UK SHALE WILL PREVAIL; Hopes for fracking in the UK

I have always found Nick Grealy’s stuff on fracking good. He thinks independently, is a leftie and writes good English.  See twitter @ReImagineGas  If he disagrees with, he says so!!

Those who follow fracking closely will know his stuff but here it is for those who don’t

This comes from his blog




2016 has shown that predicting anything, anywhere on politics is for the brave. I’ll be brave and assume that by next Thursday, October 6, the interminable planning permission saga in Lancashire will draw to an almost close. I say almost because Friends of the Earth in a suicidal attempt to squander members’ money better served defending the countryside, bees and the rights of refugees, will drag Cuadrilla or the council or the government into court, just as they have with Third Energy in Yorkshire. But with Third already having an accelerated hearing in late November on their application any delay promises to be minimal.

So that someone thinks they have a victory, Cuadrilla may only get permission for one well pad. But one will work. One is enough.

Politically, it’s impossible to conceive of Theresa May’s government agreeing with Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour (and the Greens) over such an important issue. The government might as well send the message that Britain is closed for any type of business, an especially implausible signal in the Brexit world. To imagine this happening the week of the Conservative Party Congress is more inconceivable still. Some fear all bets are off in the Brexit /Trump universe of Post Facts, but as someone who likes facts over emotion, I’ll stick my neck out and say the net result will be we have to wait for the rocks to finally speak via drilling sometime in 2017. The Bowland Shale has been the silent spectator all along, and any geologist could admit that it could possibly send out mixed or even negative messages. But at least we can have a debate based on facts, not opinions, and finally, after at least five years of delay, move on.

A lot has advanced in the six years since Cuadrilla revealed their estimate of 200 TCF resources for their section of the Bowland back in 2010. Sadly, the UK debate hasn’t been one of them. Yet. But the time is coming.  Back in 2010, people saw shale as a flash in the pan. It was of course the biggest bang to hit energy markets since the light bulb. Yet the UK debate still uses outdated economics, 2010 flow rates and 2010 energy policy concerns. Shale is still “controversial”. Meanwhile in the US, the unconventional is the new normal, 70% or higher of 2016 production.

As the shale debate in the UK has barely moved, the one in the US has moved incredibly fast. Compare the UK Bowland Shale and the Ohio Utica. The Utica Shale didn’t even exist outside of a gleam in the eye of geologists in 2010. First drilling started in 2012, yet this month, it’s producing at a rate of 37 billion cubic meters per year, a shade under the 40 BCMY produced in the UK North Sea. That could have been us. But the naysayers and handwringers produced absolutely nothing.

The Ohio Utica is never mentioned by UK opponents who talk about the Pennsylvania Marcellus as if it’s a living hell of afflicted communities. That’s in part because they are stuck in 2010, the year the Gasland movie came out which exaggerated some 2008/09 impacts in the state. Yet Ohio proves, like the UK could, how, if given the chance, natural gas extraction can be low impact, high production and zero damage. The unintentionally hilarious “List of the Harmed” barely mentions Ohio for example. Even an anti-fracking report this year from Environment Ohio omits their home state even as it recycles the List of the Harmed horror stories and places them everywhere else. It’s strange to talk about fracking threatening the Grand Canyon, while missing it entirely in their own backyard. Perhaps nothing is actually happening after all?

Just as will happen in the UK, Ohio is easily missed because there isn’t that much to actually see. The Baker Hughes Rig Count shows the number of rigs per state on a weekly basis. It’s rarely been over 18 in Ohio in the last few years and was only 13 last week, further proving the most recent increases in drilling productivity possible today. If we extrapolated Utica to UK numbers, we’d be talking of a handful of rigs. Using BCMY divided by 13, we see that each rig in Ohio, which is drilling a well every couple of weeks in various locations, or increasingly from one pad, can produce 2.85 BCM a year. Thus only 5 rigs could theoretically produce 14BCM a year, or enough to remove all 2015 UK LNG imports. UK drill rigs may well be relatively static and won’t wander too much from one pad for 18 months at a time, drilling a new well every other week. Whatever the numbers are, they are a far cry from anyone’s definition of industrialization of the country – or city – side.

But what if there were another threat to the landscape? What if there were 14 new facilities that had several truck deliveries per day – for ever? That would be Waitrose. What if there were 80 new facilities opening in 2016, in bigger stores and even more trucks and traffic. For that, Aldi is the one for you.

A few weeks ago at an All Party Parliamentary Committee on Shale Gas meeting, the leading anti in Ryedale was visibly shocked when his pet fear was exposed as, excuse the pun, groundless:

John Blaymires, Chief Operating Officer of IGas, said:

“We understand the need to do this [estimate site numbers]. It is one of our biggest issues.”

He said some of figures being talked about for the number of sites were “ludicrous” but he described the figures mentioned at the meeting as “not unreasonable”. He added:

“There are limited places to which one can go. We cannot pepper the countryside and nor would we wish to.”

Francis Egan of Cuadrilla has often said how in a few years people’s first question will be: “Is that it? Is this what all the fuss was about?”. Remove protestors and nothing will be visible. It would be a good plan to ask planning to set up a protestor camp. Oops. That rational plan may slow things down. But then a protestor camp is likely to be as welcome to Roseacre as an alternative music venue, even if they are often the same thing.

Only the strong, and the long, survive in UK shale. Whatever hurts us makes us stronger. There are four reasons why shale gas will move from zero to hero, but much depends on finding some gas and and, moreimportantly,  not losing sight of the four strategic reasons why UK shale will prosper.

  1.  UK gas consumption  isn’t going anywhere. The UK is faced with falling gas demand for various organic reasons around insulation, efficiency and competing renewables but not as fast enough as collapsing UK North Sea supply. London for example uses 9 BCM a year of gas, almost all for heat and hot water.
  2. The entry costs are far lower than international equivalents. One can also get huge blocks by US standards all at once, leading to further efficiencies. The UK lends itself for political reasons to minimize surface expenses.
  3. Midstream is not a problem. The international oil and gas industry has been in far more hostile – or inaccessible- areas devoid even of roads. Any costs around UK planning delays or public opinion are outweighed by the ease of delivering any discoveries to market. The UK onshore is the  least stranded energy asset on earth. And once planning creaks along, any  sovereign risk premium is the lowest going.
  4. The killer reason is price. Get through 2 and 3, and prices are phenomenal by US standards. UK gas prices will be set by US LNG imports (or the threat of them) giving US Henry Hub and a permanent basis reflecting transport costs. UK gas prices are also volatile in the winter, with a current winter 2016 strip of $5.3 MMBTU, 80% higher than US Henry Hub. That basis will exist for years. In parts of Pennsylvania gas prices are below $1, and yet the industry still grows even as new mid stream pipelines are unavailable at any price. Expenses may be higher than in the US, but not 80% higher.

Add these together, and UK shale, will be worth the wait. Better, and great days, are coming.

Post navigation


  1. I see you woke up feeling positive this morning, Nick. That’s good news as I know that you’ve been in the fight for a long, long time.

    Note that Cuadrilla doesn’t plan to start drilling until spring of 2017, so even a legal challenge won’t impact timing for the firm.

    I’m not familiar with UK law, but I wonder whether the anti groups who challenge on legal grounds will be held to pay for any foregone revenue that results from a delay? Maybe you know the answer to that question? Thanks

    1. I agree that Cuadrilla shouldn’t be slowed down much further.It takes time to mobilise everyone, this isn’t the Permian where you can find a rig in Yellow Pages. The FoE are really in the last chance saloon on this. The Scottish branch is talking about shale damage claims from the Gasland era for example.

      If I owned a gas company, which I don’t – yet- I’d play hardball and sue Friends of the Earth Limited for restraint of trade. I know that has crossed the minds of people. It also explains why FoE deliberately leaked the ASA investigation so it would then be abandoned. Running a campaign on bad information is bad karma for a non-profit. But the fund raiser was FoE Limited a commercial company. They have more than reputation to lose. But their PR cut and paste reporters are a very strong force, very similar (and often the same people) who support the Corbyn wing of Labour. Ultimately as close to actual power as he is though. FoE doesn’t own the green brand and most of the ones I know in London think they’re an embarrassment but don’t want to stand up to bullying. It’s also hard to stand up to bullies when as soon as they are challenged they run. That’s actually why, damages or not, most in the industry are dying to have a fact based day in the court of law, not public opinion.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Friends of the Earth claims against #fracking are unsubstantiated, says advertising watchdog – Lancashire For Shale

Interesting article in the Times. Much is right in the article!! But who leaked the judgement on FoE? Neither Ken nor I did and have told the ASA. Dearest Refracktion wonders whether it could be a mole within the ASA.


Anyway read and enjoy. We shall see what happens


The front page of national newspaper, The Times, today reports that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has rebuked green group Friends of the Earth in a draft ruling about an anti-fracking leaflet.   According to the report, the ASA says Friends of the Earth (FoE) failed to substantiate claims that fracking could cause cancer, contaminate …

Source: Friends of the Earth claims against #fracking are unsubstantiated, says advertising watchdog – Lancashire For Shale

The Myth of Neoliberalism

I am baffled the way many of the Left (watermelons, momentum, corbynistas etc etc ) bandy about the term NEOLIBERALISM as a catch-all description to vilify anyone who is to the right of Owen Smith. Here Colin Talbot of Manchester blogs on it and a student asked for disciplinary action agianst him.

Prof. Colin Talbot

Neoliberalism is a myth. It’s a pervasive myth on one side of politics – the left. But it is nevertheless a myth.

Let’s start with one simple and obvious fact – no-one claims to be a neoliberal.

This is rather odd.

Of course, in politics, people often accuse other people or parties of holding views they think are repugnant. Nazi, socialist, racist, liberal, Stalinist, are all terms of abuse hurled at opponents.

They are often wrong, but oddly there is almost always someone who is happy to claim the label. There are parties and groups happy to adopt each of the labels mentioned.

But oddly, no-one calls themselves a neoliberal. Only critics of this supposed doctrine use this label. Why?

View original post 1,745 more words

Answers in Genesis’ Deceptive Video on Radiometric Dating

Many get fed up with Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis continually misrepresented normal science. Poor Ken , he has a thing about “billions of years” and resorts to porkies to reject them. This is a good summary of why his recent porkies are pure Ham.

I don’t know why he does it

Answers in Genesis’ Deceptive Video on Radiometric Dating

Answers in Genesis now has a “Check this Out” feature where they tackle a scientific claim which argues for an old earth and try to debunk it.  Recently, much to my dismay, one of the home school teachers sent out a link to one of these videos on radiometric dating.  Aside from the mistakes inherent in the video, itself, it betrays a deep misunderstanding of how science works.  Here is the short video.

We will take this bit by bit.

  • 0:28 – the narrator states that most scientists regard the age of the earth as between 4.55 and 4.6 and then remarks that, if this is so accurate, why the 50 million year discrepancy?  He then states “That seems like a lot.”  50 million divided by 4.55 billion is 1.09%.  That is the standard error. This date range is made up of thousands of individual dates. The speedometer on your car is less accurate than that (standard error of 2.5%).  In fact, in any statistical test a 1% standard error is considered is equivalent to saying that you are 99% confident that the results you have are accurate. 1% is not a lot of anything. Also carefully omitted from the narrative is that these dates are derived from at least five different kinds of radiometric isochron dating:
    • Lead-Lead isochron
    • Samnium-Neodymium isochron
    • Rubidium-Strontium isochron
    • Rhenium-Osmium isochron and
    • Argon-Argon isochron.

All of these dating methods have different decay states, decay rates and half lives and yet all give dates to within 1% error

  • 1:52 – After a reasonably straightforward description of radiometric dating, the narrator then, while admitting that it is true that a decay rate can be measured using “observational science,” it requires “historical science” to tell how old the rock actually is. He states that in order to get accurate measures from rocks, one would have to know both the decay rate and the initial conditions of the rock, otherwise we cannot directly measure the ages of rocks.  He asks “how do we know what the initial conditions were in the rock sample?”  and “How do we know the amounts of parent or daughter elements haven’t been altered by other process in the past?” and How does someone know the decay rate has remained constant in the past?”   He then says “They don’t.” This is false.
  • Timothy Heaton, Chair of the Department of Earth Sciences & Physics at South Dakota State University writes this about the parent/daughter ratios:

    Isochron dating bypasses the necessity of knowing the quantity of initial daughter product in the rock by not using that value in the computation. Instead of using the initial quantity of daughter isotope, the ratio of daughter isotope compared to another isotope of the same element (which is not the product of any decay process) is used as the comparison for isochron dating. The plot of the ratios of the number of atoms of the parent isotope to the number of atoms in the non-daughter isotope compared to the number of atoms of the daughter isotope to the non-daughter isotope should result in a straight line that intersects the vertical y-axis (which is the ratio of daughter to non-daughter isotopes). This point of intersection gives the initial ratio of daughter to non-daughter isotopes, which would also be the ratio in a mineral that crystallized without any parent isotope present.

    Here is a web site that shows how this plot works in graphic fashion. The narrator’s  hourglass analogy is, therefore, inaccurate.  We don’t need to know how much sand was in the hourglass to begin with, nor did we need to observe the process.  The decay rate is well-known and invariate, which leads to his second statement.

  • As far as the variation in decay rates of radiogenic isotopes goes, they have been shown to vary only  0.1% in response to outside influences (here, and here) and have been shown to vary significantly only under extreme laboratory conditions not found on earth.

As noted above, buried deep in this video and others that Answers in Genesis puts out is a particular philosophical bent that sees “observational science” as real science and “historical science” as not. Ken Ham is often quoted as rejecting historical science by rhetorically asking “Were you there?”  In other words, we cannot know historical processes because we did not observe them.  Consequently, when the narrator of this video says “we don’t” in answer to how we can know how some of our assumptions about radiometric dating are correct, it is this philosophical bent in action.

Such a perspective is facile, as it completely disregards the fact that we reconstruct past events every day at all levels, from the simple act of encountering a broken glass on the floor with ice and water beside it (someone dropped a glass of water) to complex murder investigations in which no one but the murderer was present.  No one questions the validity of these assumptions and they form the basis for much of what we do in life, including our entire criminal justice system.

Secondary to this notion that we can reconstruct the past is that the processes that occur today also occurred in the past.  If I am digging in a field and encounter, at a depth of three or so feet, a series of horizontal metal beams that are four and a half feet apart with ties in between them, because I know that distance is the standard railway gauge, I can reasonably assume that what I have uncovered is part of an old railway.  Was I there when they built it?  No, but I didn’t have to be to have a pretty good idea of what it is.

This is true not just of human constructs but also of natural formations.  Because we have modern floods, hurricanes, meteorite craters and so on, we can identify these formations in the past.
This puts historical science and all of its reconstructive observational power on level footing with observational science.  While Ken Ham and others at Answers in Genesis might say otherwise, it simply is not so.

It is amazing how much damage to scientific and academic integrity one can do in a three-minute video.  Answers in Genesis is, apparently, up to the task.

What would you do Ma’am? Nanas plead with her Majesty on fracking


Image result for queen elizabeth ii

What would you do Ma’am?

The nanas headed by Tina Rothery have written to the queen asking here to intervene over the dangers of fracking. Clearly the nanas are very worried about the health threat of fracking as this photo shows. I have to say I am mystified why so many anti-frackers smoke which is terrible for your health.


Dear Editors,

Please find below, an open letter to Her Majesty, The Queen, as the latest press release from Lancashire Nanas and residents against fracking, from Lancashire. The letter has also been sent by post to Buckingham Palace. This press release is part one of a two-part action that will culminate in a peaceful presence at Buckingham Palace on 27th September 2016.

PRESS RELEASE                         19th September 2016

Your Royal Highness,

An important note before you read on: I am writing this as a fellow grandmother and would ask that you consider my question from your obligation to defend your young and with your heart, rather than your crown.

We are a group of UK citizens who feel increasingly shut out of the decision that is soon to be made on shale gas extraction in Lancashire. It is a basic tenet of democracy that power should remain as close as possible to the people and not be concentrated in the hands of a few.

We have seen democracy in action in Lancashire, where the people said ‘No’ to fracking and both their borough and county councils agreed with them, and in their turn said ‘No’ to Cuadrilla’s planning applications to frack two sites in rural Fylde, Lancashire [1].

Cuadrilla appealed and a public inquiry was held earlier this year at which we – the residents – spent three weeks giving evidence. The planning inspector’s report has subsequently been submitted to Sajid Javid MP, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who will make a decision at the beginning of October.

The decision to refuse planning permission for fracking in Lancashire was local democracy in action. However, the government’s support for shale means that the power has been passed from Lancashire’s elected representatives to the hands of a few, who are interested in aiding the interests of big business, rather than the interests and health of the residents of Lancashire [2].

This is not democracy.

During the last five years we have spent a considerable amount of time, energy and money pursuing every democratic opening available to us. We have:

We have exhausted every democratic channel. We are desperate.

They seem to follow a different kind of democracy ………………

What would you do, Ma’am? [I suggest asking Prince Phillip what to do]

Yours sincerely,

Nanas & Residents


For immediate release.

Notes to Editors:

  1. Fracking plans rejected: Lancashire council throws out Cuadrilla proposal
  1. Minister says he will have final say on Lancashire fracking plans

Was there really warfare between Science and Christianity?

Was there really warfare between Science and Christianity?


The classic TV portrayal of conflict between science and religion is the reconstruction of the Huxley-Wilberforce encounter shown in the last episode of the 1970s series the Voyage of the Beagle. Wilberforce is portrayed as a scientific ignoramus and Huxley as a cool scientific orator. In many places it is assumed that Orthodox Christianity means accepting creation in six days and any departure from that is a shift in a liberal direction. This is the stock in trade of many treatments pitting science against Christianity


Geology and Genesis, 1790 to 1860

To put it simplistically Geology took off as a science in the 1790s under Hutton in Scotland, Smith in England and Cuvier and Brogniart in France when conclusive evidence was found for ordering strata and showing a vast age of the earth. Hutton’s chief spokesman was the Rev John Playfair and Smith’s the Revs B.Richardson and J.Townshend. Most educated people accepted the new findings and even the church press showed little opposition. From 1810 there was much geological fieldwork and in 1815 Smith produced the first geological map of England and Wales.



Hutton and Smith

Geologists came from various backgrounds with a considerable number of clergy, often Evangelical. The 1820s was the heyday of clerical catastrophic geology of Buckland and Sedgwick, who held that strata were deposited over a long period of time (millions of years) in a succession of catastrophes or deluges, the Noachian being the last.


Sedgwick and Lyell

In his Principles of Geology (1830) Lyell took over their methods and timescale and replaced catastrophism with uniformitarianism. Lyell has become a mythic figure with claims that he introduced notions of an ancient earth. That is bunk and has been discredited by such historians as Rudwick and Gould. As the vast of age of the earth was widely known in 1790 it cannot be the case as Lyell was born in 1797, unless miracles can happen!

Not all was smooth sailing and from the mid-twenties a vocal group, the Anti- or Scriptural Geologists, tried to show that geologists were mistaken and that Creation took place in 6 days. This disparate group included clergy and laity with a Dean of York, an Oxford Professor and Brande, Faraday’s colleague at the Royal Institution. Scientifically their writings were worthless by the standards of the day and were attacked by such orthodox Christians as Conybeare, Buckland, Sedgwick, Sumner and Pye Smith. Lyell mocked from the sidelines. To give an idea of numbers, during this period I can name at least six Deans of Cathedrals, a dozen Bishops and half a dozen clerical Oxbridge professors, who actively supported geology. In the period 1825-1850 the vast majority of Christians accepted geology, but a small and noisy minority did not. It is vital to get it in proportion. Andrew White in History of the warfare of science and theology claimed that the Anti-geologists were the Orthodox Party thus distorting our understanding.

By the 1850s the Anti-geologists were a spent force and even such an extreme Evangelical as J.Cumming accepted geology. Almost the only exception was Phillip Gosse in Omphalos (1857)


The Dawn of Evolution 1859

Charles Darwin

The Origin of Species was the seminal work of the decade and attracted great interest. The popular perception is that it was violently objected to by the Christian Church as it “questioned both the literal accuracy of the first chapters of Genesis and the argument from design for the existence of God”. The first part of this quote from Altholz is simply untrue as no educated Christians believed in 4004 BC in 1860, except a few Plymouth Brethren. Design in the strict Paleyan sense may have been killed by Darwin, but many kept to some kind of Design; Kingsley, Gray, Temple, Birks, and Hensleigh and Julia Wedgwood (Darwin’s Cousins). The main religious concern was whether our apedom would destroy our morality as Wilberforce made clear.

The responses to Darwin are fascinating and varied and no simple answer can be given. Initially some scientists were in favour – Huxley and Hooker, some not sure – Lyell, and many against, notably the leading physicists and geologists. Of Anglican and Scottish Presbyterian clergy (some of considerable scientific ability) none were literalists, and of 30 or so responses I have studied they are equally divided between being for, against or undecided. All 30 accepted geological findings and a scientific outlook. Wilberforce’s objections were largely geological, but felt our apedom would destroy Christianity. The evangelical Canon H.B. Tristram of Durham was a migratory bird and a competent ornithologist. He accepted and applied natural selection to birds in 1858, after reading Darwin’s Linnean Society paper. He went to Oxford in 1860 an evolutionist but after hearing Wilberforce and Hooker (Huxley spoke too quietly to be heard) he changed his mind. A year or so later he became an evolutionist again and used creation and evolution as synonymous.


Wilberforce and Huxley

Well. was there conflict? There was not CONFLICT, but there was conflict. The reviews and the meeting at Oxford show that there was controversy both religious and scientific. The only example of ecclesiastical prejudice I can find is the sacking of Prof Buchman of Cirencester Agricultural College, whose evolutionary ideas offended the Anglican management. By 1866 even the Victoria Institute were tolerating evolution, even if some members objected. Within two decades most educated Christians accepted some kind of evolution, even if, like Wallace, limited evolution to non-humans.


Whence Conflict between Science and Religion?

The idea that there has been a serious conflict is widely held but recent studies have challenged this,whether they focus narrowly on Huxley and Wilberforce or look more widely. The conclusion by Lindberg and Numbers, Gould, Brooke and Russell is that the conflict thesis comes from a reading back into events by some of the protagonists of the 19th century. Huxley and Hooker embellished their controversies with the church, Edmund Gosse in Father and Son made his father to be typical of Christians,  Andrew White’s massive The Warfare of Science with Theology (1896) is so flawed as to be worthless, despite its massive documentation which often cannot be followed up, Darwin’s claims that at Cambridge he did not “doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible” are not true, Leslie Stephen’s concerns with the historicity of the Ark has been shown by Sir Owen Chadwick to be the product of a lively imagination and many evangelicals had come to Colenso’s conclusions about Noah some 30 years before 1860. Most of these examples are referred to in serious works of history but a little historical research refutes them. This does raise a few questions on Altholz’s assertion that for Huxley and others “Truthfulness had replaced belief as the ultimate standard.”

The conflict thesis in its classic form needs to be consigned to the bin, BUT there is an opposite danger – the total denial of any conflict whatever and the claim that there was harmony. That is as erroneous. The other danger is to ignore popular perception as this did and still does reckon there is a conflict.

To conclude, there was some conflict, which has various causes; the wish of some scientists to break away from church involvement, the concerns of some that evolution may eliminate God. There was also conflict of re-adjustment. But it is best seen as “a storm in a Victorian tea-cup” exaggerated for polemical purposes.

Finally there was no serious battle of Genesis and Geology, but a few Christians objected to geology. By 1860 biblical literalism was virtually extinct but was revived in the USA in 1961 in the form of Creationism. Neither was there a battle royal over evolution. In 1860 hardly any educated people were still literalists. Until this is firmly grasped it is impossible to assess the relationship of Christianity and Science and to consider exactly what were – and are – the problems.

The ultimate problem is why there is suffering and evil, but I’ll leave that.



J.H. Brooke, Science and Religion, some historical perspectives, Cambridge, 1991,

M.B.Roberts, Darwin’s Doubts about Design, Science and Christian Belief, 1997, vol9, p113-26

S.J.Gould, try historical essays in his various Penguins which are always well-argued

Brooke and Cantor, Reconstructing Nature, T&T Clark, 1998

Marston,P and Forster, G. Science, Reason and Faith, Monarch 1999

Numbers, R, Darwinism comes to America, 1998, Harvard Univ Press

Roberts, Michael Evangelicals and Science Greenwood 2008

and two useful books


for more see the websites of


Man but a worm




My Trip to the Ark Encounter: Some Pictures and Reflections

Having met Ham at a meeting in 1992 I have followed his absurd ideas. This ark must be the most monstrous.

It is baffling why anyone believes what he says

Naturalis Historia

Just 10 days after the grand opening of the Ark Encounter on July 7th, I traveled down to Kentucky to pay a visit to Ken Ham’s latest evangelistic outreach endeavor. It was a Friday and I arrived less than one hour after opening and spent the better part of six hours on the Ark Encounter premises.   I have shared some of my thoughts about the Ark Encounter previously (Ken Ham’s Ark Encounter Opens to a Flood of Press but Few Visitors than Anticipated;  The Ark Encounter: Depicting a Real Flood with Unrealistic ImagesThe Ark Encounter Common Ancestors:  The Increasing Inclusiveness of Biblical Kinds).  Today I just take you on a visual tour of the Ark Encounter theme park, share a few more thoughts about the exhibits, and suggest some needed improvements.


My first glimpse of the Ark as I pulled onto the Ark Encounter property.  The Ark…

View original post 2,261 more words