You seriously believe that?

Wow

BTW how does a tank to store shale gas differ from a tank to store any other form of methane?

The concerns that a lot have is that we seem to have no control over who comes in from EU countries, we can prevent a highly qualified engineer from a non-EU country but have no say if a violent criminal from Italy lands up here. We should have the right to have a say in who settles here, especially if they are likely to contribute nothing or bring their criminal behaviours here. I would rather have 100 Bangladeshi labourers who are willing to work than the one Italian drug trafficker.

Do I believe it will solve energy problems or do I believe it will pay for itself in 6 years? If the latter, well thats the figure we've been told. Not only does it reduce our costs but the fact it is more readily available means we can run at a higher capacity. If the former, well, its reletively easy to obtain and theres lots of it. It needs to be supplemented by other renewable sources, but it would certainly buy us alot of time.

As for the tank, I'm not directly involved in the project, but I would imagine it doesnt differ at all. We just need somewhere to store the gas that is coming over by ship. The £300m price tag is because its f**king huge.

Shale gas will not sort our energy problems, nor will it get even close to paying for itself in six years.

As for the gas tank, if the gas is coming by ship, it's LNG and the reason for the huge cost is not because the tank itself is huge, it's because it's stored cryogenically and under pressure.

Please don't simply swallow then regurgitate whatever guff your employer is feeding you

I've heard that it's very damaging in terms of pollution as well, but to be honest I don't know enough about it to comment. In particular I am led to believe that the chemicals that they use to release the gas in combination with the drilling contain such as formaldehyde and mercury which can get into the water table.

Any insight?

I am not a racists or owt ( ) but as a Celt I will be glad to see the Anglo types replaced, at least now I can buy a decent mango in Hull and I can walk down Spring Bank on a night for the first time in memory without the worry of being mugged. The English...what are you like? LOL

The only two comments that I'd make is that apparently shale gas is so cheap and so plentiful in America that they are starting to send shipfulls of the stuff over here for us to burn.

And this cheap gas that comes all the way from America on a big ship is then priced at such a level that having to fork out £300m for somewhere to store it is peanuts and doesn't even need a long term mortgage to pay for it.

Sounds like someone's getting shafted here and it doesn't take a genius to work out that if it was ever used on any sort of grand scale here then it would not produce one single whiff of cheaper gas.

Some of us (you included) can remember all the promises of cheap and plentiful energy just bubbling out of the North Sea

...or indeed nuclear energy "too cheap to meter", we should all be living in all-electric houses by now with not one penny invoiced every month.

That lie was still being peddled in 1974 when I joined the workforce and the electrical contractor that I worked for were installing electric night storage and electric ducted air heating in hundreds of council houses, "cheap and clean" is how it was promoted by the manufacturers of the heating units.

Can I just point out here that I never said anything about it being burned. The gas is cracked and separated into different hydrocarbons (ethylene is the main money spinner) and sent off elsewhere. We can only get enough North Sea gas to run at half capacity currently. So not only is the shale gas cheaper but there is enough available to allow us to run at higher rates and as a result the process becomes a lot more efficient. Hence why they are willing to fork out the money.