Following on from another thread...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...fracking-gets-
green-light

http://tinyurl.com/cumqamx

(that's a vaguely dirty-sounding shortlink tinyurl came up with!)

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On 17/04/2012 03:38, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Following on from another thread...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...fracking-gets-
green-light

http://tinyurl.com/cumqamx

(that's a vaguely dirty-sounding shortlink tinyurl came up with!)


Indeed, and to listen to some business commentators there are sufficient
reserves under Lancashire to last the UK for 50 years. Such comments
must obviously be taken with large quantities of salt, but they
illustrate the problem of separating fact from fiction in the energy
world given the hyperbole surrounding the issue on both sides of the
social, political, economic and environmental arguments, not to mention
self-interested misinformation.

Nevertheless it is probably indisputable that very significant deposits
of oil shale are to be found beneath Lancashire. Whether the
recoverable gas resources are commensurate, is an entirely different and
still largely unanswered question. This underlines the futility of
making predictions about when fossil fuels will "run out", and all that
ensues from such pronouncements.

There are very large deposits of shale oil in many other parts of the
world still to be fully assessed, just two examples out of many are
China which has what are believed to be vast deposits far larger than
those found in the USA, and Argentina. The latter are onshore deposits
in addition to the offshore deposits of oil being explored in the
Atlantic near the Falkland Islands. New gas fields have just been
confirmed in the Eastern Mediterranean and the very first test well
explored off Cyprus has been assessed at about 5 trillion cubic feet.
This field will not require "fracking" and the gas is recoverable
through natural pressure. There are other fields yet to be explored in
the area and that doesn't take into account fields already found off
Israel. Both countries are considering how they might export natural
gas in light of their respective geopolitical situations but it is a
given that they have discovered more natural gas than they consume when
exploration has only just begun.

The price of natural gas in the USA has plummeted in the last year,
simply because large quantities of shale gas have come onto the market
and the USA is now contemplating exporting gas. The price of gas has
fallen so low there and so rapidly that companies are now having to
mothball up to half of the wells which they only opened up very recently.

--
Dave N

Well yes, but has anyone worked out what happens to the actual ground when
you do this kind of extraction. If people live above it all sorts of things
might occur with time.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Dave N" wrote in message
...
On 17/04/2012 03:38, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Following on from another thread...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...fracking-gets-
green-light

http://tinyurl.com/cumqamx

(that's a vaguely dirty-sounding shortlink tinyurl came up with!)


Indeed, and to listen to some business commentators there are sufficient
reserves under Lancashire to last the UK for 50 years. Such comments must
obviously be taken with large quantities of salt, but they illustrate the
problem of separating fact from fiction in the energy world given the
hyperbole surrounding the issue on both sides of the social, political,
economic and environmental arguments, not to mention self-interested
misinformation.

Nevertheless it is probably indisputable that very significant deposits of
oil shale are to be found beneath Lancashire. Whether the recoverable gas
resources are commensurate, is an entirely different and still largely
unanswered question. This underlines the futility of making predictions
about when fossil fuels will "run out", and all that ensues from such
pronouncements.

There are very large deposits of shale oil in many other parts of the
world still to be fully assessed, just two examples out of many are China
which has what are believed to be vast deposits far larger than those
found in the USA, and Argentina. The latter are onshore deposits in
addition to the offshore deposits of oil being explored in the Atlantic
near the Falkland Islands. New gas fields have just been confirmed in the
Eastern Mediterranean and the very first test well explored off Cyprus has
been assessed at about 5 trillion cubic feet. This field will not require
"fracking" and the gas is recoverable through natural pressure. There are
other fields yet to be explored in the area and that doesn't take into
account fields already found off Israel. Both countries are considering
how they might export natural gas in light of their respective
geopolitical situations but it is a given that they have discovered more
natural gas than they consume when exploration has only just begun.

The price of natural gas in the USA has plummeted in the last year, simply
because large quantities of shale gas have come onto the market and the
USA is now contemplating exporting gas. The price of gas has fallen so
low there and so rapidly that companies are now having to mothball up to
half of the wells which they only opened up very recently.

--
Dave N

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:46:41 +0100, Dave N
wrote:

On 17/04/2012 03:38, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Following on from another thread...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...fracking-gets-
green-light

http://tinyurl.com/cumqamx

(that's a vaguely dirty-sounding shortlink tinyurl came up with!)


Indeed, and to listen to some business commentators there are sufficient
reserves under Lancashire to last the UK for 50 years. Such comments
must obviously be taken with large quantities of salt, but they
illustrate the problem of separating fact from fiction in the energy
world given the hyperbole surrounding the issue on both sides of the
social, political, economic and environmental arguments, not to mention
self-interested misinformation.

Nevertheless it is probably indisputable that very significant deposits
of oil shale are to be found beneath Lancashire. Whether the
recoverable gas resources are commensurate, is an entirely different and
still largely unanswered question. This underlines the futility of
making predictions about when fossil fuels will "run out", and all that
ensues from such pronouncements.

There are very large deposits of shale oil in many other parts of the
world still to be fully assessed, just two examples out of many are
China which has what are believed to be vast deposits far larger than
those found in the USA, and Argentina. The latter are onshore deposits
in addition to the offshore deposits of oil being explored in the
Atlantic near the Falkland Islands. New gas fields have just been
confirmed in the Eastern Mediterranean and the very first test well
explored off Cyprus has been assessed at about 5 trillion cubic feet.
This field will not require "fracking" and the gas is recoverable
through natural pressure. There are other fields yet to be explored in
the area and that doesn't take into account fields already found off
Israel. Both countries are considering how they might export natural
gas in light of their respective geopolitical situations but it is a
given that they have discovered more natural gas than they consume when
exploration has only just begun.

The price of natural gas in the USA has plummeted in the last year,
simply because large quantities of shale gas have come onto the market
and the USA is now contemplating exporting gas. The price of gas has
fallen so low there and so rapidly that companies are now having to
mothball up to half of the wells which they only opened up very recently.

So...

I have this picture in my head of the gas coming out and the Earth
shrinking down like a deflating balloon.

fx: looks around, nervously
Erme - only me then?

Nick

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:57:16 +0100
Nick Odell wrote:

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:46:41 +0100, Dave N
wrote:

On 17/04/2012 03:38, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Following on from another thread...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...fracking-gets-
green-light

http://tinyurl.com/cumqamx

(that's a vaguely dirty-sounding shortlink tinyurl came up with!)


Indeed, and to listen to some business commentators there are
sufficient reserves under Lancashire to last the UK for 50 years.
Such comments must obviously be taken with large quantities of salt,
but they illustrate the problem of separating fact from fiction in
the energy world given the hyperbole surrounding the issue on both
sides of the social, political, economic and environmental
arguments, not to mention self-interested misinformation.

Nevertheless it is probably indisputable that very significant
deposits of oil shale are to be found beneath Lancashire. Whether
the recoverable gas resources are commensurate, is an entirely
different and still largely unanswered question. This underlines
the futility of making predictions about when fossil fuels will "run
out", and all that ensues from such pronouncements.

There are very large deposits of shale oil in many other parts of
the world still to be fully assessed, just two examples out of many
are China which has what are believed to be vast deposits far larger
than those found in the USA, and Argentina. The latter are onshore
deposits in addition to the offshore deposits of oil being explored
in the Atlantic near the Falkland Islands. New gas fields have just
been confirmed in the Eastern Mediterranean and the very first test
well explored off Cyprus has been assessed at about 5 trillion cubic
feet. This field will not require "fracking" and the gas is
recoverable through natural pressure. There are other fields yet to
be explored in the area and that doesn't take into account fields
already found off Israel. Both countries are considering how they
might export natural gas in light of their respective geopolitical
situations but it is a given that they have discovered more natural
gas than they consume when exploration has only just begun.

The price of natural gas in the USA has plummeted in the last year,
simply because large quantities of shale gas have come onto the
market and the USA is now contemplating exporting gas. The price of
gas has fallen so low there and so rapidly that companies are now
having to mothball up to half of the wells which they only opened up
very recently.

So...

I have this picture in my head of the gas coming out and the Earth
shrinking down like a deflating balloon.

fx: looks around, nervously
Erme - only me then?

Nick

Would it then be sent frantically zooming away like a balloon let loose?
No need to worry about spacecraft journey times to the stars, we take
the whole planet!
It's worthy of Red Dwarf.
--
Davey.

Dave N wrote:
[snip]

Nevertheless it is probably indisputable that very significant deposits
of oil shale are to be found beneath Lancashire.

Not just Lancashire. There are probably significant reserves below
Derbyshire. There is evidence in the form of elaterite and the blue
colouring in Blue John of petroleum below the limestone strata. There is
an interesting succession of shale, grit, impermeable basalts and porous
limestone with coal measures at the northern end of the Peak District. The
question there would be permits for extraction in a National Park.

On 17/04/2012 07:46, Dave N wrote:
On 17/04/2012 03:38, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Following on from another thread...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...fracking-gets-
green-light

http://tinyurl.com/cumqamx

(that's a vaguely dirty-sounding shortlink tinyurl came up with!)


Indeed, and to listen to some business commentators there are sufficient
reserves under Lancashire to last the UK for 50 years. Such comments
must obviously be taken with large quantities of salt,
No, the salt mines are in Cheshire.

Pete

Steve Firth wrote:
The question there would be permits for extraction in a National Park.

Dig the mines outside the national park and then go sideways.

JGH

jgharston wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
The question there would be permits for extraction in a National Park.

Dig the mines outside the national park and then go sideways.

JGH

Yep. In fact a gas drill rig is probably less intrusive than a single
windmill..

I note there are S Wales deposits..looked like the Brecons to me. I cant
think of a better gift to Wales than that. Must be some gas
infrastructure there already.


Very good paper on all of this from DECC

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/U...e_shalegas.pdf

Politically this may be a bacon saver. New UK industry, jobs in deprived
Labour voting areas..reduction in ports, an excuse to trash renewables
and still claim 'its better than coal'.

And of course, it keeps the lights burning without having to use the N word.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Apr 17, 7:46*am, Dave N wrote:
Indeed, and to listen to some business commentators there
are sufficient reserves under Lancashire to last the UK for 50 years.

The entire UK may have sufficient shale gas reserves for 25 to 50
years, with the former of those being more likely.

The duration of reserves is not down to the raw reserve size, it is
down to available recovery technology and market price (both of which
are highly volatile). For example, current technology and market price
may make it only economic to recover 20Tcu.ft out of the 200Tcu.ft
reserves, however by the time 20Tcu.ft have been recovered technology
may make recovery of 70T possible and market price eventually may make
120T or more viable.

The UK is going to be turning off coal shortly re EU directive, and
its nukes will eventually lose operating licences. So like the law of
corporate big numbers some of the "new finds" are in fact going to
merely replace lost supply vs deliver new.

Earthquakes are a non-issue.
Due to nature of gas extraction, the UK sitting in the middle of a
tectonic plate, large earthquakes are simply very unlikely. Realise
they have been extracting shale gas actually on the San Andreas fault
and other fault lines for some time without Phoenix becoming beach
front property. The UK has relatively stable geology, it naturally has
a huge number of earthquakes a year.
The fracking in lancashire may have caused a 2.1 earthquake in (I
think) December, being in Cheshire and sat on a concrete raft I simply
felt a slight tilt & return of my pelvis. It was trivial, but will add
to the "earthquake noise".

Fracking mixtures are NOT a non-issue.
In the USA, and most likely the UK, it is difficult "for commercial
reasons" (********) to get the exact mix known, however it is known
that Benzene forms one of the components. This is not ideal, and
indeed in the USA the drilling companies bizarrely have exemption from
the Clean Water Act. No idea what the UK is doing, probably collecting
bribes and examining its political arsehole.
Benzene could interface with ground water, there is considerable
subterranean water transit in the UK. That just might result in more
distorted life forms in London and Parliament eventually, the mind
boggles. More seriously there needs to be research to establish if
other less carcinogenic chemical formulations could be used -
sacrificing absolute performance since there is little commercial
desperation to "get it all out now" because that will merely depress
prices.

Oil companies are just a proxy for the state, more than any other in
fact.

I have no problems in seeing gas & electricity generation prices fall,
as to "insulating homes" I strongly suspect that will continue anyway
simply because you can STILL save a lot of money even if energy prices
were to "collapse" to 2007 levels. Of course, realise we are not going
back to cheap petrol/diesel, the government has a shed sized hole to
fill. The opportunity for the Treasury against a stagnant UK economy
is too great and Votes Come First.

What I would prefer to see is a Sovereign Wealth Fund established via
a tax on domestic shale gas and export (globally), which could be
apportioned to individuals as say a Cancer or terminal disease medical
fund and inherited without tax. I know quite a few cancer suffers (my
mother is soon to be one) who would benefit from a £1000-5000 scaling
sum.
Sadly the UK, as Thatcher did (and I am a capitalist) will squander it
on projects for votes, benefactors, pork & waste.

On Apr 17, 8:09*pm, jgharston wrote:
Dig the mines outside the national park and then go sideways.

heh, like Kuwait into Iraq.. Gulf War 1.


Coal mining removes a large bulk of solid material in specific areas
which can and do collapse as a result over the subsequent decades.
Shale gas extraction does not remove bulk material, what it removes is
distributed over a large area. So more likely to be trivial
earthquakes rather than the (real) problem of coal mine subsidence.

Companies using fracking chemicals are intentionally contractors, and
even those contractors will no doubt phoenix at some point to distance
liability. So making any future litigation more an "demands for
industry to face a public inquiry" with the result pre-determined and
obfuscated by paid off expert testimony. Focusing on earthquakes is
missing the elephant in the room, but that is a common ploy.

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:09:27 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Well yes, but has anyone worked out what happens to the actual ground when
you do this kind of extraction. If people live above it all sorts of things
might occur with time.
Brian

Welcome to Blackpool - Twinned with Pisa.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

On 17/04/2012 20:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Very good paper on all of this from DECC

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/U...e_shalegas.pdf

Politically this may be a bacon saver. New UK industry, jobs in deprived
Labour voting areas..reduction in ports, an excuse to trash renewables
and still claim 'its better than coal'.

And of course, it keeps the lights burning without having to use the N
word.


I notice that David MacKay (author of Sustainable Energy - without the
hot air) has been Chief Scientific Advisor to DECC for some time now.

There have been some encouraging signs of common sense gaining ground there.

Another Dave
--
Change nospam to gmx

"js.b1" wrote in message
...
On Apr 17, 7:46 am, Dave N wrote:
Indeed, and to listen to some business commentators there
are sufficient reserves under Lancashire to last the UK for 50 years.

The entire UK may have sufficient shale gas reserves for 25 to 50
years, with the former of those being more likely.

The duration of reserves is not down to the raw reserve size, it is
down to available recovery technology and market price (both of which
are highly volatile). For example, current technology and market price
may make it only economic to recover 20Tcu.ft out of the 200Tcu.ft
reserves, however by the time 20Tcu.ft have been recovered technology
may make recovery of 70T possible and market price eventually may make
120T or more viable.

The UK is going to be turning off coal shortly re EU directive,

Bet that doesn't happen now that the krauts have pulled the plug on their
nukes.

and its nukes will eventually lose operating licences.

Bet that doesn't happen either.

So like the law of corporate big numbers some of the "new finds"
are in fact going to merely replace lost supply vs deliver new.

Earthquakes are a non-issue.
Due to nature of gas extraction, the UK sitting in the middle of a
tectonic plate, large earthquakes are simply very unlikely. Realise
they have been extracting shale gas actually on the San Andreas fault
and other fault lines for some time without Phoenix becoming beach
front property. The UK has relatively stable geology, it naturally has
a huge number of earthquakes a year.
The fracking in lancashire may have caused a 2.1 earthquake in (I
think) December, being in Cheshire and sat on a concrete raft I simply
felt a slight tilt & return of my pelvis. It was trivial, but will add
to the "earthquake noise".

Fracking mixtures are NOT a non-issue.
In the USA, and most likely the UK, it is difficult "for commercial
reasons" (********) to get the exact mix known, however it is known
that Benzene forms one of the components. This is not ideal, and
indeed in the USA the drilling companies bizarrely have exemption from
the Clean Water Act. No idea what the UK is doing, probably collecting
bribes and examining its political arsehole.
Benzene could interface with ground water, there is considerable
subterranean water transit in the UK. That just might result in more
distorted life forms in London and Parliament eventually, the mind
boggles. More seriously there needs to be research to establish if
other less carcinogenic chemical formulations could be used -
sacrificing absolute performance since there is little commercial
desperation to "get it all out now" because that will merely depress
prices.

Oil companies are just a proxy for the state, more than any other in
fact.

I have no problems in seeing gas & electricity generation prices fall,
as to "insulating homes" I strongly suspect that will continue anyway
simply because you can STILL save a lot of money even if energy prices
were to "collapse" to 2007 levels. Of course, realise we are not going
back to cheap petrol/diesel, the government has a shed sized hole to
fill. The opportunity for the Treasury against a stagnant UK economy
is too great and Votes Come First.

What I would prefer to see is a Sovereign Wealth Fund established via
a tax on domestic shale gas and export (globally), which could be
apportioned to individuals as say a Cancer or terminal disease medical
fund and inherited without tax. I know quite a few cancer suffers (my
mother is soon to be one) who would benefit from a £1000-5000 scaling
sum.
Sadly the UK, as Thatcher did (and I am a capitalist) will squander it
on projects for votes, benefactors, pork & waste.

"js.b1" wrote in message
...

Sadly the UK, as Thatcher did (and I am a capitalist) will squander it
on projects for votes, benefactors, pork & waste.

Capitalist or free-marketer? Thatcher was no free-marketer. Quite the
opposite, more a Corporate Fascist - what we have now.

You are right she squandered North Sea oil on unemployment benefits to
destroy manufacturing to offshore it to China. The woman was a loon.

MAGGIE, MAGGIE!! DIE! DIE! DIE!

js.b1 wrote:
On Apr 17, 7:46 am, Dave N wrote:

What I would prefer to see is a Sovereign Wealth Fund established via
a tax on domestic shale gas and export (globally),

You do not tax the end user. Tax the company that extracts the gas. The
proceeds go into the treasury coffers keeping income tax down - hopefully.

This gas is commonwealth. The company using commonwealth must pay for the
privilege to pay for our collective services.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Yep. In fact a gas drill rig is probably less intrusive than a
single windmill..

They showed an existing gas frack plant near Blackpool that's been
operating for more than 20 years. I'd have no objection to one of
those actually in my actual garden. It's about twice the size of
my shed.

JGH

js.b1 wrote:
Benzene could interface with ground water,

The only bits of the "firewater" film that gets shown on the
news is one chap setting fire to gas coming out of his tap.
They never explain where he gets his water from. Borehole or
piped from local water company? The American fracking plants
seem to be in the middle of nowhere, so I'd guess borehole.

I can understand gases leaching into a borehole, but how are
gases going to leach into the water mains? The gaseaus
leachate is going to enter the public water system at the
collection stage, prior to processing, and I would most
expect it to dissipate from reservoirs.

JGH

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:46:41 +0100, Dave N
wrote:

The price of gas has
fallen so low there and so rapidly that companies are now having to
mothball up to half of the wells which they only opened up very recently.

Not a few are being shut because they don't fulfil the bull****
spouted about them.

Doctor Drivel wrote
js.b1 wrote

Sadly the UK, as Thatcher did (and I am a capitalist) will
squander it on projects for votes, benefactors, pork & waste.

Capitalist or free-marketer? Thatcher was no free-marketer. Quite
the opposite, more a Corporate Fascist - what we have now.

You are right she squandered North Sea oil on unemployment
benefits to destroy manufacturing to offshore it to China.

Have fun explaining how that happened with almost every
other modern first world country too. Cant have been Maggie.

The woman was a loon.

MAGGIE, MAGGIE!! DIE! DIE! DIE!

She managed a hell of a lot more than you ever did.

On Apr 17, 10:57*pm, jgharston wrote:
The only bits of the "firewater" film that gets shown on the
news is one chap setting fire to gas coming out of his tap.

It is from a (local) borehole.

but how are gases going to leach into the water mains?

A fair amount of water is actually pumped from aquifers.
What Reading pees, London drinks sometime later.

Fracking involves a fair bit of diesel, hence the benzene and lighter
fractions. I have a suspicion it leaks in via the original pipe route
not so much the deep level fracking which is below water table (clay
on top of fracking area).

js.b1 wrote:
Fracking involves a fair bit of diesel, hence the benzene and lighter
fractions. I have a suspicion it leaks in via the original pipe route
not so much the deep level fracking which is below water table (clay
on top of fracking area).

That's the conclusion I came to - so it's a problem for the water
treatment system which already has plants to remove grok and gunk
from the water harvested from the environment when leachate at
the fracking pipe leaches far enough to get to the catchment
reservoirs or supply boreholes.

How many people are likely to have a private borehole near
enough to a fracking plant to be effected? I know it's the
"in thing" in back-to-the-country self-build property
programs, but even the people I knew living five miles
outside remotest Tarland were on the water main.

JGH

jgharston wrote:

How many people are likely to have a private borehole near
enough to a fracking plant to be effected?

AFFECTED!!!!

To AFFECT is to make a difference to,
To EFFECT is to cause a result to happen.

I was affected by price rises at Tesco. I was effected by (I hope) by my
dad ****ing my mum.





--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

I was effected by (I hope) by my dad ****ing my mum.


Ugly as a verb

stuart noble wrote:
I was effected by (I hope) by my dad ****ing my mum.


Ugly as a verb


Effected, or ****ing?


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On 18/04/2012 13:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
stuart noble wrote:
I was effected by (I hope) by my dad ****ing my mum.


Ugly as a verb


Effected, or ****ing?


Effected

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

MAGGIE, MAGGIE!! DIE! DIE! DIE!

They woman was a foolish loon and those who followed the idiot were worse.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

MAGGIE!! DIE! DIE! DIE!

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
jgharston wrote:
How many people are likely to have a private borehole near
enough to a fracking plant to be effected?

AFFECTED!!!!

I know, I saw it as soon as I posted, all I can blame
is my typing's gone to pot since scraping all that
limescale from the toilet. You shoiuld've seen how
I'd spelled "fracking" before I corrected it.

JGH

En el artículo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

AFFECTED!!!!

To AFFECT is to make a difference to,
To EFFECT is to cause a result to happen.

I was affected by price rises at Tesco. I was effected by (I hope) by my
dad ****ing my mum.

I really have to resist sometimes. It leaps off the page and smacks me
in the face.

http://failblog.org/2012/03/13/homew...chool-of-fail-
english-listen-up-internet/

http://tinyurl.com/6sutu2l

number 4.

My bete noire of the moment is "would of" instead of "would have". Grr.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

AFFECTED!!!!

To AFFECT is to make a difference to,
To EFFECT is to cause a result to happen.

I was affected by price rises at Tesco. I was effected by (I hope) by my
dad ****ing my mum.

I really have to resist sometimes. It leaps off the page and smacks me
in the face.

http://failblog.org/2012/03/13/homew...chool-of-fail-
english-listen-up-internet/

http://tinyurl.com/6sutu2l

number 4.

My bete noire of the moment is "would of" instead of "would have". Grr.

you can add prescribe/proscribe

I nearly went to court to appeal against a fine for 'parking in a
prescribed place'

I should have done it.

In fact anyone who comes up against it should do it.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

MAGGIE!! DIE! DIE! DIE!

MAGGIE MAGGIE MAGGIE DIE DIE DIE

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:45:20 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

MAGGIE!! DIE! DIE! DIE!

MAGGIE MAGGIE MAGGIE DIE DIE DIE

You love her really, and you want to have her babies.

On 18/04/2012 18:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
you can add prescribe/proscribe


Sometimes you have to be careful. I insure my car to ensure I can
afford a replacement; an American would use the same spelling for both.

Andy

In message , Mike Tomlinson
writes

My bete noire of the moment is "would of" instead of "would have". Grr.

Try the Hertfordshire *must ov* for size:-)

regards


--
Tim Lamb

Doctor Drivel drivelled as always
Rod Speed wrote

MAGGIE, MAGGIE!! DIE! DIE! DIE!

They woman was a foolish loon

Managed a hell of a lot more than you ever did.

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
http://failblog.org/2012/03/13/homew...chool-of-fail-
english-listen-up-internet/

I would also add "economic" vs "economical" to the ic/ical
list. There seem to be a lot of economical commentators who
don't know how daft they sound.

JGH

Andy Champ wrote:
On 18/04/2012 18:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
you can add prescribe/proscribe


Sometimes you have to be careful. I insure my car to ensure I can
afford a replacement; an American would use the same spelling for both.


yeah but they took burglar - derived from the verb to burgle, and
recreated a new verb called 'burglarize'.

In short if they can add syllables they will and anything goes..


Andy


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

jgharston wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
http://failblog.org/2012/03/13/homew...chool-of-fail-
english-listen-up-internet/

I would also add "economic" vs "economical" to the ic/ical
list. There seem to be a lot of economical commentators who
don't know how daft they sound.

JGH

And the most common one that makes my hackles rise..
the use of a collective noun followed by a plural

The police force are...

The vast majority of (whatever) say

The biggest giveaway comes from Labour who use words they have read, but
patently never pronounced....


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On 2012-04-18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Champ wrote:

Sometimes you have to be careful. I insure my car to ensure I can
afford a replacement; an American would use the same spelling for both.

(Possibly, but not always.)

yeah but they took burglar - derived from the verb to burgle, and
recreated a new verb called 'burglarize'.

In short if they can add syllables they will and anything goes..

Actually "burglar" & "burglarize" are *both* contemporaneous
back-formations (1871 & 1872, respectively, according to the OED) from
"burglar" (1268), rather like "peddle" (1650) from "pedlar/peddler"
(1307).

Of course, I agree that "burgle" is aesthetically better than
"burglarize" (just as I think "legitimate" & "administer" are better
than "legitimize" or "legitimatize" & "administrate").