Industry

Review underway of fracking company’s costs

Cuadrilla Lanchashire logo

The Australian owner of Cuadrilla says it is carrying out a review of the company’s costs following the fracking moratorium.

A J Lucas acquired Riverstone’s shareholding in Cuadrilla in February 2020, taking its interest to 93%.

In a trading update, A J Lucas (AJL) said:

“AJL has undertaken a detailed review of the carrying costs of the UK shale gas explorer.

“While this remains ongoing, AJL confirms significant progress has been made in rightsizing the business to meet the hiatus in 2020 operations following the initiation of a moratorium in the UK on hydraulic fracturing.”

DrillOrDrop reported in December 2019 that key staff  were leaving Cuadrilla as the company scaled down the fracking site at Preston New Road near Blackpool.

At least 10 had gone in recent months, including the senior geoscientist, financial controller, communications manager, director of public affairs and the executive assistant to the chief executive.

Earth tremors induced by fracking at Preston New Road led to the government moratorium on fracking in November 2019.

Earlier this year, Cuadrilla said it envisaged “limited, if any, operational activities” at the site.

The company predicted a “successful technical resolution” that would allow continued appraisal of UK shale gas.

A J Lucas said in the update it had implemented measures on workforce safety and social distancing for staff to reduce exposure to coronavirus in the UK and Australia. It said:

“Cuadrilla remains focused on working with industry peers and Industry Regulators to provide information to allow the UK Government to lift the moratorium as soon as practical given the constraints initiated to control the COVID-19 pandemic.”

107 replies »

  1. I can’t quite understand this focus upon lobbying. Does this just apply to fossil fuel?

    Don’t think it does. Every industry lobbies. And not just industries. I think there have been numerous reports on DoD of antis lobbying Government, National and Local.

    Against all the lobbying that goes on, then decisions are taken. Those that lobbied and failed, then whinge about those that lobbied and were successful. More likely to be a weakness within the case of the failed lobby than a failure within decisions taken. But, you can always claim a foul by the “other side”.

    And then, the ref. always gets the blame. A tried and tested model, but because of that, very obvious.

  2. Yes, hewes62, it certainly is an art form in USA, so are fake news and conspiracy theory. They do tend to go hand in hand, and are copied in UK a short while later.

    But, in USA, they usually get elections for President every four years, so they have more opportunity for change if they dislike what is going on. Then, they find nothing changes anyway, although hundreds of million $s will have been spent “lobbying” the electorate indicating that it will!. Greta will still pull a face behind whichever President does not do what she wishes. Just another form of lobbying. Some works, some doesn’t. The public still seem to have an ability though to decide which lobbying to follow and which to ignore, which then confounds some who are left with identifying that the public must be silly!

  3. Phil C

    Thanks

    The conversation started in response to your comments as below

    ”We have already seen the sudden and alarming withdrawal of environmental regulations checks and balances by the OGA, and the EA at a time when in fact we need to enforce even more stringent checks and balances whilst little or no on site presence is happening”.

    ”To allow fossil fuel operators to carry on without any such regulations in place is quite insane”.

    ”Anything can be taking place during this lock down out of sight whilst being unregulated in any meaningful way”

    My view is that such an assertion (in particular the sudden and alarming withdrawal of environmental regulation checks and balances by the OGA and the EA at a time….) requires challenge as if true, action needs to be taken.

    However, it turns out that the EA (the prime regulator for environmental checks and balances ) has not carried out an alarming withdrawal of environmental regulation checks and balances.

    Your second statement builds in the first. As the first is incorrect, although it could be true had the regulations been revoked, they have not.
    Therefore the statement is meaningless in the context of the DoD post and in light of the EA stance on compliance during the Covid event.
    Your third statement builds on the first two (incorrect statements) implying that the sites are unregulated in any meaningful way, even though neither the EA nor the HSE have suddenly withdrawn their regulatory checks and balances, nor have the regulations been revoked.

    What you have inferred could be quite alarming for those reading it on DoD.

    However, it is what it is, and it does almost fit the description of propaganda as below (from Wiki, which has a reference to the source)

    Propaganda is information that is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented.

    However, as you did not present any facts to support your view, it would fall short of that description.

    So I had a look at false information

    What is False Information?
    Lots of things you read online especially in your social media feeds may appear to be true, often is not. False information is news, stories or hoaxes created to deliberately misinform or deceive readers. Usually, these stories are created to either influence people’s views, push a political agenda or cause confusion and can often be a profitable business for online publishers. False information can deceive people by looking like trusted websites or using similar names and web addresses to reputable news organisations.

    According to Martina Chapman (Media Literacy Expert), there are three elements to fake news; ‘Mistrust, misinformation and manipulation’.

    Using the Martina Chapman Model i think there are three element in your statement.

    Misinformation – that the there has been a sudden and alarming withdrawal of environmental regulations checks and balances by the OGA and EA.

    Manipulation..that to allow fossil fuel operators to carry on without any such regulations is quite insane (the manipulation is using the incorrect first part to link to the second )

    Mistrust. ”Anything can be taking place during this lock down out of sight whilst being unregulated in any meaningful way” This is sowing mistrust in the mind of the reader. Heavens, now that all those checks and balances have gone, and there are no regulations in place!!

    So, i think I understand why there are no facts and why there never will be.

    If I were worried about the EA regulation of onshore oil and gas sites I expect DoD would be reporting on it, where we can question and correct the journalism (and vica versa as we are corrected as well, of course ).

    • Good morning ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls,

      I just wanted to return to this subject to explain just what is going on here with this above “contribution” from hewes62. Apologies for the length of this contribution, but as usual it would not be so if the perpetrator of the post above had some measure of a sense of proportion.

      What it reveals is that entire somewhat George Orwell style endeavour is little more than fabricated disinformation, out of context, hatchet job. For evidence of that, you will see revealed for yourselves here.

      The reason for saying that, is that I want you to understand the underlying strategy beneath these attempts to discredit individual words, while ignoring everything else that was said and attempting to misinform you with demonstrably fake news.

      So, let’s have a look at what this latest attempt is shall we? But just before that, you need to understand what this odd attempted is all about.

      This is the entire post that hewes62 has isolated just a few words from and attempted to construct that entire spurious concoction of fabrication and disinformation on.
      If hewes62 can quote individual words I can quote the whole of my contribution in its correct context. This was in reply to a very personal comment from another, which I have removed, but you can find it yourselves on the previous page:-

      “Meanwhile back on planet Earth, we can welcome back an old friend “Fracking Farmhouse” latest contribution which addresses where we go from here after this pandemic has subsided, devastating though it is. There will have to be real change in the way the entire world, the real one, operates from now on. How that happens, positive or negative, remains to be seen.

      A Fracking Farmhouse Covid Special 2020

      David Kesteven raises the pertinent question, that during this devastating unprecedented pandemic this government claims to be guided by the science. Something remarkably lacking where climate change and species extinction due to human activity and the earstwhile fossil fuel monopoly over energy production and use is concerned.
      What is suggested, is that the government can say they are following the science in the case of the pandemic because the source of the pandemic, the Covid-19 virus, has no lobbying capability in government.
      Whereas the source of global climate change, the fossil fuel industry has a very strong lobby in this and other governments worldwide and is still doing so. In that way the government completely fails to be guided by the climate science and chooses instead to be guided if not controlled by the profit motives of the fossil fuel lobby.
      “We have already seen the sudden and alarming withdrawal of environmental regulations checks and balances by the OGA, and the EA at a time when in fact we need to enforce even more stringent checks and balances whilst little or no on site presence is happening. To allow fossil fuel operators to carry on without any such regulations in place is quite insane. Anything can be taking place during this lock down out of sight whilst being unregulated in any meaningful way.”
      It was interesting that the operators continued to attempt to enforce injunctions even when travel and social distancing, lock downs and Martial Law was taking place prevented any such activity. What could that hope to achieve when events have superseded any such requirement?
      Perhaps there are further activities about to take place that the operators do not want to be monitored, questioned, or even observed?”

      Hewes replies somewhat later and only comments on a few words as follows:-

      “Phil C
      Thanks
      The conversation started in response to your comments as below”

      Phil*: Hewes62 quotes me here from my original comment and taken entirely out of context as usual:-

      ”We have already seen the sudden and alarming withdrawal of environmental regulations checks and balances by the OGA, and the EA at a time when in fact we need to enforce even more stringent checks and balances whilst little or no on site presence is happening”.
      ”To allow fossil fuel operators to carry on without any such regulations in place is quite insane”.

      ”Anything can be taking place during this lock down out of sight whilst being unregulated in any meaningful way”

      Hewes62 says: My view is that such an assertion (in particular the sudden and alarming withdrawal of environmental regulation checks and balances by the OGA and the EA at a time….) requires challenge as if true, action needs to be taken.”

      (Phil*: Lets have a look at why hewes62 wants to isolate individual words and not address anything else I said:
      All hewes62 is saying is that “he” wants to challenge that, not that it “requires” challenging. Challenging is an interesting word:-

      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/challenging
      challenging
      Definition of challenging
      1 : arousing competitive interest, thought, or action a challenging course of study a challenging job
      2 : invitingly provocative : fascinating a challenging personality challenging questions”

      *So no “requirement” to “challenge”is involved, it’s merely a personal choice by hewes62, not a “requirement” at all)

      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/requirement

      re·quire·ment | \ ri-ˈkwī(-ə)r-mənt \
      Definition of requirement
      : something required:
      a : something wanted or needed : NECESSITY
      production was not sufficient to satisfy military requirements
      b : something essential to the existence or occurrence of something else :

      there is clearly no requirement, it is however a purely personal “condition” of hewes62’s weaponised narrative in this case.

      Hewes62 says: However, it turns out that the EA (the prime regulator for environmental checks and balances ) has not carried out an alarming withdrawal of environmental regulation checks and balances.

      (Phil*: That is not true, since the EA are financially crippled, have severe staff shortages, and regulatory crippled by this government as illustrated long ago. They fully admit that due to staff being farmed out to other departments during Brexit, and now the pandemic, that there is a shortage of qualified staff, that the remaining skeleton staff are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of calls upon the EA for their attention. In effect the EA have been deliberately compromised by this government and have so few resources left their effectiveness is severely limited.)

      https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2020/03/07/environment-agency-pollution-flooding-cuts/

      Hewes62: “Your second statement builds in the first. As the first is incorrect,”

      (Phil*:- No, wrong, the first is correct as I say above, the second attempts to construct a fallacy upon a false claim. See my reply:- April 16, 2020 at 9:48 am on the previous page)

      hewes62: “although it could be true had the regulations been revoked, they have not.”

      (Phil*:- No, wrong, I have never said that regulations have been revoked, that is pure fabrication by hewes62 attempting to put words into my mouth.) (Yuk!)

      hewes62: Therefore the statement is meaningless in the context of the DoD post and in light of the EA stance on compliance during the Covid event. ”

      (Phil*:- No that is not true, the hewes62’s own statement is meaningless, as i have proved above, and hewes62 is merely expressing his own personal opinion. On the contrary, it is hewes62 himself who is incorrect and it is meaningless for him to say so)

      hewes62: Your third statement builds on the first two (incorrect statements)”

      (Phil*:- No that wrong, that is is not true. My first two statements are correct as I have shown, hewes62 cannot build upon false statements in the hope of constructing a false illusion. We are back to the Ozymandius feet of clay situation again, building his case upon feet of clay will only lead to catastrophic collapse. See my reply:- April 16, 2020 at 9:48 am on the previous page)

      “implying that the sites are unregulated in any meaningful way, even though neither the EA nor the HSE have suddenly withdrawn their regulatory checks and balances, nor have the regulations been revoked.”

      (Phil*:- again that is pure bluster from hewes62 and is not true the EA are crippled and unable to provide regulatory checks and balances as I said previously)

      Hewes62: “What you have inferred could be quite alarming for those reading it on DoD.(why is the truth alarming?”

      (Phil*:- pure conjecture, what Martin would call “speculation”. hewes62 seems to think he knows what all readers of Drill or Drop think. That is delusion and bluster, hewes62 does not know anything of the sort. What readers want is the truth. Truth is not alarming. Quite the opposite and hewes62 cannot possibly know what readers think, nor seek to tell readers what to think. That is again pure conjecture, “speculation” and merely hewes62 personal opinion, and attempt at deception, misrepresentation and bluster)

      hewes62: “However, it is what it is, and it does almost fit the description of propaganda as below (from Wiki, which has a reference to the source)”

      (Phil*:- No, not true, there is no propaganda, that is again hewes62 personal opinion only. Not a statement of fact and is designed to obfuscate, misinform and misrepresent. That attempted label of propaganda, is not truth but fabrication – we begin to see the edifice behind hewes62’s words in plain view. Wikipedia is always decried by the anti antis as being itself a disinformation site, but here we see it being promoted as a reliable source, somewhat hypocritical, you will agree)

      Hewes62: “Propaganda is information that is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented.”

      (That could be aimed at 90% of anti anti output couldn’t it. Curious isn’t it that the accusation words and terms, as follows, propaganda, influence, an agenda, which may not be objective, may be presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented”. Is somehow only to be justified as applicable to protesters, and not the anti anti pro frackers, when people oppose the anti anti pro fracker propaganda isn’t it. and yet if you read back through previous posts from the anti antis, that perfectly describes their own output to date. Check it for yourself)

      Hewes62: “However, as you did not present any facts to support your view, it would fall short of that description.”

      (Phil*:- No, wrong again, as I said previously, I provided facts to support everything I said, just because hewes62 is desperate to disagree with what I provided does not give him carte blanc to say I did not provide facts. In fact quite the reverse is true. This is what i did provide:- (continued next post)

      • 2 . Following from 1. above “How & Why Big Oil Conquered The World

        https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/

        “The reports are both supplied with the transcripts for hewes to trawl through looking for isolated words to blow up out of all proportion and to construct entire fictional novels from.”

        “There are also all the DRILLED podcasts, now in the fourth series. There are also the HEATED reports and podcasts, and if that is not enough there are many websites such as Desmog UK and Unearthed (Greenpeace) reports that i often post. i have posted links to all those previously, however the abysmal self censorship seems to have allowed those standard issue fossil fuel total black out blinkers to exclude anything but sychophancy towards the fossil fuel industry and excludes anything which dares to contradict that.”

        then hewes62 attempts to discredit only one of those and says this:-

        hewes62: “Phil C

        Corbett does not address your assertion that the world population has been entrapped by fossil fuel propaganda.

        Nor does link to the prolific corbett constitute proof af your assertion.

        I still wait for an example of the propaganda you refer to, and how it got to the world population.

        A peer reviewed papet would be good but a u tube excitement piece by the Corbett dows not cut the mustard.

        For the interested reader here is another example of the ‘hair on fire’ journalism. The trouble is there is some good points in there somewhere, but it is a bit like referring to the Beano as a source of facts having borrowed a quote from it.

        https://www.corbettreport.com/announcing-the-3rd-annual-real-fake-news-awards/”

        so lets have a look at that shall we:-

        (Phil*:- hewes62 says that The Corbett Report “does not address your assertion that the world population has been entrapped by fossil fuel propaganda.”

        “Nor does link to the prolific corbett constitute proof af your assertion.”

        (Phil*:- Quote from the Corbett Report transcript of “How and Why Big Oil Conquered the World”

        “Once again, we are being asked to believe that the vested corporate interests that are rolling these technologies out in a coordinated fashion are doing so for the benefit of the public. That this technology is to help save the earth. And once again, we are being duped.

        The technocratic agenda is not about saving the earth. It is not about helping the public. It is not even about making money. It is about complete control over every aspect of our daily life.

        Patrick Wood: There’s two levels…. The way I look at technocracy, there’s two levels operating at the same time. There’s the operational side of it that has to do with things like smart grid. That have to do with things like various technocratic innovations, surveillance and other big hot-button [issues] for technocracy. These are operational issues. From a strategic point of view, which is where the Rockefeller-type people operate, it’s a different view of where it’s headed. On an operational level it’s headed towards a scientific dictatorship and you don’t have to be a visionary to figure that one out really anymore. You don’t. It’s there.

        But on a strategic basis, what’s happening is that there’s a massive resource grab going on all over the planet. And when I say resource grab, you have to put yourself in Rockefellers’ shoes — the bankers’ shoes and the Rothschilds’ shoes or whatever — and say, “What do you do when money runs out? What do you do? When you suck all of the value that you can out of the monetary systems you’ve created, what’s left?”

        Well, you and I don’t think about those sort of things because we don’t have that have much money, but these people at the top, especially the bankers, I’m sure they stay up at night thinking, “What’s after money? What comes after money?” The Rockefeller family especially has always been a resource intensive family. That’s what oil was all about in the first place. It was a resource and they understood that energy would be the most important factor in the world over any other type of resource. They understood that, that’s why they wanted to create a monopoly over energy.

        Well, today as money has been sucked dry, the only thing left to do is to make a grab for the resources themselves and that’s what sustainable development is all about. It’s taking the resources of the world away from you and me, away from private companies that aren’t part of the clique, if you will, and putting them into a global common trust that will be managed by them for their benefit. This is really nothing more than neo-feudalism again where the resources are owned by a few and everybody else gets to operate with those resources at their pleasure and discretion.

        The technocrats and functionaries of this agenda, like Hubbert and his colleagues in Technocracy, Inc., pioneered this idea because they believed that they, the technocrats and engineers, would be able to solve the world’s problems. But the oiligarchs and bankers who funded their ideas into existence did so because it would help them to become the rulers of a system so perfectly crafted that no resource, no commodity, no person would be beyond their control.

        And now, in the 21st century, that technocratic vision is coming into view. And it is being helped along by a public that believes the post-carbon future represents the end of the oiligarchy. They couldn’t be more wrong.

        CONCLUSION

        Oil. It was never about oil. It was about control. Control over energy and production and consumption. Control over the world’s resources. Control over the population. Control over humanity itself.

        Joe Plummer: Every other thing that the elite put forward is nothing more than a pretext for what they’ve been after since the beginning. So, as I cover in Tragedy and Hope 101, I discuss this concept of the elite seeking to rule all habitable portions of the world and they don’t want to secure that so that they can then have it taken away from them. So they come up with pretexts that they can sell both to the public but also the administrative class that justifies what it is that they are trying to do — they need to do. So whether it’s global warming hysteria or whether it’s technocracy whether it’s Agenda 2030 or whether it’s eugenics, there’s a common thread that runs through all of this and that common thread is the desire to consolidate and exercise coercive power. In the case of eugenics, it’s the desire to consolidate and exercise the ultimate power, which is the power over who is ultimately going to live or die, who will be permitted to exist in the gene pool from here forward.

        The picture is bleak, and made all that much bleaker by the fact that so many have been duped into believing that the oiligarchs’ ultimate agenda, an agenda of technocratic control, micromanagement of our daily lives, and, ultimately, the elimination of the “cannon fodder” from the gene pool, is in fact in their own best interest.

        The oiligarchs, shielded behind their smokescreen of “sustainable development” and “post-carbon” economy, are closer than ever before to achieving their true goal of total control.

        But if the people perish from lack of knowledge of this agenda, then understanding is the first step toward the solution.

        Patrick Wood: It’s hard to fight an enemy that you don’t recognize or can’t see. That’s the biggest problem in the world today, in my opinion, is that people have no visibility whatsoever of this issue. They’ve covered their tracks so well that nobody can see them. How can you fight an enemy that you don’t know? I think famous Chinese general Sun Xiu brought that up hundreds of years ago. You can’t fight an enemy that you don’t know. First we have to recognize who the enemy is.

        Richard A. Grove: Well, Big Oil conquered the world because the monopolization of all resources on the planet is the goal, and to get to that goal you have to monopolize the energy aspects of people around the planet. But you also have to control the food — the actual energy for the human beings whose energy you want to control. If you control those two aspects, the Green Revolution and the Gene Revolution, then you’re able to control the entire planet, every resource on it, and basically extinguish freedom for the rest of history.

        So, How Big Oil Conquered The World was already done in a movie. Why Big Oil conquered the world has to do with the complexities of controlling populations — not for money, because these are the people that print money out of nothing and charge us for it. So really, it’s a study of power. So, why did they want to do this to the rest of us? Because they could and because we were tolerant so far and haven’t resisted enough to make it stop. So that’s where we find ourselves today. Becoming informed on the history so that we can actually plot our course in the future to map or chart out a course and actually get to some place that resembles cognitive liberty and physical freedom and justice for all.”

        (Phil*:- “Oil. It was never about oil. It was about control. Control over energy and production and consumption. Control over the world’s resources. Control over the population. Control over humanity itself.”

        (Phil*:- That very clearly states that very very clearly. Just in case someone attempts to say that “Big Oil” is not the entire fossil fuel Industry, then you only need to look at the behind the scenes co-operation between fossil fuel industries to see that there is a very close collaboration between the various elements. hewes62 just doesn’t want to admit it. So, we begin to see the false flag narrative unfold to be the fake news fabrication it is)

        Hewes62: “So I had a look at false information
        What is False Information?
        Lots of things you read online especially in your social media feeds may appear to be true, often is not. False information is news, stories or hoaxes created to deliberately misinform or deceive readers. Usually, these stories are created to either influence people’s views, push a political agenda or cause confusion and can often be a profitable business for online publishers. False information can deceive people by looking like trusted websites or using similar names and web addresses to reputable news organisations. ( No that is not the definition of false information, in fact there is no definition of false information, the correct word is disinformation, this is the definition of disinformation:”

        (Phil*:- Lets look at the definition of False information:

        https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/false-information

        More definitions of False information
        False information means information which is false, incorrect, untrue or misleading in whole or part, substance or form;

        False information means any incorrect or inaccurate information concerning the name, date of birth, social security number, driver’s license number, physician certification, or any other information required

        False information means any information that is not based upon reasonable and reliable scientific inquiry, facts, or data, and that directly indicates that a perishable agricultural or aquacultural product is not safe for human consumption.

        False information means any written or verbal statement or representation of fact that is not

        False information means data that misrepresents the caller’s identity to the recipient of a call or the network itself; however, when a person making an authorized call on behalf of another person inserts the name, telephone number, or name and telephone number of the person on whose behalf the call is being made, such information must not be deemed false information.

        False information means information which is false, incorrect, untrue or misleading, in whole or in part.

        In answer to that, which from the text above, you will see that i have already proved the accusation by hewes62 to be “false information” and deliberate “disinformation” in itself.

        Continued next post:-

        • https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinformation
          disinformation
          noun
          dis·in·for·ma·tion | \ (ˌ)dis-ˌin-fər-ˈmā-shən
          \
          Definition of disinformation
          : false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth.

          So i label hewes62 accusations as being:- false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth.

          So hewes62 has falsely made up his own personal accusation against me, of the false term “false information”. Which i have proved to be entirely incorrect and somewhat abusive. And then goes on to call it something else.

          Here he starts talking about fake news, so he has jumped terms in mid rant and then made up a falsified term and then changed his mind and called it fake news? We begin to see how error is built upon false terms, his own definitions of false terms, and now we see a completely different term. I think you will agree that this chopping and changing of terms and definitions is deliberately fabricating a totally flawed narrative)

          Hewes62: According to Martina Chapman (Media Literacy Expert), there are three elements to fake news; ‘Mistrust, misinformation and manipulation’.
          Using the Martina Chapman Model i think there are three element in your statement.”

          (Phil*:- as I have already pointed out there is no consistency in hewes62 narrative and it’s all clearly falsely weaponised, and is not reliable in any way)

          Hewes62: Misinformation – that the there has been a sudden and alarming withdrawal of environmental regulations checks and balances by the OGA and EA.”

          (Phil*:- that is hewes62 attempting to use yet another term to attempt to label what I have already proved to be wrong and a false accusation. So we begin to see that hewes62 narrative mounts falsity upon disinformation upon fabrication upon false labelling in order to attempt to discredit my words. However we can clearly see how fabricated it all is out of nothing)

          Hewes62: Manipulation..that to allow fossil fuel operators to carry on without any such regulations is quite insane (the manipulation is using the incorrect first part to link to the second )”

          (Phil*:- another fake accusation is dragged in by hewes62 with the same intention. So again we begin to see that hewes62 narrative mounts falsity upon disinformation upon fabrication upon false labelling in order to attempt to discredit my words, however we can clearly see how fabricated it all is out of nothing.

          https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manipulation

          manipulate verb

          ma·nip·u·late | \ mə-ˈni-pyə-ˌlāt \
          manipulated; manipulating
          Definition of manipulate
          transitive verb
          1 : to treat or operate with or as if with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skillful manner
          manipulate a pencil
          manipulate a machine
          2a : to manage or utilize skillfully
          quantify our data and manipulate it statistically
          — S. L. Payne
          b : to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one’s own advantage
          being used and manipulated by the knowing men around him
          — New Republic
          3 : to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one’s purpose : DOCTOR
          suspected that the police reports were manipulated
          — Evelyn G. Cruickshanks

          (Phil*:- you see that term could be attributed “to treat or operate with or as if with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skillful manner, manipulate a pencil, manipulate a machine, to manage or utilize skillfully, quantify our data and manipulate it statistically.

          I will choose the positive interpretation, however i find it fascinating that hewes62 only intends to imply the negative interpretation. That only goes to show the negative mindset behind the comment doesnt it. So, i’ll stick with the positive and reject the negative.)

          Hewes62: Mistrust. ”Anything can be taking place during this lock down out of sight whilst being unregulated in any meaningful way” This is sowing mistrust in the mind of the reader. Heavens, now that all those checks and balances have gone, and there are no regulations in place!!”

          (Phil*:- complete fabrication again by hewes62, and again changes terms in mid stream and goes off on another tangent into over emotional somewhat childish rhetoric. Now we see “sowing mistrust” suddenly appeared. hewes62 clearly proven false labelling and deliberate inconsistency has descended into mere false fabrication and over emotional name calling hasnt it.

          So much for the detached unbiased examination of single words whilst ignoring the entire contribution. This reveals only too clearly what is really going on here, merely that hewes62 has an overemotional need to disagree with anything I say. the phrase, “sowing mistrust” doesnt even have a definition for both words, only the individual words, its one of those colloquial trigger phrases, that appears to say something, but has no direct dictionary definition.

          hewes62 has now clearly lost any credibility at all in this latest over emotional outburst. That reveals the true character behind hewes62 words. So there we see it again. In hewes62 desperation to discredit anything I say, he only discredits himself in descending into these over emotional name calling epithets, which hypocritically is exactly what hewes62 attempts to label me with. Plain as day isnt it)

          Hewes62: “So, i think I understand why there are no facts and why there never will be.”

          (Phil*:- Again, hewes62, “thinks” he understands, but as in everything above, clearly he does not, it is nothing but disinformation and merely personal opinion from hewes62)

          Hewes62: “If I were worried about the EA regulation of onshore oil and gas sites I expect DoD would be reporting on it, where we can question and correct the journalism (and vica versa as we are corrected as well, of course ).”

          (Phil*:- that is clearly stated personal opinion again from hewes62. But attempted to be constructed upon hewes62’s own weaponised narrative which clearly mounts falsity upon disinformation upon fabrication upon false labelling in order to attempt to discredit my words. However we can clearly see how fabricated it all is out of nothing. And then we see a crack at Drill or Drop journalism even? But swiftly recants and attempts to “moderate” the poison pill. Does the hubris and overbearing egotism of hewes62 have no limit? We shall see shan’t we ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls)

          Was that it? Was that was the “great unbiased word disassembling” we were led to believe was the basis of hewes62 entire diatribe all about a few personal opinions of hewes62? All we saw there was fabrication, built upon inconsistency built upon disinformation, built upon over emotional personal opinion, built upon no facts at all, built upon some desperate obsessive need to discredit my words?

          Did you notice hewes62 didn’t mention his first attempt at these word dissection monologues? Yes we did didn’t we? And why was that? Because I proved it to be wrong and taken entirely out of context that’s why. Hence we see this latter attempt at disassembling anything I say with all that deliberate fabrication and disinformation. What does that tell you?

          So you see nothing else i said in my original contribution, is “challeged” or name called, or labelled or indeed even mentioned.
          So we can infer from that, that hewes62 entirely agrees with everything else I said, and it has now been proven that the entire tirade from hewes62 is entirely his opinion and nothing more. The rest being a construction and a fabrication of silly name calling, false labelling, disinformation, and over emotional personal opinion and an odd mixture of inconsistent trigger words.

          There, I hope that clarifies everything for you.

          Next I will disassemble hewes62 subsequent similarly flawed weaponised narrative about “entrapment” another isolated word hewes62 threw a tantrum over.

          Have a nice day ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls.

          • Continued from above: Last but not least, lets look at hewes62 comments about James corbett shall we:-

            hewes62:- “Phil C

            Corbett does not address your assertion that the world population has been entrapped by fossil fuel propaganda.

            Nor does link to the prolific corbett constitute proof af your assertion.

            I still wait for an example of the propaganda you refer to, and how it got to the world population.

            A peer reviewed papet would be good but a u tube excitement piece by the Corbett dows not cut the mustard.”

            (Phil*:- I have already answered that above, James Corbett does indeed say just that, perhaps in other words, but the meaning is the same. Look above for that”

            hewes62:- “For the interested reader here is another example of the ‘hair on fire’ journalism. The trouble is there is some good points in there somewhere, but it is a bit like referring to the Beano as a source of facts having borrowed a quote from it.

            https://www.corbettreport.com/announcing-the-3rd-annual-real-fake-news-awards/

            (Phil*:- Do you see any peer reviewed proof of anything that hewes62 attempts to say there? no, its just hewes62 personal opinion again. the words hewes62 uses are however quite revealing.

            hewes62: “For the interested reader here is another example of the ‘hair on fire’ journalism.” i looked at all the dictionaries for that phrase, but there is no dictionary definition of that. Not only that, if anyone has looked at James Corbetts reports, you will know he is somewhat hirsutely challenged. So hewes62 comment is either laughably inept, or it an implied insult. Neither of which are particularly attractive propositions.

            hewes62: “The trouble is there is some good points in there somewhere, but it is a bit like referring to the Beano as a source of facts having borrowed a quote from it.”

            (Phil*:- Fascinating that hewes62 labels in that childish manner again isnt it. Clearly that is nothing but his own over emotional personal opinion, and i would say that, quoting hewes62 from his misinformed, disinformation, fatally flawed contributions here, i would tend to return the complement straight back to the source that it came from.

            I will be sure to use that phrase in future replies to hewes62’s interminable attempts at disassembling and word obsessions.

            Have a nice day.

          • Phil C

            Thanks for your extensive reply.

            However, you have provided no evidence that there had been a sudden and alarming withdrawal of environmental regulatory checks and balances by the OGA and EA.

            I note your link to the Greenpeace article.

            That article talks to a gradual reduction in AS staff, and concerns that there is a rise in pollution events this stretching their resources.

            It does not refer to a sudden and alarming withdrawal of environmental regulatory checks and balances ( rather than response to pollution events ).

            Do you have any evidence that the EA has suddenly withdrawn its regulatory checks and balances?

            Regarding the Corbett report information, the case is made that ‘oil has not been about oil but power’ ( cutting it all down to a few words ).

            However, there is still no examples provided of the propaganda we have been exposed to globally which has the world population in its thrall. The private oil industry may well be short of being a set of saints, it that is not what you originally said.

            In particular ( as I see you information majors on oil ), have you an examp!e of such propaganda from the coal industry which has been communicated to the world’s population? You did say it was the fossil fuel industry, but fossil fuel is not just oil.

            Indeed, has anyone seen Coal industry Propaganda?

            Well, yes, I have. The world coal association produces information ‘re coal production and has an interesting take on the contribution of coal to global prosperity and climate change.

            They do not put it out as U Tube Clips or much at all. Hence I doubt that what they say has been communicated to the world population at al.

            https://www.worldcoal.org

            If anyone here on DoD has read anything from the WCA ( or has been exposed to it ) I would be surprised.

            So … Good try but no cigar ( to borrow one of your phrases ).

            The first hurdle has yet to be cleared ( the propaganda issue is interesting but an aside ).

            The question … Can compliance in law be flexible remains an interesting point to address.

            • So if you agree to apologise for all the long winded mistakes and accusations you made about what i said in the above and the previous two pages before hewes62. Then i will apologise for that one paragraph and all my long winded accusations i made about your comments in response.

              Agreed?

              • Phil C

                Thank you for the suggestion.

                I prefer that we agree to disagree. No need to apologise as we both meant what we posted ( and if we did not we would have apologised in retrospect anyway ).

                We have agreed to disagree before.

                No doubt we shall disagree again.

                I still need to look at flexibility in compliance in more detail.

  4. PS Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, its only fair i give you some examples of “HEATED” and “Drilled” [Edited by moderator]

    “Will Big Oil’s crash matter for the climate?
    HEATED asked several experts to weigh in on the potential climate impacts of the oil industry’s recent unprecedented downturn.

    Emily Atkin
    Apr 16

    There’s an emerging narrative that the novel coronavirus is good for the environment—and perhaps the climate, too. We don’t go anywhere or do anything anymore, which means we don’t use as much fossil fuels. Pollution is therefore decreasing. The air is clean in Southern California. For the first time in decades, people in northern India can see the Himalayas.

    The oil industry’s recent crash is sure to add to this idea. This year will likely be “the worst year in the history of oil markets,” the International Energy Agency’s executive director Faith Birol said on Wednesday, due to sharp decreases in demand driven by COVID-19. Indeed, oil demand is actually projected to drop for the first time in more than a decade. The price of oil is at a historic low. Toilet paper and beer are hotter commodities.

    Oil companies—especially small ones—can’t survive like this forever. They need oil to sell at a higher price. To achieve this, they’ve agreed to stop producing so much oil. Did you hear me, climate people? I said oil companies have agreed to stop producing so much oil. Earlier this week, oil-producing nations including the U.S., Russia, and Saudia Arabia agreed to a 10 percent cut in oil production—the largest production cut ever negotiated.

    My first reaction to this was, “oh now you can cut oil production?” I mean, y’all… this is what climate scientists have been saying oil companies must do to prevent catastrophic climate change for decades. A study published last year by the non-profit Carbon Tracker said “the world’s largest oil and gas companies need to slash their production by more than a third by 2040 to meet global climate targets.” The threat of losing millions of lives apparently wasn’t enough to start this process. Millions of dollars though…

    It’s tempting to think, then, that coronavirus might just be a climate-concerned person’s dream; that the pandemic forced us to begin the process of ramping down carbon emissions; and that it kick-started humanity on a path toward a cleaner, healthier, more sustainable world.

    But this is actually not what that is, according to a bunch of experts on oil markets and climate change who I spoke to yesterday. Yes, this is the worst it’s ever been for the oil industry. But that’s like saying it’s the worst it’s ever been for white people. Technically true. Still not that bad.

    Looking at COVID-19 as a climate savior is also just a bad way to think about what’s going on. We don’t want millions of people jobless and depressed to be the way we decarbonize the economy. In fact, we need the process to be exactly the opposite.

    We are indeed buying some time to stave off catastrophe — but not that much

    I was able to talk to four experts on emissions and oil markets yesterday about the recent COVID-related oil industry dust-up:

    Dan Klein, an energy analyst and head of scenario planning at S&P Global Platts;
    Gabriel Filippelli, director of the Center for Urban Health at Indiana University;
    Deborah Gordon, senior fellow at Brown University’s Watson Institute; and
    Steven Feit, an attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law.
    Both Klein and Feit have helped conduct analyses for their respective organizations that predict how the oil industry might be affected by COVID-19. Klein’s indicate at least a short-term dip in carbon emissions that, technically, would buy humanity a little more time to solve the climate crisis.

    The question is how much. And the answer is, not nearly enough, especially if we don’t also use this time to enact climate policies that target the supply side while demand is down. Otherwise, demand will eventually pick up again, and the fossil fuel industry will do whatever they can to meet it.

    Klein’s analysis for S&P Global, which hasn’t yet been released publicly, looked at the potential long-term energy impacts of coronavirus in the transportation space—marine, airline, commuting/road transport, and on-road freight—due to behavior change.

    If people’s behavior change sustains after the pandemic—that is, if there’s a continued reduction in commuting, and an assumption that people don’t do as much brick and mortar shopping—Klein said over three million barrels per day of oil demand are at risk by 2040. Put another way, that’s 15 percent of crude oil consumption in the United States. The exact amount of carbon emitted per barrel of oil varies wildly (we’ll get to that later), but at minimum, that’s a reduction of about 950,000 metric tons of CO2 per day. So, like taking 200,000 cars off the road for a year every day.

    “That is not nothing,” Klein says. But it’s a drop in the barrel (ayo!), he cautioned, “compared to what you really need to achieve a 2 degree or 1.5 degree drop.” In addition, his analysis is based on assumption that we sustain certain behavioral changes we’re doing now, because we realize that working from home, not going on so many business trips, and doing more things online actually is cost-efficient and helps the environment. That’s a bold assumption, and one we can’t rely on, given the power of the fossil fuel industry and politicians who benefit from them to drive policy and social norms.

    The good news, climate-wise, is that a temporary drop in fossil fuel growth “gives technology a chance to ramp up,” Klein said. “If the installation of renewables doesn’t decline, they’ll take more share from fossil fuels. If that happens, it allows that trajectory to continue.”

    The bad news is that COVID-19 is also hampering the growth of renewables, too. So there would probably have to be some policy initiative to aid in that transition. “Are policymakers going to be willing to spend the money to do that when social order is at risk?” Klein asked. I didn’t answer.

    The oil industry is not looking toward a transition

    The oil industry as a whole is not looking for a transition to renewable fuels. They’re looking to make money doing the same thing they’ve always done, which is produce, refine, and burn more fossil fuels.

    “They’re already looking for bailouts,” said Steven Feit at CIEL. “Whether it’s in terms of loosening regulations or enforcement; pushing through permitting and in-person public participation not possible; or looking to get the actual literal bailout funds. They’re already on top of it.” And as Drilled News has documented with their Climate & COVID policy tracker, they’re mostly getting what they want so far.

    Feit and CIEL don’t believe this will work out for the oil industry in the end. In a report published this morning, the organization argues the industry is “an unfillable sinkhole for recovery funds.” It reads:

    The oil, gas, and petrochemical industry is now exploiting the catastrophic global pandemic to aggressively push its preexisting corporate agenda … The underlying risks facing the industry, however, remain unchanged. The imminent systemic decline of the oil and gas sector should serve as a stark warning to public officials and private investors alike as they consider allocating limited and vital resources to these companies.

    The Watson Institute’s Deborah Gordon, however, sees it a bit differently. “Oil is an extreme durable market,” she said. COVID isn’t going to kill it—and that’s primarily because of the inconvenient fact that we all use a lot of things that come from oil.

    A temporary reduction in demand is a smokescreen to real climate action

    Humanity as a whole may demand less oil right now, resulting in visibly cleaner skies and fresher air. But humanity as a whole still demands a lot of oil, and will continue to demand until the products we use from it start being produced another way.

    Therefore, Gordon says, “It’s going to take action from the supply side to transform the climate. “And sadly, I don’t think what we’re seeing from COVID is oil nations like Saudi Arabia or, frankly, the United States, thinking outside the box when it comes to creating an industry that’s more flexible.”

    Changes in demand are simply not that powerful, Gordon argues, particularly when they target only one part of the barrel of oil. Right now, for example, we are demanding far less transportation fuel. But only a small part of every barrel of oil contains transportation fuel; the rest gets made into products for lubricant oils, plastics, asphalt, residential heating fuel, and more. If oil companies can’t find a market for the transportation fuel part of the barrel, they’ll just price it lower or store it. “As long as the physical product is there, which it is, you can always price it to sell,” Gordon said. “There’s nothing to stop it from going.”

    In other words: “If we’re not gonna use the barrel, we have to not use the whole barrel,” she said.

    It’s partly because of this that the cleaner air we see might not translate to significant climate impacts. “It’s not necessarily the case that using less oil results in less greenhouse gas emissions—especially short-term emissions like methane,” Gordon said. “NOAA just put out its current Manua Loa readings on CO2 and methane, and CO2 is up and Methane is up.” That’s because there’s more venting and flaring of methane going on at natural gas fields and refineries, she said. “If you have to turn down your field, or turn off your gas, you have to do more venting into the atmosphere,” she said.

    “What does it take to turn this Titanic?”

    The declines in both physical air pollution and carbon emissions from COVID-19-related economic drops are sure to be only temporary, Gordon said, so long as there is no action to transform the supply side of the oil industry during this time. If we want cleaner air and a livable climate in the long term, we need systemic shifts to clean electricity, renewable fuels, and non-petroleum-based plastics—all at the same time.

    What the pandemic is doing, however, is showing people how drastic and beneficial the effects can be when we stop burning so much fossil fuels. Gabriel Filippelli at Indiana University saw that with his own eyes—at least through a computer screen.

    Last month, Filippelli was talking to Pakistani government officials at an online conference about COVID-19 and air quality, trying to convince them to use cleaner fuels. He had done the same thing at the same conference last year—albeit in person—with little to show for it. “The pushback was that we can’t afford to, we’re in deep deb,” he said. “They didn’t see a road forward.”

    This year, however, Filippelli said he felt a change in tone. Pakistani officials were gobsmacked that they could see the Himalayas for the first time. “They didn’t realize what they’d been missing, because they’d never had clean air,” he said. “It was pretty profound, and the conversation was enlightening. It was clear they were realizing, I think we do have a choice.”

    Filippelli’s hope is the pandemic’s visual affect on the environment makes this choice clear to everyone. “I don’t know if the environment will once again lose out to short-term economic interests, as it tends to every single time,” he said. “But if I’ve ever seen an example where you can draw a line between environmental destruction and the need to act on climate change, this is the one.”

  5. This is drilled, there are also podcasts for you to listen to.

    https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/range/drilled

    Leveraging a Pandemic to Lock in Fossil Fuel Dominance
    The weekly Drilled roundup of climate accountability news

    amywestervelt
    Apr 11

    From the Tracker: Don’t Sleep on the EPA’s “Secret Science” Proposal

    The EPA has forged ahead with finalizing new rules that will upend how the agency uses science to inform important anti-pollution regulations. Since first announced in 2018, scientists, public health groups, and environmentalists have steadily denounced this Trump administration effort as a ruse to sever environmental regulations from key scientific findings, notably 1993’s landmark “Six Cities” study proving that tiny particle pollution (PM2.5) severely harms human health; it’s created primarily by burning fossil fuels, The rule changes will also give regulated industries unprecedented power in shaping the agency’s use of science by “allow[ing] stakeholders to reanalyze the data and models and explore the sensitivity of the conclusions to alternative assumptions.” Public comment period closes May 18, 2020.

    Fossil Fuel Companies Try Again to Shake Baltimore’s Climate Liability Suit

    ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP, along with nearly two dozen other fossil fuel defendants named in a climate liability suit by the city of Baltimore, have asked a state court to dismiss the case, in part because they maintain it is a violation of their First Amendment right to free speech. Story coming soon!

    Climate Accountability News Roundup
    Harvard Study shows a connection between even minimal exposure to a particular type of air pollution—pm2.5, the particulate matter found in car exhaust or coal and natural gas power plant emissions—and risk of COVID-19 death.

    Related: In Cancer Alley—predominantly Black neighborhoods along the Mississippi from New Orleans to Baton Rouge, surrounded by refineries, power plants and petrochemical plants—the COVID-19 death rate is sky high. (Vice News)

    Reuters reports that banks holding a large amount of the shale gas industry’s debt will take over and operate some companies’ assets.

    In an unprecedented move the G20 and OPEC meet to agree on production cuts to shore up the global oil market. (Financial Times)

    Part of the OPEC agreement was a quid pro quo on shale. Politico reports that The Trump administration rejected a Saudi request that U.S. oil companies be barred from receiving business loans under the third coronavirus relief package, H.R. 748 (116). But, the administration instead agreed it would not waive royalty payments to U.S. companies from oil and gas they produced on U.S. federal lands — something both congressionalRepublicans and industry groups have pushed in recent days. “The president said no to royalty relief on offshore and onshore federal land,” one industry official briefed on the matter said. “The president had a quid pro quo promise to the Saudis. Saudi implicitly wants the shale guys to die on the vine of natural causes.” Wow, saying the quiet stuff out loud, all week long. (Politico)

    Gulf of Mexico offshore drillers are still holding out hope that the nix on royalty relief won’t apply to them.

  6. Damian Kahya: Unearthed.

    Shell goes net-zero, invests in massive new fossil fuel project: The FT reports that Shell has become the biggest energy player so far to ’embrace’ an all-encompassing net-zero target. The group promised the carbon intensity of the products it sold would be cut 30 per cent by 2035 and 65 per cent by 2050, up from previous targets of 20 per cent and 50 per cent. Shell also disclosed it had spent at least $20m last year to support industry groups, primarily the American Petroleum Industry, a Washington-based trade association that has lobbied for years against tougher environmental restrictions on oil groups. The company didn’t go so far as to sketch out how it would implement its ambitious plans. Instead just a day later. One. Day. Later. the firm announced it had taken a final investment decision to develop the first phase of Australia’s biggest coal seam gas resource in Queensland state. It’s fair to say they are taking the ‘reduce carbon intensity’ (gas is less intensive than oil) bit of their plan more seriously than the ‘reduce emissions’ component.

    US drought, heatwaves ‘underway’, floods on the horizon: A drought, equal to the worst to have hit the western US in recorded history, is already underway, say scientists South-western North America’s emerging megadrought over the past two decades has wrought devastating wildfires, hit the region’s farmers and cut the flow of vital waterways including the Colorado River, reports the New Scientist. While the area was known to have suffered past extreme droughts due to natural cycles such as the La Niña climate phenomenon, a US team led by A. Park Williams at Columbia University, New York, have now revealed that potentially almost half of the current episode’s severity was down to human-caused global warming.The study comes as heat-records are being broken elsewhere in the US. The Washintgon Post reports that temperatures in the Sunshine State have been shattering records and rivaling typical readings during the heart of summer. Miami even endured its earliest heat wave on record last week, when it hit at least 90 degrees on three consecutive days.Meteorologists are calling the heat “ridiculous,” “brutal” and “a cruel joke.” Florida’s capital, Miami, is on a list identified by another study as likely to face annual major flooding events – of the type previously experienced only once every 30 years. “If future sea-level rise causes once extreme but rare floods to occur frequently then … this may render some parts of the US coastline uninhabitable,” said Sean Vitousek, a scientist at the US Geological Survey.

    US weakens pollution controls: Following on from yesterday’s trail the New York Times reports that the US Environmental Protection Agency is changing the way it calculates the benefits of mercury controls, a move that would effectively loosen the rules on other toxic pollutants.”By reducing the positive health effects of regulations on paper and raising their economic costs, the new method could be used to justify loosening restrictions on any pollutant that the fossil fuel industry has deemed too costly to control,” the paper reports. Here is Yale on how the environmental rules the Trump administration is steadily wiping out have made life better for most Americans, and how the Trump administration has worked hard to change the cost-benefit analysis which underlines these rules.

    Farmers union ‘optimistic’ furloughed workers could fill UK labour shortage: “A lot of signs are optimistic and we have really positive news,” said Minette Batters, president of the National Farmers’ Union. “We are hearing people are very keen [to work on farms]. There does seem to be a real swell of support from people to do this, ” the Guardian reports. The pandemic has shone a light on the flaws in our food production and distribution system and on the UK’s dependence on food imports just as we are also looking to use land for new tree planting and re-wilding (don’t even mention biofuels). So a major series in Nature magazine on high yield farming seems well timed – even if I am personally struggling to read in on what exactly it means. This from Nature: “Sustainable intensification (SI) refers to an increase in yields on existing land using fewer harmful inputs and with lesser impacts.”

    South Korea heads for Green New Deal, UK buys fossil fuel debt: South Korea is on track to set a 2050 carbon neutrality goal and end coal financing after its ruling Democratic Party won an absolute majority in the country’s parliamentary elections on Wednesday, reports Climate Home. Over in the UK the Bank of England has been accused of failing to live up to its tough talk on the climate crisis after it revealed it would buy debt from oil companies as part of its coronavirus stimulus programme.
    I’m reading.. about planes

    Following yesterday’s story about flying in migrant workers – and the recent Easyjet plan about empty middle seats – I’ve bee reading about what a pandemic aviation industry might look like.

    Lockdown’s in many countries look like they could be eased in between 3 and 6 weeks, leaving us with a situation approaching a new normal – where schools may open, people may go to work but many things will still not be remotely the same. One of those things is probably flying. Air travel not only works very efficiently at spreading the pandemic from somewhere where it is growing to somewhere where it’s contained but also – potentially – for spreading the infection between passengers. At the same time businesses struggling for cash typically cut back on business travel, and most are now struggling for cash. A big problem is that basic health checks – of the type implemented to control the spread of SARS – don’t’ really work here. A recent study reported in Rueters found that up to 60% of people aboard a Navy ship with the virus had no symptoms – not to mention the 7 day incubation period. The Guardian notes that China’s international travel restrictions are actually stricter now than in the middle of the lock-down, as it battles to prevent a second wave emerging from abroad. After all – remember what happened in the UK when folks came back from their Ski trips in Northern Italy?

    Why write about his here? A debate that was already taking place about the future shape of the airline industry in a climate aware world – unless some Wizz techno fix rapidly emerges (Emirates is trialling 10 minute blood tests but do they spot those who are incubating the illness?) this is the industry least likely to emerge looking the same as before the pandemic — it is one governments have the most opportunity to change, it is the area where behaviour change may be most lasting. At the same time, the sudden collapse of international travel is nobody’s idea of a good thing. Workers are left destitute, it’s harder for refugees to flee persecution or migrants to find employment and friends, relatives and lovers are cut off. Some system will need to emerge to support workers and allow travel – including for those with need but not means. You could imagine aviation becoming less a private business and more a regulated public service. Let’s see.

  7. Well, hewes62, that produced a lot of something, but still avoided the issue you raised regarding OGA and EA.

    Classic fake news response, when challenged. Just churn out a smoke screen. Trouble with smoke screens is that they are very visible and draw attention to there being something to hide.

    Good job your radar can see through such, hewes62!

    I would still place my bet upon many booking an overseas holiday as soon as it is safe to do so, especially if it would be their first for two years instead of what might have been an annual event. Perhaps after vaccination, like they do currently for some other disease risks. There will be a large number who are still earning but finding they are not spending and have more disposable income.

    However, the large numbers of Chinese coming the other way may find that part of their freedom a little bit more constrained.

    Interesting that new data about reporting in China would indicate WHO perhaps even more lax than suggested. Maybe US Intelligence had already been aware? It would be more surprising if they were not.

    • Martin

      Thanks. When the Safety Case regime was introduced to the N Sea, the Safety Management Sections were full of loose language. The best one was .. We comply fully with all UK legislation.

      As assessor one asked … Prove it.

      But … They said, this is a document so difficult to demonstrate compliance.

      Reply .. Show me a list of the regulations and an explanation as to how you comply ( which company SOP delivered compliance with each regulation .. A matrix is fine )

      Refer to it in the case.

      Lots of fog in many cases, but fortunately some companies had such documents so there was some exchange of good practice.

      You then went offshore to inspect!

      So, yes, cutting through the waffle was always interesting.

      I did note that on LinkedIn, Petrofac had a montage of people clapping for the NHS. Behind one OIM was a full set of Westons. Good man, although you may wonder if used, having a full set of all E and S regs offshore and to hand warms your heart.

      I would recommend anyone interested in offshore Regulation to have a look ( and I hope the company is doing ok, as they were very good at what they did ).

      https://www.westoncompliance.co.uk

      • Loads of loose language used-indeed.

        I recall many past situations when a customer would say, “you told me I could have a price of X, so I want to order”. The answer was usually, “yes, if you did so by the end of last year”. Farmers and buyers were notorious, so notes had to be made after each meeting and any prices offered confirmed in writing, together with duration of a quotation and any limits upon volume. Probably the first thing new youngsters into the business had to learn.

        A written record is the ultimate answer to a smoke screen, whatever the gap between the two.

        Talking of loose language, I noted a discussion today about those in the NHS who have sadly died from Covid-19. Well, my son is in the NHS, he contracted Covid-19 and recovered, BUT he contracted it whilst isolating as my grandson had acquired it, and then he in turn passed it onto my daughter in law, or maybe my grandson did but she was slower to show symptoms.. Son now back at work. So, those in the NHS who acquire Covid-19, and those who acquire Covid-19 because they are in the NHS can be separate but are treated as the same. Shouldn’t be too difficult to understand that but many in the media seem unable to grasp it.

        • Martin

          I think that the moveable feast that is the Today programme ( say ) does not have time to do the data. Your example has turned up, and it was a statement from someone saying 19 NHS workers had died. The presenter then asked a gov minister what they would say to.The families of the dead.

          Mrs H shouted at the radio … How many people work in the NHS, what is the fatality rate, how does that 19 compare to the general population data. Better or worse?

          Why give us meaningless data?

          We wait for it to turn up on more or less.

          However it is strange days for all. I suspect most of us have relations and friends who work in the NHS.

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.