If you worry about immigration into this country, do you also worry about the impact emigration from this country has on other countries? If not, why not?

That's a bigger problem imo. In the industry I work in, over the last couple of years, I know people who have moved to Saudi Arabia, Libya, Angola and Australia because they can earn a lot more money over there. They were good earners, earning 40-50k plus overtime here and aside from the skills we have lost we have also lost probably lost over 100k in taxes going into this country, and that's between 6 people.

An obvious concern of immigration is whether we have the resources to cater for everyone. I'm going off topic slightly here but investing in shale gas projects in this country would almost end our energy problems over night. A fact that all these idiot protesters overlook. Just to put it into context, the company I work for has recently committed to a project that is, essentially, building a huge tank to store shale gas in. We are spending £300m on it, and we will import shale gas on ships from the US to use in our processes. Because it is much more plentiful and cheaper than North Sea gas it will have paid for itself in 6 years.

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.

So, if we're not going to burn it, how will it help solve our energy problems?

When you say there is enough shale gas available, are you talking total volume or extractable volume?

I was just using it as an example to illustrate that North Sea gas supplies are dwindling and that shale gas is very much a viable alternative. My company aren't going to burn it, that doesn't mean it can't be burned.

I don't have any figures for you Coddy, all I know is that I have worked in the chemicals industry and in oil and gas, and I have seen places shut down and jobs go (including mine) because we can't compete with the US and China. Now I'm sure there are other factors that contribute to their ability to undercut us, but there are currently 3 countries worldwide that produce commercial quantities of shale gas, and those are two of them.

Rather than just poopooing what everyone else says how about you make your suggestions? Or tell me why you are so dead against shale gas.

I personally am a sceptic, about almost everything, if you want to convince me of the viability of something then you have to show me that it works, that it doesn't harm anything and that it delivers substantial benefits to both me and the society in which we all live.

Having a Prime Minister in the pockets of the businesses who are eager to get fracking all over this country is not a good start to the argument to convince me.

Having the police brutally crush and harangue fairly inconsequential protestors on test sites is also not a good sign that this Government is prepared to evaluate everything impartially, when they then start to invent new laws to prevent objections to full scale fracking even when its being done underneath your feet on the land that you are supposed to "own" is also a dead sure sign of the puppet masters controlling the Government.

Of course, as I have already mentioned, I am a natural sceptic and all of this could be balderdash and we could easily find that no pollution results and oil and gas pour out of the ground in the same way as Jed Clampett found when he was out a-hunting for some food one day - it could happen, and we could be sitting on fuel too cheap to meter (again), we really could.

On the other hand our Prime Minister has already hinted that fracking will not reduce fuel bills.

rlAnd reports like this onerl where exploration businesses lie and cajole and make wild estimates of benefits before using bribery to convince, are just too common to even meter on the internet.