Seen elsewhere
Twitter
Support

 

Buy

Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« ECC on shale | Main | NRO wants help »
Monday
Dec102012

More shale nonsense

The Telegraph gets the whole reserves versus resources thing wrong. Again.

The British Geological Survey estimate there are 5.2 trillion cubic feet (150 billion cubic metres) of shale gas under the UK, 50 per cent more than conventional gas reserves and enough to power Britain for decades.

However it is not clear how much of that gas will actually be accessible.

The 150bcm figure is reserves. The bit we know is accessible at current prices. The resource figure is much bigger.

This mistake is repeated so often one starts to wonder if it is, well, a mistake.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (79)

This mistake is repeated so often one starts to wonder if it is, well, a mistake.

I wish that were true.

Modern journalists (and politicians) really ARE that stupid. They REALLY don't think that technical issues are something you need to get right....

Dec 10, 2012 at 11:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

I was going to say you have to wonder why so many of the ignorant greens are against any kind of fossil fuel that will make our lives better...but then remembered an interview on al beeb a few months ago where the presenter was interviewing some hard core green goon who was utterly opposed to ANY kind of fossil fuel regardless of Co2 footprint (or lack thereof).

Hence this is the real problem when dealing with the left. They oppose ANY kind of fossil fuel regardless of how many lives will be saved through lower power costs!

Mailman

Dec 10, 2012 at 11:09 PM | Unregistered Commentermailman

"Shale gas is not a game changer in the UK, a Government adviser has said," - this seems to imply impressive independent opinion but it really turns out to be from a biologist from a quango called The Committee on Climate Change!?

The only other energy "authority" quoted is Melissa Stark who seems to only see the downs sides in shale using a lot of water. Looking at her history in Accenture it seems she has a thing for bio-fuels as an alternative - so I begin to see a motivation to talk down the rival to her preferred energy path ;)

It really is quite impressive how simple minded the opposition has got in this subject. It seems that pointing to any change or requirement for effort is felt to be enough to damn shale since it is associated with the contaminant buzz word "Fossil".

Whereas renewables can get a free pass for monstrous crappy schemes to get pushed through as if the implied virtue of taking that path is enough to put up with anything even if virtually nothing comes in return.

The pro-shale argument should be heartened the anti argument sits on such poor grounding that really depends on low level conditioning.

The antis are clearly rattled - their strategy of "nudging" the public into gradually accepting crappy high cost energy schemes is getting a light shone on it by the possibilities of shale. The public are actually being made aware of a debate on energy. I think in Europe we are seeing some previous comfortable power bases lashing out against this possible energy enfranchisement of the little people, it will get worse I think. Interesting times.

Dec 10, 2012 at 11:29 PM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

The Leopard In The Basement any one that comes from Accenture is either lying or is incompetent , so with Melissa Stark you can take you pick and they both fit well.

Dec 11, 2012 at 12:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

mailman true some greens actual want an energy crises , for they feel that will give them the chance they want to force through their ideas that otherwise would stand no chance . And if you could come up with a infinity and eco friendly power source they would bitterly oppose it becasue it would get in the way of their political objectives .

Dec 11, 2012 at 12:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

I recall saying online elsewhere some years back that the worm would turn when the inevitable cost of green lunacy started making itself felt to the general population, who mostly didn't give a monkey's about "global warming" or "climate change". We're getting there now.

Fantasies are cheap, until you try to implement them.

Dec 11, 2012 at 12:25 AM | Registered Commenterwoodentop

This article must have a shot at the title of "the most disinformation per column inch" award, where on earth do they get the 5.2 trillion cubic feet figure from??

The controversial fuel source is forced out of the ground by “fracking”, which sees liquids pumped into rocks to push out the gas.

This is rubbish, the water plus sand plus one chemical (in the Bowland basin) is pumped in to fracture the rock, once the fracture is complete (35 mins to 24 hours max) the well consists of a pipe coming out of the ground through which gas flows for many years?
Energy secretary Ed Davey is expected to give the green light next week for the company involved, Cuadrilla, to resume operations.

The new office being set up to regulate shale gas will be issuing licenses to many more companies than just Cuadrilla.
Pontification by Kennedy:
Even at the most optimistic estimates, he said shale gas will only provide 10 per cent of the UK’s current gas demand.

What absolute tosh and he is no doubt well aware that Cuadrilla alone is forecasting a lot more than that.

Dec 11, 2012 at 12:26 AM | Registered CommenterDung

Hope I'm wrong, but Shale gas in the UK may be a damp squib. The Shale found in the USA is very different to EU shale unfortunately. It's a lot harder to frac for various technical reasons. for more info, check out Aurelian gas and what happened to them in Poland...

Dec 11, 2012 at 12:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Cooper

Mark Cooper

Sorry but your information is far from accurate mate. I have no idea about the Polish shale deposits but the Cuadrilla license area has already been drilled and fracked plus they have completed comprehensive seismic surveys of the area. The Bowland shale basisn is the best shale deposit so far discovered in the whole world.

Dec 11, 2012 at 12:34 AM | Registered CommenterDung

Dung, don't you mean the Bowland Shale is the "envy of the world"? Its British! Rah, Rah!

Dec 11, 2012 at 1:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

BB

You are not stupid whatever people say and so I always hoped that at some point you would start to engage in reasoned discussion on BH even if you still believed in CAGW.
Point me at a better known shale deposit than the Bowland Shale please?

Dec 11, 2012 at 2:06 AM | Registered CommenterDung

BB.
You really sound like you don't want shale gas to work for the UK economy. I have no idea why you would want us to fail as a nation; 'cos it really does feel like you do!
Perhaps we've been given a life-line isn't that worthy of some sensible consideration?
I don't see the current menu of renewables bringing anything to the table for us common people and, btw, I don't count subsidy-sucklers as contributing anything other than dropped crumbs to the hoi-poloi.
Shame on you, Sir or Madam, and all those like you who seem to get-off on seeing this country swirling down the pug-hole.
Some of us still feel proud to be British despite the current fashion to despise our very existence as an affront to 'decency'
You are now, IMVHO, beyond contempt.

Dec 11, 2012 at 2:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoyFOMR

Hey guys, lighten up.
Do I want shale to fail (hey that rhymes)? I don't believe in magic bullets and I don't believe that people who object to wind farms and solar panels are quietly going to accept fracking. I certainly wouldn't want to live nearby and I don't trust the process. I'd like to see the fracking companies bear the cost of extending the insurance of all those in the region against any risks, including pollution of aquifers (I read that your normal household insurance wont cover fracking). If there is money to be had, I very much doubt the government would use the revenue wisely. It is more likely to fritter it away and to deceive the country into living beyond its means for a few more years. If the currency were to rise as a result, that might not be so healthy... (dutch disease). And I don't like the CO₂ emissions.

Apart from that, I'm all for it!

Dec 11, 2012 at 3:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

Some of us still feel proud to be British despite the current fashion to despise our very existence as an affront to 'decency'
You are now, IMVHO, beyond contempt.

Dec 11, 2012 at 2:46 AM | RoyFOMR>>>>>

The BB troll isn't a British citizen, it says on another thread it lives on a mountain at 3000 metres above sea level.

Dec 11, 2012 at 3:37 AM | Registered CommenterRKS

Hey guys, lighten up.
Do I want shale to fail (hey that rhymes)? I don't believe in magic bullets and I don't believe that people who object to wind farms and solar panels are quietly going to accept fracking. I certainly wouldn't want to live nearby and I don't trust the process. I'd like to see the fracking companies bear the cost of extending the insurance of all those in the region against any risks, including pollution of aquifers (I read that your normal household insurance wont cover fracking). If there is money to be had, I very much doubt the government would use the revenue wisely. It is more likely to fritter it away and to deceive the country into living beyond its means for a few more years. If the currency were to rise as a result, that might not be so healthy... (dutch disease). And I don't like the CO₂ emissions.

Apart from that, I'm all for it!

Dec 11, 2012 at 3:18 AM | BitBucket>>>>>>

What a load of deliberately provocative and thread disrupting twaddle.

Dec 11, 2012 at 3:47 AM | Registered CommenterRKS

re reserve vs resource

BH: "This mistake is repeated so often one starts to wonder if it is, well, a mistake."

If I had the vote, I'd vote for 'mistake' repeatedly. :-)

This issue was discussed in a BH thread recently which was very helpful. It is easy for a lay person to think the two words are synonyms and that they can be used interchangeably. But a journalist... well, they make those mistakes too.

To illustrate the point here is a short clip about a similar mistake with language that journalists are fond of repeating, perhaps on purpose perhaps not.

Watch it to the end and don't forget, "a building can be evacuated. To evacuate a person is to give that person an enema." :D

Dec 11, 2012 at 4:24 AM | Unregistered CommentersHx

Bish,
With all due respect you need to tone down your criticism on this one. Go back and look at your own post "The beast of Blackpool". Look where Francis Egan, chief executive of Cuadrilla, says that anywhere between zero and 40 per cent of the gas in the ground could be recovered and at a cost well below present gas prices. If he is making a statement that recoveries could be between zero and 40% it is because he doesn't know what the actual recoveries are. By definition a reserve means a demonstrable volume that is economically recoverable. Not Cuadrilla nor the BGS have sufficient data to define true reserves in the Bowland Basin at the present point in time. The best you are going to get an indicated resource estimate.

Dec 11, 2012 at 7:01 AM | Unregistered Commenternvw

The official UK government position on fracking is:

"On 23 May 2011 the Energy and Climate Change Committee published its Fifth Report of Session 2010-12, covering the inquiry into Shale Gas [HC 795]. They took evidence from Government, regulators, the British Geological Survey, the oil and gas industry and environmental groups. The committee concluded that the process for extracting shale gas - by fracturing the ground using high-pressure water, or “fracking” – did not pose a significant risk to water supplies from underground aquifers provided the drilling wells are constructed properly, that that any risks that do arise are related to the integrity of the well, and are no different to issues encountered when exploring for hydrocarbons in conventional geological formations."

Nice to see when people actually listen to evidence and reach a sensible, considered view on something. Hype about fracking causing pollution of aquifiers is misplaced (these shales are 2 - 3 km below ground, way below the freshwater table). Small earthquakes can be measured, because if the earth is fractured or deformed then microseismic activity will be recorded. Would you be able to feel it? No. Typical microseismic from fracking would be Richter 2.5 or less, usually not felt, but can be recorded by a seismograph. A car or lorry passing your house on the road is far more significant.

Dec 11, 2012 at 7:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

NVW

I always appreciate it when people tell me I'm overdoing things. It's easy to work oneself up!

On this occasion, I have criticised only the journalist who has got the reserves/resources thing mixed up. This is different to the question of whether shale is a game changer. I think the Cuadrilla statement is very sensible. We should be talking in terms of a probable game changer.

Dec 11, 2012 at 8:06 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Whoever wrote this article is a technical ignoramus.

Gas pressure pushes the gas out of the ground. The liquid fractures the rock reducing the diffusion distance to a path to the surface.

Horizontal drilling means one well head can deal with many wells.

Dec 11, 2012 at 8:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlecM

Dung, don't you mean the Bowland Shale is the "envy of the world"? Its British! Rah, Rah!
Dec 11, 2012 at 1:00 AM BitBucket

BB - you give the impression of becoming ever more bitter and twisted.

Dec 11, 2012 at 9:22 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

@Dung
I've tested 100's of exploration gas wells over 30 years and know the process inside out.
All shale has gas trapped in it, but creating the fractures that join the gas bubbles together is NOT easy and more often that not it goes wrong. Caudrilla did NOT test their exploration well so they do not know how much gas it could produce, or at what rate of sustainable production. I could write a 20 page explanation detailing the problems with shale gas, but since this is a comment on a blog I'll restrict it to stating that the chances are high that Lancashire shale gas will be non-commercial.

Dec 11, 2012 at 9:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Cooper

The "most viewed" side panel on this Barclay Brothers Beano article is loaded with alarmist pronouncements (here anyway).

Having examined the "most viewed" in a number of MSM web sites - they seem to be strange beasts and certainly not straightforward hit meters.. It would seem that they are a disingenuous composite of hits and stuff scored from editorial guidelines. The most egregious offenders in the "most viewed" stakes are Newsquest UK - a subsidiary of US "Federal Publishers" Gannet Corp.

I'd like to see the editorial guidelines.... There must be a reason that Loubie Loo Grey keeps her Herman Miller chair ....

Dec 11, 2012 at 9:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterTomO

@Mark Cooper - so are you saying that it's not worth trying and quantifying if it's viable? That does seem a rather odd position for an exploration driller.... (30 years + Oil & Gas here too)

The "most viewed" side panel on this Barclay Brothers Beano article is loaded with alarmist pronouncements (here anyway).

Having examined the "most viewed" in a number of MSM web sites - they seem to be strange beasts and certainly not straightforward hit meters.. It would seem that they are a disingenuous composite of hits and stuff scored from editorial guidelines. The most egregious offenders in the "most viewed" stakes are Newsquest UK - a subsidiary of US "Federal Publishers" Gannet Corp.

I'd like to see the editorial guidelines.... There must be a reason that Loubie Loo Grey keeps her Herman Miller chair ....

Dec 11, 2012 at 9:55 AM | Registered Commentertomo

@tomo
I'm VERY enthusiastic about shale gas exploration. I hope it will be successful in the UK/EU as much as it has been in the USA. But the geology of US shale is entirely different to Europe.

I really hope Caudrilla are successful with their drilling campaign,but suggest caution to all the pundits who are raving about this gas being the solution to the upcoming UK energy crisis. (This is a very real disaster looming on the horizon- I remember doing my homework by candlelight in the 70's and dread the return of controlled power cuts)

Dec 11, 2012 at 10:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Cooper

Just a quick check at 8 am today on the coldest day this year so far..... total electricity demand 50GW. This is supplied by 24GW of coal, 17 GW of gas, 8 GW of nuclear and..... 0.23GW of wind. Yes, you read that correctly, 0.23GW or one half of one percent.

Dec 11, 2012 at 10:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterJonathan Paget

Jonathan: Don't forget the huge amount of solar power that will be being delivered on top of all that wind!

Dec 11, 2012 at 10:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Yes, you read that correctly, 0.23GW or one half of one percent.
Obvious answer, Jonathan. Build lots more wind farms!

Dec 11, 2012 at 10:57 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Mark Cooper

Your words of caution are appreciated, but the 'different' US and European shale claim is puzzling, especially since in the Early Carboniferous the North Atlantic didnt exist, and the two continents were one. A lithologic description of the Bowland Shale is here

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?pub=bsg

Dec 11, 2012 at 10:57 AM | Registered CommenterPharos

Hey guys, lighten up.
Do I want shale to fail (hey that rhymes)? I don't believe in magic bullets and I don't believe that people who object to wind farms and solar panels are quietly going to accept fracking. I certainly wouldn't want to live nearby and I don't trust the process. I'd like to see the fracking companies bear the cost of extending the insurance of all those in the region against any risks, including pollution of aquifers (I read that your normal household insurance wont cover fracking). If there is money to be had, I very much doubt the government would use the revenue wisely. It is more likely to fritter it away and to deceive the country into living beyond its means for a few more years. If the currency were to rise as a result, that might not be so healthy... (dutch disease). And I don't like the CO₂ emissions.

Apart from that, I'm all for it!

Dec 11, 2012 at 3:18 AM | BitBucket

I agree with RKS. On the other hand, your comments are based upon on wee tiny flaw..............the arrogant presumption that CO2, as emitted by nature, & human activity like breathing & living in general, & all those other downsides, is actually causing a problem, when there is very little peer reviewed science that demonstrates that it is or does! The arrogance is that you & all the rest of the warmists claim that it is & does, that is all! As a Chartered Engineer I am still awaiting the presentation of significant & substantial emperical evidence in support of the claim other than output of puter models & the Precautionary Principle!!! The warmists have been searching for the "hot-spot" in the lower troposphere, where it is agreed by both sides that the evidence for human global warming will manifest itself, for well over 20 years, the only place it exists is in said models! Just how many years must there be of "no warming" before they sit up & take note, & then question themselves as to whether they are down the right track? That is something engineers do at the very early stages of a design project so that they can save waste of effort, time, & money!

Dec 11, 2012 at 11:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan the Brit

Been watching the Shale Gas session before Yeo's Energy and Climate Change Committee all morning. As I write we have Jenny Banks, Energy and Climate Policy Officer for WWF UK, Professor Kevin Anderson from the Tyndal Centre, Manchester, and Tony Bosworth (Climate Change Campaigner) from Friends of the Earth.

They are saying:

1. People prefer windfarms to fracking
2. Industry figures for shale finds are three times the reality
3. Getting the gas in Lancashire will require a "lot more" than 800 wells and the impact will be serious
4. There is massive uncertainty as to what damage will be caused in respect of earth tremors and water pollution. Lots of lorries, etc.
5. We have no way of knowing what yields we will get until its done - i.e. we would frack without any idea what we were going to get out of it.
6. Using shale is a breach of our climate change commitments and shale has no role whatever to play even as a transitional fuel towards more remewables in the future.
7. There should be a higher carbon price to correct the fall in coal prices that have resulted from shale availability in the US.
8. The carbon price is currently too low and it must be higher to attract investors.
9. Policy must require as a minimum 50g of CO2 per KWh by 2030.

Previously we had two industry representatives and an economist who were saying that shale can provide 1/4 of our gas energy needs, contribute to energy security, save us billions in the costs of importing gas, and allow us to regulate here.

Anyway it goes on but I have to go out.

Dec 11, 2012 at 11:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterRB

Hello Mark Cooper,

Concerning Aurelian Gas - can you link to something we can read please.

Thank you.

Dec 11, 2012 at 11:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterJack Cowper

Alan the Brit; Like all metallurgists who have worked in the process industries, I developed the practical use of GHGs for heat transfer long before most 'climate scientists' were born. Unless the GHG thermal emission from the atmosphere annihilated the same wavelength surface emission, there could be no radiative thermal equilibrium!

Dec 11, 2012 at 11:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlecM

Question:
On what basis do WWF and FoE (more properly known as Enemies of Humanity) have any standing in front of a Commons Committee dealing with energy matters?
Has anyone enquired what relevant insights they bring to the science of fracking?
Is it worth posing these questions to our MPs (I should more properly say, "your" MPs since La France Profonde isn't represented in the Commons!) and in particular to those who are members of this Committee?
In particular, referring to the points RB raises ...
1. Would people prefer fracking to freezing?
2. Where is the evidence that industry figures for shale finds are three times the reality?
3. Why do they know better than Cuadrilla (et al) how many wells will be needed or what the impact will be? (As a side issue, see point 2. If they're right on one, they're wrong on the other)
4. There is massive very little uncertainty as to what damage will be caused in respect of earth tremors and water pollution. This is just eco-activists scaremongering.
5. We have no way of knowing what yields we will get until its done - i.e. we would frack without any idea what we were going to get out of it. - which is Cuadrilla's problem. The upside is worth it.
6. Using shale is a breach of our climate change commitments and shale has no role whatever to play even as a transitional fuel towards more remewables in the future. Bollocks.
7. There should be a higher carbon price to correct the fall in coal prices that have resulted from shale availability in the US. Also bollocks
8. The carbon price is currently too low and it must be higher to attract investors. And again.
9. Policy must require as a minimum 50g of CO2 per KWh by 2030. The people do not elect their MPs to have the future of their country's prosperity decided on the scientifically unsubstantiated whims of eco-activists.
My own view is that that last point plus the question of why environmental NGOs should even be being asked for their opinions on government's energy policy are questions that MPs might just be prepared to listen to.
I am also coming round to the view that the time might be just about right to think about decoupling the whole climate change argument from the question of reliability of energy. My response to Jonathan Paget above is the sort of ridiculous answer he would get from some of the more swivel-eyed eco-loons and maybe the time has also come to try a bit of well-deserved ridicule as well!

Dec 11, 2012 at 11:49 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Mike, those NGOs are not only being asked to give evidence, they are being funded to do so by government and EU money. The lobbying closed cycle is the only cycle that is fully described and understood in the whole of climate science and policy.

Dec 11, 2012 at 11:55 AM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

Mike Jackson: I am developing a different way of looking at the shared delusion of people who are WWF and FoE activists. They are generally low on technological knowledge and supporters of open access to drugs like cannabis hence have impaired cerebral activity. My working hypothesis is that they believe that if we had lots of windmills it would force offshore the competitive society they struggle to master

Dec 11, 2012 at 11:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlecM

Yes, you read that correctly, 0.23GW or one half of one percent.

It is now 0.124 or one fifth of one percent.

Dec 11, 2012 at 1:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Melissa Stark from Accenture (who they?) seems to think Shale gas uses large quantities of water. But shale gas extraction uses 10 times less water per unit of energy than coal extraction, and 1000 times less water than her beloved biofuels. With shale gas extraction in the US much of the water is recycled.

A lot of drivel has also been talked about methane emissions from shale gas wells. However two recent studies directly address a claim from last year when some Cornell scientists asserted that natural gas from shale produces more lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal. The scientists blamed “fugitive” methane emissions said to escape during the recovery of the gas. These claims have now been debunked in a number of recent scientific studies.

You would have thought that a paper like the Telegraph would have researched these basic facts before publishing this article.

Dec 11, 2012 at 1:04 PM | Unregistered Commenterwellers

MJ

"On what basis do WWF and FoE (more properly known as Enemies of Humanity) have any standing in front of a Commons Committee dealing with energy matters?"

Fair question, and one it would be good to hear from a member of the committee. Were they invited and, if so, why?. They are, effectively, trolls.

Dec 11, 2012 at 1:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

rhoda
Maybe that is something that also ought to be brought to the attention of MPs.
Are they indeed aware that groups of self-selected activists with an agenda are using part of the grant they get from government to argue —in front of a Committee of the British parliament — on no scientific basis whatever for an energy policy which does not and never will command the support of even a substantial minority of the British electorate, let alone a majority, and which would (if implemented) place the UK at a severe economic disadvantage vis-a-vis most of the rest of the developed world and cause considerable hardship to many poor and elderly in their own constituencies?

Since other ordinary members of the public (and we should remind both MPs and the eco-warriors themselves that they are only ordinary members of the public — something which if done effectively would have the added effect of pissing them off mightily!) do not have the privileged opportunity given to these opinionated charlatans, would the Honourable Member, etc.,etc?
The time has surely come for a letter-writing campaign, which will eventually have an effect provided it's couched in the right terms and sticks pretty close to the known facts.

Dec 11, 2012 at 1:24 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Wellers at 1.04pm "You would have thought that a paper like the Telegraph would have researched these basic facts before publishing this article."

No, I wouldn't.

Dec 11, 2012 at 1:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Fowle

Mike Fowle
No. Nor me, I regret to say!
A once great newspaper disappears un-mourned down the intellectual drain.

Dec 11, 2012 at 2:17 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Mark Cooper Dec 11, 2012 at 9:33 AM |

I could write a 20 page explanation detailing the problems with shale gas, but since this is a comment on a blog (…).

Please do so and put it in pdf. I'll certainly download a copy and I'm sure that goes for a lot of folk here.

Dec 11, 2012 at 2:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn in France

@Wellers,

Louise Gray is notorious for articles which are WWF etc press releases with a bit of topping and tailing..

It's a fair accusation that the papers have moved to churnalism rather than jourrnalism, relying on press releases uncritically, and copying each other without checking and so engaging in Chinese Whispers. It's easy to get the impression that many journalists have only the most superficial knowledge of the subjects they write about.

This is but one example, and not a rare exception.

Dec 11, 2012 at 2:27 PM | Unregistered Commentercosmic

guido says YEO is SUPPORTING fracking... wonder why ?

Dec 11, 2012 at 2:51 PM | Unregistered Commenterconfused

confused, I think Guido went up a bit of a blind alley with that one. The connection is supposedly ITI Energy, a company involved in unconventional gas. In fact, ITI makes gasification equipment to generate gas from waste, landfill, cow poo etc. and is firmly in the renewables camp. Most of their equipment is in the micro-generation (<1MW) arena.

Dec 11, 2012 at 3:10 PM | Unregistered Commenterstun

Channel 4 tonight (Tuesday 11th Dec.) -Is Our Weather Getting Worse? Starts at 8pm.

Dec 11, 2012 at 3:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaul

Is Our Weather Getting Worse?

Yes.

It's December.

Dec 11, 2012 at 3:52 PM | Unregistered Commentersteveta

Steveta, thank you for my best laugh of the day.

Dec 11, 2012 at 3:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Fowle

I suggest that the probable reason why Yeo is backing shale gas is because he is open to more NEDs

Dec 11, 2012 at 3:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlecM

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>