It's too hot :(

Lik-e-lix and cat food in the fridge again.

One day I will find that cat sniper, there are dead looking cats all over my house.
 
LOAM said:
The problem is they've trousered their profits for goodness knows how long instead of fixing their infrastructure. An ungodly percentage of water is lost through leaks. They currently want the tax payer to foot the cost.
Click to expand...

The internet continues to be full of biased, ignorant, emotional people I see.

Ofwat sets price caps for water and mandates infrastructure investment commitments onto Water companies. They have strict requirements to meet water quality/safety standards (first priority), environmental standards (2nd priority) and infrastructure expansion/efficiency improvements (3rd priority)

Unless you've been living under a rock, you'll notice how difficult major infrastructure projects are in the UK. Both politics and NIMBYS get over excited and squash things before they can begin

e.g.
oJ5LE18.png


If Water companies make a profit, it's because they're operating in a manner that is deemed efficient. That's a good thing. However if you actually take time to understand their accounts dividends are often furnished from borrowings, and profits used to furnish the cost of capital (infrastructure investments). Other accounting nuances also get mis-interpreted.

There are plenty of sniping journalist pieces about (e.g. Scottish Water invested more per household), and that's expected because Water is an emotive subject. People always have strong opinions, but the biggest critics never actually work in the sector. Like everything the nuance of geographical and social differences (lower Scottish population density, more rain, more natural reservoirs) is ignored in favour of a "Water companies are ripping you off!!" headline.

The reality of fixing very old Victorian infrastructure in London is massive construction works, huge costs, increasing water bills and disruption to every day life. None of which the general population care for.
 
Last edited:
robj20 said:
What, the United Utilities reservoirs are at 99%, 69%, 62%, 61%, 59% and 49% to me that doesn't add up to a total of 50%.
Since last week only 1 reservoir went down by -0.1% the rest have all increased one by +6.4%

Haweswater & Thirlmere are at 62.5% this time last year they were at 49.5%.
So yes plenty.

Plenty of rain due next week as well.
Click to expand...
FjXd8Sy.png


It's on its way down to 50%, last year it was 68% an average year is 76%, a week of rain will do little vs months of dryness, it may seem plenty to you, but it's really not
 
Alex_6n2 said:
The internet continues to be full of biased, ignorant, emotional people I see.

Ofwat sets price caps for water and mandates infrastructure investment commitments onto Water companies. They have strict requirements to meet water quality/safety standards (first priority), environmental standards (2nd priority) and infrastructure expansion/efficiency improvements (3rd priority)

Unless you've been living under a rock, you'll notice how difficult major infrastructure projects are in the UK. Both politics and NIMBYS get over excited and squash things before they can begin

e.g.
oJ5LE18.png


If Water companies make a profit, it's because they're operating in a manner that is deemed efficient. That's a good thing. However if you actually take time to understand their accounts dividends are often furnished from borrowings, and profits used to furnish the cost of capital (infrastructure investments). Other accounting nuances also get mis-interpreted.

There are plenty of sniping journalist pieces about (e.g. Scottish Water invested more per household), and that's expected because Water is an emotive subject. People always have strong opinions, but the biggest critics never actually work in the sector. Like everything the nuance of geographical and social differences (lower Scottish population density, more rain, more natural reservoirs) is ignored in favour of a "Water companies are ripping you off!!" headline.

The reality of fixing very old Victorian infrastructure in London is massive construction works, huge costs, increasing water bills and disruption to every day life. None of which the general population care for.
Click to expand...
All that sounds lovely but they shouldn't be paying any dividends when they have circa £20B of outstanding infrastructure upgrades. I don't believe I even commented on the logistics of delivering it or that them making a profit is wrong. What I commented on is the fact they make vast profits, pay massive dividends whilst at the same time they need to be upgrading their infrastructure.

Mandated investment from ofwat are minimum values, they are allowed to reinvest 100% of their profits if they need to, especially when they are losing around 2billion litres a day.
 
Last edited:
Surveyor said:
Better get started. If it's feasible it'll probably take around 20 years from concept to completion.
Click to expand...
Okay, it took them 35 years ago 20 sounds about right.
Just because it takes a while doesn't mean it's not worth doing, short of building desalination plants I can't see what else there is.
 
Filling a load of spare drinking bottles with water to make sure we can make the baby bottle, just in case London goes dry.....would make me:

a) sensible
b) crazy lunatic
 
Andr3w said:
Filling a load of spare drinking bottles with water to make sure we can make the baby bottle, just in case London goes dry.....would make me:

a) sensible
b) crazy lunatic
Click to expand...
Not a lunatic, but there’s no chance London will not have any water. Rain is forecast for mon, tue and wed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom