What should be done for the steel industry in Port Talbot?

You can recycle it by putting it back through the furnace and moulding again. Actually to generate the heat to mould it you don't necessarily need a furnace

You don't use a blast furnace to remelt steel that is already refined. A BF is used to separate iron ore into pig iron which is then refined in a different furnace into steel. Port Talbot has BFs.

You don't even need that

What should be done for the steel industry in Port Talbot?

I personally think they should close it down.
- We can't afford to nationalize it, the UK government is broke.
- It's a low value added product
- 80% of the UK economy is now in the service sector (i don't agree with it but it is what it is).
- We have close allies who produce steel plus China has been very efficient in the area for years.
- Putting on tariffs for steel might lead to a trade war we might lose out on in other areas of the economy i.e car sales to China for example.

Your views?

Which is why it irritates me no end when the Conservative big up how great their party is for national security at the same time as letting Chinese Communists undermine our industries.

You're god damn right. We should never have let them build the nuclear power station at Hinkley, if the Chinese can run that at a profit, the government could easily raise the funds through bond sales and repay investors with the proceeds, then we could raise our middle fingers as almost as high as we raise the import tariffs because David Cameron isn't the slut of the people('s republic)

Just out of interest what would you propose if there was a world war, us and China was on opposing sides India remained neutral, neither sides use nuclear weaponary and we have no steel, or any other metal for that factor to produce anumation with. We need to still produce but not a lot.

The EU steel industry has a capacity of 230 million tons a year. Europe has a true steel use of 125 million tons a year.

By 2017 South America (mostly Brazil) will have a steel making capacity of 77 million tons a year. South America has a true steel use of 55 million tons

Please explain why in your scenario we would not buy Indian steel?

You do realise that despite the WWII U Boat blockade that would be unrepeatable in any modern conventional war, this country imported 3 million tonnes of iron and steel each year mostly from North America.

I never said they (Indians would supply it) my judgement is when we and the rest europe stop producing India and China will bung prices up ( and still be cheapest than the alternative) they will potentially price fix with each other so we are forced to pay more. Unless there is a war. But we can keep a reserve of ammunation.

Nationalising it is against EU law.

2) If Tata can't sell within 3 months then nationalise at 1p per share, automate the crap out of it (thus sacking most of the workforce anyway) but hopefully at the end of it all we'll be able to compete and sell 55% of the firm back into the private sector.

What should be done for the steel industry in Port Talbot?

I personally think they should close it down.
- We can't afford to nationalize it, the UK government is broke.
- It's a low value added product
- 80% of the UK economy is now in the service sector (i don't agree with it but it is what it is).
- We have close allies who produce steel plus China has been very efficient in the area for years.
- Putting on tariffs for steel might lead to a trade war we might lose out on in other areas of the economy i.e car sales to China for example.

Your views?

You say the government is broke but the cost of paying for all those worker's pensions and dole money is going to come at a cost with no return. Surely paying workers to produce steel is better than paying unemployed people to do nothing?

In that context to regard the preservation of steel production capacity as being of strategic importance is laughable.

If it is now uncompetitive to make steel in the UK I see no reason why the taxpayer should foot any part of any bill for its continued production.

The exception would be if it were thought strategically necessary to maintain some level of steel production (i.e. for defence). Otherwise, protectionism helps nobody.



Alright, fair enough, I'm convinced.

No reason at all, then.

Because of the welfare costs of the newly unemployed and the possible need for steel during a war....


Posted from TSR Mobile

Because of the welfare costs of the newly unemployed and the possible need for steel during a war....


Posted from TSR Mobile

Try looking back a few pages, the welfare costs, even when you throw in lost tax revenues, is actually a tiny amount, even if the whole steel industry goes under, and all it requires is a savings of a couple of percent on steel prices for the 12m tonnes of steel to be net cheaper getting it elsewhere.