FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Drill for oil or Not?
Drill for oil or Not?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"If it gets sold on the international market, and doesn’t lower our energy prices, then the only people it benefits are the oil companies. So no, I wouldn’t drill." I agree. It's a resource we own, yet allowing others to profit from it is madness. | |||
"You're responsible for the deciding whether to drill in the UK for oil. It's predicted to have zero effect on oil prices, as it would be sold on the international market. Would you do it or not? And what's your politics? " Yes, whatever we produce will be a drop in the ocean compared with the USA, Saudi and a recovering Russia, not to forget the oil from Venezuela taken without payment by the USA. The UK product will produce Tax revenue and will slightly ease the next few years. | |||
"You're responsible for the deciding whether to drill in the UK for oil. It's predicted to have zero effect on oil prices, as it would be sold on the international market. Would you do it or not? And what's your politics? " Apart from many thousands of jobs created / saved, all of which pay tax, there will be also jobs in the supply and support of the industry that benefit. The companies that do the drilling have to pay various taxes. I done a quick Google and asked does the UK government earn money from drilling for oil. The response is: Yes, the UK government earns billions of pounds from oil and gas drilling through specialized corporate taxes and levies on North Sea production. Total revenues reached £4.5 billion in the 2024 to 2025 financial year.Tax and Revenue Sources Ring Fence Corporation Tax: A special 30% tax rate applied to profits from oil and gas extraction in the UK and UK Continental Shelf, separate from standard business tax.Supplementary Charge: An additional 10% tax on oil and gas company profits.Energy Profits Levy: A temporary windfall tax on energy company profits, which was raised to 38% and scheduled to run until March 2030, contributing billions more to public receipts. Other countries extract oil and sell on the international markets so why shouldn't the UK? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Adura's own figure in their recent report say jackdaw would create 27 full time direct jobs. rosebank would create 255 jobs over the lifetime of the operation, although a caveat in Adura's own report say this figure is considered overstated, as most work will be done overseas. " 
The figures I've seen have been low and probably would make minimal difference to employment and tax. We've already taken almost 100% of the oil, so there's not much left.
Norway's strategy from the start seemed likely a million times better than ours.
It's now more like flogging a dead horse and seemingly like trying to give some people reassurance, for some reason.
I'd prefer resources to get directed at renewables, which will secure more jobs and likely wellbeing for us | |||
"I'd prefer resources to get directed at renewables, which will secure more jobs and likely wellbeing for us " green economy projected to create hundreds of thousands more quality well paid jobs than oil and gas creates, along with those jobs being spread far more evenly across all four nations. | |||
"I'd prefer resources to get directed at renewables, which will secure more jobs and likely wellbeing for us green economy projected to create hundreds of thousands more quality well paid jobs than oil and gas creates, along with those jobs being spread far more evenly across all four nations." Jobs for life, too  | |||
"You're responsible for the deciding whether to drill in the UK for oil. It's predicted to have zero effect on oil prices, as it would be sold on the international market. Would you do it or not? And what's your politics? " Why would it not have any effect on oil prices if it's sold on the international market? | |||
"Adura's own figure in their recent report say jackdaw would create 27 full time direct jobs. rosebank would create 255 jobs over the lifetime of the operation, although a caveat in Adura's own report say this figure is considered overstated, as most work will be done overseas.
The figures I've seen have been low and probably would make minimal difference to employment and tax. We've already taken almost 100% of the oil, so there's not much left.
Norway's strategy from the start seemed likely a million times better than ours.
It's now more like flogging a dead horse and seemingly like trying to give some people reassurance, for some reason.
I'd prefer resources to get directed at renewables, which will secure more jobs and likely wellbeing for us "Just checked back to the sources of the figures I mentioned in case it was oddball source but the £4.5 billion from the drilling companies alone is from the office for budget responsibility and on the government website. Maybe the tax collected should be used for renewable infrastructure | |||
| |||
"I'd prefer resources to get directed at renewables, which will secure more jobs and likely wellbeing for us green economy projected to create hundreds of thousands more quality well paid jobs than oil and gas creates, along with those jobs being spread far more evenly across all four nations. Jobs for life, too "oh forgot to answer your original question. based on the proven facts regarding virtually zero jobs created, virtually zero tax take and the public paying for the oil and gas twice, only idiots would drill ... so that's a no | |||
"I'd prefer resources to get directed at renewables, which will secure more jobs and likely wellbeing for us green economy projected to create hundreds of thousands more quality well paid jobs than oil and gas creates, along with those jobs being spread far more evenly across all four nations." What jobs specifically? | |||
"I'd prefer resources to get directed at renewables, which will secure more jobs and likely wellbeing for us green economy projected to create hundreds of thousands more quality well paid jobs than oil and gas creates, along with those jobs being spread far more evenly across all four nations. What jobs specifically? " Climbing up wind turbines to oil the bearings ? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Sell on market for the revenue." This as well.
With the current price of oil Britain would be quid's in. | |||
| |||
| |||
"In 2011 Elon Musk described humanity as conducting a vast experiment: we’re pumping carbon into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate and hoping it won’t cook the planet. The accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere has set in motion changes that are virtually impossible to reverse ( under existing technologies). The conversation to be had should no longer be about avoiding climate change but about mitigation and adaptation. The problem is that most of us don’t appear to be ready to face up to that reality. There are a whole number of reasons for this but one of the primary ones, I would argue, is cost. Most people of limited economic means i.e. most of us, know they will carry the very heavy burden of extra cost involved from transitioning from a largely fossil fuel driven economy to a green, low carbon economy. " .... that and the financially powerful or well off with stocks, shares and pension hedges etc. are massively invested in fossil fuels, so refuse to allow any dialogue surrounding policies concerning divestment from their goose laying golden eggs for them. | |||
"If it gets sold on the international market, and doesn’t lower our energy prices, then the only people it benefits are the oil companies. So no, I wouldn’t drill. I agree. It's a resource we own, yet allowing others to profit from it is madness. "
Exactly. It rains in this country yet the French water companies were selling it to us | |||
"In 2011 Elon Musk described humanity as conducting a vast experiment: we’re pumping carbon into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate and hoping it won’t cook the planet. The accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere has set in motion changes that are virtually impossible to reverse ( under existing technologies). The conversation to be had should no longer be about avoiding climate change but about mitigation and adaptation. The problem is that most of us don’t appear to be ready to face up to that reality. There are a whole number of reasons for this but one of the primary ones, I would argue, is cost. Most people of limited economic means i.e. most of us, know they will carry the very heavy burden of extra cost involved from transitioning from a largely fossil fuel driven economy to a green, low carbon economy. .... that and the financially powerful or well off with stocks, shares and pension hedges etc. are massively invested in fossil fuels, so refuse to allow any dialogue surrounding policies concerning divestment from their goose laying golden eggs for them." Oh dear… this shows very little understanding of how markets work. If a viable technology existed that could outperform fossil fuels on cost and return, investment would flood towards it. Capital is excellent at chasing profit, your post supports that. | |||
" Oh dear… this shows very little understanding of how markets work. If a viable technology existed that could outperform fossil fuels on cost and return, investment would flood towards it. Capital is excellent at chasing profit, your post supports that. " on the contrary, it shows the absolute power of fossil fuel lobbyists over government policy in this country and the narrow mindedness of the sheeplike investors which follow them and who are too petrified to speculate on what they are unable to understand technology-wise. | |||
"Capital is excellent at chasing profit... " Sadly, it is also excellent at protecting and monopolising its investment too, to the detriment of other things, regardless of how innovative they are or could drastically change the market. | |||
"Capital is excellent at chasing profit... Sadly, it is also excellent at protecting and monopolising its investment too, to the detriment of other things, regardless of how innovative they are or could drastically change the market. " In what way? Investments are not made on expected poor outcomes, thats the penny a share game. Capital is used is to generate returns, it is not invested lightly and is moved quickly when more lucrative outcomes are available. | |||
| |||
"Well, there are many examples where capital is directed towards protecting existing profitable investments. . Pharma has been criticised for “evergreening” patents. Basically minor tweaks that extend exclusivity, which protects revenue streams and delays much cheaper generic drugs. . Meta acquired Instagram and WhatsApp, using capital to consolidate market power instead of competing directly. . Capital isn’t bad in its own right. But when it’s used to aggressively defend an existing investment, it can prevent other technologies and/or competitors from disrupting the marketplace. . It’s the “weaponisation” of capital that I take issue with. To clarify, I mean buying out competitors, erecting barriers to entry, aggressive lobbying, strategic patent portfolios, predatory pricing and exclusive contracts. Companies with greater capital and access to those tools use them to lock out competitors. . It distorts a marketplace, creates barriers to entry, and is harmful. Some might say morally (and I might sympathise to some degree with that), but fundamentally I’m more focussed on market structure, and having an equal market for all to operate within. . Capitalist markets are not truly equal in practice, and therein lies the problem." You are conflating anti competitive practices with capital investment and we have competition laws to counter that. The bottom line is capital investments look for the greatest return, investors don't care if fossil fuels are replaced by other forms of fuel or energy tech, because the replacement will be providing the same outcome and we all need it, which provides a good return. So the question is why are we not seeing huge investments in alternatives, the answer is people don't really want too much change too quickly and the alternative sources are not YET as good as fossil fuels. One final point, much of the capital being invested isn’t controlled by the energy companies. It comes from pension funds, insurers, asset managers and other investors who are acting on behalf of millions of savers. | |||
"Well, there are many examples where capital is directed towards protecting existing profitable investments. . Pharma has been criticised for “evergreening” patents. Basically minor tweaks that extend exclusivity, which protects revenue streams and delays much cheaper generic drugs. . Meta acquired Instagram and WhatsApp, using capital to consolidate market power instead of competing directly. . Capital isn’t bad in its own right. But when it’s used to aggressively defend an existing investment, it can prevent other technologies and/or competitors from disrupting the marketplace. . It’s the “weaponisation” of capital that I take issue with. To clarify, I mean buying out competitors, erecting barriers to entry, aggressive lobbying, strategic patent portfolios, predatory pricing and exclusive contracts. Companies with greater capital and access to those tools use them to lock out competitors. . It distorts a marketplace, creates barriers to entry, and is harmful. Some might say morally (and I might sympathise to some degree with that), but fundamentally I’m more focussed on market structure, and having an equal market for all to operate within. . Capitalist markets are not truly equal in practice, and therein lies the problem. You are conflating anti competitive practices with capital investment and we have competition laws to counter that. The bottom line is capital investments look for the greatest return, investors don't care if fossil fuels are replaced by other forms of fuel or energy tech, because the replacement will be providing the same outcome and we all need it, which provides a good return. So the question is why are we not seeing huge investments in alternatives, the answer is people don't really want too much change too quickly and the alternative sources are not YET as good as fossil fuels. One final point, much of the capital being invested isn’t controlled by the energy companies. It comes from pension funds, insurers, asset managers and other investors who are acting on behalf of millions of savers." Conflating might be too strong a term I feel. I am aware of the difference between capital and business practices. But it is undeniable that some company's have leveraged their resources (be it financial / political / legal or other) to distort the marketplace in their favour and to the detriment of their competition. . I would counter that investors don't care however. There are several well known activist investors who do care. A minority perhaps. Then there are ethical investors and institutions as well. WE do need more to stand up and be counted however. . I agree, people seem very resistant to change, but that's the human condition in a nutshell. With historical short life-spans, short-termism is hard-baked in to humans. . Whilst off topic, it would be very interesting to see how future advances in science which may result in aging being halted or even repaired, resulting in dramatically extended lifespans might affect human attitudes towards risk and long term planning. Such advances would fundamentally change the whole nature of life, death and longevity, and our stewardship of the ground we walk on. | |||
"You're responsible for the deciding whether to drill in the UK for oil. It's predicted to have zero effect on oil prices, as it would be sold on the international market. Would you do it or not? And what's your politics? Why would it not have any effect on oil prices if it's sold on the international market?" Because in global production terms it is relatively small, it won't shift the overall market price. | |||
"You're responsible for the deciding whether to drill in the UK for oil. It's predicted to have zero effect on oil prices, as it would be sold on the international market. Would you do it or not? And what's your politics? Why would it not have any effect on oil prices if it's sold on the international market? Because in global production terms it is relatively small, it won't shift the overall market price." It could make a very small difference, every little helps and all that, but it would be hardly noticeable. What it would do is safeguard and create jobs and give a much needed windfall to the treasury. Let's face it, with his spending plans Burnham needs every penny he can get. | |||
"You're responsible for the deciding whether to drill in the UK for oil. It's predicted to have zero effect on oil prices, as it would be sold on the international market. Would you do it or not? And what's your politics? How would employment opportunities compare between the tiny trickle of oil that's left than via alternative energy jobs? I'm assuming that the latter, including research and development, training, installation and maintenance, would be higher. It could also help with exports, probably at a higher value than a little bit of oil, sold by global companies. Why would it not have any effect on oil prices if it's sold on the international market? Because in global production terms it is relatively small, it won't shift the overall market price. It could make a very small difference, every little helps and all that, but it would be hardly noticeable. What it would do is safeguard and create jobs and give a much needed windfall to the treasury. Let's face it, with his spending plans Burnham needs every penny he can get." | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
