Who has been getting to Andrew Rawnsley?

The column today. Shale gas, well, we don\’t know whether it will work, whether it will maker a profit. All very difficult.

OK, it is.

And you know how we work these things out? We go and do them and find out whether they do work or make a profit.

Then there is the huge hole at the heart of the frack-heads\’ dream. No one even knows yet how much shale gas can be profitably extracted. Estimates of the exploitable reserves vary wildly. In fact, no one can be sure whether it will be viable to get any of it at all out of the ground. Firms are only going to invest in shale gas if they will make some money out of it.

No you tosspot. Firms will invest money if they think that they might make money out of it. It is called risk capital for a reason you know?

We don\’t need to get all the ducks lined up in a row before we try it: that\’s not the way market economic systems work. We allow a few nutters to go off and risk their money doing it and see how they do.

And God Alone knows where this came from:

The explanation is geology. Shales in Europe are generally thinner and deeper, and therefore much more expensive to tap, than those that have been successfully exploited in the United States. And Britain looks likely to be one of the less promising prospects in Europe because its shales are typically among the thinnest.


Marcellus shale:

Maximum thickness of the Marcellus ranges from 270 m (890 ft) in New Jersey,[1] to 12 m (40 ft) in Canada.[25] In West Virginia, the Marcellus Formation is as much as 60 m (200 ft) thick.[68] In extreme eastern Pennsylvania, it is 240 m (790 ft) thick,[39] thinning to the west, becoming only 15 m (49 ft) thick along the Ohio River, and only a few feet in Licking County, Ohio.

Bowland shale:

Generally between 120m and 620m. The formation thickens northeastwards along the axis of the Central Lancashire High, from about 22m in the Roddlesworth Borehole (SD62SE/6), 68m thick in the Holme Chapel Borehole (SD82NE/68), and 102m in the Boulsworth Borehole (SD93SW/14). The underlying Trawden Limestone Group shows a thinning in the same direction (Evans and Kirby, 1999), suggesting the thickening of the Bowland Shale Formation reflects available accommodation space. In the Craven Reef Belt the Bowland Shale Formation is perhaps 30m to 200m thick (see Arthurton et al., 1988, figure 22). In south Cumbria, the Roosecote Borehole (see above) proved the formation to be 130m thick (see Johnson et al., 2001; Rose and Dunham, 1977). On the Isle of Man, the Bowland Shale Formation might be at least 186m thick.

The Bowland is one of the thicker, not thinner, shale formations found.

I really would suggest that Mr. Rawnsley track down and beat up whichever greenie fed him that lie.

17 thoughts on “Who has been getting to Andrew Rawnsley?”

  1. From Rawnsley’s article: ‘Believers in shale gas have a tendency to rave about it as if they are using a mind-bending substance. So I suggest we call them frack-heads.’ Rawnsley’s lack of competence readily suggests a suitable name for himself.

  2. So the latest Greeniebollocks reason why they want to stop people from trying to extract shale gas is…

    they’re afraid oil and gas companies might lose money?

    How noble of the socialist loons to worry so about hydrocarbon extraction firms and their shareholders, but I fear Green man speak with forked tongue.

    If it comes to blackouts in this country or a 21st century version of the three day week I really hope we hang these fuckers.

    It’s clear at this point as we approach the endgame of Big Green that they want to force us into fuel poverty and neo-medieval misery. These people can no longer be given the benefit of the doubt.

  3. Forty years ago oil was going to run out in 30 years according twats like him.

    They just never accept that innovation driven by the prospect of huge profits can solve many problems in ways that nobody now could even dream of.

    As Tim says, let them get on with it, its their money and they’ll even create a few jobs along the way, even if it eventually fails.

  4. Yes it’s the gas explorers who will take the hit if the wells don’t produce or the gas doesn’t flow as freely as they expected.

    There’s nothing wrong with that, that’s how the market works. The future is uncertain.

    In 1986 the oil price fell to 10$ and half the North Sea became uneconomic. Oil companies lost money, contractors lost contracts, rigs were idled… and the general population made out like bandits in the Lawson boom.

  5. Climatologists claim they are the experts at analyzing complex data. We should just bow to their brilliance. But that claim is completely undermined when they apply the same principles of analysis to review economic and commercial issues.

  6. Who has been getting to Andrew Rawnsley?

    Rawnsley quotes a spokesman from VTB Capital saying shale has no future. Turns out VTB Capital are a Russian “strategic” investment arm.


    “We remain of the view that contract pricing around the USD 400/kcm mark is sustainable and that Europe is likely to need more, not less, Russian gas in the future.”

    Could be that part of VTB’s strategy is to find useful idiots in the UK press to talk down shale?

  7. I suppose in Rawnsley’s next column he’ll be pontificating on particle physics and dark matter?

    Wretched arrogant stupid creep + tool to boot.

    Yet another guardianista that will be solely connected to windmills for all his energy needs when the revolution comes.

  8. …….Rawnsley quotes a spokesman from VTB Capital saying shale has no future…….

    On whose behalf could VTB be talking?

    ….The main shareholder of VTB Bank is the Russian Government, which owns 75.5% of the lender through its Federal Agency for State Property Management……

    Funny. If someone from Exxon says anything, they must be lying, even though they probably know 100 times more about the subject matter than the greeny criticising them.

    Yet if a spokesperson for a Russian state owned company says that shale gas is crap, then he must be an expert, and should be believed. Why? because it fits with their prejudices.

  9. @serf
    Wow, I never realised the Russian state connection would be so strong.

    So Rawnsley says:

    “Nor do I sleep easier at night when I think about Vladimir Putin’s finger hovering over our national light switch.”

    Yet he passes on Russian backed anti-shale propaganda wholesale.

    Does he know? If not he is the utter definition of a useful idiot.

  10. “whichever greenie fed him that lie.”

    Leveson missed the whole point: the real trouble with the press is that its “research” can be superficial, perhaps often now conducted by Google, or as you say, casually repeating propaganda. Come to think of it, wasn’t there a complaint that his Lordship had naively relied on information on Wikipedia?

    With the arrival of the Internet, shouldn’t both press and Internet writers include links (even in their text) to the sources they are using?

  11. “With the arrival of the Internet, shouldn’t both press and Internet writers include links (even in their text) to the sources they are using?”

    That would make alot of people take a sharp turn to the right!

  12. ….With the arrival of the Internet, shouldn’t both press and Internet writers include links (even in their text) to the sources they are using?….

    They definitely should if they want credibility. Unfortunately that assumes that they are aware that they have very little

  13. well at least we now understand how “frack” became the cuss of choice in the battlestar galactica of the future

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *