No they're not, PaulL - what I said holds. What you mean, I think, is that more existing gas reserves are being identified. They aren't breeding underground like rabbits.

NO candide what you're confused about is the difference between a resource and a reserve.

As I've already pointed out, the definition of a reserve requires that a resource be

a) discovered/located
b) economically recoverable using existing techniques.

Reserves do NOT include a resource that has been located but is not economically viable to extract, NOR do they include a resource that has not yet been located.

Gas reserves are most definitely increasing with exploration and new extraction techniques. You don't need multiplying rabbits to understand this, just an understanding of the terms you are using.

For what it's worth, I agree Graham.

>>Matt Ridley's article is one that I sought out and which is one that is amongst the most important we have ever published.<<

It will be interesting to see whether your readers step up to the plate and move beyond the "'tis/'tain't" level of debate on it.

As a classic layman on this issue I am keen to move beyond the hype and sniping, and have a chance to assess some simply-presented facts. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this.

I find Matt Ridley's optimism and liberal-rationalist perspective disturbing. It's not only that he tacitly condones our addiction to fossil fuels, or that he sees it as ecologically sustainable with a shift to shale gas extraction--like going from from cocaine to crack--but that he even celebrates the spurious fact that "cheap fuel means higher standards of living", and thus reveals his full neo-liberal-rationalist credentials: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley Scroll down to "Debate over Ridley's political philosophy.
I'd be all in favour of higher standards of living for the world's poor, if it was environmentally supportable--or if the modern conception of a quality "lifestyle" was even an expression of genuine quality of life--but the scientific community is hoarse with telling us that western lifestyles are unsustainable already. Western lifestyles should be growing more modest so that the rest can attain a semblance of dignity--such could even be the start of both a vibrant and a sustainable global economy if education, birth-control and "modest lifestyles" were appreciated and embraced.
But this is not Matt Ridley's agenda, but an arrogant and fool-hardy liberal-rationalist approach that doesn't stop to assess the quality of "progress"; it's a law unto itself that is its own ethic and rationale and is sublimely indifferent to the planetary side effects of the human juggernaut. We'll just fix it all and make a killing as we go--hi ho the merrio!
I have Ridley's "The Rational Optimist"--suitably celebrated by Ian McEwan--a breath-taking progression through the author's looking-glass world, and just as far removed from real-life concerns as Lewis Carrol's fantasy.
And despite Ridley's childlike optimism, shale gas extraction represents an escalation of greenhouse gas emissions, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas both via extraction and combustion.
We need optimism for its own sake, or to make a buck, but driving deliberative, sustainable and ethical solutions.

Correction; my last line above should begin "We don't need optimism for its own sake..."

there are cheaper alternatives
stop thinking 'big'

we hear that things arnt energy efficient
we need high voltage..to go accross distance
but often the stuff we run..could run on 12 volt

industry on 24 volt...but unlimited amps
there is so much our experts dont know

but i feel the point is being missed
we cool water into the air..
[ie add in warm air/..at its most simplistic level]

instead we should run say a flow of steam...
[ignoring for now how it was heated]..
and run its motion[heat energies]..like a river
with paddle like wheels...generating 12 volt

figuring out [precisly what energy inputs
re heat it along its...long winding course]

i often wonder why we dont return to water power/gravity
ie water sluces..and coffer dams...water wheels
the proven HYDRO-power..[till bigbusiness stole the concept]

sure were the dry cuntry...but mate
canals are great[were the most flat earth continent there is
if we cant fully manage our water power,,we all doomed

water
works

at non peak energy
we store its weight[mass]
times the clear thinking that sees magnets
driving magnets[within a coil]..is what makes power

magnets can drive the 'other magnet..'
se magnetic moters link

then there is the joe fuel cell
which makes a gass[that IMPLODED..ie dosnt explode]
it generates suction..to suck water up hill
more efgicient that blowing it up hill

thing is the joe fuel cell costs 100 bucks
of stainless steel cylenders..that generate this gas
orgon gas...HH gas...

who knows...but it also can burn
and neutralise radio-activity..!
search for joe fuel cell

but so much more
never put all your eggs in the one basket
dont just have glass windows on ya roof..
when insurance says...its not coverd for hail damm-age