Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Trevaunance
Over 90 days ago
Bi-curious Male, 51
Straight Female, 52
0 miles · Exeter

Forum

Quote by MidsCouple24
You must know more than the researchers on ITV then and more than the US Government because they say they get a massive amount of revenue from it, for licences and in tax from the companies, I believe we already get a lot of money from North Sea Oil and North Sea gas for example I don't see why fracked gas should be any cheaper

As I said before, I don't understand corporate taxation. The UK's Office for Budget Responsibility predicts oil revenue will drop from this year to by 2017-18. So anything that will plug the gap is of course a boost, but I still don't think describing it as a massive boost is accurate. If revenue from oil and coal is falling, but shale gas revenue increases, how much would the net revenue be? Would the Government still be receiving the same level of revenue?
Quote by MidsCouple24
In the USA and Estonia they are enjoying cheaper electricity as a direct result of the cheap gas, don't ask me why I am just quoting the programme on ITV the other night that interviewed the people in the US
.
That may be so. But I guess I'm cynical, I don't believe that prices would drop significantly or even at all. Conversely I do believe that profits would go up.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Because if you can run your factory machinery and heating cheaper then you can lower the price of your products, many products require high heat to produce for example

As above.
Quote by MidsCouple24
I don't know why they have to be in the countryside but in Estonia they are and in the US they are, perhaps it is because they can rent the land from the farmers and because drilling in towns and cities may not get approval. The guy on TV who said we would need 100,000 locations was talking about the downside, but the locations they showed where the drilling had TAKEN place and were now pumping gas, were as I said so small you could fit them in sheds.

I would guess the reason why they are in the countryside in America is because of the vast area they have at their disposal. In Estonia's case I would suggest that they drill in the countryside because it doesn't affect the low population, 75 people per square mile, compared with England's 1054!
Quote by MidsCouple24
Estonia gets ALL its gas from fracking
No, it doesn't.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Tell that to ITV then they said they do

Read You will see that Estonia is indeed doing very well from shale oil, but they are not fracking. And there is not a single little log cabin in site!
Quote by MidsCouple24
The USA is getting more and more, in the US the mistakes have been made and we can learn from that, personally I think that legislated correctly we could benefit greatly from this.

Not everything is
Quote by MidsCouple24
So to Frack or not to Frack ?
1300 cubic metres of gas in the UK, 10% of which would supply all the UKs gas needs for 40 years, gas prices would drop, jobs would be created, perhaps more gas powered cars or machinery introduced to reap the cheaper benefits for this fuel.

The price would never drop, as we would have to pay for the fracking drill to be set up in the first place and then we would pay for it's continued running costs.
Quote by MidsCouple24
A massive boost to the UK taxman in revenue
VAT from the end user would still be the same at 5%. Corporate taxes are beyond me, but i don't think there would be enough of a boot to be described as 'massive' considering that other energy methods such as coal and north ea gas would be drawndown and therefore contributing less to the corporation.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Cheaper electricity
Prove it.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Cheaper manufacturing
Based on what?
Extra revenue for the farmers who own the land the rigs are placed on.
Very true that there would be extra revenue for the land owners. However most farmers rent the land, so surely the land owner would benefit more?
Quote by MidsCouple24
Sounds great.
Certainly does.
Quote by MidsCouple24
But the downside, 100,000 drilling sites would be needed to get the 10% we need, spread all over the UK countryside.
When you say drilling sites do you mean actual sites, or individual drills? And why would they all be in the countryside? surely some gas would be available in inner city brownfield sites? or is it just yet more scaremongering?
Quote by MidsCouple24
Possible water contamination in some areas.
Which areas? What is the probability? and how would the water contamination occur?
Quote by MidsCouple24
Blotches/scars on the landscape
Worse than quarries, open pits and factories?
Quote by MidsCouple24
The downside for the most part could be avoided.
Agreed.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Triple casing on pipes prevents water contamination
So wouldn't this prevent
Quote by MidsCouple24
With so much money to be made/saved why cant we house those ugly pumps in pretty little log cabins so the landscape still looks rural ?
Agreed, providing 200 foot tall log cabins aren't considered unsightly.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Estonia gets ALL its gas from fracking
No, it doesn't.
Quote by MidsCouple24
The USA is getting more and more, in the US the mistakes have been made and we can learn from that, personally I think that legislated correctly we could benefit greatly from this.
Agreed.
Quote by Toots
I've given it absolutely no thought, it's nothing to do with me, I have no say in any of it so I really don't care.
.
I think that is the attitude of many people, English and Scotish alike.
We moved to Devon two years ago from the far and frozen north of Scotland. During the time we lived up there we had a fantastic time and made some great friends. During our time up there we did notice that the closer you got to the border the more anti English sentiment there was, conversely five hours north of the Border where we lived there was barely any anti English sentiment.
Had we remained up there, then the two of us, both English would have been entitled to vote over the future of Scotland, but more importantly the United Kingdom.
Much as I against the breaking up of the United Kingdom I think I would probably have voted yes.
However it would have to be a one way ticket to be fair. If independence were to be achieved after 300 years of union, and not be all they wished for; Then the people of Scotland should only be allowed to rejoin the union after a vote by the English in another 300 years time. bolt
Quote by MidsCouple24
I agree with the changing times, but didn't consider many of the African Nations because the ballots that hold many of those leaders in power are the subject of much debate about authenticity in the results and many more are Military Dictators.

Hitler's rise to power involved banning or preventing opposition. Stalin simply 'purged' people he saw as a threat to remove them. Surely the authenticity of their campaigns is not too dissimilar.
Both of them were also military dictators, as was Galtieri. Churchill certainly wasn't a military dictator, but Thatcher acted like she was lol
So maybe you should have considered the African and Eastern European leaders.
Quote by Jeffxxx_2009
wtf this todo with sw

:welcome: To the forums.
I would feel a little bit more comfortable answering your question if I knew what 'sw' meant?
I believe the Cambell had one advantage over the model T. It is capable of going downhill extremely fast.
The number one would be Doctor Who, followed in no particular order by lost in space, original BG and Land of the giants.
The world has changed and we no longer see people in the same way as we did 30-80 years ago. The advent of 24 hour news channels, freedom of the press, invasive research, and a more inquiring public that question rather than blindly accept what they are exposed to, has meant that the propaganda machines used by charismatic leaders of the past are no longer effective.
Lets be fair, 4 of the 5 mentioned had the press in their pocket and were able to dictate what was and more importantly what wasn't reported. The only exception was Thatcher. If dictator's count as charismatic leaders then please feel free to look at almost every leader of African or Eastern European countries. Some of these have served as leaders of their countries for over 20 years with no serious opposition and have been elected and re-elected many times over.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Hitler
Stalin
Churchill
Thatcher
Galtieri
All have one thing in common, they were willing to go to war for what they believed and whilst widely hated they were loved by the majority for long periods

Perhaps I know the very man that fit's the bill: Tony Blair dunno
:welcome: To the forums and the site.
I'm sure that if you take on the excellent advice available you stand a good chance of having more luck than you seem to think.
Welcome to SH. To set up your mail preferences go to Settings> Privacy> Mail settings.
Unlike elsewhere this does not screen the unwanted categories from seeing your profile, but they won't be able to contact you via on site email.
we have had all sorts of meets, some where the guy doesnt want to talk at all to either of us and some when he wouldn't shut up. the most memorable was when a guy travelled down and stayed in a hotel, met Trev 4 hours later for a beer and after three hours of Friday night pubbing they come home for a threesome.
It was certainly different!
If I may venture an opinion without sounding extinct: We have always noticed that there is a direct link between cams and chat. If we don't show our cam no one chats. when we show our cam a lot of people chat and when Mrs T gets dressed to impress we cant stop people chatting.
The moral of the story is that no one chats if they aren't getting some form of kick from it.. apart from us sad regulars.
I'm scared to venture an opinion in the forum these days after being declared extinct, but here goes anyway.
Nellie we will have to agree to disagree. We are looking forward to the kids going back to school. 9 weeks off is a hell of a grind on our own holiday from work, or asking grandparents to fill the gap.
We've been parents for 14 years and in that time we have never had one day when one of us hasn't been at home with our kids until this year.
We love our kids, but everyone needs space at times. Feel sorry and condescending for us all you want, but we can't wait for them to go back to school next week and let us settle into some normality.
Firstly... All parents do it. It's damn annoying but the truth is simple. We watch there programs when they leave the room.
If I may be presumptuous enough to venture an opinion I like Victorious, because the little redhead is super hot :twisted:
A nice thing to say. Neil was appreciated by many and grief is so often a singular feeling.
Quote by Rogue_Trader
If you take a fight to someone, don't be surprised if they come and bring the fight back to you!

Which is precisely why they have control of entry, ID cards, car permits, armed guards, patrols, dogs, turrets, police, search procedures, no personal weapons policies, as well a background intelligence and numerous other things.
In this case the security has failed because of the insider threat, a case of looking the wrong way if you will. However the danger on operations is expected, the danger of getting shot at point blank range by a medical professional from your own military behind the screen of security cannot reasonably be expected in my opinion.
In the spirit of what I said before, Hasan has been found guilty and will never walk the streets of America again or put people in danger again.
Quote by Rogue_Trader
Service men and women get paid to be in danger...it's a prerequisite of the job description. Civilians don't.

Servicemen and women do expect to be put in danger, that is quite right. However they don't expect it when they are in the confines of their own base, in their home country. They expect danger when deployed or carrying out any number of duties that carry greater risk than a civilian career, but should they really expect it when sat in a health centre?
I'm sure that Pvt Francheska Velez didn't expect to be put in danger under any circumstances. She was pregnant, and was shot while pleading with her killer not to kill her unborn child. They both died in what can only be described as an execution.
There may be doubts in your mind whether it was a fair trial, which I understand. However the facts are clear, Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 30 more. Who these people were are what their chosen career was is irrelevant under the circumstances.
I'm surprised that there would have been no alternative to trying him as a PW. The USA defines treason in its constitution as 'Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort' Surely his defence of 'acting as a war combatant in taking American soldiers lives' would have been enough?
Anyway, I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the federal justice system. However they have both been found guilty and neither of them will ever walk the streets of America again or put service men and women in danger.
I suppose I see this from a different angle. Admitting you are guilty is accepting responsibility for the crime.
Bales accepted responsibility and was tried by a jury.
Hasan refused to enter a plea; He chose to represent himself but failed to cross examine any witnesses or offer a defence case, defence witness or closing statement. He knew he faced the death penalty but rejected any opportunity to prevent execution.
On the face of it both cases appear to be very similar, but when you look deeper there are differences.
Ultimately Bales entered into a plea bargain and pleaded guilty, whereas Hasan didn't. By pleading guilty Bales was able to avoid the death penalty, whereas Hasan couldn't.
You are too far away for us to consider a meet with you, but hopefully you will find someone soon smile
Quote by GnV
...and a no fly zone worked in
Where?
Iraq?
Iran?
Afghanistan?
Libya?

Th only UN authorised no fly zones were in Bosnia in the 90's, Northern and southern Iraq from the mid 90's and Libya in 2011.
There has never been a no fly zone enforced against Iran or Afghanistan.
Firstly can I point out that a no fly zone is exactly that. It prevents the other country from using the airspace, it does not prevent movement of armour, troops or other types of ground unit.
To enforce a no fly zone requires a lot of effort. Firstly you will have to take out the enemy communication and C2 net. You will need to remove all airborne or ground based warning systems. There is also the trouble of surface to air missiles, ground based interception, not to mention the opposition air force.
Some of this effort will be achieved through the use of missiles, but some will still have to be the modern day Biggles. And Biggles will be supported by many other Airmen and Sailors who will all be put within reach of Syrian weapons to do there job.
Even when the no fly zone is enforced it will not stop ground based artillery throwing chemical shells over 15Km.
Just thought I ought to point that out.
Me: 2 trainers, 1 boots, 1 work pair, 2 formal pairs, 1 pair flip flops.
Mrs T: Over 50 pairs of 5 and six inch heels, countless other low heels, flats, trainers, boots, etc etc.