Poll: General election voting intentions poll
- Thread starter semi-pro waster
- Start date
- Status
Marginally cheaper. You don't have the same logistics costs as everything can be shipped in by truck. But the wages are the same, as is certification etc...
Expenses are more expensive though, as the workers stay in hotels and eat in restaurants and stuff, rather than in rig accommodation and the paltry food budget given for each worker offshore.
It is much nicer working on "some" land rigs though. At least if something goes boom, if your still alive, you can run, rather than jump / swim. That said, I have worked on some pretty horrible rigs in some Chinese deserts, and they weren't quite so nice.
Who would initiate a limited nuclear attack?
It's all out or nothing unless you wana get hit back by all the weapons the enemy has left, only cold warriors talk about limited nuclear exchanges because they want to make the prospect of a war with Russia appear less lethal to the population at large.
Depending on how deep the hydrocarbons are, and what formations you might have to drill through / avoid, multilateral or not, you could hit target in a few months. Realistically, look for a year or two for all the planning and stuff to be finalised, a couple months to drill the well, skid the rig, then start the next.
As for extraction, that could take 10+ years depending on the reserves.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 12,982
- Location
- La France
That's a shame as I like Texas.
So using the back of an envelope:
100B barrels
5% estimate recoverable
10 years to extract
So 500M barrels a year for a decade, effectively doubling our oil output from half way through the next parliament - which is when the oil price should be recovering
Bigger than I thought for sure.
Sovereign fund incoming, or am I being ridiculously optimistic?
More tax cuts for the wealthy.
He didn't throw David under the bus. That's just a totally bizarre interpretation. Is he just not allowed to oppose Iraq, say it was wrong?
That's a totally unjustified rephrasing. Was he saying David was wrong? Sure. Was he personally targeting David Miliband - who had no special involvement in the war vote - by saying that? There's absolutely no justification for that interpretation.
Saying you disagree with someone is not putting the knife in.
If by sovereign fund you mean massive profits for shareholders and a loss after expenses for the people as a whole I reckon you're spot on dude.
That would be the smart thing to do. Norwegian style. No chance with any likely government though sadly - none of them seem to believe in national assets.
I think it rather more shows that he was upset after failing to get something that he wanted (the Labour party leadership and potential to be PM). Wouldn't you be?
We can hope that the next government will refuse to allow it to be exploited and do the only sensible thing by leaving it in the ground.
Ha! Who am I kidding? We'll burn it like kids with firecrackers in a firework factory!
Sadly the advice from pretty much the entire scientific community is likely to be ignored by any party other than the Greens on this issue.
We will engage in some nice intergenerational taxation, taxation without representation, destroying the future environment for our children's children - the worst kind of oppression.
Indeed.
David for the leadership - "Same old new Labour, no different!".
Ed runs for the leadership - "Should have taken David!".
Classic political spin, to have a criticism whatever the choice of leader.
Last edited:
You're forgetting the positives, water that burns! How cool is that dude and that's not even thinking about all those super exciting earthquakes.
The fact he's opposing the war in Iraq and saying it's wrong alone isn't backstabbing his brother, the fact he's opposing the war in Iraq and saying it's wrong when his brother was one of it's chief architects however is. People seem to be forgetting that Blair and Miliband were the two biggest driving wheels of the war this side of the pond (Brown only went along in order to secure concessions from Blair on other areas where they disagreed).
Like I said, I was just answering the question that was asked, not questioning the validity of the question
Last edited:
The latest Ashcroft polls have resulted in an increased probability that Labour will win the most seats.
http://may2015.com/featured/electio...e-labour-can-still-win-the-most-seats-in-may/
As the article pointed out, since early Feb the Tories were consistently predicted to win slightly more seats than labour, a change from the period before that.
The Ashcroft polls only examine the marginal seats, which are what decides an election.
In these key seats Labour has had a small but significant swing in their favor.
You can see this in the seat predictions:
http://may2015.com/category/seat-calculator/
If you look at the close seats, say less than 4% margin then the Tories have far more seats in this category than Labour and more over, the marginal Tory seats almost all have Labour as the runner up, while the labour marginal seats have several Lib Dems.
Tories have 30 seats with under a 4% margin that could fall to Labour. Labour have only 12 seats under 4% margin that would swing to the Conservatives.
This article again highlights the decline in UKIP votes, from 17% to 11% in the key marginal constituencies (not that the UKIP care about these).
http://may2015.com/featured/electio...e-labour-can-still-win-the-most-seats-in-may/
As the article pointed out, since early Feb the Tories were consistently predicted to win slightly more seats than labour, a change from the period before that.
The Ashcroft polls only examine the marginal seats, which are what decides an election.
In these key seats Labour has had a small but significant swing in their favor.
You can see this in the seat predictions:
http://may2015.com/category/seat-calculator/
If you look at the close seats, say less than 4% margin then the Tories have far more seats in this category than Labour and more over, the marginal Tory seats almost all have Labour as the runner up, while the labour marginal seats have several Lib Dems.
Tories have 30 seats with under a 4% margin that could fall to Labour. Labour have only 12 seats under 4% margin that would swing to the Conservatives.
This article again highlights the decline in UKIP votes, from 17% to 11% in the key marginal constituencies (not that the UKIP care about these).
For reference, the Lib Dems went from ~4% in 1978 to ~42% in 1982.
I believe the Green party is actually the fastest growing party in the UK right now, and are 3rd place in the number of registered members behind labour and the Tories. The UKIP vote share has increased faster than the Greens in absolute terms over the same period though. In relative terms, the UKIP vote share has increased 4.5X since 2010 but the greens have increased around 6.5x. I the last mcouple of months green voter share has declined faster than UKIP has declined, at one point the greens were average around 8%.
If you look at the polls going back to 1970
http://may2015.com/category/poll-of-polls/
You can see big swings from different parties , 10-20% or more in a space of a year. The UKIP growth from 2010 is indeed notable (that poll doesn't show earlier UKIP voter share before 2012) but nothing out of the ordinary.
Small parties come and go. At 2010 there was a lot of talk about the BNP, that all vanished and was replaced by UKIP.
Last edited:
This is all news to me, I've never heard anyone say that David Milliband was a significant driving wheel of the Iraq war. He was Schools Minister in 2003. Presumably you can back this up with some evidence?
- Status