned special about you lot that you feel you are entitled to more public spending (and I mean 20% higher) than I am in England
And what part of the 'Majority Rules' in a Democracy don't you quite understand? "Don't be silly, the Barnett formula is partially about the geographic distribution of the nation. Public services cost more over a larger area. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Don't be silly, the Barnett formula is partially about the geographic distribution of the nation. Public services cost more over a larger area." With respect it isn't 'silly' to point out the irrelevance and total unfairness of a Formula that was created in the 70s as a purely temporary solution for a country with no devolution. Even the good Lord Barnett has said its irrelevant nowadays! Governments of all persuasions have sidestepped the issue ever since. But not now. Salmand underestimated the backlash from England when it was all scrutinised during the Referendum debate. Sorry it is no more expensive to provide services in Ayrshire than it does in Cumbria. In Glasgow as against Bristol. You can create all the excuses you like but when my neighbour's kid in Suffolk has to pay tuition fees in a Scottish University while a kid from Aberdeen doesn't that shows something is wrong. Where do you think all the extra money comes from to pay for Prescription fees and elderly care? From me and people like me because I am denied it! Salmand is getting oput because the lying little shite knows that he had it good being able to blame 'Westminster' for 'cuts' and yet taking credit for no tuition fees and other Socialist policies. He also knows that when the Scots have to actually pay more taxes to fund all that Socialism then the SNP's grip on power may be a short one. A 'fairer Society' is great while we English are paying for the wee baubies ... but not for much longer and Cameron has played a blinder on this one with Labour and the Liberals being seen for the hypocrites they are. Increased Devolution for the Scots, raise their own taxes and English votes for English laws. Is that silly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"until england give up their four fifths of the represetntative voice for the so-called "united kingdom" in the commons then there will have to be pay offs of some kind and these will most likely to continue to be of a financial nature " Forgive me but what is wrong with some 84% of the UK population having 80% of the MPs? Scotland's 8% of the population have 9% of the MPs... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"until england give up their four fifths of the represetntative voice for the so-called "united kingdom" in the commons then there will have to be pay offs of some kind and these will most likely to continue to be of a financial nature " Sorry but its fairly represented as why should 3 million Welsh and 5 million Scots have a say on the lives of over 60 million English....cmon get real | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't know where people keep getting this fact that "we can take the hit"... Last time i looked we were the second most indebted nation in the world, hardly the sign of somebody who can take a hit!. Personally I think Scotland on their own would have raised the extra revenue through bonds just as easy as the uk could. In para 2 you condemn indebtedness yet in para 3 you suggest it as a route for Scotland." . Erm well it wasn't my intension i was simply pointing out that we (UK) are in no better position to raise money through bonds than the Scottish alone would have been. Are debt ratio is so bad we've buying are own bonds for 18 months, or should I say we've been swapping them with the ecb and the fed who also are in the same position as us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Erm well it wasn't my intension i was simply pointing out that we (UK) are in no better position to raise money through bonds than the Scottish alone would have been. Are debt ratio is so bad we've buying are own bonds for 18 months, or should I say we've been swapping them with the ecb and the fed who also are in the same position as us." Not too sure we have been 'swapping; Bonds (or Gilts). They are sold on a bid basis on the open markets and bothy the takeup (subscription) and cost (interest) are decided by the markets. But what influences them is their belief in our ability to repay debt and the actions we are taking to mend what was a very fooked economy. And to date Gilts have been over subscribed and interest rates are the lowest in a very long time. So I would venture to suggest Salmand would have had a very difficult time selling Scottish Bonds (they couldn't be called 'Gilts') by a) persuading the markets he could repay and b) he had a credible deficit plan given his Socialist ambitions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
