Bigger picture.
You have executives attending a meeting from the EU, Far East, America. Where do you hold that meeting? Some where were they can all fly into, go to a nearby hotel/conference facilty, have their meeting and fly back out direct to their countries.
If you want an EU headquarters you similary place it where your global execs can get to it without having to faff about changing planes.
In article , polygonum scribeth thus
JOOI seeing that Oil is ramping up in price, so much so that the guvvermint are launching an inquiry as to why they tax it so much;), what are the long term prospects for air transportation seeing the Oil is getting more expensive and it will start to run lower and one day will be a very expensive commodity indeed..
So prospects for air then?..
Whilst a convenient meeting spot may help decide where to place a.n. office, HQ for large companies is a bit of a nebulous concept.
Being an International corporation means being free to place things where its most financially prudent, can`t think of Jersey, Luxembourg , Gibraltar or Lichenstein having large hub airports, whilst still being registered home for some huge corporations.
Dutch are a trading nation, large ports , marine and air are essential to how they have done business for centuries, guessing its still the marine ports that make the real money.
Cheers Adam
I disagree. It's the reason that IBC moved there.
It depends upon what sort of extra capacity is needed. People are willing to go to Stansted and Luton for cheap flights and Stansted carries a lot of freight traffic.
Southend used to be London's main freight airport, but it is rather too built-in for expansion to be practical these days.
Too close to Heathrow to justify developing that rather than Heathrow
As well as being remarkably wide - excellent for practising cross-wind landings with cross-winds above your aircraft's rated limits. There is a strange uphill bit at the start of runway 10 through. I think they removed the arrester wires when it stopped being RAF Manston and became Kent International Airport full time.
Some of that could simply be achieved by improving the taxiways. At the moment, some aircraft have to taxi along the runway and turn around to take-off, which reduces capacity. I don't like the drop that faces anything that over-runs runway 26 though.
I'm not sure where - there are buildings on both sides of the runway.
Gatwick is really the best option for expansion but is politically unavailable.
That is, of course, assuming that the airport has to be close to London. Given a high speed rail link, even East Midlands Airport could be a candidate for expansion and would have the added advantage of being near other major cities.
Colin Bignell
Where a company is regestered has little bearing one where they have their corporate HQ... As you say both are done to get the best return fo= r the shareholders. Having your top execs spending a couple of extra days =
at =A32000/day+ (just salary) travelling to/from meetings is not good value.
Corrected for inflation, oil prices today are about what they were in 1982.
Oil is not likely to run out at any time in the near future. The main driving force behind the prices rises is concerns about the political situation in some of the countries it comes from.
Most oil reserve projections are based upon P90 - the amount of oil that it is 90% probable a well will produce. That is a good figure if you have just one well but globally, production runs at around P50, which will yield at least three times as much. Those are, however, are the economically recoverable oil reserves at today's prices. Once the price rises (a guaranteed long-term price of over $100 a barrel would probably be enough) other sources and other recovery methods become viable and the reserves become very much larger.
It is even possible to make artificial oil the way nature did, without the millions of years wait, but that currently costs $800 a barrel in laboratory quantities. Mass production could see that brought down to similar prices to oil today, but, so long as natural oil is available, the investment needed to do that is simply not justified.
Colin Bignell
In fact a friend of mine has just had a rather serious memo through emphasising the need for travel cost cutting. Teleconferencing is to be used as much as possible, all travel expenditure must be done as cheaply as possible and be approved else you won't get reimbursed, and economy class is to be used unless there are very special reasons where it can't be used etc etc....
Sign of the times perhaps?..
The Caspian sea is fresh-ish water in the north and saltier in the south. The Russians did their Ekranoplan testing on that.
Google EROI to understand what peak oil is all about
On 07/09/2012 13:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote: ...
Eastman Rochester Organ Initiative?
Peak oil was a perfectly valid theory in the days when the real price of oil had been dropping for decades. In those circumstances, oil reserves from known wells really could be taken as fixed. It fell apart as soon as that cornerstone of the theory collapsed.
Colin Bignell
TRY harder.
They are effectively fixed ny EROI qas long as you want to use that oil for energy.
More dodging and skipping. So bloody what? And then what happens? Do we gaily trip into the sunset knowing there's an infinite supply of oil? Of course we don't, and to pretend otherwise is utterly foolish in the extreme. Peak Oil predictions may have been out, but the actual fact of Peak Oil is undeniable, unless you're an oil company loon or shill.
What, the airline didn't pay landing fees? Employ any cleaners? refuel the plane? Employ local staff?
Andy
I've never suggested there is an infinite supply of fossil oil. However, I don't expect a genuine shortage of fossil oil to be a problem that will concern anyone alive today and I know the technology already exists to make artificial oil when we eventually reach the limit of what can be recovered.
I think you have misunderstood the peak oil theory. It is specifically a prediction that oil production will continue to rise until a peak, after which it will go into an irreversible decline. Technical innovations in exploration and recovery since it was drawn up in the 1950s and the exploitation of non-conventional sources mean that that theory is wrong, as demonstrated by the current revival of the US oil industry.
Colin Bignell
IOW the notion of a single peak is nonsense. But then we know that Brother Grim lacks imagination.
No, they meant that the peak has been pushed into the future. Or rather HAD been pushed into the future. Liquid oil production is already falling.
This technology relies on a source of energy.
Please don't suggest windmills as the source!
Andy
I calculated that perfect technology could make oil at about £8 a liter
From nuclear. Make that £16 for wind or £25 from offshore wind, and about £100 from solar.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.