Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace
« Kahan't see the wood for the trees | Main | Jumping Jackson »

Shale Mili

David Miliband*, the Labour party's king in exile, has been given space in the Mail on Sunday (of all places) to take a look at the year ahead. He had some somewhat surprising things to say:

And if [the government] need inspiration they should look to the good news story of 2013: the recovery of our old ally, the U.S. It is a very lucky country.

Just when you think the price of oil is too high to sustain their standard of living, shale gas promises an energy boom. We’re not just talking cheaper prices; suddenly the U.S. is set to become the world’s largest energy exporter.

Strangely, he doesn't even mention the possibility of a similar shale boom in the UK, but reading between the lines this is surely what he means. I sense a big change in the offing.

This doesn't mean that the insanity of wind farms will stop of course. The big three political parties are wedded to the idea of expensive sops to green sentiment and will willingly squander billions to that end.

[sp. amended 8am, 31.12.12]


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (87)

Not before time some would say.

Dec 30, 2012 at 7:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Very interesting. His brother Ed of course played an extremely important role in the realisation of the Climate Change Act using his protege Baroness (subsequently) Worthington to help the pressure groups such as FoE get the final words together. This dreadful piece of legislation, from 2008, deserves a place in history not just for its stupidity, but also for supine response of Parliament to environmentalism of the worst kind. Such environmentalism sees reduced energy prices as the stuff of nightmares, but to have them come from such as shale gas is to add a banshee chorus that would have these particular revolutionaries wake up screaming in the night.

Ed has recently been focused on the harm caused by Labour's almost-as-foolish mass immigration policy, with its blatant contempt for working class interests and communities. Has he been distracted by this delicate topic? Has brother David caught him unawares with his positive view of fracking?

Dec 30, 2012 at 8:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Shade

David and Ed Milliband their parents were both leading British Communists Marxists .They were happy to sing the praises of the Industrial and Technological advances of the old Soviet Union Stirring propaganda pictures of Borat lookalikes admiring Combine Harvesters and ICBMs etc.

In the 1960s Russia put the first Satellite the first man woman and Dog into space.Russia completely rebuilt itself after the devastation of WW2. Exploded the first Hydrogen bomb and was a world super power controlling half of Europe.Driven by Ideology in Ladas powered by petrol made from Natural Gas.

How did Communist Russia achieve all this.Some of it was by marching thousands of political prisoners out the Gulags and into the hardship of the Siberian Wilderness to Exploit the Natural Mineral Oil and Gas Wealth.

The owner of Chelsea FC Russian billionaire Roman Abranovitch proberly owns half the Gas fields in Central Asia.Needs to bye himself a new manager and a replacement for John Terry.

Whoever is in charge should remember Shale is there for the taking.
Trapped underground it wont run away .Its needed to pay for the the new UK Nuke Power Stations and back up the Wind Farm.

Dec 30, 2012 at 8:41 PM | Unregistered Commenterjamspid

Perhaps not as dim a bulb as his little brother - he has other talents.

The thought of young David being whisked out of the Indian president's presence in Delhi with his minders being told "and don't bring him back - ever!" always makes me smile. As does the instruction to Mandelson to "stay on board the plane, we'll fuel it and then you can leave" when he flew in to remonstrate with the uppity natives who'd sent the Foreign Secretary back to the Embassy and asked him to leave as soon as possible.

His ambition, conceit and egotism are I understand legendary. If his younger brother is a credulous fluffy bunny albeit a dopey one - this guy is a Borgia and is capable of sensing the way the wind in blowing.

Palace coup anybody?

Dec 30, 2012 at 9:16 PM | Registered Commentertomo

given the ages of the Millibands, I am getting horrific images of them being read bedtime stories from the Gulag Archipelago, with the nanny that's what happens if you don't believe in Uncle Joe.

Dec 30, 2012 at 11:09 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

There will soon be a substantial business opportunity for some enterprising soul to found a company to specialise in dismantling wind turbines.

Dec 30, 2012 at 11:56 PM | Unregistered Commenterdearieme

Two things:

Firstly any politician (or red or blue hue) if told by advisers that shale gas is viable, and will bring in £Xbn in new taxes if given the green light, will grab the nearest pen to sign the go-ahead documents. For all the eco-flimflam, if there's hard cash to be gained that can be used to buy the electorates votes, and thus an extended run of power, it will be grabbed without hesitation.

Secondly it could be highly ironic if Labour win in 2015 and reap the rewards of shale gas growth. Because it was N Sea oil money that kept Mrs T afloat in the 80s. Without it she would have sunk without trace in the economic recession of the early 80s. So for Labour to get the benefit this time would be a payback of sorts I suppose.

Dec 31, 2012 at 12:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterJim

There's only one L in Miliband, chaps. While we're at it, there's only one F in Al Gore.

Dec 31, 2012 at 12:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterPaul

Dave Miliband may have noticed that brother Ed's committment to a low carbon, coal fired power station free UK, has a problem. Namely that if it entails shutting down those coal powered generators, it must also mean shutting down a large part of the UK's coal mining industry. So, by supporting CO2 emitting gas plants, Dave is indirectly hinting at allowing the continuing use of CO2 emitting coal for electricity generation. It looks like Dave M has dealt a double blow to Ed, leaving him stuck with the increasingly unpopular renewables, and letting him face the wrath of the National Union of Mineworkers when they finally realise the full ramifications of Ed's Climate Change Act 2008.

Dec 31, 2012 at 1:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterEdward Bancroft

The thought of young David being whisked out of the Indian president's presence in Delhi with his minders being told "and don't bring him back - ever!"...

When did this happen?

Dec 31, 2012 at 2:45 AM | Registered Commentershub

David Miliband: what the L does it matter how you spell it? What matters is that the very mantion of the name should carry a government health warning. If you read his full review of 2012 in the Mail, he claims to have simple solutions to all the world's problems, nothing is beyond the ego of this man.
Instead of preparing a space in government for him they should be preparing a padded cell.

Dec 31, 2012 at 4:16 AM | Registered CommenterDung

"Strangely, he doesn't even mention the possibility of a similar shale boom in the UK"

Why should he nail his fracking flag anywhere the fat lady aint singing just yet.

Dec 31, 2012 at 7:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartyn

Shub, I believe it happened when Millipede Major was foreign secretary, he met with the Indian Foreign Secretary who addressed Millipede Major as "Your Excellency", common in foreign office meetings. Dave referred to the Indian Foreign Secretary by his first name throughout the meeting giving great offence.

He's an idiot, but Millipede Minor easily outshines him in the idiocy stakes.

Dec 31, 2012 at 8:56 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Oops! Wind farms only have 12-15 year lifespan as opposed to 20-25 years in feasibility studies.
[h/t Gill, WUWT]

Dec 31, 2012 at 9:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Schofield

He still has the Green meme - see his comments on China. "In the meantime we need to be continuing to show how we are serious about solving problems together – from managing the global economy to tackling climate change.
Of course our economy and environmental footprint are smaller than those of the Chinese, but one reason they’ve taken us seriously up to now on the subject of tackling carbon emissions is that we have been fulfilling our side of the bargain." Quite sickening ............ And in his eyes still very PC?

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Dec 31, 2012 at 9:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Thomson

Re the idea that China, as an example, looks up to the UK because we are keeping our side of the AGW bargain: it seems that our political class still has an Imperial attitude to the rest of the world. They think that we have to send the natives aid, set them a good example, take up the white man's burden.

We owe the world nothing but integrity in our trade relations, an example that any small trader will recognise as good business.


Dec 31, 2012 at 9:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterJulian Flood

Follow the money - the relatives of these politicians who are working with renewables or nuclear.

E. Miliband's wife - nuclear.

G Brown's brother - nuclear

D Cameron's in-laws - windmills.

N Clegg's wife - windmills.

And the many MSP relatives, AM relatives etc....

Dec 31, 2012 at 10:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlecM

Anything that David wants signed into law, he'd first have to pry the pen from Ed's cold, dead hands.

Dec 31, 2012 at 10:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterBloke down the pub

ups sorry double post :(

Dec 31, 2012 at 10:52 AM | Registered CommenterDung

The only reason China takes any notice of us is that we keep giving them tax payers cash to spend (Oh and we are willing to allow them to buy national assets like North sea oil fields, ooo0 and dont forget we are selling them state of the art biofuel technology [thanks Tim Yeo] which they can copy and sell on cheaper than we can, great work Tim).

Dec 31, 2012 at 10:55 AM | Registered CommenterDung


Instead of preparing a space in government for him they should be preparing a padded cell.

David Miliband's conversion to shale was first noted on Bishop Hill, as far as I know, by Rob on 2nd November, after he'd made similar points on Question Time. I had also seen the programme and responded:

Thanks for the reminder. Fracking is on its way onto the Labour agenda, I fully assume.

I decided I guess that "You belong in a padded cell" wasn't quite the right approach to endear Miliband to me personally or to Bishop Hill as a whole, at a moment when he'd had a very significant change of heart in line with many of us on this blog. Like the Bishop on 30th December I felt Miliband's party was likely to follow and I considered this one of the most important signals from a still-influential UK politician in 2012.

I do though fully support Dung in making his point in the way he thinks fit. I think the rumour may have arisen that I want Dung banned from this blog and that is wholly false.

Dec 31, 2012 at 11:22 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Richard Drake

Sorry if I didnt make myself clear but it was Dave Miliband's confidence that he could solve the world's problems and that the solutions were simple that led me to suggest a place for him in a padded cell.

Dec 31, 2012 at 11:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterDung

Why on earth would anyone want Dung banned from this site? If you mean dung in the non-nomenclature sense then the Bishop has done his best by banning BBD and ZDB, who still makes valiat efforts to annoy throwing as much dung has she can.

Dec 31, 2012 at 11:52 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Dung: had you realised before this that Miliband had had this change of heart on shale? It seems strange to make such a negative comment at this precise moment, whatever else he writes. I'm with the Bish on this being very significant but I'm very much with you (and him) on freedom of speech :)

Dec 31, 2012 at 11:58 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

“The big three political parties are wedded to the idea of expensive sops to green sentiment...”
Because they’ve been labouring under the illusion that Green ideas are popular. Maybe the European elections will change that. Remember, Greens get votes then because people don’t take European elections seriously,and they get seats because of PR. They are likely to be almost alone in the Euro-elections in supporting Europe’s habit of foisting unpopular laws on us from above. Some handy tactical green-bashing could win back Green voters to their natural home in the Liberal and Labour parties. (Pointing out that their Euro leader Dany Cohn Bendit is a self confessed paedophile might help as well).

Dec 31, 2012 at 12:27 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Richard Drake

I think I do share at least one thing with David Miliband; neither of us are diplomats ^.^
In the BH environment I try to speak the truth and to accept the truth (even when my lack of knowledge is exposed hehe). I said exactly what I thought about Dave and I see no reason not to do that?

Dec 31, 2012 at 12:35 PM | Registered CommenterDung


I think their natural home should be UKIP ^.^

Dec 31, 2012 at 12:36 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Richard Drake said:

It seems strange to make such a negative comment at this precise moment, whatever else he writes. I'm with the Bish on this being very significant ...

I'm not. If Miliband wanted to say British shale gas will change the economic direction of Britain he had ample space and opportunity to be clear about it.

In the US a glut of shale has got their economy growing and reduced their co2 emissions by displacing coal. Here I expect gas to be needed simply to keep the lights on and the momentum for renewables will be maintained through keeping consumer energy prices up with more taxation.

There is also an undercurrent of security of supply to consider. Highlighting the US as an exporter of energy is an interesting observation from Miliband. Having a major supplier in competition with Russian gas will help head off complaints that Europe is too reliant on Russian gas. You'd get more security of supply without having to develop our own resources.(And perhaps if the US is going to be exporting gas in large quantities we'd be wiser to leave our stuff in the ground for a while?)

Dec 31, 2012 at 1:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterGareth

Gareth: fully agreed on Miliband's emphasis on the US becoming a net exporter. He is thinking about the energy security angle - that came across clearly on Question Time on 1st November. And well he might. He's setting a good example for Ed Davey, let's put it that way. And we have the Chancellor doing the same thing, by all accounts. However much hypocrisy there is in the political class - and there always is, that's a simple consequence of democracy - I think we do well to note signals of a major shift in the consensus on energy policy such as those in the last six months. I think we also do well to imitate the host's ironic but understated style. But freedom of speech is an even more important principle, without which, even some of its crudest forms, we would never have arrived at this rather wonderful moment.

Dec 31, 2012 at 1:30 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

I wouldn't hold out to much hope for shale gas to be cheap in the UK.

This is because the green taliban will:

Appeal against every license granted to extract gas.
Object to the planning permission for every road and building needed.
Set up camp sites that will require months or years to obtain evictions.
Apply for court orders to shut them down every time an HGV passes to close to their seismometers.

In general they can significantly delay projects and increase the cost of doing business.

Dec 31, 2012 at 1:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS


I hope and think that the greens will not be allowed to derail shale in that way. Davey and Osborne have done a deal and I have watched Davey answer questions from Tim Yeo in the DECC select committee, he has been defending shale gas and smirking when he has brushed off Yeo's objections based on the Climate Change Act :)

Dec 31, 2012 at 1:41 PM | Registered CommenterDung

On the off chance that we are living in a pre-historic period (how would we know we aren't?), might it not be better to leave the windmills standing like the menhir of Breton to confuse our descendants.

OTOH, having the history of the things might not make them any less confusing.

Dec 31, 2012 at 1:57 PM | Registered Commenterjferguson

Now we learn (dear old Sunday Times again) that wind farm developers are to 'bribe' local residents with big contributions to infrastructure; village halls; etc, etc - you name it; they'll fund it to get their bl**dy wind farms built. This comes under the umbrella of 'localism' (don't laugh)...
Thing is - as the chances of ANY wind farm lasting the projected 25 years, what happens when they've stopped working, and/or the developer's gone bust..?
Yeah - you've guessed it - the local residents will have to pick up the tab...

Dec 31, 2012 at 2:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid

Jim - "Secondly it could be highly ironic if Labour win in 2015 and reap the rewards of shale gas growth. Because it was N Sea oil money that kept Mrs T afloat in the 80s. Without it she would have sunk without trace in the economic recession of the early 80s. So for Labour to get the benefit this time would be a payback of sorts I suppose."

The premises might be right, but surely it is worth pointing out that the recession was really in the 70's with the IMF brought in when inflation was well in double digits all the time. Mrs T didn't cause the recession just had to pick up the pieces. You are absolutely right that without North sea Oil that recovery would not have happened.

The current recession was not caused by the ConDems (as useless as they are) but by Gordon McRuin and his false boom.

So in both cases the cause was not the right, but the left, so I would say that Labour are not due any payback at all.

To fully embrace the shale gas bonanza (if that is what it is) would necessitate the repealing of the Climate Change Act - which of course needs repealing anyway. For Prime Minister Miliband the junior to do that would, since he was the minister who brought it in, require considerable gonads.

Dec 31, 2012 at 2:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterRetired Dave their economy growing and reduced their co2 emissions...

Slightly off the topic, but, come on guys,... let's not buy into this logic!

Dec 31, 2012 at 2:24 PM | Registered Commentershub

Retired Dave: all very well put. Here's to those gonads. The moment I heard it on 1st November I took it Ed knew about David's view on shale and didn't object to it being made known. If so, evidence of pico-gonads already, with the possibility of growing a full pair as and when.

Shub: absolutely right. There's no need to reduce CO2 emissions, based on current science, and the (often futile) attempts to do so very often spawn the worst kinds of rent-seeking, or damage the poorest, or both. I don't think that's ever off-topic to mention - if only in passing. The political class has already noticed that temperatures are hardly going through the roof. Jonathan Jones said, in the pub in Oxford, that it would be all be over by 2010 if there was no real increase by then and I'm inclined to agree with him. We should bring this situation to as many people's attention as possible.

Dec 31, 2012 at 2:45 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake


Not sure which things you are commenting on but I do not buy into Gareth's post for the following reasons:

Gareth seems to suggest that the US only got cheap gas because there was a glut and the fact that they reduced CO2 emissions is totally irrelevant since they make no difference and the US does not accept any emissions targets.
Gas in the USA is indeed cheaper than it should be/will be but not by much. Most pundits reckon it will end up at around $6 per mmBtu although at the moment Henry Hub futures are not predicting more than $4.1 per mmBtu by 2014, today's price being about $3.3 per mmBtu.
The real price will emerge after 2015 when the first LNG export terminals open .
The suggestion that we should leave our own shale gas in the ground is just mind boggling stupidity with no logical argument made to support it.

Dec 31, 2012 at 2:49 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Richard Drake

Whoa! We agreed on something! I will have a beer to celebrate :)

Dec 31, 2012 at 3:10 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Steady on, old boy, a half of shandy might be wisest at this stage. We have always agreed on some exceedingly important things. I thought Martin A put it brilliantly in responding to you on the Ridley thread (though I still think that discussion should have been elsewhere, in an ideal world):

I agree completely that the model's description of a greenhouse effect should not be a basis for wide-reaching legislation. But invoking the laws of thermodynamics to say that the greenhouse effect does not exist seems erroneous to me.

We lose cred with many if we make false arguments about thermodynamics. But if we realise that we agree on the lack of scientific basis for wide-reaching legislation - and the power of that agreement - we have learned some vital wisdom. I'll drink to that for 2013.

Dec 31, 2012 at 3:28 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake


The Hindu and Asian Age archives are now bare, the only meagre scrap I could find:

Old Daily Mail article

Some Indian accounts I read at the time had it that he manhandled Manmohan Sing and gave a tour de force demonstration of patronising grandad (grabbing him by the arm and patting him on his turban?). The meeting was reputedly abruptly cut short and he returned to the embassy and the Indians told embassy staff that there was nothing more to talk about.

The truly delicious bit is that Mandelson was on his way back from the far east and diverted his aircraft to Dehli to try and recover from the incident - the Indians would not let him off the plane. Oh... to have been a fly on the wall :-) iirc there was a terse but telling quote from a senior Indian military spokesman at the time.

Both Milibands are the sort that give student politics its well deserved low reputation (i.e lower than even mainstream).

Dec 31, 2012 at 3:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterTomO

Geoff Chambers : "Because they’ve been labouring under the illusion that Green ideas are popular. Maybe the European elections will change that."

I think that is partly true, but it is also the notion (the same as with the European Union) that the "best minds" support these ideas. My end of the year tribute to our host is that his underlying theme, it seems to me, and what he has been patiently and thoroughly exposing is (as the HSI is subtitled) The Corruption of Science. I don't think politicians are that affected by what the public thinks until there is either a massive ground swell of opinion (or they lose elections). But they are surrounded by civil servants and advisers who mutter about wild eyed raving loonies, and they don't have time to look into the science themselves. There is the BBC and the Grauniad etc., the Royal Society all peddling the same notion and dismissing as cranks any dissenting voices. It takes an independent mind and a courageous one to stand against the tide.

Dec 31, 2012 at 3:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Fowle

update: Mandelson was on a business promotion trip that had several Indian stops at the time.

See here

Behind the diplomatic language the gossip I heard was that it wasn't the Foreign Office's finest hour... The Indians were well annoyed to put it mildly. iirc there was a brilliant terse quote from a senior Indian military chap about refueling the dark lord's aerial chariot.

I've a longer post that's been lost to comment system somewhere...

David Miliband's disastrous escapade in Dehli is hinted at in this Mail article from Jan 2009 It was a disaster straight out of "The Thick of It" or maybe a case of life exceeding art :-)

There was also some rather ripe stuff doing the rounds about Hilary Clinton "taking a shine" to banana boy with some really funny photographs of him looking scared...

Dec 31, 2012 at 3:49 PM | Registered Commentertomo

Mike Fowle: great points about the strengths of our host. Andrew once told me that the title of his first book was not his own but the publisher's - including (IIRC) the brilliant "Climategate and the corruption of science". I often think back to that. For one thing, it points to Andrew's disarming honesty - because he freely admitted that The Hockey Stick Illusion and the subtitle were much better than anything he had come up with. But it also shows that we all need others, even though many of us will not make this level of contribution. The book was Andrew's, the now-familiar title someone else's, the timing Someone Else's again - the last in my biased view, obviously. But what a privilege to share the journey in any sense. And who would have thought this kind of thing from Miliband would almost be common currency across the main parties by the end of 2012?

Dec 31, 2012 at 3:52 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

How ironic. This blog slams the AGW promoters for pushing a faith based view of climate change even as it is pushing a faith based view of shale itself. If one chooses to look at the SEC filings it is easy to see that shale gas has been an economic loser for American shale producers. While this does not mean that shale oil will also be an economic loser it is almost certain that it will become so if companies move beyond the few core ares where it is actually possible to make a profit. What we need to do is to become realists and look at the actual facts and data as they are rather than the narratives being pushed by people who have an interest in those narratives continuing. We are facing a serious energy problem as conventional depletion ravages existing production capacity. The markets are needed to come to some type of solution that we will need. They do not need to be pushed in the wrong direction by politicians and central banks who try to paper over our problems by relying on easy credit and money printing.

Dec 31, 2012 at 4:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterVangel

I was commenting on the logic that adopting shale gas for energy production has the (added) benefit of reducing 'carbon emissions' - which Gareth referred to in his post. While this may true in a very superficial, realpolitik sort of sense, owing to its fundamental unsoundness, it can only lead to problems later. The greenies need to realize once and for all, that arguing against carbon-based energy sources, in any form, will bring them no political dividends.

Dec 31, 2012 at 5:41 PM | Registered Commentershub

Thanks! Both the Daily Mail and Indian Express articles make for interesting reading. What he did looks like a calculated insult to me.

Dec 31, 2012 at 5:43 PM | Registered Commentershub

Vangel - How so??

As I see it, there is no scientific evidence for any substantial AGW. The proponents of it in the 80's probably mistook the up-side of a well established multi-decadal oscillation as a new, unprecedented and accelerating CO2 induced change. They produced models to model the theory. Obviously they were wrong and the temperature curve has flattened as persistence of the M-D O would have forecast (strangely persistence is often a good forecast, but not always as the Met Office found back in March relating to rainfall!!!). There is no evidence for AGW only model forecasts that have not been right yet. AGW is more a faith based construct than science.

Whereas - fracking for gas has a proven track-record and is now delivering in the USA and will do elsewhere. That is not to say that it is proven for the UK but, like much so called Green comment, much of what you read is very partial and often untrue. I would expect that Shale exploiters in the USA will have set backs, but your suggestion that it is unprofitable (and you must know more than me) doesn't ring totally true as they halved the price of gas - they could have just lowered it 25% and made more money, and they are looking to export in the coming years. Too early for Euphoria maybe but surely cause for optimism.

I think most on this forum are in favour of giving it a go. After all any decent engineer, except those who sell wind turbines, will tell you that wind will not do the job on its own and is far too expensive and unreliable. As you will judge from my comment above I don't think CO2 is a major concern, but if it is then gas is the only way forward to replace coal (the US has done and reduced their CO2 emissions), and I think it would be better for our bankrupt country to be burning our own instead of importing.

Dec 31, 2012 at 5:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterRetired Dave

groomed for greatness, - banana boy does a plausible line in sneering arrogance (n.b. off camera) which I suspect means he doesn't "do" calculated insults - in a situation like the meeting alluded to - it's simply a matter of the boy's natural ability shining through. Bear in mind that he was DEFRA minister boosting climate change policy 2006-2007.

Self regarding, ideologically blinkered nuLab princeling who's far too clever to listen or pay heed to a briefing - maybe he's matured... His previous displays of advanced skills in hubris and banana skin gymnastics I think make this unlikely.

Truly ghastly - the pair of them.

Dec 31, 2012 at 6:20 PM | Registered Commentertomo

I have a question about the British version of what we across the pond call the MSM. Do the British media vilify the investors and engineers who brought shale gas to the world market? Do they praise them?

In the US, the Left vilifies them and the MSM follows suit. Is there historical precedent for this sort of thing? Has there been another moment when all of the media that deliver the news join in castigating people who have done nothing except perform exceptionally well as engineers and investors?

Dec 31, 2012 at 7:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheo Goodwin

As I see it, there is no scientific evidence for any substantial AGW...

We are in full agreement. While it is true that if we pick a particular point like the end of the LIA we see warming there is no evidence that the warming is due to human emissions of CO2.

Whereas - fracking for gas has a proven track-record and is now delivering in the USA and will do elsewhere....

This is not true. Yes, the producers have gotten a lot of natural gas out of the shale formations. But they have not done so economically. If you look at the SEC filings and listen to the conference calls you see negative cash flows and a massive increase of debt. The projects that are outside of the core areas are not self financing. There is no way to get more energy out of the ground than it costs to get the gas out, collect it, and transport it.

What is lost in all the hype is the fact that the only reason why American producers can stay in business is their access to cheap loans and use accounting rules that allow costs to be ignored by making assumptions about ultimate recoveries that are not supported by the production data.

I think most on this forum are in favour of giving it a go....

I have no problem with people risking their own capital on money losing ventures. My problem is with the reliance on central bank liquidity that has created bubbles over the past few decades. And with the false information being spread by promoters and the media who never seem to talk about the economics and are ignoring the divergence between the assumed ultimate recovery and the actual production data.

Jan 1, 2013 at 1:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterVangel

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):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>