Councillors to discuss David Cameron’s fracking tax revenue announcement

York Press: David Cameron David Cameron

RULING Labour councillors in York are to discuss the Prime Minister’s announcement that local authorities will be able to keep millions of pounds in tax revenue from “fracking” projects.

York council leader James Alexander said David Cameron’s offer, reported in The Press yesterday, may “feel like a bribe” and he was sure there would be concerns from residents about fracking of shale gas near their homes.

“Whilst I have personal concerns, the Labour group will discuss our policy towards fracking in light of the Prime Minister’s announcement,” he said.

“There has been little interest in companies exploring for fracking within York until recently. York currently provides £40 million extra in business to London than we receive back and we were promised greater shares of business rates before that didn’t materialise.”

Mr Cameron said local authorities in England would receive 100 per cent of the business rates collected from shale gas schemes, rather than the usual 50 per cent, but environmentalists branded the incentive a “bribe” and warned that it raised serious concerns over conflicts of interest, if the councils benefiting from the money were the ones deciding on planning applications.

Linda Cowling, the Tory leader of Ryedale District Council, said she was not really interested in how much money fracking would generate. “What I really need to know is whether it is damaging to the environment,” she said.

Selby Tory council leader Mark Crane said he wanted to know whether district or county councils would determine shale gas applications and also which authorities would benefit from extra tax revenue. He said he also wanted to see fracking tested somewhere away from homes, and would like to know the views of Selby area residents.

The campaign group Frack Free North Yorkshire said: “North Yorkshire has a booming tourism industry and a world-class agriculture industry. Fracking has been proven in the USA and Australia to have a very negative effect on both these sectors.”

A spokesman for East Riding of Yorkshire Council said the authority did not know enough in detail about the Government’s proposals to be able to comment. “Any application made for ‘fracking’ in the East Riding would be subject to the normal planning process,” he added.

Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:02am Tue 14 Jan 14

again says...

If only we could trust the government!

This government, the last government, the government before that and the one before that.

All have sold us down the river and blamed 'the last lot'.

Sure Cameron wants 'fracking' but not in the way he thinks it means.
If only we could trust the government! This government, the last government, the government before that and the one before that. All have sold us down the river and blamed 'the last lot'. Sure Cameron wants 'fracking' but not in the way he thinks it means. again

11:53am Tue 14 Jan 14

yawn.. says...

The French won't allow fracking in their own country, yet they're quite happy to let us pay them for fracking in ours.. doesn't that say something.??
The French won't allow fracking in their own country, yet they're quite happy to let us pay them for fracking in ours.. doesn't that say something.?? yawn..

12:06pm Tue 14 Jan 14

BL2 says...

No fracking anywhere near York please! Can you imagine if they allowed this and it affected the walls or Minster with an earth tremor?!
No fracking anywhere near York please! Can you imagine if they allowed this and it affected the walls or Minster with an earth tremor?! BL2

12:08pm Tue 14 Jan 14

goatman says...

Not surprised the French don't want fracking, they're adult enough to embrace nuclear power. They've also invested heavily in tidal power too.
Not surprised the French don't want fracking, they're adult enough to embrace nuclear power. They've also invested heavily in tidal power too. goatman

12:14pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Zetkin says...

Fancy that! Enough cash swilling around to bribe councils when it suits Cameron, but not enough to fund health, education, and welfare.
Fancy that! Enough cash swilling around to bribe councils when it suits Cameron, but not enough to fund health, education, and welfare. Zetkin

12:43pm Tue 14 Jan 14

York Fox says...

Zetkin wrote:
Fancy that! Enough cash swilling around to bribe councils when it suits Cameron, but not enough to fund health, education, and welfare.
It's not actually cash swilling around though is it Zetkin? It's potential earnings, yet to be created of which the council can keep a proportion.

Pretty hypocritical in my opinion. All of a sudden spreading the profits of industry outside of central government to enrich the local community is a bad thing. You socialists are baffling sometimes.
[quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: Fancy that! Enough cash swilling around to bribe councils when it suits Cameron, but not enough to fund health, education, and welfare.[/p][/quote]It's not actually cash swilling around though is it Zetkin? It's potential earnings, yet to be created of which the council can keep a proportion. Pretty hypocritical in my opinion. All of a sudden spreading the profits of industry outside of central government to enrich the local community is a bad thing. You socialists are baffling sometimes. York Fox

12:58pm Tue 14 Jan 14

greenmonkey says...

Hardly 'spreading the profits' when the government gets to keep 62% of the profit in tax! No wonder Cameron wants to see fracking wherever local communities fail to oppose the desecration of their area.... especially if they can focus on 'the desolate north' where people are more desperate for jobs, and councils need the cash.
Hardly 'spreading the profits' when the government gets to keep 62% of the profit in tax! No wonder Cameron wants to see fracking wherever local communities fail to oppose the desecration of their area.... especially if they can focus on 'the desolate north' where people are more desperate for jobs, and councils need the cash. greenmonkey

1:36pm Tue 14 Jan 14

YorkPatrol says...

greenmonkey wrote:
Hardly 'spreading the profits' when the government gets to keep 62% of the profit in tax! No wonder Cameron wants to see fracking wherever local communities fail to oppose the desecration of their area.... especially if they can focus on 'the desolate north' where people are more desperate for jobs, and councils need the cash.
Lol.. what do you think tax pays for?? It pays for health, education, and welfare to name but a few or do you think that comes out of another pot?.. The govenment does'nt simply keep the tax generated.

You may have a dislike for the current leaders but please keep things in perspective
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: Hardly 'spreading the profits' when the government gets to keep 62% of the profit in tax! No wonder Cameron wants to see fracking wherever local communities fail to oppose the desecration of their area.... especially if they can focus on 'the desolate north' where people are more desperate for jobs, and councils need the cash.[/p][/quote]Lol.. what do you think tax pays for?? It pays for health, education, and welfare to name but a few or do you think that comes out of another pot?.. The govenment does'nt simply keep the tax generated. You may have a dislike for the current leaders but please keep things in perspective YorkPatrol

1:45pm Tue 14 Jan 14

York Fox says...

greenmonkey wrote:
Hardly 'spreading the profits' when the government gets to keep 62% of the profit in tax! No wonder Cameron wants to see fracking wherever local communities fail to oppose the desecration of their area.... especially if they can focus on 'the desolate north' where people are more desperate for jobs, and councils need the cash.
And what do you think the government will do with the tax revenue? Spend it on fags, booze, and a new top or use it to fund public services? It's 62% tax for you, for your services which you use directly or indirectly every day.

And thats on top of the £millions in local tax collection which can go to local amenities and services.

There is no question that fracking will bring economic benefit to local and national government, and therefore to you and I, the question is whether you see the process itself as a risk, and if it is a risk, whether that is a risk worth taking.
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: Hardly 'spreading the profits' when the government gets to keep 62% of the profit in tax! No wonder Cameron wants to see fracking wherever local communities fail to oppose the desecration of their area.... especially if they can focus on 'the desolate north' where people are more desperate for jobs, and councils need the cash.[/p][/quote]And what do you think the government will do with the tax revenue? Spend it on fags, booze, and a new top or use it to fund public services? It's 62% tax for you, for your services which you use directly or indirectly every day. And thats on top of the £millions in local tax collection which can go to local amenities and services. There is no question that fracking will bring economic benefit to local and national government, and therefore to you and I, the question is whether you see the process itself as a risk, and if it is a risk, whether that is a risk worth taking. York Fox

1:47pm Tue 14 Jan 14

asd says...

YorkPatrol wrote:
greenmonkey wrote: Hardly 'spreading the profits' when the government gets to keep 62% of the profit in tax! No wonder Cameron wants to see fracking wherever local communities fail to oppose the desecration of their area.... especially if they can focus on 'the desolate north' where people are more desperate for jobs, and councils need the cash.
Lol.. what do you think tax pays for?? It pays for health, education, and welfare to name but a few or do you think that comes out of another pot?.. The govenment does'nt simply keep the tax generated. You may have a dislike for the current leaders but please keep things in perspective
Ahh you mean the nice little tax break the rich receive, basically a rise in their way of living whilst rest of us dont,. Nice ditrubution on Capalism wealth huh.
Lets privitse the National grid too so we can really get screwed over. This thing about privatisation creats compition and lower prices is utter garbage and if you say it has you are very blinkered. Anyway back to subject its Cameron bribery before next election its that blooming obvious.
[quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: Hardly 'spreading the profits' when the government gets to keep 62% of the profit in tax! No wonder Cameron wants to see fracking wherever local communities fail to oppose the desecration of their area.... especially if they can focus on 'the desolate north' where people are more desperate for jobs, and councils need the cash.[/p][/quote]Lol.. what do you think tax pays for?? It pays for health, education, and welfare to name but a few or do you think that comes out of another pot?.. The govenment does'nt simply keep the tax generated. You may have a dislike for the current leaders but please keep things in perspective[/p][/quote]Ahh you mean the nice little tax break the rich receive, basically a rise in their way of living whilst rest of us dont,. Nice ditrubution on Capalism wealth huh. Lets privitse the National grid too so we can really get screwed over. This thing about privatisation creats compition and lower prices is utter garbage and if you say it has you are very blinkered. Anyway back to subject its Cameron bribery before next election its that blooming obvious. asd

2:45pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Zetkin says...

York Fox wrote:
Zetkin wrote: Fancy that! Enough cash swilling around to bribe councils when it suits Cameron, but not enough to fund health, education, and welfare.
It's not actually cash swilling around though is it Zetkin? It's potential earnings, yet to be created of which the council can keep a proportion. Pretty hypocritical in my opinion. All of a sudden spreading the profits of industry outside of central government to enrich the local community is a bad thing. You socialists are baffling sometimes.
If the government can afford to subsidise the potential earnings of multinational corporations, they can afford to invest in decent jobs that don't involve potential fouling of our environment, potential poisoning of our water and so on.

The cash IS there, it's simply a matter of how our rulers choose to spend it; the current lot choose to increase spending to benefit their rich pals, whilst slashing it for the rest of us, hence there's less protection against adulterated food than there was a year ago, less protection against the ravages of floods, and so on.
[quote][p][bold]York Fox[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: Fancy that! Enough cash swilling around to bribe councils when it suits Cameron, but not enough to fund health, education, and welfare.[/p][/quote]It's not actually cash swilling around though is it Zetkin? It's potential earnings, yet to be created of which the council can keep a proportion. Pretty hypocritical in my opinion. All of a sudden spreading the profits of industry outside of central government to enrich the local community is a bad thing. You socialists are baffling sometimes.[/p][/quote]If the government can afford to subsidise the potential earnings of multinational corporations, they can afford to invest in decent jobs that don't involve potential fouling of our environment, potential poisoning of our water and so on. The cash IS there, it's simply a matter of how our rulers choose to spend it; the current lot choose to increase spending to benefit their rich pals, whilst slashing it for the rest of us, hence there's less protection against adulterated food than there was a year ago, less protection against the ravages of floods, and so on. Zetkin

5:07pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Garrowby Turnoff says...

What's the difference in danger between a small pipe being drilled into the ground for 1000s of metres to extract gas, and men digging ruddy great holes under our homes to dig out coal? I don't remember reading about protests from the public when the NCB sunk a new pit bringing employment and power to GB in post war Britain. There's no wonder the UK today is struggling to compete when every other country flaunts safety and morality issues in order to steal a rush and grab the best for its subjects.
What's the difference in danger between a small pipe being drilled into the ground for 1000s of metres to extract gas, and men digging ruddy great holes under our homes to dig out coal? I don't remember reading about protests from the public when the NCB sunk a new pit bringing employment and power to GB in post war Britain. There's no wonder the UK today is struggling to compete when every other country flaunts safety and morality issues in order to steal a rush and grab the best for its subjects. Garrowby Turnoff

5:25pm Tue 14 Jan 14

osbaldwicklane says...

If there is no problem with fracking , let Cameron do it first were he lives .
If there is no problem with fracking , let Cameron do it first were he lives . osbaldwicklane

6:01pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Alf Garnett says...

If it's good enough for Sarah Palin then it certainly isn't good enough for me. Whatever bribes Mr Cameron may offer. I'd be very interested to see the reaction in Chipping Norton to all this.
If it's good enough for Sarah Palin then it certainly isn't good enough for me. Whatever bribes Mr Cameron may offer. I'd be very interested to see the reaction in Chipping Norton to all this. Alf Garnett

6:34pm Tue 14 Jan 14

anistasia says...

I don't believe anything this government says they are telling people their plans after the next election.who's to say they''ll keep to their manifesto once re elected.this government letting houses be built on flood planes so no home insurance.is fracking safe it's banned in France so he lets them come here and frack.giving contract to overseas businesses.and because they are making money from these pay day loans companies.they won't help same as gas electric they say they are working with these companies to stop price rises but still charge you tax on the bill so more you spend the more government get.
I don't believe anything this government says they are telling people their plans after the next election.who's to say they''ll keep to their manifesto once re elected.this government letting houses be built on flood planes so no home insurance.is fracking safe it's banned in France so he lets them come here and frack.giving contract to overseas businesses.and because they are making money from these pay day loans companies.they won't help same as gas electric they say they are working with these companies to stop price rises but still charge you tax on the bill so more you spend the more government get. anistasia

6:55pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Alf Garnett says...

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
What's the difference in danger between a small pipe being drilled into the ground for 1000s of metres to extract gas, and men digging ruddy great holes under our homes to dig out coal? I don't remember reading about protests from the public when the NCB sunk a new pit bringing employment and power to GB in post war Britain. There's no wonder the UK today is struggling to compete when every other country flaunts safety and morality issues in order to steal a rush and grab the best for its subjects.
Well I was part of a big campaign to stop development of the Selby coalfield in the early 70s. There was also strong opposition to Asfordby in Leicestershire at the same time. However, if you had referred to power stations, then there was indeed very little protest, except at Didcot which was a few miles from Oxford and the Ridgeway. An object lesson to the whingers of Escrick in their attempts to stop a diminutive digester.
[quote][p][bold]Garrowby Turnoff[/bold] wrote: What's the difference in danger between a small pipe being drilled into the ground for 1000s of metres to extract gas, and men digging ruddy great holes under our homes to dig out coal? I don't remember reading about protests from the public when the NCB sunk a new pit bringing employment and power to GB in post war Britain. There's no wonder the UK today is struggling to compete when every other country flaunts safety and morality issues in order to steal a rush and grab the best for its subjects.[/p][/quote]Well I was part of a big campaign to stop development of the Selby coalfield in the early 70s. There was also strong opposition to Asfordby in Leicestershire at the same time. However, if you had referred to power stations, then there was indeed very little protest, except at Didcot which was a few miles from Oxford and the Ridgeway. An object lesson to the whingers of Escrick in their attempts to stop a diminutive digester. Alf Garnett

7:22pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Jakester05 says...

Fracking – Is there any need with our new, low cost oil & gas exploration technology?

A little known junior oil company, Alumni Oil, has developed a new and unique set of oil/ gas exploration technologies that are proving highly effective at a fraction of the traditional exploration cost. Combining these technologies with a high power algorithm they have developed, they are finding large quantities of oil and gas, right across the globe, easily and effortlessly, at a minimum of the traditional cost!

So, when oil and gas, of which there is plenty all across the globe still undetected, can be found so easily – is there really any need for taking huge environmental risks in our own back yards by endorsing fracking?

Alumni are an ethical and environmentally focussed energy company – their corporate vision is to use the “mucky black stuff” (of which they are sitting on a multi-billion barrel basin via their subsidiary www.AfricaNewEnergie
s.com) to self-fund a clean energy installation program for developing countries around the world. They have already identified potentially large deposits in over 40 developing countries worldwide, in which they will start focussing their efforts over the next few years, once Namibia comes on tap and starts producing.

With the minimum investment starting at just £10,000, as an investor you can even invest via the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS), so you not only get something back from Mr. Cameron (i.e. 30% tax refunds), just for investing, but you can also sell your investment CGT FREE, so long as you remain invested for the EIS minimum period of 3 years. If you are interested in investing and wish to find out more about Alumni’s current projects, and understand why fracking is simply not necessary, click here: or go to http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=AWFqnbs8Q
-0
Fracking – Is there any need with our new, low cost oil & gas exploration technology? A little known junior oil company, Alumni Oil, has developed a new and unique set of oil/ gas exploration technologies that are proving highly effective at a fraction of the traditional exploration cost. Combining these technologies with a high power algorithm they have developed, they are finding large quantities of oil and gas, right across the globe, easily and effortlessly, at a minimum of the traditional cost! So, when oil and gas, of which there is plenty all across the globe still undetected, can be found so easily – is there really any need for taking huge environmental risks in our own back yards by endorsing fracking? Alumni are an ethical and environmentally focussed energy company – their corporate vision is to use the “mucky black stuff” (of which they are sitting on a multi-billion barrel basin via their subsidiary www.AfricaNewEnergie s.com) to self-fund a clean energy installation program for developing countries around the world. They have already identified potentially large deposits in over 40 developing countries worldwide, in which they will start focussing their efforts over the next few years, once Namibia comes on tap and starts producing. With the minimum investment starting at just £10,000, as an investor you can even invest via the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS), so you not only get something back from Mr. Cameron (i.e. 30% tax refunds), just for investing, but you can also sell your investment CGT FREE, so long as you remain invested for the EIS minimum period of 3 years. If you are interested in investing and wish to find out more about Alumni’s current projects, and understand why fracking is simply not necessary, click here: or go to http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=AWFqnbs8Q -0 Jakester05

7:44pm Tue 14 Jan 14

piaggio1 says...

Spam.!!!!!!!!!!!
Spam.!!!!!!!!!!! piaggio1

8:25pm Tue 14 Jan 14

york3003 says...

CONTACT JULIAN STURDY MP!!
01904 784847 julian.sturdy.mp@par
liament.uk
Ask how he will protect York's children from air, noise and water pollution from Fracking.
Tell your Councillor you don't want it...http://democrac
y.york.gov.uk/mgMemb
erIndex.aspx
Fracking will affect FOOD, DRINK, TOURISM and all life in Yorkshire.
CONTACT JULIAN STURDY MP!! 01904 784847 julian.sturdy.mp@par liament.uk Ask how he will protect York's children from air, noise and water pollution from Fracking. Tell your Councillor you don't want it...http://democrac y.york.gov.uk/mgMemb erIndex.aspx Fracking will affect FOOD, DRINK, TOURISM and all life in Yorkshire. york3003

10:04pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Eborwatch says...

Let's get on with it. A great initiative from a otherwise stagnating government. Buy IGas plc shares now .... the eventual profits may help to improve matters.
Let's get on with it. A great initiative from a otherwise stagnating government. Buy IGas plc shares now .... the eventual profits may help to improve matters. Eborwatch

11:16pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Dave Ruddock says...

dig a fracking big hole and jump in council , merritt and cameron
dig a fracking big hole and jump in council , merritt and cameron Dave Ruddock

1:38am Wed 15 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

I'm sure the people who live in South Yorkshire pit villages who's houses sit on soil just a few hundred meters above a 3m diameter coal pit shaft are really worried about a glorified endoscope going down looking for valuable gas that could reduce energy prices, the rises of which were created by the same tory woman who essentially shut down such pit villages and made masses of people unemployed in such areas.
I'm sure the people who live in South Yorkshire pit villages who's houses sit on soil just a few hundred meters above a 3m diameter coal pit shaft are really worried about a glorified endoscope going down looking for valuable gas that could reduce energy prices, the rises of which were created by the same tory woman who essentially shut down such pit villages and made masses of people unemployed in such areas. Magicman!

8:29am Wed 15 Jan 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
What's the difference in danger between a small pipe being drilled into the ground for 1000s of metres to extract gas, and men digging ruddy great holes under our homes to dig out coal? I don't remember reading about protests from the public when the NCB sunk a new pit bringing employment and power to GB in post war Britain. There's no wonder the UK today is struggling to compete when every other country flaunts safety and morality issues in order to steal a rush and grab the best for its subjects.
I remember a lot of fuss and bother about subsidence and cracks in the brickwork.
[quote][p][bold]Garrowby Turnoff[/bold] wrote: What's the difference in danger between a small pipe being drilled into the ground for 1000s of metres to extract gas, and men digging ruddy great holes under our homes to dig out coal? I don't remember reading about protests from the public when the NCB sunk a new pit bringing employment and power to GB in post war Britain. There's no wonder the UK today is struggling to compete when every other country flaunts safety and morality issues in order to steal a rush and grab the best for its subjects.[/p][/quote]I remember a lot of fuss and bother about subsidence and cracks in the brickwork. Buzzz Light-year

10:01am Wed 15 Jan 14

again says...

When N. Sea oil came on stream the government had the opportunity to set up a sovereign wealth fund as Norway did. Instead, the revenue was used to offset tax cuts for higher rate taxpayers and corporations.

An effect of this was to initiate a house price boom that has set the trend ever since. Now it is the case that house-buying is no longer within the reach of many and big landlords have benefitted.

In all likelihood, Cameron will follow the same pattern with revenue from fracking, particularly when the chancellor's enthusiasm for big business so clearly outweighs the interests of any other group.

As Milliband pointed out, the middle classes will be next to suffer, exactly as they are suffering in the USA, the country we increasingly look to for our economic policies.
When N. Sea oil came on stream the government had the opportunity to set up a sovereign wealth fund as Norway did. Instead, the revenue was used to offset tax cuts for higher rate taxpayers and corporations. An effect of this was to initiate a house price boom that has set the trend ever since. Now it is the case that house-buying is no longer within the reach of many and big landlords have benefitted. In all likelihood, Cameron will follow the same pattern with revenue from fracking, particularly when the chancellor's enthusiasm for big business so clearly outweighs the interests of any other group. As Milliband pointed out, the middle classes will be next to suffer, exactly as they are suffering in the USA, the country we increasingly look to for our economic policies. again

1:11pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Trespar Zagenstuz says...

"There is no question that fracking will bring economic benefit to local and national government," says 'York Fox', above.

There are many answers to say that it will NOT do so, but will bring blight and desecration to any fracked-up part of Britain. Don't bury your head in the shale, 'York fox', or 300,000 gallons of polluted water will blast it to bits.
Osbo's father-in-law will make mi££ions though, so that's all right.
Frack the lot of 'em, say I.
"There is no question that fracking will bring economic benefit to local and national government," says 'York Fox', above. There are many answers to say that it will NOT do so, but will bring blight and desecration to any fracked-up part of Britain. Don't bury your head in the shale, 'York fox', or 300,000 gallons of polluted water will blast it to bits. Osbo's father-in-law will make mi££ions though, so that's all right. Frack the lot of 'em, say I. Trespar Zagenstuz

1:19pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Trespar Zagenstuz says...

"What's the difference in danger between a small pipe being drilled into the ground for 1000s of metres to extract gas, and men digging ruddy great holes under our homes to dig out coal? " ~~ says Garroby Turnoff

Do your research, Garroby me old mucker, and you will realise you are talking fracking twaddle.
Fracking involves a little more than 'one small pipe', and coal miners used to try and avoid thousands of gallons of water gushing through their pits, whereas fracking actually exploits the potential of high-pressure water, pumped in in thousands of gallons and a cocktail of poisons to loosen up the shale and force the gas out. .
It's more an enema than one little hypodermic ****.
"What's the difference in danger between a small pipe being drilled into the ground for 1000s of metres to extract gas, and men digging ruddy great holes under our homes to dig out coal? " ~~ says Garroby Turnoff Do your research, Garroby me old mucker, and you will realise you are talking fracking twaddle. Fracking involves a little more than 'one small pipe', and coal miners used to try and avoid thousands of gallons of water gushing through their pits, whereas fracking actually exploits the potential of high-pressure water, pumped in in thousands of gallons and a cocktail of poisons to loosen up the shale and force the gas out. . It's more an enema than one little hypodermic ****. Trespar Zagenstuz

4:31pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Trespar Zagenstuz says...

"There's no wonder the UK today is struggling to compete when every other country flaunts safety and morality issues in order to steal a rush and grab the best for its subjects." ~~ Garroby Turnoff.
Do you think that 'flaunting safety and morality issues' is a reasonable approach, then, Garroby? You would risk peoples' lives and homes such that a few millionaires can make even more mi££ions?
What a bizarre person you are.
"There's no wonder the UK today is struggling to compete when every other country flaunts safety and morality issues in order to steal a rush and grab the best for its subjects." ~~ Garroby Turnoff. Do you think that 'flaunting safety and morality issues' is a reasonable approach, then, Garroby? You would risk peoples' lives and homes such that a few millionaires can make even more mi££ions? What a bizarre person you are. Trespar Zagenstuz

6:02pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Trespar Zagenstuz says...

For these people listed below, (all of whom are in large ways part of the Con-dem coalition --funny that...) ,, fracking is a licence to print money.
For you and me, it's a rocky road to hell on earth. But why should they care?

Lord Browne
The former BP boss is chairman of Cuadrilla, which is exploring for shale gas in Lancashire and West Sussex. He is lead "non-executive" across Government, meaning that he helps recruit other non-executives to Whitehall.

Baroness Hogg
The non-executive for the Treasury sits on the board of BG Group, which has significant shale gas assets in the United States.

Sam Laidlaw
The non-executive to the Transport Department is also chief executive of British Gas owner Centrica, which recently bought a 25 per cent stake in Cuadrilla's most promising shale gas prospect.

Ben Moxham
A former executive at BP when Lord Browne was at the helm, he followed the peer to Riverstone Holdings, which owns 42 per cent of Cuadrilla. Moxham was energy adviser at No 10 but quit in May.

Lord Howell
George Osborne's father-in-law is also president of the British Institute of Economics, whose backers include BP and BG Group.
Thanks to 'The Independent ' for naming the guiilty.
Let's get fracking going under Chipping Norton in Oxfordshire first. Just to show how safe and redeemable it is, eh?
For these people listed below, (all of whom are in large ways part of the Con-dem coalition --funny that...) ,, fracking is a licence to print money. For you and me, it's a rocky road to hell on earth. But why should they care? Lord Browne The former BP boss is chairman of Cuadrilla, which is exploring for shale gas in Lancashire and West Sussex. He is lead "non-executive" across Government, meaning that he helps recruit other non-executives to Whitehall. Baroness Hogg The non-executive for the Treasury sits on the board of BG Group, which has significant shale gas assets in the United States. Sam Laidlaw The non-executive to the Transport Department is also chief executive of British Gas owner Centrica, which recently bought a 25 per cent stake in Cuadrilla's most promising shale gas prospect. Ben Moxham A former executive at BP when Lord Browne was at the helm, he followed the peer to Riverstone Holdings, which owns 42 per cent of Cuadrilla. Moxham was energy adviser at No 10 but quit in May. Lord Howell George Osborne's father-in-law is also president of the British Institute of Economics, whose backers include BP and BG Group. Thanks to 'The Independent ' for naming the guiilty. Let's get fracking going under Chipping Norton in Oxfordshire first. Just to show how safe and redeemable it is, eh? Trespar Zagenstuz

8:32pm Wed 15 Jan 14

gwen4me says...

I'm all for it, it will replace our gas imports from the Gulf and Russia and save all the carbon that it takes to get it here. I for one am tired of a lot of crusty unemployables illegally trying to get in the way of progress.
I'm all for it, it will replace our gas imports from the Gulf and Russia and save all the carbon that it takes to get it here. I for one am tired of a lot of crusty unemployables illegally trying to get in the way of progress. gwen4me

10:18pm Wed 15 Jan 14

York Fox says...

Trespar Zagenstuz wrote:
"There is no question that fracking will bring economic benefit to local and national government," says 'York Fox', above.

There are many answers to say that it will NOT do so, but will bring blight and desecration to any fracked-up part of Britain. Don't bury your head in the shale, 'York fox', or 300,000 gallons of polluted water will blast it to bits.
Osbo's father-in-law will make mi££ions though, so that's all right.
Frack the lot of 'em, say I.
Trespar Zagenstuz, is there a local paper in the UK you haven't yet commented in 'me old mucker'?

You see what you've done with your answer is not form any argument whatsoever to say that there won't be economic benefit, but instead just mentioned the potential environmental impact.

Let's be honest here, there is as much evidence that fracking might cause environmental damage as evidence to say it won't cause any at all, i.e. not a lot. It is quite an unknown. Threats to life caused by fracking, however, are scaremongering a step to far for the sane man!
[quote][p][bold]Trespar Zagenstuz[/bold] wrote: "There is no question that fracking will bring economic benefit to local and national government," says 'York Fox', above. There are many answers to say that it will NOT do so, but will bring blight and desecration to any fracked-up part of Britain. Don't bury your head in the shale, 'York fox', or 300,000 gallons of polluted water will blast it to bits. Osbo's father-in-law will make mi££ions though, so that's all right. Frack the lot of 'em, say I.[/p][/quote]Trespar Zagenstuz, is there a local paper in the UK you haven't yet commented in 'me old mucker'? You see what you've done with your answer is not form any argument whatsoever to say that there won't be economic benefit, but instead just mentioned the potential environmental impact. Let's be honest here, there is as much evidence that fracking might cause environmental damage as evidence to say it won't cause any at all, i.e. not a lot. It is quite an unknown. Threats to life caused by fracking, however, are scaremongering a step to far for the sane man! York Fox

10:28am Thu 16 Jan 14

Trespar Zagenstuz says...

~~~"Let's be honest here, there is as much evidence that fracking might cause environmental damage as evidence to say it won't cause any at all, i.e. not a lot. It is quite an unknown. Threats to life caused by fracking, however, are scaremongering a step to far for the sane man! ~~~says York Fox.

Let's be honest HERE: It might be conveniently unknown to you, but the potential dangers are not unknown to the rest of the world.:
http://environment.a
bout.com/od/healthen
vironment/f/What-Is-
Fracking-Hydrofracki
ng-Or-Hydraulic-Frac
turing.htm
And more to the point, I quote,
"The result, according to the NONPROFIT (my caps) Oil and Gas Accountability Project, is that one of the nation's dirtiest industries is also one of its least regulated, and enjoys an exclusive right to "inject toxic fluids directly into good quality groundwater without oversight."
It is indeed, as you say, ' a step to far for the sane man'. But a happy trippy step for thew few who will insanely make money out of it, without the tedious need for hopping over the red tape of discussion and concerns for health and safety of the Society that gets fracked to b*ggery.
~~~"Let's be honest here, there is as much evidence that fracking might cause environmental damage as evidence to say it won't cause any at all, i.e. not a lot. It is quite an unknown. Threats to life caused by fracking, however, are scaremongering a step to far for the sane man! ~~~says York Fox. Let's be honest HERE: It might be conveniently unknown to you, but the potential dangers are not unknown to the rest of the world.: http://environment.a bout.com/od/healthen vironment/f/What-Is- Fracking-Hydrofracki ng-Or-Hydraulic-Frac turing.htm And more to the point, I quote, "The result, according to the NONPROFIT (my caps) Oil and Gas Accountability Project, is that one of the nation's dirtiest industries is also one of its least regulated, and enjoys an exclusive right to "inject toxic fluids directly into good quality groundwater without oversight." It is indeed, as you say, ' a step to far for the sane man'. But a happy trippy step for thew few who will insanely make money out of it, without the tedious need for hopping over the red tape of discussion and concerns for health and safety of the Society that gets fracked to b*ggery. Trespar Zagenstuz

10:39am Thu 16 Jan 14

Trespar Zagenstuz says...

~~~~"You see what you've done with your answer is not form any argument whatsoever to say that there won't be economic benefit, but instead just mentioned the potential environmental impact. ~~~~says York Fox.

Right-ho, the 'economic benefits.....
"Fracking is not going to reduce gas prices in the UK, according to the chairman of the UK's leading shale gas company."
The statement by Lord Browne, one of the most powerful energy figures in Britain, contradicts claims by David Cameron and George Osborne that shale gas exploration could help curb soaring energy bills.

I dare say, however, that Osbo's father-in-law (Lord Howell) will feel the economic benefits as they jangle in his pocket.....
....... but I don't think YOU will, even though caMoron 'claims' fracking will enable YOUR energy bill to be considerably reduced in magnitude.
Still, you , Foxy, could always corner the market in toxic sludge....as you will happily accept it pouring out of your tap.
~~~~"You see what you've done with your answer is not form any argument whatsoever to say that there won't be economic benefit, but instead just mentioned the potential environmental impact. ~~~~says York Fox. Right-ho, the 'economic benefits..... "Fracking is not going to reduce gas prices in the UK, according to the chairman of the UK's leading shale gas company." The statement by Lord Browne, one of the most powerful energy figures in Britain, contradicts claims by David Cameron and George Osborne that shale gas exploration could help curb soaring energy bills. I dare say, however, that Osbo's father-in-law (Lord Howell) will feel the economic benefits as they jangle in his pocket..... ....... but I don't think YOU will, even though caMoron 'claims' fracking will enable YOUR energy bill to be considerably reduced in magnitude. Still, you , Foxy, could always corner the market in toxic sludge....as you will happily accept it pouring out of your tap. Trespar Zagenstuz

5:01pm Thu 16 Jan 14

York Fox says...

Trespar Zagenstuz wrote:
~~~~"You see what you've done with your answer is not form any argument whatsoever to say that there won't be economic benefit, but instead just mentioned the potential environmental impact. ~~~~says York Fox.

Right-ho, the 'economic benefits.....
"Fracking is not going to reduce gas prices in the UK, according to the chairman of the UK's leading shale gas company."
The statement by Lord Browne, one of the most powerful energy figures in Britain, contradicts claims by David Cameron and George Osborne that shale gas exploration could help curb soaring energy bills.

I dare say, however, that Osbo's father-in-law (Lord Howell) will feel the economic benefits as they jangle in his pocket.....
....... but I don't think YOU will, even though caMoron 'claims' fracking will enable YOUR energy bill to be considerably reduced in magnitude.
Still, you , Foxy, could always corner the market in toxic sludge....as you will happily accept it pouring out of your tap.
A magazine article from about.com written by a jobbing journalist? Not scientific evidence though, is it? Even I could do better than that, but it highlights your lack of genuine knowledge in the subject.

I know there are 'unknowns' with fracking and they should be (and are being) investigated, but most people, including yourself, just jump on the bandwagon without any scientific thought or evidence whatsoever. It's frankly laughable, which is a shame as it's a serious issue to looked at with balance.

With regards to household energy prices falling, this is the smallest element of the potential economic benefit from fracking. I'm not remotely confident that household gas prices would fall, but I am 100% certain that the UK balance sheet would benefit to the tune of multiple billions of pounds a year, all going to pay for your services, which we currently can't afford. Leave childish party politics out of this as all parties will support fracking (except the loonies).
[quote][p][bold]Trespar Zagenstuz[/bold] wrote: ~~~~"You see what you've done with your answer is not form any argument whatsoever to say that there won't be economic benefit, but instead just mentioned the potential environmental impact. ~~~~says York Fox. Right-ho, the 'economic benefits..... "Fracking is not going to reduce gas prices in the UK, according to the chairman of the UK's leading shale gas company." The statement by Lord Browne, one of the most powerful energy figures in Britain, contradicts claims by David Cameron and George Osborne that shale gas exploration could help curb soaring energy bills. I dare say, however, that Osbo's father-in-law (Lord Howell) will feel the economic benefits as they jangle in his pocket..... ....... but I don't think YOU will, even though caMoron 'claims' fracking will enable YOUR energy bill to be considerably reduced in magnitude. Still, you , Foxy, could always corner the market in toxic sludge....as you will happily accept it pouring out of your tap.[/p][/quote]A magazine article from about.com written by a jobbing journalist? Not scientific evidence though, is it? Even I could do better than that, but it highlights your lack of genuine knowledge in the subject. I know there are 'unknowns' with fracking and they should be (and are being) investigated, but most people, including yourself, just jump on the bandwagon without any scientific thought or evidence whatsoever. It's frankly laughable, which is a shame as it's a serious issue to looked at with balance. With regards to household energy prices falling, this is the smallest element of the potential economic benefit from fracking. I'm not remotely confident that household gas prices would fall, but I am 100% certain that the UK balance sheet would benefit to the tune of multiple billions of pounds a year, all going to pay for your services, which we currently can't afford. Leave childish party politics out of this as all parties will support fracking (except the loonies). York Fox

6:25pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Trespar Zagenstuz says...

"A magazine article from about.com written by a jobbing journalist? " ~~says Foxy
No, a Guardian writer, quoting the fracking guru Lord Browne. Her credentials must, ipso facto, be more worthy than your's.
Browne is, of course, one of the few who will benefit.

"But I am 100% certain that the UK balance sheet would benefit to the tune of multiple billions of pounds a year, "~~~says Foxy

The UK balance sheet would have benefited from North Sea oil if Maggot Thatcher had not squandered the potential.
But you are '100% certain' this wont happen again. Show me the proof, oh wise one.
If fracking is so good, why are you allowing caMoron to bribe local councils to accept it? Why are you not advising him of your '100% certainty'; he could save a great deal of money if he listened to you. Maybe he has listened to crackpots like you. He knows the truth, even if you do not. He knows he has to resort to subterfuge, bribery, and manipulation of the law to stop opposition from people who can think outside of the wallet.
You are either a mug or a fracking investor.
But not a convincing one.
"A magazine article from about.com written by a jobbing journalist? " ~~says Foxy No, a Guardian writer, quoting the fracking guru Lord Browne. Her credentials must, ipso facto, be more worthy than your's. Browne is, of course, one of the few who will benefit. "But I am 100% certain that the UK balance sheet would benefit to the tune of multiple billions of pounds a year, "~~~says Foxy The UK balance sheet would have benefited from North Sea oil if Maggot Thatcher had not squandered the potential. But you are '100% certain' this wont happen again. Show me the proof, oh wise one. If fracking is so good, why are you allowing caMoron to bribe local councils to accept it? Why are you not advising him of your '100% certainty'; he could save a great deal of money if he listened to you. Maybe he has listened to crackpots like you. He knows the truth, even if you do not. He knows he has to resort to subterfuge, bribery, and manipulation of the law to stop opposition from people who can think outside of the wallet. You are either a mug or a fracking investor. But not a convincing one. Trespar Zagenstuz

10:21pm Thu 16 Jan 14

York Fox says...

Again you have failed to provide any evidence that fracking causes environmental damage. The article you linked to is nothing to do with the Guardian...or science. The quote you mentioned is about fracking not reducing household gas prices, which as I've said above, is probably true, but not even 1% of the economic benefit to could come from fracking. You seem to have confused yourself.

Then you seem to have changed the subject to Thatcher, which is irrelevant except as a lesson that the massive benefit could be handled even better In fact Jim Callaghan rejected the idea of a wealth fund in 1977. Get your facts straight. Even as it is, the UK has earned around £300bn for the benefit of citizens since 1980. That's £300bn for you NHS, for your benefits, for your roads, rail, defence, education, policing, etc etc. Hell, it even paid for dumb things like war in Iraq and subsidising UK coal through the 80s.

Seeing as I can produce a reasoned argument I suspect I'm not the mug here. I'm also not a shale gas investor, though I would be tempted if it looked a good deal. I'm a long term York resident with an interest and knowldge in science, economics, politics and engineering. I read the papers, I study the facts. How about you?

So again, can you provide a reasoned scientific argument backed up by actual scientists that quantifies the danger of fracking?

And can you provide statistical budgetary evidence that oil didn't benefit the UK financially?

Alternatively, can you provide evidence that shale gas fracking wouldn't also provide an economic boost to the UK?

I will wait patiently, but expect another change of topic or more flim flam from someone who is incapable of intelligent debate.
Again you have failed to provide any evidence that fracking causes environmental damage. The article you linked to is nothing to do with the Guardian...or science. The quote you mentioned is about fracking not reducing household gas prices, which as I've said above, is probably true, but not even 1% of the economic benefit to could come from fracking. You seem to have confused yourself. Then you seem to have changed the subject to Thatcher, which is irrelevant except as a lesson that the massive benefit could be handled even better In fact Jim Callaghan rejected the idea of a wealth fund in 1977. Get your facts straight. Even as it is, the UK has earned around £300bn for the benefit of citizens since 1980. That's £300bn for you NHS, for your benefits, for your roads, rail, defence, education, policing, etc etc. Hell, it even paid for dumb things like war in Iraq and subsidising UK coal through the 80s. Seeing as I can produce a reasoned argument I suspect I'm not the mug here. I'm also not a shale gas investor, though I would be tempted if it looked a good deal. I'm a long term York resident with an interest and knowldge in science, economics, politics and engineering. I read the papers, I study the facts. How about you? So again, can you provide a reasoned scientific argument backed up by actual scientists that quantifies the danger of fracking? And can you provide statistical budgetary evidence that oil didn't benefit the UK financially? Alternatively, can you provide evidence that shale gas fracking wouldn't also provide an economic boost to the UK? I will wait patiently, but expect another change of topic or more flim flam from someone who is incapable of intelligent debate. York Fox

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree