“Brexit” and the wait for Godot, Discussion on Dr Tim Morgans Blog.(Brexit from a Surplus Energy and Peak oil Perspective. Prosperity analysis, you never had it so good.)


Brexit from a Surplus Energy and Peak oil Perspective.( Prosperity analysis, you never had it so good).

#144: “Brexit” and the wait for Godot


It is perhaps appropriate that Samuel Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot was written in French, and premiered in Paris in January 1953, not appearing in English until its London debut in 1955.

As you’ll know, Godot himself never appears, which some might say is the real point of the narrative. Certainly, his non-arrival has no serious consequences.

This is where drama and reality part company. Like Vladimir and Estragon in Beckett’s play, both sides of the “Brexit” impasse have been waiting for more than two years now, and are waiting still, for the political equivalent of Godot to turn up. This time, it’s going to be very serious indeed if the major character (or characters) fail to put in an appearance.

It can come as no great surprise to anyone that Parliament has rejected an unsatisfactory deal for which – adding insult to injury – the British taxpayer is expected to pay £39bn.

What Mrs May has done is to try to get the best possible deal from Brussels, then try to get MPs to accept it. It’s neither wholly, nor even mainly, her fault if the deal was far too unsatisfactory for Parliament to swallow.

There’s not a lot more that the UK side can do. One the one hand, cancelling “Brexit”, or calling a second referendum, would amount to defying the expressed will of the electorate. Going ahead with a no-deal departure would be damaging. Neither would changing the government through a general election change the fundamental equation.

It’s possible that the Article 50 departure date could be delayed, giving more time for European national leaders to assert their influence. But there seem to be few signs that this is likely to happen.

So the question seems to come down to this: is there any way of shocking Brussels, and/or EU leaders, into a less intransigent attitude?

If I were Mrs May, I would now offer Brussels a ‘minimalist’ protocol on withdrawal. This would entail security co-operation and the guaranteeing rights of residents, but very little else. In other words, ‘you leave us no choice but to carry out the will of our voters without a trade deal with you’.

If that didn’t act as an alarm call in Paris and Dublin, perhaps nothing will.

Tim and all – I’m just repeating a post I made on the 11h January concerning an article in he Daily Telegraph – extracts of which are below.

Now is Saudi Arabia telling the truth because their reserves and production costs look too good to be true. Perhaps they are exaggerating to get the sell off through

I would be grateful for some feedback –

In today’s Telegraph – can it be believed? I’ve not copied all the article – just sections

Saudi Arabia has finally silenced its peak-oil critics and simultaneously revived interest in its stalled $2 trillion (£1.6 trillion) plan for a stock market float of state-owned producer Aramco.

The kingdom revealed this week it has enough crude to pump at current rates for at least another 70 years. At the end of 2017, Saudi oil reserves stood at an eye-watering 268bn barrels, up from previous estimates of 266bn.

By comparison, the UK’s remaining cache of retrievable oil under the seabed of the North Sea will be almost completely drained, probably after another couple of decades.

The updated figures were no surprise for many experts. BP’s highly respected statistical review of world energy lists Saudi oil reserves at just over 266bn barrels and Rystad Energy estimates that 276bn barrels remain under its Arabian deserts. However, not everyone has been convinced by either the longevity, or scale, of Saudi’s remaining oil riches.

In his critically acclaimed 2005 book Twilight in the Desert, the then-prominent oil economist Matthew R Simmons predicted that Saudi Arabia’s oil wells were about to run dry. His theory was based on the ageing status of several gigantic oilfields, which still provide the bulk of the kingdom’s near-11m-barrel-per-day output.

However …………………………………..Contradicting the above paragraph

Al-Falih said Aramco’s oil costs just $4 per barrel to produce. It’s a key figure for potential investors, which could make its $2 trillion valuation more believable. Suddenly, the IPO looks plausible again.

The fact is oil markets are more likely to dry up before Aramco’s reserves of crude run out. Demand for oil remains robust despite the growing popularity of electric vehicles and the pressure of climate change forcing consumers to search for cleaner transportation fuels.

Last year, the world consumed 100m barrels per day for the first time in history and consumption is expected to continue rising at least through to 2040. However, beyond this date the outlook is harder to predict.

Unless it wants to flood the market and send oil prices tumbling, Saudi Arabia’s best option if it wants to maximise its vast remaining hydrocarbon reserves could be to sell off increasingly larger shares of Aramco to international investors no later than 2021. Otherwise it runs the risk of having to leave much of its wealth stuck in the ground.





This article makes the same point, Donald,
“The fact is oil markets are more likely to dry up before Aramco’s reserves of crude run out. Demand for oil remains robust despite the growing popularity of electric vehicles and the pressure of climate change forcing consumers to search for cleaner transportation fuels”.
Quoting from the Science daily article,
“The scientists conclude that further economic damage from a potential bubble burst could be avoided by decarbonising early. “Divestment is a prudential thing to do. We should be carefully looking at where we are investing our money.(1) For instance, much like companies, pension funds and other institutions currently invest in fossil-fuel assets. Following recommendations from central banks, commercial banks are increasingly looking at the financial risks of stranded fossil-fuel assets, even though their possible impacts have not yet been fully determined. Until now, observers mostly paid attention to the likely effectiveness of climate policies, but not to the ongoing and effectively irreversible technological transition. This level of ‘creative destruction’ appears inevitable now and must be carefully managed,” Mercure concludes.
Regarding a Surplus energy approach .
(1)ED. This is the key misunderstanding , the whole basis of this analysis should look at Net Energy Surplus over cost of energy extraction, then in a real sense the Sentance , “We should be carfully looking at where we are investing our Energy ( qua, Energy )”, would have money taking the Debt based monetary unit as a referent renders the statement meaningless a per pro energy capital allocation decisions.
Regarding Brexit,
My own view is that The Establishment in Britain by the most part does not want Brexit to happen if one reads Project Syndicate and Anatoly


Reversing Brexit
Instead of rushing Brexit, Europe’s leaders should be trying to avert it, by persuading British voters to change their minds. The aim should not be to negotiate the terms of departure, but to negotiate the terms on which most British voters would want to remain.

This from the European Council on Foreign relations

This in the Independent about Gordon Browns plan to save the union, remember “The Vow” in the scots indy referendum?

To Summarise.
1. Starter for 10 Federated Pound Stirling
2. Bonus 1. English Assembly
3. Bonus.2 Save Union Scotland.
Bonus 3, Introduce PR = permanent hung Parly. I.e needn’t worry about Jeremy Corbyn Govt @jeremycorbyn

When I was proposing the Grand cross-party Idea after the 2017 GE this was my prediction of how this would all get resolved, I still think it will play out this way. I am still agnostic on in or out as it makes no difference as long as the Neo-Cons have Trump by the short and curlies, which they seem to have.

To wit, I must say I agree with
Bob J
on January 16, 2019 at 11:46 am said:
“IMV Brexit is a sideshow. In the long run I think a no deal exit would make very little difference economically and it’s the long run that matters.

What does matter are the trends that Tim writes about which will continue to undermine economies of whatever stripe, including of course those of the EU itself and not just the UK.

There are growing signs of substantial change in the EU and I think this will gather momentum over the next few years and the supranational, neoliberal model will come under increasing question.”

Last word to ANATOLE KALETSKY Is Canceling Brexit Now Inevitable?
Dec 27, 2018


As matters stand today, a new British referendum on leaving the European Union would produce a clear majority for remaining a member, regardless of how the votes were counted or the questions were asked. And with the only two Brexit options set to be rejected next month, the questions are increasingly likely to be asked.

or perhaps H G Wells,
There is one direction in which Mr Streit’s proposals are open to improvement. Let us turn to another in which he does not seem to have realised all the implications of his proposal. This great Union is to have a union money and a union customs-free economy. What follows upon that? More I think than he realises.
There is one aspect of money to which the majority of those that discuss it seem to be incurably blind. You cannot have a theory of money or any plan about money by itself in the air. Money is not a thing in itself; it is a working part of an economic system. Money varies in its nature with the laws and ideas of property in a community. As a community moves towards collectivism and communism, for example, money simplifies out. Money is a necessary in a communism as it is in any other system, but its function therein is at its simplest. Payment in kind to the worker gives him no freedom of choice among the goods the community produces. Money does. Money becomes the incentive that “works the worker” and nothing more. Ed. NB

The New World Order is a book written by H. G. Wells, originally published in January 1940. Wells
And If I may a stanza from my poem,
Eliza with Rogerian inscrutability
hears the confession of the mal-contents
A mirror held up before cosmetic application
Globalisation and Internationalism confused
despotism´s nature is to abhor any say
save that of its own momentary pleasure;
it annihilates all intermediate situations
between boundless strength on its own part,
and total debility on the part of the people.
Our education can be Our? our, government.
Our reason can be our Judge, of the rivals;
Globalism, Authority, coercion and competition.
or Nationalism, Internationalism, Cooperation.
Are we to have free will and democracy
Will we have determined authority
A struggle of ideals an ancient quarrel
Parmenides or Heraclitus navigators both


Author: rogerglewis

https://about.me/rogerlewis Looking for a Job either in Sweden or UK. Freelance, startups, will turń my hand to anything.

2 thoughts on ““Brexit” and the wait for Godot, Discussion on Dr Tim Morgans Blog.(Brexit from a Surplus Energy and Peak oil Perspective. Prosperity analysis, you never had it so good.)

Leave a Reply