Geologists Say UK Shale Deposits Hold Vast Energy Reserves

Let the Fracking Begin! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-04-22 22:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

After all, the Thames estuary can't be hurt by a few anthropogenic earthquakes, now? Can it?

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Re:Let the Fracking Begin! by rainmouse · 2012-04-22 22:51 · Score: 3, Informative

After all, the Thames estuary can't be hurt by a few anthropogenic earthquakes, now? Can it?
Considering the majority of the gas reserves are in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland it seems unlikely that London (seemingly the only city in the UK that most have heard of) will suffer any form of earth quakes, though they may well lose out if Scotland is granted their independence in 2014 when the vote comes.

What about impact on environment by siddesu · 2012-04-22 22:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Shale gas and oil is still fossil fuel, and we are still threatened by climate changes due to the increase of greenhouse gases, aren't we? Or is the Sun going to dim and save us all?

Re:What about impact on environment by PhilHibbs · 2012-04-23 00:10 · Score: 2

Fossils ? You think that there has been enough biomass to create this much gas.
Yes. I do think that.

There's a reason it's called Natural Gas, nothing to do with dead flora and fauna.
Plants and animals are part of what is usually referred to as "nature". Prior to life appearing on the planet, there was 1,000 times as much methane in the atmosphere than there is now. Over the last 3 billion years, life has been extracting carbon from the atmosphere and depositing it under the earth in the form of coal, oil, and methane. I think that some of the methane underground is abiotic, but most is indeed "fossil fuel".

Too late about climate change by arcite · 2012-04-22 22:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

Climate change is here and now. The Earth is already irretrievably changed from the state it was in even one hundred years ago. We must make the best of a bad situation. Greater energy efficiency would be a good way to start.

Re:Too late about climate change by siddesu · 2012-04-22 22:51 · Score: 2

And that is exactly the problem, although lighting is a small part of it. Efficiency will require retooling and refurbishing most of the economy and industry. This will require not only new technology, but also enormous capital and energy expenditure and serious financial incentives.
It seems we have plenty in the way of incentives for efficient extraction provided by the oil and gas market itself already, but the incentives to save energy and resources for a better future are just not there, neither in the developed, nor in the developing world. Not until it is too late, at least.
Re:Too late about climate change by AmiMoJo · 2012-04-22 23:56 · Score: 4, Informative

Efficiency will require retooling and refurbishing most of the economy and industry.
Not really, many of the big savings will come naturally as things like light bulbs and vehicles reach their end of life and are replaced. With rising energy costs replacing or upgrading other equipment is becoming the most economically sensible thing to do already.
A lot of people seem to think that green policies are focused on forcing them to change, but actually they are mostly about providing good options when change comes along. Need a new car? There are plenty of efficient models out there now.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Re:Dig baby dig! by siddesu · 2012-04-22 22:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

The only hope is to develop alternatives that do not require burning of precious resources for energy. Given the many irreplaceable uses that oil and gas have beyond energy, not investing enough into research of safe and plentiful alternatives seems like a much bigger folly than even tolerating Khamenei, Chavez or even Putkin.

You, too by Sez+Zero · 2012-04-22 22:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Congrats! You too can have tap water that catches fire.

Re:You, too by sFurbo · 2012-04-22 23:24 · Score: 2

Congrats! Now you, too, can watch agenda-pushing disguised as documentaries!
Re:You, too by sFurbo · 2012-04-23 01:20 · Score: 3, Informative

They didn't fake it, and people didn't lie, but in at least one of the examples in Gasland, the methane have been shown to be naturally occuring, a fact that they somehow forgot to mention in the film. What probably happened is that people have had flammable water for years and years, but have never tested it. How often do you test your water for flammability? After talk started about fracking and water pollution, people in fracking areas have started testing it. They can see that they have flammable water now, and they have never seen it before, what is the natural conclusion? It must be caused by fracking.

Burning water is a red herring in the fracking debate. I understand why people like it, it is very effective demonstration, but problems with fracking is unlikely to show up as flammable water. To keep bringing it up will make it harder to discuss the problems which fracking is likely to cause, and harder to fight the practises which causes these problems.

FTW! Frack The World! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-04-22 22:41 · Score: 2

Let's hope that the World doesn't crack . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_in_the_world

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!

Bigger Problems Than That by eldavojohn · 2012-04-22 22:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

After all, the Thames estuary can't be hurt by a few anthropogenic earthquakes, now? Can it?

I'd be far more worried about the water laced with sand and chemicals that is shot down into the Earth to release this gas from the shale. They can't leave it down there for fear of it seeping into the water table and when they suck it up, what do they do with it? And in some US states, it appears that when people think they are affected by it the company responsible doesn't have to tell them what their area was exposed to. It's well known that it contaminates water supply but greed can overpower any environmental problems. Luckily we should be able to watch Pennsylvania screw up their own water and hopefully other states will take a different approach.

I wonder how many laws and regulations UKELA will let slide in order for England to "catapult into the top ranks of global producers."

--
My work here is dung.

Re:Bigger Problems Than That by sFurbo · 2012-04-22 23:12 · Score: 5, Informative

They can't leave it down there for fear of it seeping into the water table and when they suck it up, what do they do with it?

Given that it is pumped into oil/gas-carrying rock, it will not seep into the water table. If it could, the oil or gas would be long gone. The problem is that you must pump some of it out to get acces to the oil or gas, and even if it was pure water you pumped down, the water coming up has been in contact with oil and is not clean. With horizontal drilling, you end up with quite a lot of dirty water, and no good way to get rid of it. Another problem is the casing of the pipes going down. It seems to be hard to make sure it is done properly, and if it isn't, you risk the pipe breaking and the fracking fluid running out. As the pipes are necessarily drilled through the aquifer, this is clearly problematic.

It's well known that it contaminates water supply

We have established it in one case with quite a special geologic profile (the fracking happened much closer to the surface than normal). That is a far cry from it being an established, general problem. It is cause for concern, especially for shallow fracking, but I think the two problems I mentioned first are more acute.
Re:Bigger Problems Than That by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-22 23:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Given that it is pumped into oil/gas-carrying rock, it will not seep into the water table. If it could, the oil or gas would be long gone.
Hydraulic fracturing. That oil/gas-carrying rock is fractured in the process. You will state that there is no chance this is released upward or will ultimate find its way upward?
Re:Bigger Problems Than That by sFurbo · 2012-04-22 23:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

Through kilometers of rock that has held gas for millenia? While "no chance" is extreme, I would say that there are far more relevant concerns with regards to fracking.
Re:Bigger Problems Than That by Sarten-X · 2012-04-22 23:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

Through 7 kilometers (4 miles) of rock that's resistant enough to breaking that we drill around it? Through strata that tend to separate horizontally, rather than vertically? There is a chance, but it's roughly the same as the chance that politicians will ever actually talk about the realistic problems with fracking (waste disposal, mostly) rather than the fearmongering (contamination, "peak energy") that's effectively unsupported by any scientific studies.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:Bigger Problems Than That by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-23 00:10 · Score: 4, Informative

England isn't the UK. Most of the reserves are off the coast of Scotland.
Re:Bigger Problems Than That by denzo · 2012-04-23 00:36 · Score: 5, Informative

I'd be far more worried about the water laced with sand and chemicals that is shot down into the Earth to release this gas from the shale. They can't leave it down there for fear of it seeping into the water table and when they suck it up, what do they do with it?

First, let me put out there that I Am A Frac Engineer (IAAFE), so take what I am about to say for what that's worth...
Sand (or other suitable grain material, known as "proppant") is pumped into a hydrocarbon-bearing formation to keep induced fractures propped open after frac operations have finished, so that such fractures do not close up (negating the effects of creating the fractures in the first place). Sand keeps that "highway" open from the fracture network in the formation to the wellbore, so that oil and gas can freely flow to the production tubulars and up to the surface. I assure you that the intention, by design, is to *keep* the sand in the formation, not "suck it back up".
The best frac fluid by far (for optimum oil and gas production) is plain freshwater with no additives whatsoever. However, in the real world various additives are necessary to make fracturing possible: anti-clay swelling agents (NaCl, KCl) are needed to keep clays in the formation rock from swelling up and closing up pore throats, acrylamide polymers are needed to reduce the pipe friction of water at fracturing rates so that surface pressures are minimized, surfactants are used to reduce the surface tension of the water so that the water does not block up the pores and fissures by capillary effects, guar gum is used to gel up the water so that sands don't settle out of the water too soon (causing the sand to bridge off and block flow), etc. The total concentration of chemical additives used in the frac fluid usually does not exceed 0.5% by volume, and at those concentrations are relatively benign.
Frac fluids are flowed back naturally to surface, not "sucked up". The reason they are flowed back is that, well, you can't immediately tie the well to a sales line and start selling it until the produced fluids meet a certain quality. The first fluids that flow back out are the last you put in (LIFO), so by extension the frac fluid would be the first fluids back to surface (and they aren't worth anything to any gas pipeline companies or oil refiners), so they must be stored in a tank and hauled off to wherever it goes (either disposed of in a permitted waste disposal well, or recycled for other frac jobs).

It's well known that it contaminates water supply but greed can overpower any environmental problems.
No, it is not a well-known fact. It is presumed in some cases, but not proven. The link you cited has many other factors that have contributed to water contamination, including the shallowness of the hydrocarbon-bearing formation, and the fact that surface retention pits were largely unregulated for a certain period of time. Surface pollution *is* well known to cause water contamination. Engineers and geologists also know that if your hydrocarbon-bearing formation is within a few hundred feet of a water table, that hydraulically-induced fractures *can* propagate into them. There are a few scientific methods for measuring hydraulically-induced fracture growth, which have been utilized in every active shale play in the United States.
Re:Bigger Problems Than That by PopeRatzo · 2012-04-23 01:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

Given that it is pumped into oil/gas-carrying rock, it will not seep into the water table.

Start the countdown to the news announcement that fracking is really "healthy for the Earth" along with pictures of children planting flowers around the site.
There's a guy from some energy corp-funded "Family Council on Freedom, Prosperity and Liberty for Families" who's written a book and doing the circuit of schools and right-wing media and church groups who explains how fossil fuels are just "chewed up plant matter" which is "food for our society" and the fact that it's "chewed up plant matter" is proof that you can't get energy from the sun. Or something. He's a Texan (natch) and has a down-homey way of speech, sort of like if Will Rogers was one of the Koch Brothers.
Fracking - what could go wrong?

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Bigger Problems Than That by 10101001+10101001 · 2012-04-23 02:15 · Score: 2

Well, I guess the question then becomes, is this strata similar to, say, shatter-resistant glass? And if so, what do you imagine would happen if you first (a) drilled through several separate panes/layers of shatter-resistant glass over a lower chamber of gas and then (b) stared pumping water into that chamber greatly increasing the pressure, even if it's for a short time, then sucking out the gas and water greatly decreasing the pressure? I mean, I recognize rock is a lot harder than glass. But, if drilling fractures rock along the way and there's a sudden shift in pressure, I could certainly see that that causing a bubbling up of gas and waste water. I mean, as I understand it, things like gysers function, although that's admittedly only on the order of 2 kilometers, and I can readily see that making a huge difference. Then again, gysers are a byproduct of water seeping down naturally then up which I'd presume limit both the time scale and the likely depth while forcing water down much further might have a rather different effect.
Having said all that, yes, waste disposal is probably a bigger issue anyways, given I'd presume that's of a much larger volume.

--
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Re:Bigger Problems Than That by ColdWetDog · 2012-04-23 02:33 · Score: 3, Informative

Nice description but I think it would be better as a car analogy....
The one bit that you didn't mention (on top of 100+ years of the minutia of drilling technology) is the casing. That seems to be where many of the problems have occurred (the other is bad water disposal practices - mostly a political issue rather than a technical one). As the well is drilled, pieces of pipe are dropped in to create an open bore. It isn't just one giant piece of metal, it's a series of tubes. Of different sizes and types. They are sealed via several methods but the most problematic one is cementing. It is a complicated, expensive process and, in fact, the primary reason that the Macondo well failed.
If you don't cement properly stuff leaks out. Hydrocarbons, all the icky stuff in the fracking fluid. Drilling mud (which isn't so terribly benign by itself).
IANACI (I am not a cementing engineer) but from my limited petrogeology courses a billion years ago and my reading of the issue it's like many complex, high tech things - you can take the time and money to do it right, or you can cheat and try to cheap out. Which often works, but when it fails, it makes an unholy mess.
Fracking is one of those things that needs to be done correctly. All of the time. It can be done, it has been done in many places (Horizontal fracturing has been done extensively for 50+ years and is only now the current boggie man). There are places where it can be done (relatively) safely. There are places where it shouldn't be done at all and all manner in between.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Bigger Problems Than That by sribe · 2012-04-23 03:09 · Score: 2

You still have layers upon layers of rock on top that is just as it was, except with a bore hole through one point.
Maybe, or maybe those layers are not actually quite just as they were before. Also, some of the aquifers go really deep, and there's plenty of migration through some of those "layers upon layers of rock". And of course you also need to claim that after the earthquakes, all those layers will still be intact. That's quite a succession of dependent claims to assert...
Re:Bigger Problems Than That by sFurbo · 2012-04-23 03:48 · Score: 2

The most significant source of potential contamination of groundwater [...] is from human activities on the surface such as agriculture and surface industry [...]
Or oil drilling operations on the surface. Which is my entire point: If an oil or gas well is going to pollute the surrounding area, the pollution will probably originate from the above-ground activity. Focusing on fracking misses the most likely point of pollution.
Re:Bigger Problems Than That by MightyMartian · 2012-04-23 06:53 · Score: 2

First of all, I'm not British, so I have no particular horse in the race. But the facts themselves speak volumes:
1. No poll has ever put support anywhere close to 50 percent.
2. The SNP's successes have come in large part because of the decline in Labour support.
3. Considering point 2, one cannot thus assume that support for independence is equal to that of support for the SNP. The SNP appears to be the equivalent of the Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois in Quebec, a placeholder party for the so-called "soft nationalists".
4. There are no lack of hotheads in England and Scotland making rude noises at each other, but there's no indication that general sentiment can be gauged by the usual gang of lunatics.
My feeling is that the UK is heading slowly (and awkwardly) towards becoming a federated state; more in the model of Canada or Germany. It probably should have been done three hundred years ago, but I don't think political science had quite evolved to the point where one could fathom a federal government with internal states holding some limited sovereignty. The best example they had at the time was the Holy Roman Empire, which had basically rendered the central government nothing more than a fancy dress party.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Re:Dig baby dig! by simoncpu+was+here · 2012-04-22 22:45 · Score: 2

Yepp, China is currently bullying the Philippines so that they can steal oil from the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal.

Fracking is here to stay. by Karmashock · 2012-04-22 22:46 · Score: 5, Informative

Get used to it. This is one of those technologies we can't afford not to exploit.

The people most enthusiastic about it are the eastern Europeans... it means freedom from Russian energy supplies. And I suspect the Israelis are looking into it rather deeply now that the Egyptians are interfering with their natural gas supply.

This technology is going to mean liberation and stability for nations... against those pros you're going to need some substantive cons.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.

Re:Fracking is here to stay. by msobkow · 2012-04-22 23:05 · Score: 2

You mean cons like pollution of the ground water, causing minor earthquakes, and being left with hundreds of thousands or millions of gallons of polluted material that you need to do something with?
If we spent a tenth of what we do on exploration and "extraction technology" on the development of bio-diesel crops such as cannabis and canola, we'd not only free ourselves from dependency on oil and gas reserves, we'd be using a fuel that actually consumes CO2 during it's growth phase.
Some even claim that hemp-based bio-diesel is carbon negative when you consider the full production cycle, and I'd dearly love to see that theory tested.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Re:Fracking is here to stay. by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-04-23 01:03 · Score: 2

Yeah we should totally convert our cropland to producing fuel to heat homesand move cars because people don't need to eat food.
Where do I sign up?

Britain is Back! by PacRim+Jim · 2012-04-22 22:48 · Score: 2

Might I suggest Britain's 21st-century slogan: Britain is back, baby!

Reserves != recoverable by DaveyJJ · 2012-04-22 22:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Ah, the mighty and breathless media not understanding (again) that reserves != recoverable. There's a lot of water on the planet but not much of it is actually drinkable or in a form available to drink. Furthermore, the process to remove said shale "gas" involves seismic activity and a nasty, nasty (and highly secret) brew of toxic chemicals.

--
DaveyJJ

Re:Irrelevant by The+Mighty+Buzzard · 2012-04-22 22:52 · Score: 4, Funny

I don't know about you but most of my ancestors are dead and on their way to trying to become fossil fuels.

--
Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.

Re:Where is this? by rainmouse · 2012-04-22 22:58 · Score: 3, Informative

Anyone know whether this would belong to Scotland or England should the UK break up?

It's a good question because despite most of the gas reserves are in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland, I've heard that England is currently laying claim to all territory off Scotland beyond 20 miles from the coast; Though as I cannot find a good citation, I cannot fully guarantee truth of this. Can anyone back this up or prove it false?

The WORLD has dodged a bullet (sort of) by wisebabo · 2012-04-22 23:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

Look I'm as concerned (and convinced) about environmental damage and global warming as anyone. But finding immense reserves of natural gas in the U.S. and now the UK can only be a good thing. It should buy us a few decades of relatively cheap, relatively low carbon producing (well at least compared to coal and oil shale) energy. If it's cheap enough (or if we aren't too cheap ourselves) we can use the energy to PULL CO2 from the atmosphere (I've heard a measly 10% increase in the cost of electricity would pay for it!).

Ok, if we insist on being idiots, we're still gonna get somewhat screwed by global warming, but hopefully we won't lose more than a few million species and displace no more than a few hundred million people (*SIGH*). The environmental damage from shale gas, while significant, is on a local level and the earthquakes are nothing to be afraid of (I'm from CA so I know earthquakes). Sorry for the low expectations but I'll take this as GOOD news.

The BEST thing about this is that we won't be supporting (as much) people who hate us and want to blow us up. (What is about this that Republicans don't understand? That SUVs = terrorists.) Also the jobs that are created will be on-shore (or just off-shore).

Re:Where is this? by rich_hudds · 2012-04-22 23:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm English and most of my fellow countrymen are quite happy for Scotland to be independent. Think it would do both countries a lot of good to be honest.

I worked in Glasgow for a while and found everyone perfectly pleasant, whenever a Scot works in England though they seem to get all chippy and resentful for some reason.

Think maybe you're confusing the English with the much smaller bunch of Londoners who dominate our media and other elites. Speaking as a Northerner who's worked in London I can guarantee that they are just as patronising to us as they probably are to you Scots.

Cheaper lighting - more used by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-22 23:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm trying to find the study - it was written about in the Economist a few months ago.

Anyway, what the study found - going all the way back when folks moved from candles to oil - to gas - light bulbs - is that as lighting becomes cheaper and more efficient, folks use more of it thereby negating any energy savings.

Here's one contemporary LED example: go into any home center (or open up an architecture magazine or kitchen design book) and go to the kitchen design area. You will notice in the design catalogs all those LED lights underneath cabinets and tucked into places no one would ever have considered a few years ago.

Re:Cheaper lighting - more used by icebraining · 2012-04-23 00:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

More bulbs doesn't necessarily mean more light. In fact, targeted lighting can use less energy, because you don't need to shove 150w into the main light in order to illuminate every corner well enough, if those have their own lights (that are only turned on when needed).

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:Cheaper lighting - more used by Opyros · 2012-04-23 03:36 · Score: 2

It sounds like you're talking about the Jevons paradox?

Re:Where is this? by Chrisq · 2012-04-22 23:43 · Score: 2

Think maybe you're confusing the English with the much smaller bunch of Londoners who dominate our media and other elites. Speaking as a Northerner who's worked in London I can guarantee that they are just as patronising to us as they probably are to you Scots.

I also know a number of Northerners who wish that the Scottish border would move south if Scotland got independence, as they are fed up of being governed by people who think the country stops at Watford (a couple of miles North of Greater London) and allocate spending accordingly.

I hope this doesn't mean... by PhilHibbs · 2012-04-22 23:44 · Score: 2, Funny

...that the US is going to invade us or bring about regime change!

Re:Where is this? by Wizard+Drongo · 2012-04-22 23:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

I wouldn't normally respond to such nonsense, but it irks me that someone else might read this and not know the truth:

1) Alex Salmond was democratically elected by the people of Scotland. How's that Cameron working out for you?

2) HBOS is made up of Bank of Scotland (in Scotland, strangely), and Halifax Building Society (almost all in England). BoS was very profitable, one of the last great retail banks. Halifax on the other hand was massively in debt, toxic nasty debt from overextending mortgages to anyone and everyone. This is why HBOS was bought "outright" by the Lloyds Group (under HM Govt. orders), instead of breaking it up into BoS and Halifax - it would have become clear that the debt was an English one and not a Scottish one, despite the Scottish name. If Scotland had been independent, under international law, we'd have had to account for the assets in Scotland, and their debts; this would have been very little, since Halifax was never that popular in Scotland, and BoS was running a profit. England would have been saddled with massive debts.

3) RBS, bit different, since it was still a Scottish bank. However, again, most of the debt was another part of the company, in this case the Dutch investment group ABN Amro. A lot of the debt was serviced by the Netherlands government, but yah, RBS would have had to be bailed out by Scotland. Fair enough, we'd have the credit rating to support it if we were independent.

I don't mind the notion that Scotland should pay her way after independence, nor do I think we'd have a problem doing so. I do mind the idea that England somehow subsidises Scotland, given that even the somewhat-biased UK Govt. figures (google "GERS 2011") show that Scotland pays more tax per capita than the English do, and on top of that has been running a surplus for several years. Scotland has 8.4% of the UK population, and yet pays 9.4% of the tax, and is responsible for over 10% of the UK's GDP. And all of that is NOT including all the North Sea oil & gas revenues that will become Scotland's post independence. Nor does it account for any taxes raised in Scotland by companies registered in England (such as most banks, shops etc.) , a good example being Tesco's which brings in staggering quantities of money in Scotland, but pays it's tax from London, and so it not accounted for in Scottish figures. Post-independence that will obviously change, so really, when the economic figures are in, Scotland will be a lot richer and better off without having to subsidise London.

--
The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.

Re:Price by hrvatska · 2012-04-22 23:57 · Score: 2

Even with more efficient vehicles I think a lot of people will find they are priced out of the personal transportation market. Either because they can't afford a new high efficiency vehicle, price a plug in Prius, or even with one of these the cost of fuel is still too high. I've recently seen some articles that describe how young people today are not as interested in owning cars as previous generations were. The high cost of ownership compared to likely earning potential was one of the reasons.

Re:Northumbria will be free! by HarryatRock · 2012-04-22 23:58 · Score: 3, Funny

I live about 30 miles south of the border, and strongly believe that we should become part of Scotland until we can re-establish the kingdom of Northumbria with a king at Bamburgh. We will then demand compensation from the english for all the coal and iron they stole and take the Australian Government to court for copyright infringement by the Sydney bridge which is a blatent copy of our bridge over the Tyne.

--
nec sorte nec fato

Re:Where is this? by ocularsinister · 2012-04-23 00:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

We can't... that's why we have a half finished air craft carrier and no aircraft to put on it, at least not for the next decade.

But, hey, we've still got nuclear submarines so we can claim to be sitting at the top table.

Fracking... by superflippy · 2012-04-23 00:05 · Score: 3, Funny

...is actually starting to become a dirty word. Gotta love it. So say we all!

--
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.

Re:Where is this? by TheRaven64 · 2012-04-23 00:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Speaking as an Englishman living in Wales, I don't want to see independence for Scotland or Wales, I want to see independence for London. Without London, I think the rest of the UK would get along a lot better...

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

economically recoverable? by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-04-23 00:57 · Score: 2

Is the 1000 TCF the economically recoverable portion or the total amount of gas in the ground?

It makes a big difference.

Re:Where is this? by ehlo · 2012-04-23 01:12 · Score: 2

I'm English and most of my fellow countrymen are quite happy for Scotland to be independent. Think it would do both countries a lot of good to be honest. .

Either full independence, or atleast lets introduce a federal system here. The current system where Westminster has devolved powers to the Scottish Parliament (and the Welsh Assembly and the NI Assembly) is unmanageable for several reasons.

I think the most important one must be that Westminster can at will take back all of those powers (and has! Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and then again in 1991. I think they only got back to full devolution in May of 2007). Another is the Westlothian question where there has become an assymetry of polities due to the assymetrical nature of the UK devolution. English MPs cannot vote in the Scottish Parliament on matters regarding Scotland (which makes perfect sense), but Welsh, Irish and Scottish MPs can vote on matters which affect only England in Westminster. Since creating an English Parliament would be overly costly (and where are we going to get a new cohort of politicians, and how will we mobilise an already lack-lustre voting population to vote in yet another election?), I think writing a constitution and creating a federal system somewhere along the lines of the American system would be a good idea. And introduce a constitutional court perhaps! And start a serious investigation into the problems facing us for a future codification of laws.

Re:Where is this? by Chrisq · 2012-04-23 01:13 · Score: 2

...actually the Watford Gap, about 50 miles north of Watford the Town, although even that is pushing it for most people who work in London, to them many parts of Outer London are in "the North"!

The new UK, should be the home counties, the Square mile, and docklands ... and the the rest of the country would be southern Scotland ...

Please make Slough an enclave of England!

Vast? Perhaps someone could check my calcs. by gestalt_n_pepper · 2012-04-23 02:31 · Score: 2

1 trillion Cf of natural gas. Isn't that energetically equivalent to 166 million barrels of oil? (i.e. 6000 cf of natural gas = 1 barrel of oil).

So, that works out to 6.64 billion barrels of oil. The USA uses 9 billion barrels of oil a year. The world uses about 30 billion barrels a year.

I'm sorry, where does "vast" come in here? Did I drop a digit somewhere?

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.

this is probably true for most of the world by peter303 · 2012-04-23 03:05 · Score: 2

The US, having consumed most of its potential petroleum, developed these "unconventional" technologies first over the past decade. For the most part they can be applied to areas all around the world. That will retard "peak oil" to the later part of this century and give breathing room for alternative energy development.

Believe or not the USA was the leading oil producer for the first 80-90 years of the "Hydrocarbon Age (b 1859)". They squandered much of this on poor petroleum engineering practices and inefficient combustion engines.

Re:Where is this? by HarryatRock · 2012-04-23 05:25 · Score: 2

The UK will continue to exist. Scotland will probably not become a republic, but the Kingdom will include two independent countries, one principality and the province of Northern Ireland. The crown was united long before the parliaments.
There would be no problem in creating a shared "British" military, in fact the usual designation is "British armed forces".
Don't forget, once independence is in place, there will be a brand new political landscape in Scotland, without the unifying theme of "independence", the SNP might well fragment over other issues.

--
nec sorte nec fato

Re:Where is this? by VisceralLogic · 2012-04-23 07:14 · Score: 2

I worked in Glasgow for a while and found everyone perfectly pleasant, whenever a Scot works in England though they seem to get all chippy and resentful for some reason.

Or, as it is soon to be known, Gasglow.

--
Stop! Dremel time!

Slashdot Mirror

Geologists Say UK Shale Deposits Hold Vast Energy Reserves

53 of 241 comments (clear)