Hampshire gas reserves could be worth millions (From Daily Echo)

Good good,cheaper gas bills then (NOT)

You wont need gas. You will be able to burn your tap water.

knowing this government any gas they find will be sold abroad

Stillness wrote:
You wont need gas. You will be able to burn your tap water.

love it

Now that Huhne's out of the government hopefully this will go through. We need to produce as much of our own energy as possible to not be beholden to countries like Russia.

Condor Man wrote:
Now that Huhne's out of the government hopefully this will go through. We need to produce as much of our own energy as possible to not be beholden to countries like Russia.

Or use less? Put a jumper on and turn down the heating. Friction causes heat, think of an enjoyable way of boiling water for a cup of tea.

Stillness wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
Now that Huhne's out of the government hopefully this will go through. We need to produce as much of our own energy as possible to not be beholden to countries like Russia.

Or use less? Put a jumper on and turn down the heating. Friction causes heat, think of an enjoyable way of boiling water for a cup of tea.

If we reduce our energy bills, that's less revenue for the government too, so we would just pay more in a different tax?

Much like smokers, the less people smoke fags, the revenue goes down so they increase tax on other items!

Could you imagine if everyone in the UK gave up smoking and alcohol, the UK would be on its knees!

IronLady2010 wrote:
Could you imagine if everyone in the UK gave up smoking and alcohol, the UK would be on its knees!

That's a bit of a simplistic view. Less taxation would be needed to fund the NHS and less people would need to be paid to deal with taxation. It's a bit like saying that the arms industry provides jobs. If it wasn't for wars we wouldn't need an arms industry but then there would be less employment and therefore we need wars. All the time the public are stupid enough to believe the so called defense industry we will have wars, and whilst we have wars we will have terrorists. But that's OK because then people can build and sell body scanners to airports. What a joke.

Totton Ric wrote:
Good good,cheaper gas bills then (NOT)

Actually, yes that is most likely. Shale gas in the US cut natural gas prices in half, and they have stayed there for years now. The UK woulspd likely enjoy cheap gas just as we did in the 80s and most of the 90s. But some would be exported to Belgium and beyond, and we would likely run short again after 30 years or so. But by then, who knows, maybe we will indeed be burning tap water (and not in the way Stillness means). The UK needs this gas -- even as we speak we have start importing from as far away as Qatar. Which is neither affordable or especially secure.

.. ah, yes!!

Let's put even more CO2 into the atmosphere.

What a sensible idea; after all most of us will probably be dead by the time our grandchildren have to deal with disaster our profligate use of fossil fuels is causing.

Yes, let’s have business as usual. Sod the future, not our problem.

freefinker wrote:
.. ah, yes!!

Let's put even more CO2 into the atmosphere.

What a sensible idea; after all most of us will probably be dead by the time our grandchildren have to deal with disaster our profligate use of fossil fuels is causing.

Yes, let’s have business as usual. Sod the future, not our problem.

Lol. I suppose you've been heating your house by bicycle again, freefinker. And surfing the web with just the power of your miiiiind.....

City Saint wrote:

freefinker wrote:
.. ah, yes!!

Let's put even more CO2 into the atmosphere.

What a sensible idea; after all most of us will probably be dead by the time our grandchildren have to deal with disaster our profligate use of fossil fuels is causing.

Yes, let’s have business as usual. Sod the future, not our problem.

Lol. I suppose you've been heating your house by bicycle again, freefinker. And surfing the web with just the power of your miiiiind.....

.. we could, at least, say enough is enough.

We have the definitive science that shows the damage we are causing. The need to wean ourselves off our addiction to fossil fuels, sooner rather than later, is an imperative.

What better incentive would there be to rapidly develop alternatives than to cease trying to find new supplies and say we will from now on only use the reserves already being exploited.

How about a bore hole at Fratton Park, could save them from extinction, always plenty of hot air coming from that direction, if only it could capped and used.

IronLady2010 wrote:
Could you imagine if everyone in the UK gave up smoking and alcohol, the UK would be on its knees!

People would live longer, or at least it would seem that way!

Andy are you about.

Before even temping to drill this gas out they need to do a lot of research.
Its not just the tap water that gets polluted the gound water table do, and that will effect the rivers and streams by becoming polluted.

southy wrote:
Before even temping to drill this gas out they need to do a lot of research.
Its not just the tap water that gets polluted the gound water table do, and that will effect the rivers and streams by becoming polluted.

I think you will find that that's where the tap water comes from. Talk about stating the bloody obvious.

The gas flares from water have been occurring in parts of the States for many decades - long before fracking was ever introduced - and checks have proven that they are entirely unrelated. The methane issuing from water taps is shallow lying and immediately alongside the water acquifers - and it naturally flows with those water supplies. The methane that is now being recovered by 'fracking' is a mile or more deeper and has a distinctly different chemical signature - hence the ability to prove without shadow of doubt that this is NOT the gas emanating from the domestic water taps. The 'chemicals in the water' story is similarly alarmist. Cuadrilla, for example, are reportedly using a single chemical additive only which is naturally occurring and wholly innocuous. But please don't let the facts get in the way of a good scare story.

Hello Southy - I'm a bit late on this one. Keithx has said it all really. Different geology. I've seen subsurface methane several times - it's called will o' the wisp or marsh gas, and people used to believe it was restless spirits coming out of the ground. I think that is what gets into some water supplies when they are not properly treated and can accumulate in pockets within pipes. The combustion temperature is very low so it can spontaneously ignite but it's nothing to do with fracking.

Keithx has put to bed the nonsense over burning tap-water and all the other misinformation about Hydraulic Fracking. The other nonsense that fuels this debate is about CO2 and dangerous anthropogenic global warming.

Well its all complete nonsense, our atmosphere is NOT a green house and the temperature of the air is dependent only on the heat from the sun and the pressure of the atmosphere. Physics proves this but very poor climate science has for years tried to invent something that was not there. Thats why they use modles rather than observational proof

The only group who now still believe in this rubbish are the political class. But we can expect little else from them as they are now on the whole very dim and lacking intellect, unable to think for themselves or represent the views of their constituents.

Just for those whole may wonder, the world is awash with energy. We have hundreds of years of coal, hundreds of years of shale gas, and a lot more oil. Not only this we have thousands of years of energy from thorium, something our government should be investing in rather than more expensive and complicated Uranium reactors.

But the one thing we don't have at present is enough intellect in our political classes. Perhaps we are ourselves to blame for this as we vote them in.

PeterMG wrote:
Keithx has put to bed the nonsense over burning tap-water and all the other misinformation about Hydraulic Fracking. The other nonsense that fuels this debate is about CO2 and dangerous anthropogenic global warming.

Well its all complete nonsense, our atmosphere is NOT a green house and the temperature of the air is dependent only on the heat from the sun and the pressure of the atmosphere. Physics proves this but very poor climate science has for years tried to invent something that was not there. Thats why they use modles rather than observational proof

The only group who now still believe in this rubbish are the political class. But we can expect little else from them as they are now on the whole very dim and lacking intellect, unable to think for themselves or represent the views of their constituents.

Just for those whole may wonder, the world is awash with energy. We have hundreds of years of coal, hundreds of years of shale gas, and a lot more oil. Not only this we have thousands of years of energy from thorium, something our government should be investing in rather than more expensive and complicated Uranium reactors.

But the one thing we don't have at present is enough intellect in our political classes. Perhaps we are ourselves to blame for this as we vote them in.

Personally I can make do with the lack of intellect in our "political classes" what ever that may mean. I would however appreciate a little bit more wisdom.

PeterMG wrote:
Keithx has put to bed the nonsense over burning tap-water and all the other misinformation about Hydraulic Fracking. The other nonsense that fuels this debate is about CO2 and dangerous anthropogenic global warming.

Well its all complete nonsense, our atmosphere is NOT a green house and the temperature of the air is dependent only on the heat from the sun and the pressure of the atmosphere. Physics proves this but very poor climate science has for years tried to invent something that was not there. Thats why they use modles rather than observational proof

The only group who now still believe in this rubbish are the political class. But we can expect little else from them as they are now on the whole very dim and lacking intellect, unable to think for themselves or represent the views of their constituents.

Just for those whole may wonder, the world is awash with energy. We have hundreds of years of coal, hundreds of years of shale gas, and a lot more oil. Not only this we have thousands of years of energy from thorium, something our government should be investing in rather than more expensive and complicated Uranium reactors.

But the one thing we don't have at present is enough intellect in our political classes. Perhaps we are ourselves to blame for this as we vote them in.

‘There's none so blind as those who will not see’.

While I agree with you on fracking and burning tap water, your dismissal of the overwhelming evidence, as supported by the even more overwhelming number of relevant scientists, that the steadily increasing concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution IS ACTUALLY having serious consequences for our global climate must be down to either intellectual scientific bankruptcy and/or your ability to be conned by conspiracy theorists.

Your statement “our atmosphere is NOT a green house and the temperature of the air is dependent only on the heat from the sun and the pressure of the atmosphere” would suggest to me it is scientific illiteracy that results in your wholly misinformed opinions.

Freefinker of course there are many thousands of observations of climate change. The climate has always changed! what has changed in recent years is our ability to take billions of measurements and there are many thousands of variables that have been suggested as factors in that change, but what has not been proven is the extent to which one variable influences another. The concentration of Co2 has indeed increased since around 1750 by around 70% but you could produce any one of many other changes and attribute that as a cause and not just chemical balances either - for instance high altitude planes produce water vapour trails in the troposphere that reflect heat back into space - could that be a mitigating factor? The truth is nobody knows and nobody knows whether it mitigates or not because it is not "science" at work here at all - it is simply the selection of statistical data and the subjective use of it afterwards. Afte the dinasaur extinction event CO2 levels rose to double what they are today -and were followed by an ice age. If it was that simple that would not have happened. You say there is none so blind - I say there is none so blind as one who refuses to be sceptical about anything, and if you want to be seen as objective you cannot possibly attribute as much certainty to your argument as you have done. Sceptics make good scientists.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Freefinker of course there are many thousands of observations of climate change. The climate has always changed! what has changed in recent years is our ability to take billions of measurements and there are many thousands of variables that have been suggested as factors in that change, but what has not been proven is the extent to which one variable influences another. The concentration of Co2 has indeed increased since around 1750 by around 70% but you could produce any one of many other changes and attribute that as a cause and not just chemical balances either - for instance high altitude planes produce water vapour trails in the troposphere that reflect heat back into space - could that be a mitigating factor? The truth is nobody knows and nobody knows whether it mitigates or not because it is not "science" at work here at all - it is simply the selection of statistical data and the subjective use of it afterwards. Afte the dinasaur extinction event CO2 levels rose to double what they are today -and were followed by an ice age. If it was that simple that would not have happened. You say there is none so blind - I say there is none so blind as one who refuses to be sceptical about anything, and if you want to be seen as objective you cannot possibly attribute as much certainty to your argument as you have done. Sceptics make good scientists.

All very well and good but the "billions of measurements" we are taking indicate an overall warming of the global climate. What ever the reason for the rise does it not make sense to try and minimize it? If your house was too hot would you not open a window? At the end of the day I doubt that whatever we do will make much of a difference, Gaia will sort it out. Has done so for the last 13 or so billion years so why not now?

I agree that large long running systems such as the earth's climate are often self -regulating, and always trend towards the norm though never actually stabilising on it. I don't see any problem with meeting marginal power demand through renewable sources but where there is a problem is confusing the need for baseline absolute reliability in power supply with wind wave and sun solutions that only work "most of the time". Power cuts kill people, and a long term energy defecit will kill a lot of people, directly and indirectly. That is far more certain than speculation on climate change. If the objective of climate cooling is to save lives then the first thing it must do is recognise that the only alternative to fossil fuels is a huge increase in nuclear power (fusion or fission), and it is no coincidence that Prof. Lovelock says exactly the same thing in his most recent Gaia books. What is striking is how many "greens" cannot bring themselves to face the bare logic of that simple truth.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
I agree that large long running systems such as the earth's climate are often self -regulating, and always trend towards the norm though never actually stabilising on it. I don't see any problem with meeting marginal power demand through renewable sources but where there is a problem is confusing the need for baseline absolute reliability in power supply with wind wave and sun solutions that only work "most of the time". Power cuts kill people, and a long term energy defecit will kill a lot of people, directly and indirectly. That is far more certain than speculation on climate change. If the objective of climate cooling is to save lives then the first thing it must do is recognise that the only alternative to fossil fuels is a huge increase in nuclear power (fusion or fission), and it is no coincidence that Prof. Lovelock says exactly the same thing in his most recent Gaia books. What is striking is how many "greens" cannot bring themselves to face the bare logic of that simple truth.

There are too many people for the planet to support mainly because the increase in life expectancy. Quantity of life has replaced quality of life as being the chosen measure of a persons existence. If it where not for famines, droughts, earthquakes, war and your foreseen power cuts there would be standing room only.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote: Could you imagine if everyone in the UK gave up smoking and alcohol, the UK would be on its knees!

People would live longer, or at least it would seem that way!

Giving up smoking and alcohol would in one fell swoop cut state revenues from taxation and simultaneouly increase the burden on the state of all of us living any number of years longer. so we should all drink to doing our little bit towards keeping the state solvent, more or less. Cheers ;)

freefinker wrote:
.. ah, yes!! Let's put even more CO2 into the atmosphere. What a sensible idea; after all most of us will probably be dead by the time our grandchildren have to deal with disaster our profligate use of fossil fuels is causing. Yes, let’s have business as usual. Sod the future, not our problem.

So, Sunshine, what is your answer? Knitting wooly shirts to keep warm?

PeterMG wrote:
Keithx has put to bed the nonsense over burning tap-water and all the other misinformation about Hydraulic Fracking. The other nonsense that fuels this debate is about CO2 and dangerous anthropogenic global warming. Well its all complete nonsense, our atmosphere is NOT a green house and the temperature of the air is dependent only on the heat from the sun and the pressure of the atmosphere. Physics proves this but very poor climate science has for years tried to invent something that was not there. Thats why they use modles rather than observational proof The only group who now still believe in this rubbish are the political class. But we can expect little else from them as they are now on the whole very dim and lacking intellect, unable to think for themselves or represent the views of their constituents. Just for those whole may wonder, the world is awash with energy. We have hundreds of years of coal, hundreds of years of shale gas, and a lot more oil. Not only this we have thousands of years of energy from thorium, something our government should be investing in rather than more expensive and complicated Uranium reactors. But the one thing we don't have at present is enough intellect in our political classes. Perhaps we are ourselves to blame for this as we vote them in.

Thank the Lord that someone actually agrees that all of this is one big political issue....votes ......grants for research.....money from making films and writing books..et al. Do not believe one word of the politicos

Some of these comments are at best naive & at worst dangerous. Simply, corporate greed is globally polluting groundwater, soil, wildlife, farms, seas, air and minds. I'm not a hippy, I'm on a corporate payroll.
To me, intellectualising this debate with political/monetary drivel is a whitewash over the real issues (and the reasons for the moratoriums/bans in other regions) and belies arrogance rather than a valid argument.