Gatwick might as well give up its campaign to get the new runway instead
of Heathrow, because it's on top of an oil field. It must now be
apparent that Sussex is harbouring weapons of mass destruction and will
shortly be bombed back into the stone age, although by pure coincidence
the Oil Ministry will be completely untouched and will be carefully
guarded by the invading US troops.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32229203

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club"

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity
-- Hanlon's Razor

Stupidity maintained long enough is a form of malice
-- Richard Bos's corollary

Yes, I heard this being discussed at length on various radio stations
this morning. The consensus was that this is a significant oil field but that
only a small percentage will ever be extracted.

Robin9 wrote:
David Cantrell;147853 Wrote:
Gatwick might as well give up its campaign to get the new runway
instead
of Heathrow, because it's on top of an oil field. It must now be
apparent that Sussex is harbouring weapons of mass destruction and will
shortly be bombed back into the stone age, although by pure coincidence
the Oil Ministry will be completely untouched and will be carefully
guarded by the invading US troops.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32229203

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club"

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity
-- Hanlon's Razor

Stupidity maintained long enough is a form of malice
-- Richard Bos's corollary

Yes, I heard this being discussed at length on various radio stations
this morning. The consensus was that this is a significant oil field but
that only a small percentage will ever be extracted.


Around 10% or so?

Some estimates were even lower: around 5%. Mind you, at this stage
estimates are all they are.

On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 17:45:22 +0200, Robin9
wrote:


David Cantrell;147853 Wrote:
Gatwick might as well give up its campaign to get the new runway
instead
of Heathrow, because it's on top of an oil field. It must now be
apparent that Sussex is harbouring weapons of mass destruction and will
shortly be bombed back into the stone age, although by pure coincidence
the Oil Ministry will be completely untouched and will be carefully
guarded by the invading US troops.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32229203

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club"

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity
-- Hanlon's Razor

Stupidity maintained long enough is a form of malice
-- Richard Bos's corollary

Yes, I heard this being discussed at length on various radio stations
this morning. The consensus was that this is a significant oil field but
that
only a small percentage will ever be extracted.

Wonderful News. IMHO extraction should be to the greatest extent
possible. Normally oil is accompanied by natural gas. So _maybe_ the
Southeast will be able return to inexpensive domestic supplies. Not
that it will help me. My condo is all electric :-(.

Gatwick may yet need another runway. We can expect oilmen and working
to be arriving and leaving.

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

Wonderful News. IMHO extraction should be to the greatest extent
possible. Normally oil is accompanied by natural gas. So _maybe_ the
Southeast will be able return to inexpensive domestic supplies. Not
that it will help me. My condo is all electric :-(.

How will you deal with the global warming implications of burning more
fossil fuels, then?

While I can see a case for modest extraction to substitute for imported oil,
increased consumption is unsustainable.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

Wonderful News. IMHO extraction should be to the greatest extent
possible. Normally oil is accompanied by natural gas. So _maybe_ the
Southeast will be able return to inexpensive domestic supplies. Not
that it will help me. My condo is all electric :-(.

How will you deal with the global warming implications of burning more
fossil fuels, then?

While I can see a case for modest extraction to substitute for imported
oil,
increased consumption is unsustainable.

I think everyone understands that.

which is why we (both the population as individuals, and the government) are
taking steps to discourage use.

But people who live in poorly insulated properties [1] still have to heat
them, no matter how many Greenies picket their door

tim

[1] and not all poorly insulated properties can be economically brought up
to standard. I used to live in one such