The fr*cking problem

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

You said this bollox and you expect me to give you an answer?!:

"Also food is pretty damn important. If your argument holds water, shouldn't we nationalise all farms, food processors and Tesco and call it all the National Food Service?"

What on earth do you mean when you say:

"As the state then picks up the bill for the shortfall" What shortfall? You mean nationalised energy from fr*cking couldn't be run for profit?

I know economics isn't your strong point so let me try to explain using short words :roll:

1. Re: the 'National food service' I asked you already the following question (since the point I was originally making with the 'national food service analagy went right over your head):
"Why not nationalise other important commercial and industrial sectors? Why just one part of the energy supply?"
It's a clear enough question but you dodged it. Go on, have a try...

We are talking specifically about the provision of energy. Your paranoid fear of some communist state taking everything over is occluding your point of view.

2. You said above:
"If energy was cheaper for everyone it would raise the standard of living and it would assist industry, haulage, feed and food costs no end. In fact, every facet of British life could potentially change."
It's pretty obvious from that statement that what you plan to do is to lower energy prices from nationalised sources.

Very flattering but I don't plan it, besides what is wrong with lowering energy prices and having it nationally owned?

To have a material impact you would need to drop the price significantly. So how will the State make a profit from its new energy business if it supplies energy at way below market rates? It won't, will it. So we the taxpayer pick up the tab. Comprendez?

You suggested 'way below market rates' not me. A small decrease in energy costs would have a significant impact. What 'tab' if sold at a profit would the taxpayer have to pick up exactly?

(Edited for crap grammar)

pinno

team47b wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

team47b wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I have obviously supplied the perfect solution as debate has ended.

New debate Energy is not the problem, consumption is.

That's you snookered Blakeney and the stereotype of poor people is after all, just a stereotype. You don't have to be a benefit claiming, fag smoking, alcohol drinking, Sun reading sky subscriber to be in financial difficulty.

@T47 = isn't consumption intrinsically linked to the acquisitive and the selfish hypnotised by the materialism on constant offer?

That's just an excuse, free thinking people don't behave like this, only the bewildered herd.

So what percentage of this population is free thinking and what percentage is the bewildered herd? I will leave you to figure out how to educate the bewildered masses. Plato and Socrates discussed this a while ago and it all got very complicated (Plato's Republic; available from all good corner shops on the shelf next to The Daily Mail and the Sun).

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

You said this bollox and you expect me to give you an answer?!:

"Also food is pretty damn important. If your argument holds water, shouldn't we nationalise all farms, food processors and Tesco and call it all the National Food Service?"

What on earth do you mean when you say:

"As the state then picks up the bill for the shortfall" What shortfall? You mean nationalised energy from fr*cking couldn't be run for profit?

I know economics isn't your strong point so let me try to explain using short words :roll:

1. Re: the 'National food service' I asked you already the following question (since the point I was originally making with the 'national food service analagy went right over your head):
"Why not nationalise other important commercial and industrial sectors? Why just one part of the energy supply?"
It's a clear enough question but you dodged it. Go on, have a try...

We are talking specifically about the provision of energy. Your paranoid fear of some communist state taking everything over is occluding your point of view.

2. You said above:
"If energy was cheaper for everyone it would raise the standard of living and it would assist industry, haulage, feed and food costs no end. In fact, every facet of British life could potentially change."
It's pretty obvious from that statement that what you plan to do is to lower energy prices from nationalised sources.

Very flattering but I don't plan it, besides what is wrong with lowering energy prices and having it nationally owned?

To have a material impact you would need to drop the price significantly. So how will the State make a profit from its new energy business if it supplies energy at way below market rates? It won't, will it. So we the taxpayer pick up the tab. Comprendez?

You suggested 'way below market rates' not me. A small decrease in energy costs would have a significant impact. What 'tab' if sold at a profit would the taxpayer have to pick up exactly?

(Edited for crap grammar)

I know you're talking about the provision of energy. I'm asking you why it should be singled out for nationalisation and not other essential commercial sectors. You still haven't answered it...
(I'm not paranoid about a communist state, it's not a realistic prospect - we both know that)

BTW you seem confused about which companies to nationalise. These are the main frackers who extract the stuff:
http://www.frackingforgas.co.uk/uk-onshore-gas/
Completely different from the 'Big 6' energy companies who are the retailers. Which companies exactly would you nationalise?

If the government wanted to nationalise just the 'Big 6' then that would probably set you back somewhere around £100 billion at curent market values. Who is going to pay for that? Yes, it's the taxpayer. You'd have to cut prices a lot to make up for that. And if you don't nationalise the primary producers of energy (frackers, oil extraction companies, etc) then a Govt monopoly will always be at the mercy of market prices - so to control input prices you'd need to buy the relevant bits of the primary producers - Shell, BP, Esso etc. How many hundred billion would that cost?

How would a govt monopoly have any incentive to be competitive or efficient when there would be no competition?
If you want to lower energy prices, wouldn't it be easier just to get the OFGEM regulator to clamp down on prices a bit more, rather than splashing out mind boggling amounts of our money to buy energy companies. :roll:

Did you think this through properly?

pblakeney

Well that kick started the debate!

And Pina, I am not snookered as this was the start of a new debate from T47 and I was not debating poverty, simply offering a method whereby the profits could be returned to the masses in a simple and effective manner.

ddraver

Mr Goo wrote:

I would rather the UK invest in fr*cking, than wind farms.

Witch Farm in Poole Bay has been a fr*cking operation since the late 70s. From ground level you would hardly even notice that this operation is there, yet it is Western Europes largest oil field.



But just around the corner out into Bournemouth bay they are proposing the industrialisation of the UKs only UNESCO World Heritage site, namely the Jurassic Coast.





Below is an accurate scale reference of the size of the proposed turbines compared to the Western (Needles) side of the Isle of Wight. Each turbine will be over 650 ft high.

This

I suspect that the reality of VTech's Hydrogen Engine was that a "Golf" or "Ford Focus" type car would have cost 150,000 - well no one is gonna buy that. So i suspect that his mates all got put on other projects because they'd done as much as thye could on that one (plus the problem with hydrogen is not the engine, it's getting the hydrogen in the first place)

I am no peak oil doomsayer but I don't think we wil ever see a time when a litre of petrol costs under a Pound again. Eventually it is going to become so expensive that running a petrol car or a power station on fossil fuels is going to be more expensive than an alternative energy source. Suddenly people will start seriously investing in such and the cost will fall and the new technology will take over

People will buy a Hydrogen powered "Golf" that costs 15,000

Fracking will inevitably be the same. When it becomes too expensive to heat ones house then suddenly you'll hear a lot more about Wytch Farm and the countless other examples of fracked reservoirs the world over that have all been perfectly safe

That said however, much like V-Tech's engine crew, I know a lot of people that were working on European Shale Gas Projects who are now all working on other projects too...except that there is no New World Order happening, the simple reason is that none of the prospects look to be economical to produce now or for the forseable future... It's starting to look like the US has hit a very rare jackpot with shale gas that is unlikely to be workable in many other places

finchy

ddraver wrote:

It's starting to look like the US has hit a very rare jackpot with shale gas that is unlikely to be workable in many other places

I've read reports that suggest that even in the USA, the depletion rates are so rapid that this might turn out to be a massive economic bubble. My uncle's dad got caught out like this. He invested just about his entire life savings in a well in Texas (I think, definitely one of the southern states) as initial output from other shale wells were so high that it seemed like a really good investment. Then when the well dried up quickly and he lost all of his money and died of a heart attack.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

You said this bollox and you expect me to give you an answer?!:

"Also food is pretty damn important. If your argument holds water, shouldn't we nationalise all farms, food processors and Tesco and call it all the National Food Service?"

What on earth do you mean when you say:

"As the state then picks up the bill for the shortfall" What shortfall? You mean nationalised energy from fr*cking couldn't be run for profit?

I know economics isn't your strong point so let me try to explain using short words :roll:

1. Re: the 'National food service' I asked you already the following question (since the point I was originally making with the 'national food service analagy went right over your head):
"Why not nationalise other important commercial and industrial sectors? Why just one part of the energy supply?"
It's a clear enough question but you dodged it. Go on, have a try...

We are talking specifically about the provision of energy. Your paranoid fear of some communist state taking everything over is occluding your point of view.

2. You said above:
"If energy was cheaper for everyone it would raise the standard of living and it would assist industry, haulage, feed and food costs no end. In fact, every facet of British life could potentially change."
It's pretty obvious from that statement that what you plan to do is to lower energy prices from nationalised sources.

Very flattering but I don't plan it, besides what is wrong with lowering energy prices and having it nationally owned?

To have a material impact you would need to drop the price significantly. So how will the State make a profit from its new energy business if it supplies energy at way below market rates? It won't, will it. So we the taxpayer pick up the tab. Comprendez?

You suggested 'way below market rates' not me. A small decrease in energy costs would have a significant impact. What 'tab' if sold at a profit would the taxpayer have to pick up exactly?

(Edited for crap grammar)

I know you're talking about the provision of energy. I'm asking you why it should be singled out for nationalisation and not other essential commercial sectors. You still haven't answered it...
(I'm not paranoid about a communist state, it's not a realistic prospect - we both know that)

BTW you seem confused about which companies to nationalise. These are the main frackers who extract the stuff:
http://www.frackingforgas.co.uk/uk-onshore-gas/
Completely different from the 'Big 6' energy companies who are the retailers. Which companies exactly would you nationalise?

Fr*cking in the UK is at the beginning of the journey. I am not suggesting buying out the energy companies. What I am suggesting is nationalising the fr*cking industry alone or at least a public/private initiative. It would be too late to try and keep it in public hands in say 5 years.

If the government wanted to nationalise just the 'Big 6' then that would probably set you back somewhere around £100 billion at curent market values*. Who is going to pay for that? Yes, it's the taxpayer. You'd have to cut prices a lot to make up for that. And if you don't nationalise the primary producers of energy (frackers, oil extraction companies, etc) then a Govt monopoly will always be at the mercy of market prices - so to control input prices you'd need to buy the relevant bits of the primary producers - Shell, BP, Esso etc. How many hundred billion would that cost?

See above. *You're off on one.

How would a govt monopoly have any incentive to be competitive or efficient when there would be no competition?
If you want to lower energy prices, wouldn't it be easier just to get the OFGEM regulator to clamp down on prices a bit more, rather than splashing out mind boggling amounts of our money to buy energy companies. :roll:

because it would be in the national inetrest and be under political and public scrutiny.

Did you think this through properly?

There's no need for that condescension. In your neatly wrapped up idealistic world, everything can be sorted by market forces. Read Freidman's Capitalism and Freedom - it is flawed.

I did not suggest nationalising food. So forget nationalising Tesco but food prices are directly linked to energy costs. Cheaper energy = cheaper food = lower cost of living = greater national autonomy and in this world, the stability of energy supply both physically and politically is critical and will be even more critical in the future.

Rick posted the profits made by the energy companies - owned by shareholders for their benefit. I know you will pull out the corporate tax income card but that's over simplistic.

finchy

There's a big difference between nationalising oil production and nationalising farming or food distribution if the aim is to defend the national interest. With the majority of oil production currently concentrated into a small number of countries, we can't, for example, threaten the Saudis with buying our oil from another source if they don't stop funding Islamic fundamentalism. These conditions just do not apply when it comes to food.

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

I did not suggest nationalising food. So forget nationalising Tesco but food prices are directly linked to energy costs. Cheaper energy = cheaper food = lower cost of living = greater national autonomy and in this world, the stability of energy supply both physically and politically is critical and will be even more critical in the future.

Rick posted the profits made by the energy companies - owned by shareholders for their benefit. I know you will pull out the corporate tax income card but that's over simplistic.

There's nothing condescending about pointing out major flaws in your proposal.

Cheaper energy obviously is good, but so is cheaper anything else. If I can save myself £100 say does it matter if it's on energy, food, transport, booze? It's still £100. Hence the question about why just this sector for natonalisation. But you're determined to avoid answering the question so let's look at nationalising fr@cking and whether it will do what you want it to do.

Fr@cking is a part of the primary production for gas and oil - basically getting the stuff out the ground. There are other sources of primary production (such as North Sea oil and gas) - fr@cking is just one source. The state fr@cking operation 'UK fr@cking Ltd' can always choose to offer its products at below the market price, fine. Two problems:

1. The oil and gas from fr@cking is only one part of the energy supply and a finite amount. So hard to see how on its own it could materially drive down all oil and gas prices.

2. The bigger problem is that UK Fr@cking Ltd isn't a retailer - it would be supplying oil and gas to the distributors and retailers of energy. The retailers sell to the end user - so even if 'UK Fr@cking Ltd' gives lower prices for its products, what's to stop the energy retailers from pocketing the discount and charging their normal prices? Like I said above, the only way you do that is to take control of the distribution and retail side - hence my point above about this costing hundreds of billions to be workable.

So unfortunately in the circumstances it isn't workable - and to make it workable, you make it unaffordable as above. It's a nice aim, but it doesn't work.

Just to put you right about some of your misconceptions about what you assume to be my views - where did I say market forces solved everything? I'm not so naive. Where there is limited competion or elements of an oligopoly, then some control is needed to prevent market abuse - that's what OFGEM is for in this case. So like I said before - why not beef up OFGEM? It can't solve everything as supply and demand currently creates price pressure on the raw material but it can influence retail prices.

And tax - the government can choose how much to tax fuel. There's only 5% on domestic, but car fuel is very heavily taxed. If governments can learn to live within their means a bit better instead of spend spend spend, they can reduce fuel duty and we can all be better off

As regards Ricks' stats, that shows largest companies by revenue. The energy market is huge and there is a large degree of market consolidation so you would expect that. What the numbers don't show is the margins - overall or compared to other businesses, or whether there are factors related to market abuse (e.g. oligopoly/monopoly situations). So those stats on their own prove nothing. If it can be shown the companies are making excess profits by abusing the market then it needs sorting. That's why we have anti-cartel legislation and regulators do use it where they find a problem.

Longer term, other energy sources will need to be the solution. Not piecemeal, knee jerk partial nationalisation of one particular sector.

pinno

^^ Nothing ticks in this country or any other western country without energy. It affects everything we do. It is key to a nations global viability and strength. So what you are basically saying is that we cannot, given the current status quo possibly have a direct right to the ownership of the potential income from fr*cking (in your opinion)?

I quite agree that there is no piecemeal solution to our energy concerns but it's hardly 'kneejerk' reaction and no one suggested that it was a complete solution. I opened up this debate and the idea of nationalising the fr*cking industry was actually brought up by you! i simply asked the question: "Why not nationalise it?".

What question am I dodging exactly? The one about "Why don't we nationalise this and that and everything in between"? - I did not propose that and I will re-iterate; we were/are talking about nationalising the fr*cking industry.

OFGEM is a puppet agency set up by governments to prove that they are/someone is doing the job. Yes - you try and give OFGEM more powers and just see how far you get with the obvious vested interests making sure it stays a puppet agency.

On another foot, every time someone proposes change, you always revert to the status quo - you always support the market and capitalism as an accepted means to solve anything. How can I think any different when it comes to your point of view?

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

^^ Nothing ticks in this country or any other western country without energy. It affects everything we do. It is key to a nations global viability and strength. So what you are basically saying is that we cannot, given the current status quo possibly have a direct right to the ownership of the potential income from fr*cking (in your opinion)?

We could, it's just not a good idea and would be very hard to implement. In private ownership, if energy supply becomes such a crucial issue (such as in a time of war) that you need to divert supplies to the domestic market only then emergency laws could be passed.

But you're confused again - you talk about energy being vital for national vitality and strength - so implying we need to secure our energy supply to keep the lights on. Fair enough. In the same paragraph above you ask whether we should have the right to the income (We do have rights to the income - it's called tax.). Two very different things.

So you accept that direct right to owning the income from fr@acking wouldn't lower energy bills? You didn't challenge my previous point on the lack of control over retail prices.

pinarello001 wrote:

I quite agree that there is no piecemeal solution to our energy concerns but it's hardly 'kneejerk' reaction and no one suggested that it was a complete solution. I opened up this debate and the idea of nationalising the fr*cking industry was actually brought up by you! i simply asked the question: "Why not nationalise it?".

It was pretty clear what you were aiming for if you asked why not. But if there is no piecemeal solution to our energy problems, why propose one?

pinarello001 wrote:

What question am I dodging exactly? The one about "Why don't we nationalise this and that and everything in between"? - I did not propose that and I will re-iterate; we were/are talking about nationalising the fr*cking industry.

I've asked it enough times now - go re-read my previous posts. See my point about piecemeal approach - if you don't get the relevance of this question then you can't see the bigger picture about nationalisation vs private ownership as a wider economic strategy for the country. Do you honestly not get it?

pinarello001 wrote:

OFGEM is a puppet agency set up by governments to prove that they are/someone is doing the job. Yes - you try and give OFGEM more powers and just see how far you get with the obvious vested interests making sure it stays a puppet agency.

1. Your evidence for this opinion is what?
2. See my earlier point - if you were going to do something as radical as nationalisation then why not propose reforming OFGEM and making what you think it should be. Easier and cheaper than your idea - like I said before more than once...

pinarello001 wrote:

On another foot, every time someone proposes change, you always revert to the status quo - you always support the market and capitalism as an accepted means to solve anything. How can I think any different when it comes to your point of view?

I look at things on their merits and make my own mind up. The reason why you think I always take the status quo is probably down to two key factors:
1. We always end up disgreeing on the same narrow subject areas
2. What do you expect me to say if your idea is clearly worse than the status quo? (IMHO)

Anyhow, you started the proposal - put forward your detailed proposal. The onus is on you to demonstrate that yours idea is a good one and viable. So far I'm far from convinced and judging by the lack of reaction from others, you haven't exactly got the forum enthused on this one.

rick_chasey

In fairness, I know a bit about gas prices and know a few gas traders. Trading business were shutting gas desks down as there was so little volatility for traders to make money.

At the same time I got a call from British gas explaining that my bill went up as a result of price volatility.

When I challenged I (unsurpringly) got a 'we just work in customer services' response.


Energy companies deliberately make their pricing opaque and there are few enough of them to pass on any savings they make through increased production to themselves and their shareholders rather then the general public.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Energy companies deliberately make their pricing opaque and there are few enough of them to pass on any savings they make through increased production to themselves and their shareholders rather then the general public.

As I have been suggesting, the simple solution is for the general public to become the shareholders and the circle is complete. Nationalism without the complications and taxpayers pay for nationalism just as they pay for shares.
Think about that the next time you buy something that you don't need.

mamba80

For me, this tech locks us into carbon reliance for the next 40 or 50 years (the approx. life span of a power station)

we need 1000's of these wells and they have a very limited life span, so 10s of 1000s of wells needed over this period - the uk isn't the USA and we don't have the space for this - esp as the government seems to think that house building is the way out of eco decline.

Nuclear and renewables appear to be the way forward, if Germany is not buying into this fra*king technology, then they ll be sound reasons why.

Any controls on price wont happen, so the alleged fuel cost savings of fra*king will never be seen by the consumer, just as we never really benefited by N. Sea oil revenues, in the way say Norway has.

pinno

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Energy companies deliberately make their pricing opaque and there are few enough of them to pass on any savings they make through increased production to themselves and their shareholders rather then the general public.

As I have been suggesting, the simple solution is for the general public to become the shareholders and the circle is complete. Nationalism without the complications and taxpayers pay for nationalism just as they pay for shares.
Think about that the next time you buy something that you don't need.

We cannot all be shareholders - it's a flawed Thatcherite idea.

Just out of curiosity, I thought about a given hypothetical. If every family in the UK put aside £500 to buy shares (madness) say in BP Plc.

£500 quid would buy you 103 shares with a dividend yield of 23.4p per share which will give you a 6 monthly return of £24.10 and an annual return of £48.20.

£48 a year is really going to make a huge difference to your standard of living. At that rate, it will take you 10 and a half years to get a return on your investment and to ask anyone to invest more than that for most is infeasible.

It is a silly idea.

Here's a film for you:

pblakeney

pinarello001 wrote:

We cannot all be shareholders - it's a flawed Thatcherite idea.

Just out of curiosity, I thought about a given hypothetical. If every family in the UK put aside £500 to buy shares (madness) say in BP Plc.

£500 quid would buy you 103 shares with a dividend yield of 23.4p per share which will give you a 6 monthly return of £24.10 and an annual return of £48.20.

£48 a year is really going to make a huge difference to your standard of living. At that rate, it will take you 10 and a half years to get a return on your investment and to ask anyone to invest more than that for most is infeasible.

It is a silly idea.

Here's a film for you:

Based on your figures - true.
But for the fortunate (and I acknowledge myself to be one) who could afford to put £15k in an ISA then your £48 becomes £1440, which would effectively give you free energy for as long as you hold the shares. And you still have the value of the shares.
Not for everyone admittedly, but an option.
You can fight the system, I have given up doing that and have chosen to play the game to my advantage.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Energy companies deliberately make their pricing opaque and there are few enough of them to pass on any savings they make through increased production to themselves and their shareholders rather then the general public.

My personal experience is similar re the lack of clarity on pricing structures. Hence my point about beefing up OFGEM to handle the partial oligopoly situation in energy retail.

I've moved my gas and electric to one of the smaller players as the gave a better price than the usual suspects, better service and 3% interest on overpayments made via direct debit. If enough people do that the big players will take notice. Market forces in action.

That's twice in as many days I've agreed with you Rick, there's something odd going on here

ballysmate

viewtopic.php?f=30005&t=12950178&p=18636353&hilit=guardian#p18636353

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

So what are you proposing? That the Government energy strategy needs changing in terms of what it incentivises/encourages etc, or are you looking at full scale nationalisation? Or something inbetween?

Is that the million dollar question?

Stevo_666

Has the penny finally dropped?

All my questions are a million dollars (tax free), but that was my first one and probably the key one for a sensible discussion.

You'll get extra marks for answering the wider question about nationalisation in other important sectors

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Has the penny finally dropped?

All my questions are a million dollars (tax free), but that was my first one and probably the key one for a sensible discussion.

You'll get extra marks for answering the wider question about nationalisation in other important sectors

Do I have to?! It's a silly question and one that does not need answering.
Energy is the link in every facet. I have already answered the question: I did not suggest nationalising other sectors of industry. What not? Because it is fair competition*, just ask Lidl and Aldi
Others have proved that energy is monopolised by a select few and the energy companies make OTT profits for the shareholders at our expense.

*Subject for another thread.

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Has the penny finally dropped?

All my questions are a million dollars (tax free), but that was my first one and probably the key one for a sensible discussion.

You'll get extra marks for answering the wider question about nationalisation in other important sectors

Do I have to?! It's a silly question and one that does not need answering.
Energy is the link in every facet. I have already answered the question: I did not suggest nationalising other sectors of industry. What not? Because it is fair competition*, just ask Lidl and Aldi :

Not a bad answer TBH. But see below.

pinarello001 wrote:

Others have proved that energy is monopolised by a select few and the energy companies make OTT profits for the shareholders at our expense.

Three points to sum up my position:
1. Regulation, if sensibly done and proportionate to the problem, can work to a reasonable degree and is considerably cheaper and easier to implement than state control.
2. Your solution doesn't address how to control retail prices as you only propose taking control of primary production in the sector, not of distribution and retail.
3. A state owned monopoly is no better than a private one, just likely to be less efficient.

pinarello001 wrote:

*Subject for another thread.

Next time you fancy a little critique of one of your bright ideas...

Right, time for MOTD.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Energy companies deliberately make their pricing opaque and there are few enough of them to pass on any savings they make through increased production to themselves and their shareholders rather then the general public.

My personal experience is similar re the lack of clarity on pricing structures. Hence my point about beefing up OFGEM to handle the partial oligopoly situation in energy retail.

I've moved my gas and electric to one of the smaller players as the gave a better price than the usual suspects, better service and 3% interest on overpayments made via direct debit. If enough people do that the big players will take notice. Market forces in action.

That's twice in as many days I've agreed with you Rick, there's something odd going on here

Only so many utility players you can have.

--

and whoever said we can all buy shares in energy companies... Not sure you really understand how shares work?

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Has the penny finally dropped?

All... discussion.

You'll ge...sectors

Do...Aldi :

Not a bad answer TBH. But see below.

pinarello001 wrote:

Others...expense.

Three...efficient.

pinarello001 wrote:

*Subject for another thread.

Next time you fancy a little critique of one of your bright ideas...

Right, time for MOTD.

Beats the hell out of being purely reactionary.

verylonglegs

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Energy companies deliberately make their pricing opaque and there are few enough of them to pass on any savings they make through increased production to themselves and their shareholders rather then the general public.

My personal experience is similar re the lack of clarity on pricing structures. Hence my point about beefing up OFGEM to handle the partial oligopoly situation in energy retail.

I've moved my gas and electric to one of the smaller players as the gave a better price than the usual suspects, better service and 3% interest on overpayments made via direct debit. If enough people do that the big players will take notice. Market forces in action.

That's twice in as many days I've agreed with you Rick, there's something odd going on here

Only so many utility players you can have.

--

and whoever said we can all buy shares in energy companies... Not sure you really understand how shares work?

If you already have lots of them and you manage to persuade everyone else to go out and buy them then they work out for you very nicely indeed, do they not?

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

and whoever said we can all buy shares in energy companies... Not sure you really understand how shares work?

Don't be coy now. You know who it was.
I am fairly sure having quite a few shares paying healthy dividends and increasing in value.
Care to enlighten me/us as to your wisdom?

If you mean that there is a finite number of shares then that would be correct but it would not change the fact that a greater, if not all, of the shares would be in the hands of the general masses.

and, verylonglegs, nice point. That benefit hadn't occurred to me. Win, win.

pinno

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

and whoever said we can all buy shares in energy companies... Not sure you really understand how shares work?

Don't be coy now. You know who it was.
I am fairly sure having quite a few shares paying healthy dividends and increasing in value.
Care to enlighten me/us as to your wisdom?

If you mean that there is a finite number of shares then that would be correct but it would not change the fact that a greater, if not all, of the shares would be in the hands of the general masses.

and, verylonglegs, nice point. That benefit hadn't occurred to me. Win, win.

They aren't in the hands of the general masses for a reason.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

I know you're talking about the provision of energy. I'm asking you why it should be singled out for nationalisation and not other essential commercial sectors. You still haven't answered it...
(I'm not paranoid about a communist state, it's not a realistic prospect - we both know that)

BTW you seem confused about which companies to nationalise. These are the main frackers who extract the stuff:
http://www.frackingforgas.co.uk/uk-onshore-gas/
Completely different from the 'Big 6' energy companies who are the retailers. Which companies exactly would you nationalise?

Not sure you're familiar with the structure of a typical big 6. They're more than just retailers. Hence, y'nkow, deepwater horizon.

Majors are majors because they drill it out of the ground, refine it, sell it. the whole chain. and if you're big you do a bit of fr*cking anyway .

What you'll most likely see is a gradual consolidation of the fr*cking market. Lots of start ups atm, some will work, some won't, some will be as successful enough to buy others, and eventually some will be big fr*ckers and some will be bought by the majors. et etc.


--

Short of it is, this current system has created an environment of pretty useful investment - think LNG, tracking technology, that oil sand stuff. That stuff would have been less likely to have occurred had it all been nationalised. Wouldn't have been the incentive to go exploring as hard, and to create the conditions to generate the kind of innovation needed.

Does have some fairly big drawbacks. : http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... up-amnesty
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/08 ... e_/1104879

and however you cut it it's difficult to police businesses which are bigger than national economies in their own right and employs 100,000 odd people.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

and whoever said we can all buy shares in energy companies... Not sure you really understand how shares work?

Don't be coy now. You know who it was.
I am fairly sure having quite a few shares paying healthy dividends and increasing in value.
Care to enlighten me/us as to your wisdom?

If you mean that there is a finite number of shares then that would be correct but it would not change the fact that a greater, if not all, of the shares would be in the hands of the general masses.

Eh?

Being a listed company (which many of them don't have to be by the way. Traders like Vitol act more or less like majors in their own right anyway), does not make you accountable to the public, by any stretch. That's a shareholder-capitalist fantasy and you know it.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Eh?

Being a listed company (which many of them don't have to be by the way. Traders like Vitol act more or less like majors in their own right anyway), does not make you accountable to the public, by any stretch. That's a shareholder-capitalist fantasy and you know it.

Who mentioned anything about being accountable?
Look through my posts here and I never mention it. I never mention ethics either.
I simply provide one method of returning the profits to the masses.
I cannot help it if the masses can't see it, or disagree with the ethics.