Give us a fracking break!

[jshell]

SrMoreno said:

mondeoman said:

Successful economies are always low tax, so why shouldn't we be one of them for once?

Norway is the obvious example of a successful energy-rich country which is not low-tax. They value their resources, control extraction to get maximum benefit, and invest for a future when the resource is depleted. All things we should be doing.

However it's a shyte place to live and has many, many social problems now, and stacking up for the future with a population that just expect that the government will provide so they don't have to think about it. It's not nicknamed 'zombie nation' for nothing. The wealth fund is invested in variable commodities so does fluctuate up and down too...

[vonuber]

jmorgan said:

As an uneducated consumer, why do I get the feeling someone will make a lot of loot out of this and the general population will not see the benefit.

Because you live in this country?

[mondeoman]

SrMoreno said:

mondeoman said:

Successful economies are always low tax, so why shouldn't we be one of them for once?

Norway is the obvious example of a successful energy-rich country which is not low-tax. They value their resources, control extraction to get maximum benefit, and invest for a future when the resource is depleted. All things we should be doing.

And they're heading in the wrong direction

But we digress - you didn't answer the question about how this is being sold off on the cheap?

[SrMoreno]

jshell said:

However it's a shyte place to live and has many, many social problems now, and stacking up for the future with a population that just expect that the government will provide so they don't have to think about it. It's not nicknamed 'zombie nation' for nothing. The wealth fund is invested in variable commodities so does fluctuate up and down too...

I'd rather have Norway's "problems" than ours, to be honest.

[jshell]

SrMoreno said:

jshell said:

However it's a shyte place to live and has many, many social problems now, and stacking up for the future with a population that just expect that the government will provide so they don't have to think about it. It's not nicknamed 'zombie nation' for nothing. The wealth fund is invested in variable commodities so does fluctuate up and down too...

I'd rather have Norway's "problems" than ours, to be honest.

You're welcome to it. When I get back to the UK I feel like I'm on some lavish holiday in a free state.

[Apache]

The cynic might suggest that the new impetus behind the support for fracking is due to a few wealthy MPs investing either in the industry or technology, in a similar vein to Hulme and Green Energy and Cameron's father in law and hi windmills

[greygoose]

jmorgan said:

As an uneducated consumer, why do I get the feeling someone will make a lot of loot out of this and the general population will not see the benefit.

I feel the same way, it's like the waste of the North Sea oil money all over again.

[voyds9]

They only reduced the tax, it's not like wind/water/sun where we are giving them money.

[hornet]

SrMoreno said:

Norway is the obvious example of a successful energy-rich country which is not low-tax. They value their resources, control extraction to get maximum benefit, and invest for a future when the resource is depleted. All things we should be doing.

Surely by incentivising business to invest in the potentially massive fracking industry, we're doing exactly that?

As North Sea reserves become increasingly expensive to extract, business is going to look for a better return on investment. Without the incentive to invest in UK shale gas, it's increasingly likely that will mean upping sticks to Russia, the Middle East or West/North Africa. By making investment in shale appealing, E&P, downstream, oil services and other supporting industries (finance, insurance etc) all stay here. Indeed, given the possibility of an independent Scotland in the not too distant future and considering the expertise sat up in Aberdeen, I'd imagine cultivating an English oil services sector is top priority. Not only does the country benefit from security of supply for x years, it also gets to develop expertise that's going to be VERY exportable as more and more shale reserves become viable, especially to countries with no other fossil reserves.

If the argument is we didn't sensibly exploit the North Sea windfall (i.e. no Norway style sovereign wealth fund), shale is the perfect opportunity to put that right, hence Government ought to be doing everything it can to encourage investment, be it tax breaks, enterprise zones or whatever.

[Art0ir]

The first sensible policy ref: energy I've seen in this government!

[hidetheelephants]

Since when is taxing revenue at 30% giving it away? Plus the licence fees for exploration and production, and the income tax and stamp from all the rigpigs needed to drill the holes, there's not much of a give-away here, particularly taking into account that there will need to be a spending spree on fancy directional drilling rigs as there aren't anything like enough in the UK to develop the prospects at more than a snail's pace. Hurry up and get on with it, turn Lancashire into swiss cheese!

[McWigglebum4th]

Art0ir said:

The first sensible policy ref: energy I've seen in this government!

Its worrying

they are bound to screw it up somewhere

[johnfm]

vonuber said:

frank hovis said:

It's the start up costs for these types of operations that is most likely prohibitive .
The tax breaks will hopefully encourage the bigger players like shell / bp/ centrica to invest and get the industry started

Shell for example made a first quarter profit this year of £5.1bn - i suspect they could quite easily fund the startup (especially considering the return to be made).

Personally we should look to exploit it in a Norway style (i.e. invest for the countries future, rainy day fund etc) - sadly I know it will all go to a bunch of shareholders with a few MP's ending up on the boards of the companies.

It is irrelevant to a degree how much profit Shell made.

The only relevance will be the projected ROI on any proposed investment. If the return is greater for them to invest elsewhere, they will do so.

Government tax incentives are complex beasts which are required to attract inward investment.

Agree totally on your views re Norway's sovereign wealth fund.

[Du1point8]

johnfm said:

vonuber said:

frank hovis said:

It's the start up costs for these types of operations that is most likely prohibitive .
The tax breaks will hopefully encourage the bigger players like shell / bp/ centrica to invest and get the industry started

Shell for example made a first quarter profit this year of £5.1bn - i suspect they could quite easily fund the startup (especially considering the return to be made).

Personally we should look to exploit it in a Norway style (i.e. invest for the countries future, rainy day fund etc) - sadly I know it will all go to a bunch of shareholders with a few MP's ending up on the boards of the companies.

It is irrelevant to a degree how much profit Shell made.

The only relevance will be the projected ROI on any proposed investment. If the return is greater for them to invest elsewhere, they will do so.

Government tax incentives are complex beasts which are required to attract inward investment.

Agree totally on your views re Norway's sovereign wealth fund.

You both know full well that if it was put in the rainy day fund, the next time Labour came into power they would spend the lot on buying votes and fk the UK over completely.

Wonder if it can legally be locked into a kind of trust that its used for the good of the country only to pay off debts and not just frittered away by people buying votes?

[johnfm]

Du1point8 said:

You both know full well that if it was put in the rainy day fund, the next time Labour came into power they would spend the lot on buying votes and fk the UK over completely.

Wonder if it can legally be locked into a kind of trust that its used for the good of the country only to pay off debts and not just frittered away by people buying votes?

I think the Norwegian SWF has such controls.

[JimPetrol]

Du1point8 said:

You both know full well that if it was put in the rainy day fund, the next time Labour came into power they would spend the lot on buying votes and fk the UK over completely.

Wonder if it can legally be locked into a kind of trust that its used for the good of the country only to pay off debts and not just frittered away by people buying votes?

You make it sound like only Labour buy votes.

The Tories are once again selling off anything they can get their hands on... so they too can buy votes at the next election.

[Du1point8]

johnfm said:

Du1point8 said:

You both know full well that if it was put in the rainy day fund, the next time Labour came into power they would spend the lot on buying votes and fk the UK over completely.

Wonder if it can legally be locked into a kind of trust that its used for the good of the country only to pay off debts and not just frittered away by people buying votes?

I think the Norwegian SWF has such controls.

Then I would welcome the money coming in as a bonus for the country to help pay debts down/help out, but I would stipulate they have to keep the fund above a certain monetary level to be used against projects to help the country become financially better off.

Not just pissed up against a wall on benefits for human rights, etc...

[mondeoman]

JimPetrol said:

You make it sound like only Labour buy votes.

The Tories are once again selling off anything they can get their hands on... so they too can buy votes at the next election.

I'll ask again, what, exactly, has been sold off?? and how much for??

[JimPetrol]

mondeoman said:

I'll ask again, what, exactly, has been sold off?? and how much for??

They tried and failed to sell of a load of government owned forestry, they're selling the Royal Mail, and have plans to sell blood plasma services - which is disgraceful.

All main parties only care about their own careers and personal gain - I don't believe many in parliament are there for the good of the country.

[Du1point8]

JimPetrol said:

mondeoman said:

I'll ask again, what, exactly, has been sold off?? and how much for??

They tried and failed to sell of a load of government owned forestry, they're selling the Royal Mail, and have plans to sell blood plasma services - which is disgraceful.

All main parties only care about their own careers and personal gain - I don't believe many in parliament are there for the good of the country.

They have to sell off parts that can be privatised by someone to run at a profit as they are just sucking up money, which thanks to the last rabble, left the current rabble no money, so cuts are need and so are sell offs.

The current rabble are slowly untying all the mess left but some decisions are not popular and this is one of them.

If I put it to you this way... one of your companies used to make you lots of profit, however its slowly going down hill and in a few years will cost you money to run them, but they are a public service, so do you keep t running at a loss, or sell off whilst you can?