On 4 Dec 2017 at 6:35pm Tom Pain wrote:
Word on the street has it that Barclays Bank owns most of Third Energy who are trying to frack in Yorkshire and Ineos who are fracking in derbyshire. I wonder if we can show them how much we don't want the countryside ruined by their hideous greed and how.
On 4 Dec 2017 at 7:10pm Barclays account holder wrote:
Err no we can’t
Grow up you little oik
On 4 Dec 2017 at 9:05pm Canoeman wrote:
The river Ouse drains the area around balcombe. If fracking ever did happen there then we would know it in Lewes.
On 5 Dec 2017 at 1:16am SHS wrote:
I'm very rich so don't mind if my gas bill doubles. The poor will have to manage without heating if they can't afford future gas prices. And we can import from the USA where alternative methods of fossil fuel extraction have lowered oil and gas prices for the benefit of the people and American industry. (Simplified and important facts omitted but another side to the argument nevertheless).
On 5 Dec 2017 at 9:00am Tom Pain wrote:
Years ago when they discovered North Sea gas it was going to be so cheap it would be almost free! Promises, promises. In the dream Disney future of cheaper gas how much will imported water cost when our supplies have been polluted?
On 5 Dec 2017 at 11:15am Andymac wrote:
I have no particular axe to grind on this subject, but purely in the interests of accuracy, it's worth pointing out that in May this year, Barclays announced it would be divesting its holdings in Third Energy. Ineos (as per its 2016 annual report) is wholly owned by 3 people: Jim Ratcliffe, the chairman, himself owns over 60% of the business. All of this information is easily verifiable, rather than relying on 'the word on the street'. But given the self-righteous virtue signalling left has never really been big on accuracy, I'm sure minor details like being factually incorrect won't get in the way of a really good protest. I presume the Katie Hopkins rentamob is looking to fill in time between now and the Boxing Day hunt, so they may well be available.
On 5 Dec 2017 at 11:43am Gazprom wrote:
Oh dear Tom Pain what a very simplistic statement that is, much like your brain
Without going in to the details which I doubt you’d understand, let just think how much gas would cost if we didn’t have our own reserves and had to import it
On 5 Dec 2017 at 11:48am Mike Nelson wrote:
I just hope they don't contaminate our groundwater which is a source of 70% of it and unlike fossil fuel is recycled. Water could become a lot more expensive.
Also, imagine the damage a small earthquake could cause to the Ouse Valley Viaduct or any of the tunnels on the Brighton Line. Even less or no Southern trains for months, perhaps years...
On 5 Dec 2017 at 12:01pm Canoeman wrote:
Thank you for your information Andymac but in truth I'm not so bothered about who owns any company that might frack in Balcombe. I am more bothered about the possibility of pollution that would come down on the river Ouse. Do I trust any energy company that says it would not cause pollution in the Ouse valley while fracking? er......no.
On 5 Dec 2017 at 12:16pm Andymac wrote:
Canoeman - I take your point, but the OP is on a different aspect of this issue: it implies we should target Barclays as a result of their alleged involvement with companies fracking in Yorkshire and Derbyshire. There's no mention of anything more local - the Balcombe issue is a reasonable discussion, but a different discussion.
I just find the current tendency of the self-elected morally righteous left to think they don't need to worry about facts because they CARE so much, extremely tiresome.
On 5 Dec 2017 at 12:56pm bobobob wrote:
^^It's also tiresome to be lumped in one group as "self-elected morally righteous left to think they don't need to worry about facts because they CARE so much". If you'd like I can make a disparaging comment about the behaviour of those on the right? Pretty sure there are plenty of tired stereotypes I can use.
Facts matter no matter what your political views.
Back on topic, it is now clear from studies in USA that the fracking operations increase earthquakes and contaminate water supplies in many ways.
Doesn't sound like a good idea tbh.
On 5 Dec 2017 at 1:05pm Andymac wrote:
Bobobob - I didn't lump you in with anyone. But if the cap fits......
On 5 Dec 2017 at 7:13pm Tom Pain wrote:
Well gazprom, why not go into the details,go on, let's see what a real brain can do. Obviously I wouldn't be able to understand but I'm sure everyone else would be enlightened. Perhaps you could elucidate the phrase beginning with "let" for a start. What I was trying to say in my simple way was that home fracked gas will cost as much as imported gas in the end no matter how cheap they SAY it will be, but I guess it went under your head.
On 5 Dec 2017 at 8:20pm Andymac wrote:
Welcome back Tom Pain. Nothing to say about the fact that the allegations in your OP were inaccurate? Why should anyone take your arguments seriously if you can't even get the basics right?
On 6 Dec 2017 at 12:49am Gazprom wrote:
Well Tom Pain I assume you’re not too stupid to use Google so type in ‘production costs’ to start with.
On 6 Dec 2017 at 5:48pm Tom Pain wrote:
I assumed that "word has it on the street" meant it is rumoured etc.and I was interested to see if anyone had more information. Thank you for your replies. I have found out that Barclays did own a fracking company and maybe still does through the use of shell companies. I have also seen that Barclays have a lot of unpaid charges against Ineos which makes me think they probably have a lot of influence over them. So all in all Barclays are in favour of fracking until it might unfavourably affect their books.gazprom, if I may use your method of answering one question with another, do you think that production costs are the same as retail prices?