Again, though, if it’s lower tax then they’ll shut down more expensive offshore production.

It seems I have a bit to learn on how gas prices are established.
Thanks.
🙂

I still maintain that even at a reduced level of taxation the revenue is all extra to what we have now. We are not providing any subsidies, ROs and LECs for instance, so we can only benefit from the extra tax-take.

Er, gas doesn’t work like that. There’s no pool or pricing standard like oil has (brent crude), it’s all individual contracts. The US system is also structured *nothing* like ours, and does not have the idiotic RO system we have.

Bills have not gone down one bit even though gas pricing has tumbled.

And you’re not paying attention…the major risks have been assumed by the Government, and the taxpayer will pay for anything which goes wrong. Moreover, the tax rates are specially low for fracking. I’m not sure why you think lower rates are more revenue…it’s just another drain which fracking will cause, as it’ll lead to rapid wind-downs of North Sea extraction in it’s favour.

I do think there’s a strong possibility of non-conventional gas reducing the price of gas overall, Leon, as there will be more gas available for the generators to choose from. This has certainly been the case in the US. Of course, it gives the UK a better security of supply as well, making us less reliable on disruptions to supply from overseas political events.

I don’t believe the UK taxpayer is at risk; those risks are taken by the fracking companies themselves. The taxpayer can only benefit as he will be gaining the tax revenues from the home-grown fracked gas being sold to the generators, even if at a more marginal rate – it’s all positive income to the treasury.

Ah, magical “clean” coal, which does not exist. The new German power plants are going to be ~15% cleaner than the 1970’s plants – still pollution-belching monsters, that is.

Nuclear makes sense, new coal does not.

Could? No, it cannot under the current system of RO’s…gas prices are already low, and it’s made zero difference to bills. “Cheaper” just means higher profits for the companies involved, period.

Having a “bash” at massive risk to the taxpayer is a bad idea.

If you are fuel poor, the chances are that saving energy would be a god-send as then you’ll have the money for food. However, the poor are being hit the most as they pay the highest prices for their energy as they could be on meters and their unit cost for low consumption is very high. They don’t have the money for expensive energy reduction measures.

Fracking could (and I emphasise *could*) reduce gas bills – and heating is the largest part of a home’s energy bill. Reductions in the price of gas will also bring about cheaper electricity from CGT power stations as well.

It’s worth a bash, I’d say, just for the fuel-poor’s sake.

Poor people are paying for the FIT’s which rich people get for their panels, period. A *small* minority of poor are on special rates, many of which are hard to get – in fact, many poor people are on “special” rates in that they’ve been stuck with very expensive meters. Being on housing benefit gets you no special deal, either.

Also, increasingly, poor people are stuck in rented accommodation instead of social housing, and they not only need the landlord’s permission (which they have no incentive to give, in practice), but the house needs to be able to take the panels (many are in poor repair and can’t have them) and then they need to be able to pay for it (some subsides are available, but in many cases (i.e. over a shop) they are not eligible).

Your dismissal of FIT’s, at a time when many poorer people are struggling to earn enough to eat is plain *wrong*. “Benefits” for those with cash based on raising power bills are not “mutual”.

Yes yes, you’re a ladder puller. And you only paid NI etc…Why should this make me think better of you? Why are you so happy to raise power bills on the poor if you remember what it’s like?

No, you’re making excuses, no more. Rather than address the argument, you act all offended.