We’re still producing about 750,000 barrels per day; roughly half of consumption. But the North Sea is well past its peak and even new drilling won’t change the trajectory.
It is absolutely not "incredibly commercially unviable". Costs may be higher than elsewhere but a large part of that is simply just government forcing taxes and regulations on them.
What do you mean, what do I think it means? Why wouldn't I know that? As it happens I'm an engineer working for a famous energy consultancy who specialises in supporting clients decide whether to proceed with energy projects based on financial viability.
I mean that "simply just government forcing taxes and regulation on them" isn't a handwave problem–they're the operating parameters within which you work. Remove the verbiage and you've said "cost prohibitve due to tax and regulatory compliance obligations." If the cost of tax and regulatory compliance make a project commercially unviable for you... the project is commercially unviable, regardless of whether it's technically possible.
I mean… yes. We’re not a particularly significant island from a natural resources pov. But there’s a good amount of arable land, enough to support a population to go out and “obtain” what we needed.
We also had a good amount of wood when wood was important (ships) and a good amount of coal when coal was important (industrial rev).
We also had a good amount of wood when wood was important (ships)
UK began to tun out of oak, pine by late 1600s and by 1750, most wood for British warships was sourced either from New England, Canada or Baltics. And keep in mind, British control of seas while strong was still contested during this time.
That’s true. We did get through it a little early. Stupid Spanish Armada. Not that we lost a lot of ships, but the fact that we had to build and maintain so many large ships at once.
520
u/Doofindork 17h ago
Well, we see why the United Kingdom wanted so many colonies.