So, is it about the economics or not?

It’s not necessary to go all that far into the fracking debate to find people insisting that, well, of course, it’s not going to be economic in Britain anyway. The shales are too fractured, don’t have enough gas, the country’s too small, whaddaboutthegreenbelt and on. To which our response has always been well, let someone try it and see whether it is economic or not? That, in a market economy, is the way we prove things after all.

But it’s been banned anyway. Except:

The companies seeking planning permission and licences to crack open Britain’s oil and gas bearing rocks are now talking about “proppant squeeze”, “reservoir enhancement” or simply “stimulation”.

Whatever it is called, fracking, albeit of a gentler kind, is reappearing.

To be incorrect yet usefully incorrect the new idea is to prise, not jolt or shock, in order to extract the gas (and, as in the US, quite possibly oil as well).

Which is going to lead to an interesting test, isn’t it? What if it does turn out to be economic? How will those opposed to it justify their insistence then? No earthquakes, makes money, what will then be the excuse?

We present this as a fun game in political prognostication. For we have absolutely no doubt that the excuse will change but what to?

Tim Worstall