- Topics started: 2
- Total posts: 32
Long time no speak. I hope you’re holding up okay.
Just wanted to get your thoughts on something. I’m currently writing a section in my thesis regarding the role of dominant capital in the UK fracking conflict. One interesting thing about this empirical case study is that there are relatively few large publicly traded corporations directly invested in the UK’s dash for gas.
Instead, much of this investment has come from privately held corporations. For example, private equity firms such as the Carlyle Group (who manage $376 billion worth of assets globally) and Riverstone Holdings ($41 billion) invested in Cuadrilla’s exploration activities in Lancashire.
The privately owned petrochemicals conglomerate Ineos is another key player (sales in 2017 of $60bn and EBITDA close to $7bn). Ineos are aiming to drill their own wells to secure gas supplies for their petrochemicals business.
Anyway, I’m in the process of arguing that, to varying degrees, these private firms can be categorised as dominant capital owing to their size and ability to (re)shape the terrain of social reproduction. However, I’m aware that most CasP scholarship tends to reserve this label for large publicly listed corporations (e.g. those comprising the S&P 500). I’d be interested to hear people’s thoughts on this.