Fracking to proceed in Southern England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraul...United_Kingdom

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20707574

Give the NIMBYs a pause for thought from wind turbines.
I hope they find coal there and bury nuclear waste too.

On 13/01/2013 18:16, harry wrote:
Fracking to proceed in Southern England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraul...United_Kingdom

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20707574

Give the NIMBYs a pause for thought from wind turbines.
I hope they find coal there and bury nuclear waste too.

1) I mentioned this a while ago.
2) There is coal in SE England

Colin Bignell

On 13/01/13 18:35, Nightjar wrote:
On 13/01/2013 18:16, harry wrote:
Fracking to proceed in Southern England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraul...United_Kingdom

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20707574

Give the NIMBYs a pause for thought from wind turbines.
I hope they find coal there and bury nuclear waste too.

1) I mentioned this a while ago.
2) There is coal in SE England

Colin Bignell

I certainly went down a coal mine in Kent in the 60s.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:35:10 +0000, Nightjar
wrote:

On 13/01/2013 18:16, harry wrote:
Fracking to proceed in Southern England.



Give the NIMBYs a pause for thought from wind turbines.
I hope they find coal there and bury nuclear waste too.

1) I mentioned this a while ago.
2) There is coal in SE England


There were still coal mines working in Somerset up to 1970's but it
seems to suit some northerners to wallow in self pity and think it was
only them who were oppressed by the industrial revolution.
In the Southwest much mineral mining had started and finished by the
time many of the dark satanic mills were built .
Talking of the Southwest, Bideford in North Devon has a small seam of
coal under it. Whereas the jam butty mines of knotty ash are fictional
the paint mine at Bideford was not,a local paint manufacturer used the
some of the coal as pigment till the mine closed in 1969.

G.Harman

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:02:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 13/01/13 18:35, Nightjar wrote:
On 13/01/2013 18:16, harry wrote:
Fracking to proceed in Southern England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20707574

Give the NIMBYs a pause for thought from wind turbines.
I hope they find coal there and bury nuclear waste too.

1) I mentioned this a while ago. 2) There is coal in SE England

Colin Bignell

I certainly went down a coal mine in Kent in the 60s.

There's a closed down mine just a few miles from here.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 13/01/2013 20:40, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:35:10 +0000, Nightjar
wrote:

On 13/01/2013 18:16, harry wrote:
Fracking to proceed in Southern England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraul...United_Kingdom

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20707574

Give the NIMBYs a pause for thought from wind turbines.
I hope they find coal there and bury nuclear waste too.

1) I mentioned this a while ago.
2) There is coal in SE England

Colin Bignell

And oil for that matter. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wytch_Farm

And Stockbridge.

--
Rod

Chris Hogg wrote:

1) I mentioned this a while ago.
2) There is coal in SE England

Colin Bignell

And oil for that matter. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wytch_Farm

There's an oil field a few miles from my home and we don't live in
Dorset, but do live on the South Downs. The working pits in Kent
included Betteshanger (closed 1989), Chislet (closed 1969), Cobham
(closed 1953), Shakespeare (closed 1915), Snowdown (closed 1986) and
Tilmanstone (closed 1986). Hardly a shortage of coal and coal mines in
the South East.

I'm not sure why harry thought that there's no coal or other
hydrocarbons in the South East, other of course than the fact that he's
an idiot.

On 13/01/2013 21:09, Steve Firth wrote:
Chris Hogg wrote:

1) I mentioned this a while ago.
2) There is coal in SE England

Colin Bignell

And oil for that matter. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wytch_Farm

There's an oil field a few miles from my home and we don't live in
Dorset, but do live on the South Downs. The working pits in Kent
included Betteshanger (closed 1989), Chislet (closed 1969), Cobham
(closed 1953), Shakespeare (closed 1915), Snowdown (closed 1986) and
Tilmanstone (closed 1986). Hardly a shortage of coal and coal mines in
the South East.

I'm not sure why harry thought that there's no coal or other
hydrocarbons in the South East, other of course than the fact that he's
an idiot.

Surely fracking is for gas and or oil, not coal.

--
Remember the early bird may catch the worm but the second mouse gets the
cheese.

On 13/01/2013 20:30, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:35:10 +0000, Nightjar
wrote:

On 13/01/2013 18:16, harry wrote:
Fracking to proceed in Southern England.



Give the NIMBYs a pause for thought from wind turbines.
I hope they find coal there and bury nuclear waste too.

1) I mentioned this a while ago.
2) There is coal in SE England


There were still coal mines working in Somerset up to 1970's but it
seems to suit some northerners to wallow in self pity and think it was
only them who were oppressed by the industrial revolution.
In the Southwest much mineral mining had started and finished by the
time many of the dark satanic mills were built .
Talking of the Southwest, Bideford in North Devon has a small seam of
coal under it. Whereas the jam butty mines of knotty ash are fictional
the paint mine at Bideford was not,a local paint manufacturer used the
some of the coal as pigment till the mine closed in 1969.

Interesting. I normally associate mining in the SW with metals, rather
than with coal.

Colin Bignell

On 14/01/2013 07:49, Broadback wrote:
On 13/01/2013 21:09, Steve Firth wrote:
Chris Hogg wrote:

1) I mentioned this a while ago.
2) There is coal in SE England

Colin Bignell

And oil for that matter. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wytch_Farm

There's an oil field a few miles from my home and we don't live in
Dorset, but do live on the South Downs. The working pits in Kent
included Betteshanger (closed 1989), Chislet (closed 1969), Cobham
(closed 1953), Shakespeare (closed 1915), Snowdown (closed 1986) and
Tilmanstone (closed 1986). Hardly a shortage of coal and coal mines in
the South East.

I'm not sure why harry thought that there's no coal or other
hydrocarbons in the South East, other of course than the fact that he's
an idiot.

Surely fracking is for gas and or oil, not coal.

Harry commented that he hoped that coal would be found in the South. In
that, he is about a century and a half too late.

Colin Bignell

That is not a very nice attitude is it. Its the planet that worries me, we
only have the one.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harry" wrote in message
...
Fracking to proceed in Southern England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraul...United_Kingdom

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20707574

Give the NIMBYs a pause for thought from wind turbines.
I hope they find coal there and bury nuclear waste too.

On 14/01/2013 08:29, Brian Gaff wrote:
That is not a very nice attitude is it. Its the planet that worries me, we
only have the one.

Brian


Let's hope The Cotswolds have the richest deposits

On 14/01/13 08:29, Brian Gaff wrote:
That is not a very nice attitude is it. Its the planet that worries me, we
only have the one.

Brian

I'm not worried about the planet. I am worried about all the people, of
which we have a lot more than one.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 14/01/13 09:55, stuart noble wrote:
On 14/01/2013 08:29, Brian Gaff wrote:
That is not a very nice attitude is it. Its the planet that worries
me, we
only have the one.

Brian


Let's hope The Cotswolds have the richest deposits
To be honest a fracking rig is pretty compact and with horizontal
fracking being the order of the day, you dont need to be that near the gas.

Its certainly a lot less destructive than even deep shaft mining.

I wouldn't object to fraking round here. Small footprint large payback.

Or more nuclear power. As above.

Renewable energy is a voracious consumer of land area, like farming.
Both dominate the landscape.

But at least with farming you get something you need.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 14/01/2013 10:35, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 07:49:41 +0000, Broadback
wrote:

On 13/01/2013 21:09, Steve Firth wrote:
Chris Hogg wrote:

1) I mentioned this a while ago.
2) There is coal in SE England

Colin Bignell

And oil for that matter. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wytch_Farm

There's an oil field a few miles from my home and we don't live in
Dorset, but do live on the South Downs. The working pits in Kent
included Betteshanger (closed 1989), Chislet (closed 1969), Cobham
(closed 1953), Shakespeare (closed 1915), Snowdown (closed 1986) and
Tilmanstone (closed 1986). Hardly a shortage of coal and coal mines in
the South East.

I'm not sure why harry thought that there's no coal or other
hydrocarbons in the South East, other of course than the fact that he's
an idiot.

Surely fracking is for gas and or oil, not coal.

Yebbut where there's coal, there's often gas and/or sometimes oil. All
three derive from plant and animal remains entombed in sediments
squillions of years ago, that slowly change over the millennia. Often,
the deposits of coal or oil aren't sufficiently plentiful to be worth
recovering, but modern horizontal and directional drilling techniques
allow large areas to be exploited for gas without excessive cost.

Have they finally agreed that there is no methane outgassing from the
interior of the earth, collecting under impervious deposits?

--
Rod

Only having one planet at present is part of the case for more energy
sources. Else we cannot develop the means to colonise other planets or
other places in space

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On 14/01/2013 13:39, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:43:21 +0000, polygonum
wrote:

On 14/01/2013 10:35, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 07:49:41 +0000, Broadback
wrote:

Surely fracking is for gas and or oil, not coal.

Yebbut where there's coal, there's often gas and/or sometimes oil. All
three derive from plant and animal remains entombed in sediments
squillions of years ago, that slowly change over the millennia. Often,
the deposits of coal or oil aren't sufficiently plentiful to be worth
recovering, but modern horizontal and directional drilling techniques
allow large areas to be exploited for gas without excessive cost.

Have they finally agreed that there is no methane outgassing from the
interior of the earth, collecting under impervious deposits?


Sorry, no idea. That's a new one on me, but my geology is a few
decades old, so probably out-of-date by now.

Seem to remember that one of the supporters of the idea wanted to drill
in Scandinavia (Sweden?) below a rock layer which could not have any
organic matter below it.

--
Rod

On 14/01/2013 14:21, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:59:22 +0000, polygonum
wrote:

On 14/01/2013 13:39, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:43:21 +0000, polygonum
wrote:

Have they finally agreed that there is no methane outgassing from the
interior of the earth, collecting under impervious deposits?


Sorry, no idea. That's a new one on me, but my geology is a few
decades old, so probably out-of-date by now.

Seem to remember that one of the supporters of the idea wanted to drill
in Scandinavia (Sweden?) below a rock layer which could not have any
organic matter below it.

Now you mention it, that does ring a faint bell. Found this:
http://rense.com/general58/biot.htm but I don't know if it answers
your question. I haven't read it all, but it appears that the jury's
still out.

Doesn't answer it (I don't think!) but yes, it is the right story.

--
Rod

On 14/01/13 11:47, Robin wrote:
Only having one planet at present is part of the case for more energy
sources. Else we cannot develop the means to colonise other planets or
other places in space

No, its simply establishes a case for BIGGER energy sources. Not more of
them

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Only having one planet at present is part of the case for more energy
sources. Else we cannot develop the means to colonise other planets
or other places in space

No, its simply establishes a case for BIGGER energy sources. Not more
of them

You may be right but I am unclear what's wrong with increased numbers of
what we have now. Are you saying you would, for instance, argue against
a greater number of nuclear power stations if they were the same as (or
smaller than) the ones we have now and insist that we really must have
*bigger* ones?

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On Jan 14, 2:22*pm, polygonum wrote:
On 14/01/2013 14:21, Chris Hogg wrote:







On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:59:22 +0000, polygonum
wrote:

On 14/01/2013 13:39, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:43:21 +0000, polygonum
wrote:

Have they finally agreed that there is no methane outgassing from the
interior of the earth, collecting under impervious deposits?

Sorry, no idea. That's a new one on me, but my geology is a few
decades old, so probably out-of-date by now.

Seem to remember that one of the supporters of the idea wanted to drill
in Scandinavia (Sweden?) below a rock layer which could not have any
organic matter below it.

Now you mention it, that does ring a faint bell. Found this:
http://rense.com/general58/biot.htmbut I don't know if it answers
your question. I haven't read it all, but it appears that the jury's
still out.

Doesn't answer it (I don't think!) but yes, it is the right story.

--
Rod

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas

On Jan 14, 5:48*pm, "Robin" wrote:
Only having one planet at present is part of the case for more energy
sources. *Else we cannot develop the means to colonise other planets
or other places in space

No, its simply establishes a case for BIGGER energy sources. Not more
of them

You may be right but I am unclear what's wrong with increased numbers of
what we have now. *Are you saying you would, for instance, argue against
a greater number of nuclear power stations if they were the same as (or
smaller than) the ones we have now and insist that we really must have
*bigger* ones?

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

The possibility of burying nuclear waste in Cumbria is being explored.
It will cost more then the Channel Tunnel to construct.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-19816861

TurNiP doesn't like this to be mentioned.

harry wrote
Robin wrote

Only having one planet at present is part of the case for more energy
sources. Else we cannot develop the means to colonise other planets
or other places in space

No, its simply establishes a case for BIGGER energy sources. Not more
of them

You may be right but I am unclear what's wrong with increased numbers of
what we have now. Are you saying you would, for instance, argue against
a greater number of nuclear power stations if they were the same as (or
smaller than) the ones we have now and insist that we really must have
*bigger* ones?

The possibility of burying nuclear waste in Cumbria is being explored.

Only by the fools that are too stupid to even notice that
the best way to dispose of it is to burn it in thorium nukes.

It will cost more then the Channel Tunnel to construct.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-19816861

And that's why its completely stupid.

TurNiP doesn't like this to be mentioned.

Because its not relevant to what should be done with it.

On 14/01/2013 20:14, harry wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas

Congratulations - you've found Wiki.

Exactly what were trying to point out?

--
Rod

On 14/01/13 20:17, harry wrote:
On Jan 14, 5:48 pm, "Robin" wrote:
Only having one planet at present is part of the case for more energy
sources. Else we cannot develop the means to colonise other planets
or other places in space

No, its simply establishes a case for BIGGER energy sources. Not more
of them

You may be right but I am unclear what's wrong with increased numbers of
what we have now. Are you saying you would, for instance, argue against
a greater number of nuclear power stations if they were the same as (or
smaller than) the ones we have now and insist that we really must have
*bigger* ones?

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

The possibility of burying nuclear waste in Cumbria is being explored.
It will cost more then the Channel Tunnel to construct.

So does the NHS
When did you last use the channel tunnel?
When did you last use electricity?
When did you last see a doctor?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-19816861

TurNiP doesn't like this to be mentioned.


It only costs because people are so scared of it.

Its a high price to pay for being ignorant as pig****.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Jan 14, 8:24*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
harry wrote

Robin wrote
Only having one planet at present is part of the case for more energy
sources. *Else we cannot develop the means to colonise other planets
or other places in space
No, its simply establishes a case for BIGGER energy sources. Not more
of them
You may be right but I am unclear what's wrong with increased numbers of
what we have now. *Are you saying you would, for instance, argue against
a greater number of nuclear power stations if they were the same as (or
smaller than) the ones we have now and insist that we really must have
*bigger* ones?
The possibility of burying nuclear waste in Cumbria is being explored.

Only by the fools that are too stupid to even notice that
the best way to dispose of it is to burn it in thorium nukes.

It will cost more then the Channel Tunnel to construct.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-19816861

And that's why its completely stupid.

TurNiP doesn't like this to be mentioned.

Because its not relevant to what should be done with it.

Which "thorium nukes" is that?
It's relevant because it is one of the ignored costs of nuclear power.

On Jan 14, 8:33*pm, polygonum wrote:
On 14/01/2013 20:14, harry wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas

Congratulations - you've found Wiki.

Exactly what were trying to point out?

--
Rod

There is a lot about the technology/production of natural gas.
Is it too difficult for you to understand?

On Jan 15, 6:43*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 14/01/13 20:17, harry wrote:









On Jan 14, 5:48 pm, "Robin" wrote:
Only having one planet at present is part of the case for more energy
sources. *Else we cannot develop the means to colonise other planets
or other places in space

No, its simply establishes a case for BIGGER energy sources. Not more
of them

You may be right but I am unclear what's wrong with increased numbers of
what we have now. *Are you saying you would, for instance, argue against
a greater number of nuclear power stations if they were the same as (or
smaller than) the ones we have now and insist that we really must have
*bigger* ones?

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

The possibility of burying nuclear waste in Cumbria is being explored.
It will cost more then the Channel Tunnel to construct.

So does the NHS
When did you last use the channel tunnel?
When did you last use electricity?
When did you last see a doctor?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-19816861

TurNiP doesn't like this to be mentioned.

It only costs because people are so scared of it.

Its a high price to pay for being ignorant as pig****.


Oh so TurNiP knows better than everyone else then?
That puts you thicker than pig****.

On 15/01/13 07:10, harry wrote:
On Jan 14, 8:24 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
harry wrote

Robin wrote
Only having one planet at present is part of the case for more energy
sources. Else we cannot develop the means to colonise other planets
or other places in space
No, its simply establishes a case for BIGGER energy sources. Not more
of them
You may be right but I am unclear what's wrong with increased numbers of
what we have now. Are you saying you would, for instance, argue against
a greater number of nuclear power stations if they were the same as (or
smaller than) the ones we have now and insist that we really must have
*bigger* ones?
The possibility of burying nuclear waste in Cumbria is being explored.

Only by the fools that are too stupid to even notice that
the best way to dispose of it is to burn it in thorium nukes.

It will cost more then the Channel Tunnel to construct.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-19816861

And that's why its completely stupid.

TurNiP doesn't like this to be mentioned.

Because its not relevant to what should be done with it.

Which "thorium nukes" is that?
It's relevant because it is one of the ignored costs of nuclear power.

Its not ignored.

Not like the storage/backup/decomissioning/fuel hungry
maintenance/enhanced and re-rated grid/damage to environment/sheer
****ing ugliness of renewable energy.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 15/01/13 07:11, harry wrote:
On Jan 14, 8:33 pm, polygonum wrote:
On 14/01/2013 20:14, harry wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas

Congratulations - you've found Wiki.

Exactly what were trying to point out?

--
Rod

There is a lot about the technology/production of natural gas.
Is it too difficult for you to understand?

Not for ME, no.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 15/01/13 07:13, harry wrote:
On Jan 15, 6:43 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 14/01/13 20:17, harry wrote:









On Jan 14, 5:48 pm, "Robin" wrote:
Only having one planet at present is part of the case for more energy
sources. Else we cannot develop the means to colonise other planets
or other places in space

No, its simply establishes a case for BIGGER energy sources. Not more
of them

You may be right but I am unclear what's wrong with increased numbers of
what we have now. Are you saying you would, for instance, argue against
a greater number of nuclear power stations if they were the same as (or
smaller than) the ones we have now and insist that we really must have
*bigger* ones?

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

The possibility of burying nuclear waste in Cumbria is being explored.
It will cost more then the Channel Tunnel to construct.

So does the NHS
When did you last use the channel tunnel?
When did you last use electricity?
When did you last see a doctor?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-19816861

TurNiP doesn't like this to be mentioned.

It only costs because people are so scared of it.

Its a high price to pay for being ignorant as pig****.


IN this case, yes.


That puts you thicker than pig****.


No. It doesn't harry.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 15/01/2013 07:11, harry wrote:
On Jan 14, 8:33 pm, polygonum wrote:
On 14/01/2013 20:14, harry wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas

Congratulations - you've found Wiki.

Exactly what were trying to point out?

--
Rod

There is a lot about the technology/production of natural gas.
Is it too difficult for you to understand?

No. But does the article (which is quite long) say anything about the
subject under discussion - abiotic methane? I didn't see anything in my
fairly quick scan-read.

--
Rod

polygonum wrote:


Now you mention it, that does ring a faint bell. Found this:
http://rense.com/general58/biot.htm but I don't know if it answers
your question. I haven't read it all, but it appears that the jury's
still out.

Doesn't answer it (I don't think!) but yes, it is the right story.

This seems fair as a summary, and it is a more appropriate Wiki entry
than shotgunning in something random about methane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

--
Burn Hollywood burn, burn down to the ground

On 15/01/2013 10:24, Steve Firth wrote:
polygonum wrote:


Now you mention it, that does ring a faint bell. Found this:
http://rense.com/general58/biot.htm but I don't know if it answers
your question. I haven't read it all, but it appears that the jury's
still out.

Doesn't answer it (I don't think!) but yes, it is the right story.

This seems fair as a summary, and it is a more appropriate Wiki entry
than shotgunning in something random about methane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

And that links to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siljan_Ring

Which is, I think, what I was half-remembering. (Maybe even
quarter-remembering is being too generous to my memory of this.)

--
Rod