Bankers and fracking

[Dave2002]

It seems that the New York Times has noticed Truss's intentions to remove moratoriums on bankers' bonuses, and on hydraulic fracking. So people elsewhere are noticing the crazy changes in directions which might occur in the UK.

Business as usual, folks!

[DracoM]

Tressonomics becomes Nightmaronomics

[Petrushka]

Bankers and fracking are about as popular with the electorate as a double dose of Covid.

Are the Tories deliberately trying to lose the next election in order to leave Starmer with the task of clearing up the mess?

[Bryn]

Bankers and fracking are about as popular with the electorate as a double dose of Covid.

Are the Tories deliberately trying to lose the next election in order to leave Starmer with the task of clearing up the mess?

If so, Labour would be well advised to dump Starmer quickly and find a decent leader, preferably one with an outlook closer to those few remaining socialists in its membership.

[Andrew]

I don't have a problem with either of these decisions, but I'm going to be in a minority with that opinion I suspect! If bank staff, or anyone else in any sphere of business or commerce have a skill for which someone else is prepared to pay, good luck to them! I suspect the career path of a failed banker is slightly shorter than that of a Premier League football manager whose team have lost four matches in a row, so what they receive in bonuses when they do well reflects the risks involved in taking those very decisions.

The fracking option is one I feel we ought to pursue in the short-term, in order to prevent our over-dependance on Russian gas or Arab oil, until we can establish our energy security, in the shape of nuclear power and other sources. Once these are working properly and secure, the fracking should be wound down.

[Dave2002]

Bankers and fracking are about as popular with the electorate as a double dose of Covid.

Are the Tories deliberately trying to lose the next election in order to leave Starmer with the task of clearing up the mess?

I sure hope so! Though I note the other reservations about Labour.

[Dave2002]

The fracking option is one I feel we ought to pursue in the short-term, in order to prevent our over-dependance on Russian gas or Arab oil, until we can establish our energy security, in the shape of nuclear power and other sources. Once these are working properly and secure, the fracking should be wound down.

The problem with that is twofold - measures which are taken to cope with a short term problem may take a long while to set up, and secondly, once in operation may take a long while to shut down. If there really were no other way, then "maybe", otherwise definitely not.

[RichardB]

If so, Labour would be well advised to dump Starmer quickly and find a decent leader, preferably one with an outlook closer to those few remaining socialists in its membership.

There are those who say that Burnham is being manoeuvred into just such a position, with a convenient byelection in the right part of the country coming up.

[Sir Velo]

If so, Labour would be well advised to dump Starmer quickly and find a decent leader, preferably one with an outlook closer to those few remaining socialists in its membership.

Ah but that's the crux isn't it? One only needs to look at what happened the last time Labour had a socialist as its leader. Like it or not, I think in the next election it's going to be a case of voting for the least worst option, at least if you want the Tories out.

[oddoneout]

I don't have a problem with either of these decisions, but I'm going to be in a minority with that opinion I suspect! If bank staff, or anyone else in any sphere of business or commerce have a skill for which someone else is prepared to pay, good luck to them! I suspect the career path of a failed banker is slightly shorter than that of a Premier League football manager whose team have lost four matches in a row, so what they receive in bonuses when they do well reflects the risks involved in taking those very decisions.

The fracking option is one I feel we ought to pursue in the short-term, in order to prevent our over-dependance on Russian gas or Arab oil, until we can establish our energy security, in the shape of nuclear power and other sources. Once these are working properly and secure, the fracking should be wound down.

Given the problems the USA has experienced with fracking, and that they at least have the space to move away from any adverse effects(eg if pollution of water sources etc becomes too extreme) which this country does not have, I cannot see how it can be a realistic option. Perhaps in future it may be possible to use the resource, but for now I don't think the techniques are up to the job. I wouldn't be in favour even if there was a competent government and the complete suite of fully functional(ie funded and with teeth to act) regulatory bodies, so I am very much anti given the current "do what you like so long as the divi payouts keep coming" set-up.
I am not convinced that those in banking who get the extreme monetary payouts are the ones with the talent. If they really were that talented wouldn't they have been able to prevent at least some of the "mistakes" which result in huge fines which fall one way or another on the customer, not those at the top with whom the buck supposedly stops. They seem to me to be part of a small group of people who move around in a small circle of equally over-rewarded individuals - when things get sticky or too much like work they just move on and slot in to another similar post without any difficulty.

[Serial_Apologist]

Given the problems the USA has experienced with fracking, and that they at least have the space to move away from any adverse effects(eg if pollution of water sources etc becomes too extreme) which this country does not have, I cannot see how it can be a realistic option. Perhaps in future it may be possible to use the resource, but for now I don't think the techniques are up to the job. I wouldn't be in favour even if there was a competent government and the complete suite of fully functional(ie funded and with teeth to act) regulatory bodies, so I am very much anti given the current "do what you like so long as the divi payouts keep coming" set-up.
I am not convinced that those in banking who get the extreme monetary payouts are the ones with the talent. If they really were that talented wouldn't they have been able to prevent at least some of the "mistakes" which result in huge fines which fall one way or another on the customer, not those at the top with whom the buck supposedly stops. They seem to me to be part of a small group of people who move around in a small circle of equally over-rewarded individuals - when things get sticky or too much like work they just move on and slot in to another similar post without any difficulty.

Bravo!!!

[oddoneout]

This is interesting, for several reasons, not all of them reassuring in my view. It may be me but in some respects it comes across as a bit of a whinge but with pointers to what a PM who is evidently all set to get shot of as much regulation as possible might consider turning her attention to.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/21/liz-truss-fracking-britain-economic-political-low-carbon-cuadrilla

These quotes are not to illustrate my point above about suspicions as to motive.

The techniques have been made needlessly controversial in the UK due to misrepresented concerns about isolated incidents of groundwater contamination and microseismicity, the former of which only take place when mistakes are made during well management.

This links to my previous comment about land space. An "isolated incident" in this country could affect very large numbers of people in terms of their water supply, to be managed by an industry which is already unable to function adequately, and in a country where just packing up settlements and moving elsewhere isn't an option, if an extreme one, as there isn't the space.

the shale formations are extremely gassy.

- which apparently isn't a good thing if you want to extract gas...

[Pulcinella]

More from Cuadrilla (or at least a different Guardian report, I think):

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/21/fracking-wont-work-uk-founder-chris-cornelius-cuadrilla

[Maclintick]

More from Cuadrilla (or at least a different Guardian report, I think):

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...lius-cuadrilla

And...

https://phys.org/news/2019-08-uk-shale-gas-reserves-smaller.html

As the head honcho of Cuadrilla says, Miss Trust's espousal of fracking lacks scientific validity or commercial sense since the investment would produce a fraction of the shale gas envisaged in 2013 -- at most 10 years supply as opposed to the 50 years originally touted by its proponents. Overpromising ? A parallel here with her much-vaunted post-Brexit trade agreements, envisaging sunlit uplands of global mega-deals which may now, we learn, only materialise in the "long term", whatever that means in Truss-speak. Also, her assertion that shale gas could be produced six months from now is laughable. The markets have today told us what they think of her fiscal plans -- lowest value of the pound since the mid-eighties..

[richardfinegold]

Bankers should be boiled in oil for sport for all that I care, but fracking made the U.S. energy independent, and Biden’s decision to reverse it wasn’t wise, imo. Until clean fuels become a reality, I’d rather get petroleum from fracking than from Putin or the likes of OPEC