The fr*cking problem

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

I suppose it would if the idea in question had any realistic prospect of being put into practice.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

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 .

I think you're getting mixed up between the big primary producers - i.e. those who dig it out of the ground (BP, Shell etc) and the big 6 energy suppliers. AFAIK the suppliers are not in the primary production business in the same way as the primary producers.

The majors/big primary producers are fully vertially integrated in markets like car fuel etc but not in domestic energy - that's what the suppliers do.

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

Probably - as you would expect to see in many developing market sectors.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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 .

I think you're getting mixed up between the big primary producers - i.e. those who dig it out of the ground (BP, Shell etc) and the big 6 energy suppliers. AFAIK the suppliers are not in the primary production business in the same way as the primary producers.

The majors/big primary producers are fully vertially integrated in markets like car fuel etc but not in domestic energy - that's what the suppliers do.

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

Probably - as you would expect to see in many developing market sectors.

Ah, didn't know you were referring to the UK!

You mean utilities :P.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ah, didn't know you were referring to the UK!

You mean utilities :P.

As the OP was talking about what to do with frackers in the UK, that geographical scope was kind of assumed to be the frame of reference here

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

I suppose it would if the idea in question had any realistic prospect of being put into practice.

This is all a bit tit-for-tat. You raised the idea of nationalising the fr*cking industry. I started the thread to open up the debate. In the first instance, I did not open it up with a one sided view.

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

There are many sides to this from the environmental concerns to the potential economic benefits.

For year we have failed to address the countries energy problems to the extent we now have to play lip service to the Russians. On the face of it, I don't have anything against it except that it will be another opportunity for big companies to make big profits - now don't jump on the anti-leftie bandwagon, there's a bigger point to this:

Energy, just like communications, does not seem to be treated as a collective concern. i.e, both would be to the greater economic stability and welfare of the nation if energy was treated as an economic necessity rather than a profit making opportunity.

You did no mention nationalisation by name in your first post above - you're smart enough to realise that would not get you off to the best of starts. But the wording in your first post above was certainly how I interpreted your intentions. If that wasn't the case I'm not clear what you did mean?

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

There are many sides to this from the environmental concerns to the potential economic benefits.

For year we have failed to address the countries energy problems to the extent we now have to play lip service to the Russians. On the face of it, I don't have anything against it except that it will be another opportunity for big companies to make big profits - now don't jump on the anti-leftie bandwagon, there's a bigger point to this:

Energy, just like communications, does not seem to be treated as a collective concern. i.e, both would be to the greater economic stability and welfare of the nation if energy was treated as an economic necessity rather than a profit making opportunity.

You did no mention nationalisation by name in your first post above - you're smart enough to realise that would not get you off to the best of starts. But the wording in your first post above was certainly how I interpreted your intentions. If that wasn't the case I'm not clear what you did mean?

Just as it said on the tin:

The government needs to somehow take better control of energy procurement through to sale. You suggested greater powers for OFGEM. I just opened the debate with some lure's.

tangled_metal

Back awhile ago on an early page of debate someone made reference to having to kowtow to Russia because they have the gas. Well the funny thing is we actually get a low percentage of our supply from Russia. Germany gets about a% which is probably why they have been dealing more with Russia over the Ukraine situation. Germany has a few benefits due to its manufacturing sector and that is Germany sells to Russia what Russia needs and buys at similar levels. Basically They are equals. UK is not but then they don't sell into or buy from Russia at any real big level. BP aside of course, they are very heavily exposed in Russia right now.

tangled_metal

All this talk of nationalizing some part of the energy sector is an interesting idea but doubt it would work. I'm not really that old that I can remember much about nationalized industries. I seem to remember a big increase in productivity when national companies got nationalized under Thatcher.

The biggest issue with nationalized companies/industries is no government is capable of running anything efficiently or even as a good business. Evidence? Well I think the size of our deficit is significant somehow. How about the notion of putting a bit away in times or plenty rather than spend, spend, spend?!!! Last government in case you were curious.

Take rail. since someone has mentioned it earlier. Privatized and split into franchises with a separate infrastructure company. The infrastructure has now been semi-nationalized because it did not work. That was really down to the way the whole national company was split up and privatized. Should never have separated infrastructure and operations IMHO. The franchises are a mixed bunch too. Some very well run franchises and some that needed to be taken over or passed on to another company. Someone mentioned Virgin fiasco. Well I hate to say it that is the national government for you, they made a complete hash of it. Is that a good omen for running a national company?

I really like the idea of nationally owned companies but somehow it always seems that private companies seem capable of running things better than any state can. There is an interesting comparison with France where there are still large industries with a national interest (a golden share is the phrase I think). One is in the defence sector and TBH has been run down a lot. Once British Aerospace and the French defence company would have been thought of as equals, not now. BAE Systems has left the French behind.