Category Archives: fakenews

Guest post: Save the Fylde – keep the earthquake safety limit at 0.5

A poor guest blog from the invariably inaccurate Mike Hill

Well-demolished by the lady expert Judith Green in comments (along with some by Ken Wilkinson;
She writes
Mr Hills guest post seems to suggest that he’s a complete charlatan. Maybe he could take time from all of his advising to such eminent bodies to clarify a few points in his article:-

1) “To be clear I did not set the limit but did review the value with the DECC and have first hand knowledge of the debate that took place.”

Could Mr Hill tell us which experts that he discussed this with and whose opinions he heard at “first hand”?

2) “But after long discussions and some mathematical modelling,”

Could Mr Hill give some details of the mathematical modelling? I for one would like direction on which mathematical models can be used to predict induced-seismicity.

3) “the science and engineering that led to the introduction of the 0.5 ML”
Could Mr Hill provide some indication of which science and engineering experts contributed to this decision and whether or not they’re respected by others in their field of expertise?

4) “To raise the seismic threshold now has no basis in science or engineering. It will reduce safety and could lead to a catastrophic incident.”

Could Mr Hill provide an example of where such a catastrophic accident has occurred previously? Given that over 2 million frackjobs have been conducted, one would assume that if such a catastrophic incident was likely to occur then there would be evidence for such an occurrence within the pool of knowledge that has being built on this subject.

5) “The cement surrounds the steel tubes inside the borehole (casing) and it fills the gap between the casing and the borehole wall – the actual rocks that have been drilled through. It is the only thing that is stopping (to date) up to 11.5 million litres of fracking waste from vertically migrating up the side of the borehole. It can do this in the annulus between the cement and the casing and can move up to the higher areas and eventually the aquifer.

Why would fluid move upwards against gravity? The reason is twofold. Firstly it is understood by hydrogeologists that fracking fluids are less dense than surrounding formation fluids and hence rise; and secondly the pressures during and immediately after fracking are huge (in the range 2,000 – 15,000 psi). The fracking fluid will find the path of least resistance. Due to repeated and increasing energy earthquakes, the gap around the casing and between the cement and the formation wall could have increased.”

Could Mr Hill explain how the huge pressure would push 11.5 million litres of water to the surface? Surely as an engineer he knows that water is very incompressible and that a very small amount of water would be forced to the surface due to decompression. If he’s thinking about the gas pushing the water from >2km maybe he could explain how this would happen given the mobility ratio of brine and gas. Also, could he provide a model as to how density driven advection in a microannulus could result in significant movement of fracking fluid to the surface?

6) “But annular pressure is a very crude tool. It will tell an operator if well integrity is lost – but an entire string of cement must have failed before you will know anything. As you typically only have three strings in an entire well then this represents a very significant failure before you are aware of it. Annular pressure checks on their own are not enough to guarantee well integrity.”

Could Mr Hill provide an example of such a failure mechanism in a shale gas well with the same design as those of the wells at PNR

7) “As a Chartered Engineer, heavily involved in this topic for a long period, I feel it would be reckless to raise the 0.5ML limit. To do so would be putting the public of the Fylde at even greater risk of severe damage to health and the environment than they already are. The 0.5ML limit is there for a reason and that reason has not changed. Safety must always take precedence over commercial viability.”

Given Mr Hill’s complete ignorance of this subject, do he really think he should be chartered as an engineer?

DRILL OR DROP?

Save the Fylde slogan

Chartered Electrical Engineer, Michael Hill, stood as an independent candidate in the 2015 general election on a “Save the Fylde” ticket, highlighting his concerns about the fracking industry. In this guest post, he argues that his message seems more relevant now than ever as he makes the case why the safety limit on fracking-induced earthquakes should not be altered.

View original post 1,372 more words

Advertisements

FRACKING AND PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT; a fracking scare story

Various groups including NGOS like CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) have been spreading the fake news that getting permission to frack will be as easy as getting permission to build a shed or conservatory.

 

This is duplicitous.

Here Lee Petts says why that bit of fakenews is wrong.

 

OPINION: FRACKING AND PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT

PROPOSALS TO BESTOW PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ON NON-FRACKING DRILLING ARE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

 

Earlier in 2018, the UK Government set out plans to consult on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), one of which would see some exploratory shale gas drilling benefit from Permitted Development rights.

It would apply only to stratigraphic or coring wells that are drilled with the intention of collecting rock samples to assist in understanding the subsurface and its characteristics.

Operators would no longer need to apply for planning permission for such wells but they would have to notify the relevant Minerals and Waste Planning Authority (MPA) of their plans and they’d need to comply with a set of standard conditions.

The move is intended to remove a planning bottleneck so that this low-risk geological evaluation work can be performed more speedily in order to better inform decision-makers about the role domestic shale gas production may one day play in substituting for higher emissions, higher cost and less secure imports.

IT’S NOT UNPRECEDENTED

A range of mineral extraction activities ready benefit from Permitted Development rights – rights that are conditioned.

Part 17 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 deals with mining and minerals activities.

Class J – temporary use of land etc for mineral exploration – defines what is Permitted Development:

J. Development on any land during a period not exceeding 28 consecutive days consisting of–
(a)the drilling of boreholes;
(b)the carrying out of seismic surveys; or
(c)the making of other excavations,
for the purpose of mineral exploration, and the provision or assembly on that land or adjoining land of any structure required in connection with any of those operations.

It also tells us what is not considered PD:

J.1  Development is not permitted by Class J if—
(a)it consists of the drilling of boreholes for petroleum exploration;
(b)any operation would be carried out within 50 metres of any part of an occupied residential building or a building occupied as a hospital or school;
(c)any operation would be carried out within a National Park, an area of outstanding natural beauty, a site of archaeological interest or a site of special scientific interest;
(d)any explosive charge of more than 1 kilogram would be used;
(e)any excavation referred to in Class J(c) would exceed 10 metres in depth or 12 square metres in surface area;
(f)in the case described in Class J(c) more than 10 excavations would, as a result, be made within any area of 1 hectare within the land during any period of 24 months; or
(g)any structure assembled or provided would exceed 12 metres in height, or, where the structure would be within 3 kilometres of the perimeter of an aerodrome, 3 metres in height.

And then it sets out the conditions that apply to PD minerals exploration activities:

J.2  Development is permitted by Class J subject to the following conditions—
(a)no operations are carried out between 6.00pm and 7.00am;
(b)no trees on the land are removed, felled, lopped or topped and no other thing is done on the land likely to harm or damage any trees, unless the mineral planning authority have so agreed in writing;
(c)before any excavation (other than a borehole) is made, any topsoil and any subsoil is separately removed from the land to be excavated and stored separately from other excavated material and from each other;
(d)within a period of 28 days from the cessation of operations unless the mineral planning authority have agreed otherwise in writing—
(i)any structure permitted by Class J and any waste material arising from other development so permitted is removed from the land;
(ii)any borehole is adequately sealed;
(iii)any other excavation is filled with material from the site;
(iv)the surface of the land on which any operations have been carried out is levelled and any topsoil replaced as the uppermost layer, and
(v)the land is, so far as is practicable, restored to its condition before the development took place, including the carrying out of any necessary seeding and replanting.

It’s clear from this that even where an activity is considered to be Permitted Development, it’s not a free-for-all.

A FRACTIOUS RESPONSE

Campaigners opposed to shale gas extraction in the UK have been busy railing against the proposals and falsely equating it to the PD rights that allow homeowners to make minor alterations to their dwellings, such as installing a conservatory, without first obtaining planning permission.

Nothing could be further from the truth. As is often the case, the ‘controversy’ around the issue has been manufactured by NGOs, reguritated by a sympathetic media, and seized upon by populist politicians.

The truth, as borne out by those existing mineral extraction activities that are already  Permitted Development, is that operators will still have to meet a set of conditions intended to ensure that such works will be capable of being carried out sensitively.

Once the government consultation closes, I expect we’ll see conditions applied that control: proximity to residential dwellings and sensitive environmental receptors; drilling rig mast height; noise and lighting levels; operating hours; and the purpose of drilling, which will be limited to non-fracking, geological exploration wells and associated monitoring boreholes.

MAKING NON-FRACKING DRILLING PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT IS A SENSIBLE PROPOSAL

Right now, we rely on overseas imports of gas for over half our needs. Last winter, on two occasions, those imports were severely disrupted, leading to shortages and causing energy prices (gas and electricity) to spike.

We’re still feeling the after-effects. Because the price of gas remains so high, it’s become cheaper to burn coal in elecricity generation and so that’s what’s happening – reversing the trend for using less coal and driving up emissions.

We need to get on with finding out if the UK’s shale gas stores are as big as they are believed to be, and whether our geology is suitable for extracting it.

But delays in the highly politicised planning system mean we haven’t been able to do that as quickly as we should have.

Making non-fracking drilling Permitted Development is a sensible means of accelerating this necessary work.

Whilst they’re at it, the government should revisit the Permitted Development rights that small-scale renewables schemes benefit from extend them to larger developments – in return for lower or zero subsidies. Of course, if that happened, a different set of actors would cry foul and argue that it’s a sign that democracy is broken and that their rights are being eroded…

Why CPRE is opposed to fracking

Over recent months the CPRE Council for the Preservation of Rural England have gone in for the kill on fracking, with a (duplicitous) petition , various articles and here an article by their CEO in The Countryman

 

Chief Executive has a column in The Countryman. Here is a recent one on frackingji

 

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling

This is simply the usual anti-fracking woo which has permeated social media for the last few years. It is long on opinion and very short on evidence and reasoned argument.

Maybe CPRE has gone the way of Friends of the Earth – to keep their finances solvent?

I can understand why some people have concerns about fracking – and these need to be listened to with respect and answered with sound evidence. But CPRE have gone down the route of fakenews and scaremongering’

That is a great shame as their aim are excellent and much of what they strive to is likewise excellent and very necessary. I wonder if they will lose their good reputation. There is so much of rural England which needs preserving

here a few photos of some of my favorite spots in Northern England which need preserving, plus some peat degradation reminding us what needs to be put right

DSCF3172DSCF0118DSCF9119 (1)DSCF0376DSCF8775

 

CPRE are proud of this petition which has got 150,000 signatures, but its comparison of fracking and building a garden shed  is very much less than honest. I cannot see how a group like CPRE could do it if they have any integrity

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/don-t-fast-track-fracking

New government proposals are trying to force through fracking despite mass opposition.

Please drop measures to:

● Treat exploratory drilling as permitted development.
● Include fracking in the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects Regime.

Why is this important?

From The Yorkshire Moors, to Sherwood Forest, to the Fylde Coast, our countryside – and our democracy – is at risk.

The government has announced plans to streamline the planning process for fracking. If this goes ahead, it will be as easy to drill an exploration fracking well as it is to build a conservatory or erect a fence.

These plans are deeply undemocratic – they twist planning laws to give the government and fracking companies the power to override the will of local people – who have fought relentlessly to halt fracking at every turn.

These proposals could see scores of new drilling sites appear over the next couple of years in the English countryside – with the risk of untold environmental, landscape and climate impact.

This is the government taking desperate measures to make fracking happen and it’s up to us to stop the proposals before it’s too late.

 

They’ve  been going on about this and here is a long weekend read published in Drill or Drop, which I have interspersed with my comments

Weekend long read: The blueprint for fracking needs a rethink

(or why CPRE reckons fracking should be banned)

Weekend long read: The blueprint for fracking needs a rethink

Mark Robinson, Campaigns and Policy Assistant at Campaign to Protect Rural England, argues that radical changes are needed to national planning policy to prevent the threat

He needs to spell out the threat and give evidence why it is a threat.

of fracking to the countryside and the communities who live and enjoy it.

“The issue is the guidance“, said Jim Cameron of CPRE Cheshire, as I asked about his experiences grappling with the local decision-making over hydraulic fracturing.

This was not the first time I’ve heard that, despite the substantive weight of opinion and evidence against fracking

Without any supporting references this is just pure assertion. If there is substantive weight then they must be loads of evidence. But what?

 

, operations were still being approved on the basis of guidelines that robustly defend the industry.

Really, the guidelines and regulations lay down all the predures fracking must follow and agree to follow to get permission. This allegation is empty as it gives no substance.

Having spoken to people across the CPRE Network, and hearing this same point reiterated time and time again, it’s clear that the national framework behind fracking policy is in need of an update.

The shale tide approaches
As a countryside charity, CPRE has been worried about the impacts of fracking since its first brief UK appearance in 2011. Unlike the US, fracking on a commercial scale in the UK would result in drills being constructed much closer to people’s homes.

He has not been to the USA where houses can be 50 yards from a fracking pad as here in Pennsylvania.

Closer proximity of wells to nearby communities increases their risk of exposure to water contaminated by the process

Unless the water is from a local well, it cannot be contaminated as most comes from reservoirs miles away AND fracking is not allowed where an aquifer is used for drinking water. He is simply misinformed at this point and does not know where domestic/industrial water comes from.

 

, health issues

Does he mean the discredited first edition of the Medact report o 2015? The second edition could give no hard evidence

In fact in 2016 Medact admitted there was no data to link the many studies with any health effects, even in the US. The chemicals cited are simply not permitted in the UK anyway. If you can explain to me how Climate Change is within the remit of a UK public health body I would be interested to see that explanation. Quite simply it isnt.
Medact 2016 stated
‘Based on current evidence it is not possible to conclude that there is a strong association between shale gas related pollution and negative local health effects.’ So even Medact have retracted all their daft claims from 2015. https://www.medact.org/…/shale-gas-production-in-england/

and seismic tremors

Again he seems not to understand seismicity whether natural or that induced by fracking.

, from an industry that continues to prove resistant to regulation.

This is a very dangerous allegation. It is irresponsible if not libellous, for CPRE to make such allegations.

It can only be described as a double whammy that fracking would also stall the UK’s efforts to tackle climate change

This ignores/rejects the argument held by many including Lord Deben of the DCC that fracked gas actually reduces emissions

, the biggest threat of all to the countryside.

Despite these concerns, fracking companies are pushing through their expansion plans with vigour. Just last month, INEOS shale won the right to take the National Trust to the High Court over its refusal to allow seismic testing in Clumber Park estate. INEOS has also taken advantage of government-granted special treatment

This he needs to state, otherwise it is simply scaremongering. What is the Special Treatment?

by appealing for ministers to decide applications which the company felt councils were taking too long to approve.

While companies claim to let communities have a say, local opinion turns out only to be valid when it aligns with that of the applicant.

He needs to give evidence for this assertion, which is a very serious one.

Local opposition is instead mostly met with appeals and injunctions, as the industry turns to a pro-shale government to bypass the democratic process.

He needs to ascertain what the local opposition is, whether it is truly representative of the local population. It is not in Lancashire. Further as with Cuadrilla in Lancs the democratic process was not bypassed as applicants for planning permission have the democratic right to appeal to central government. In fact Ridley’s coal mine was turned down by central govt.

Local authorities are increasingly fighting against these aggressive industry tactics with any available tools at their disposal.

Again, he must give evidence for this and not make an unsubstantiated assertion

Planning guidance offers little substance for councils seeking to oppose fracking applications, so planning committees are making do with whatever they can use.

 

In Derbyshire, councillors voted last month to position themselves against INEOS’s shale gas exploration plans at Bramleymoor Lane on grounds of noise, traffic and impacts on the Green Belt. A week earlier, Rotherham borough council voted unanimously to stand against a similar INEOS application in Harthill, on wildlife and road safety grounds. Three weeks ago, Rotherham refused another application by INEOS for shale gas exploration due to potential wildlife harm and traffic impacts.

However cllrs in Yorks passed it at KM as they did for a potash mine

 

In their recent rejection of an IGas application, Cheshire West and Cheshire Council went one step further. Councillors employed their own local planning policy to claim that testing for a gas well did not address climate change or make the best use of renewable energy

They needs to be a clear argument here

. As Third Energy begins to take equipment off the Kirby Misperton site in Ryedale to deal with its scrutinised finances, North Yorkshire councils are defending a joint ‘minerals and waste plan’ with far stronger safeguards on fracking than the current regulatory landscape provides.

He needs to say why regulation is not sufficient

Yet local authorities can only go so far when the national guidance from which policy is developed favours fracking, given that the government is intent on a shale energy revolution

The primary source of guidance relied on by local government when making decisions on applications, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), is vague at best, and at worst outwardly pro-fracking.

According to Kate Atkinson in CPRE North Yorkshire, the industry is hanging largely onto one paragraph (144) in the NPPF to defend their applications, which states that local authorities should ‘give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction’.

All people rely on the products of mineral exploration , whether from the UK or abroad, whether oil/gas, building materials, cement, various metals etc. This is tantamount to saying we should only import minerals – which will, of course, have environmental implications at the place of extraction and dire economic effects in Britain.  This is airy-fairy idealistic thinking, detached from a world where people need feeding , housing and given a reasonable standard of life.

Kate pointed out, quite rightly, that there is no indication that this ‘great weight’ designation is any more important than others, such as the ‘great weight’ given to conserving the landscape and scenic beauty of AONBs, National Parks, and designated heritage assets.

This is woffle and incorrect. It also ignores the fact that most National Parks and AONBs have been exploited for minerals both in the past and the present.

Furthermore, paragraph 144 also states that local authorities should,

“ensure, in granting planning permission for mineral development, that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety, and take into account the cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality.”

The key words are “unacceptable adverse impacts” This quote shows that any decision is made by balancing conflicting demands.

But much of this is put to one side as planning officers frequently conclude in their recommendations that approval of shale gas exploration or extraction would not compromise any of the above considerations. Clearly, the paragraph is being interpreted as one where fracking takes precedent.

This assertion needs substantial evidence or else it is blackening the character of planning officers. Note in 2015 Stuart Perigo Planning Officer for Lancashire was pilloried for his report and recommendations. His reports were thorough and balanced and not always palatable to Cuadrilla.

The lack of attention given to climate change in the NPPF is an equally serious issue.
Any fracking operations, currently or soon-to-be approved, have been permitted despite the legitimate weight of evidence claiming that shale oil or gas extraction would be incompatible with the UK’s legally-binding climate change targets – let alone the even stricter targets of the Paris Agreement.

At best there is a division of opinion whether fracking is incompatible with climate change targets. The author needs to acknowledge rather than showing his bias.

 

Kia Trainor, of CPRE Sussex, pointed out how this leads to a burgeoning gap between political rhetoric and policy reality. The government’s new ‘clean growth’ narrative directly contradicts the NPPF’s prioritisation of energy security and the economic benefits of fracking above threats to the climate.

Sweeping statements made without justification

Infrastructure Act

Supporting these NPPF recommendations is a spate of new legal instruments and policy statements Westminster has rolled out since 2013, with the intention of fast-tracking fracking applications through the planning system. Among them is a weak and vague definition of fracking that provides ample opportunity to evade regulations and scrutiny. Fracking is defined in the Infrastructure Act 2015 by the amount of fluid used at each stage of the process – any operations under these amounts can avoid regulatory safeguards such as, independent well inspection and well sealing after use.

As fracking as a process is carried out in a variety of ways it is difficult to give one definition. Extraction from a vertical well in tight gas is “fracking” as is horizontal wells in shale . This shows that so-called horizontal HVHF can use less fluid than an older more “conventional” fracking.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2014/5131/pdf/sir2014-5131.pdf#

Yet these definitions would not have even covered the activity that caused the Preese Hall earthquake

gg

in 2011 that led to a temporary fracking moratorium. Neither would it cover 43% of US wells between 2000-2010 – a country famed for its lack of regulatory safeguards.

Exactly – it is the danger of a definition. Further he should be aware due to his employment that regulations in the USA heve been tightened up.

 

Furthermore, fracking currently defined is allowing dubious activities such as acidisation in the Weald Basin to be classed as ‘conventional’ extraction by operators, despite the very similar risks associated with this activity to those presented by fracking.

“acidisation” has been carried out for over a century. It is also used to clean out water boreholes in aquifers!

Such issues require a much broader definition of fracking and the threats it poses to climate change and public health.

This is such a vague statement lacking any substance. It will convince some opposed to fracking but fails to give any evidence

Return of the planners
If we want to change the game, we need to change the rules by which it’s played.

The revised NPPF, currently out for consultation, pushes the case for fracking even further by calling on local authorities to

“recognise the benefits of on-shore oil and gas development, including unconventional hydrocarbons… and put in place policies to facilitate their exploration and extraction”.

This is hugely concerning for those already struggling to repel fracking applications using a planning system weighted against them. As a result, the NPPF consultation is perhaps the last opportunity available to call for a more balanced interpretation of the risks and benefits that fracking presents.

The good news is that we have the tools in our hands to get the changes required. Government policy is swinging drastically away from its previously robust pursuit of fracking. The recent Clean Growth Strategy doesn’t mention the controversial technique at all, and a new climate change minister is placing enormous effort into getting the UK back on the international stage as a climate leader. Such a change in government narrative provides ample opportunity to argue, in response to the revised NPPF, that planning guidelines must contain a much healthier consideration of climate change,

sdsd

communities and the local environmental impact of controversial activities such as fracking. Indeed, such a change might deliver a decisive blow to an industry which, until now, has enjoyed undue privileges from government despite a torrent of public opposition.

fggf

The ultimate tool we need in this campaign though is our own agency – a self-belief that we can make a difference. The planning committees referred to above, where fracking was decisively rejected, were full to the brim of local people, many of whom spoke one after another with a persuasive combination of individual experience and robust knowledge of the elements of planning policy that would be infringed by such an application being approved.

lcc

 

 

It was uplifting to hear Andy Tickle of CPRE South Yorkshire explain how they had been providing help to individuals seeking advice on the planning system, and how they are soon to host training on public inquiries, with many coming up this year.

Andy also told me how inspired he had been by the mobilisation of communities that had previously not been involved in campaigning:

“In 15 years of working here, I’ve never seen so much anger against a threat to the countryside.”

It was encouraging to hear how CPRE had been engaging with this, whether through drafting objections to fracking applications, mobilising communities to engage in the planning system and forming wide coalitions that sees multiple interests unite in opposition to an unwanted industry.

I hope this momentum will continue this year as many big decisions are made on the future of fracking, and with it our countryside, under threat from a dangerous and unnecessary activity with no economic, social or environmental licence.

Mark Robinson works primarily on energy, infrastructure and climate change. His role is part of a graduate scheme established by CPRE in 2016

Perhaps CPRE need to improve their mentoring of graduates

to support graduates and young workers to get a foothold in the environmental sector. Mark holds an MSc in Environmental Sustainability from the University of Edinburgh and a BA (Hons) in Geography from Lancaster University.
SHARE THIS:

Requiem for Neonicotinoids: A Failure in European Leadership

More on pernicious effect on pesticides and bees. Often based on Friends of the Earth misinformation

The Risk-Monger

Last Friday, the EU Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (PAFF) voted through the European Commission’s proposed ban on all outside applications of three main neonicotinoids (imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam). This capped off a four-year ordeal which pitted industry and farmers on one side and activists and the organic food lobby on the other. The European Commissioner for Health, Vytenis Adriukaitis, celebrated the vote as evidence of the consistent use of science in EU policy. It was nothing of the sort, and the sad thing is that the Commissioner knows this.

It was never about the science

The EU Commissioner for health knows full well that pollinator health is a complicated issue and he has some of the best scientific advice at his disposal … that he managed to completely ignore.

laddomada-labs Only one lab reported pesticides as a cause of bee colony mortality

His own DG Santé (then…

View original post 2,989 more words

Why no faith in Fracking?

For the last 18 months there have been protests at the fracking site at Preston New Road near Blackpool in Lancashire. There have been over 200 arrests with some convictions. The road is often closed and protestors happily wander across the road and at time surf on lorries. Police have been abused and there has be criminal damage.

At regular intervals there have been faith protests mostly by Quaker, Catholics and wiccans etc.

The week of 23 -28 April has been seen as a “No faith in fracking” Week, with religious activities every day.

So far the general response from activist Christians is that fracking is a very bad thing and most reports from Anglicans, Catholics, Quakers, Methodists etc argue that fracking is both wrong and dangerous.

You can read some of these on the Churches Together in Lancashire website http://www.ctlancashire.org.uk/ See under “Fracking Lancashire” and “engaging issues” and on Catholic “Faith and Justice”. Sadly these are inaccurate  and my response to “The challenge of fracking” is also included, which points out how inaccurately it portrays fracking.  A major problem is that many Christian Greens stay in an echo chamber of anti-fracking greens and don’t take note of experts from statutory bodies like Brit Geolical survey, PHE, Environment Agency and a host of academics working on issues connected with fracking. It is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest to do this.

The blog from “No faith in Fracking” gives their case with quotes from activists.

It is strong in emotion and very weak in fact and makes the usual anti-fracking arguments on climate change and that fracking causes health issues. They give no evidence for their assertions, but then there seems to be none apart form American reports, which though peer-reviewed, have an uncanny knack of being re-tracted for glaring errors.

It is very sad that this represents the public face of churches and faith groups and it seems that anti-fracking, with all its extremism, has high-jacked churches and other faith groups. Sadly Church leaders have not yet seen through them for their dodgy arguments masked by virtue signalling.

None of this does the cause of caring for our planet any good whatsoever. It probably alienates more that it attracts.

What we need is for our faith to inform our concern and protection of the environment and make sure our planet is in better condition when we leave it!!

I ought to add that I am an Anglican priest and before ordination worked as a mining and exploration geologist. I have long considered myself an environmentalist.

I print the blog in full and make my comments where needed.

‘No Faith in Fracking’ Week 23-28 April, Lancashire
Posted on April 18, 2018

https://nofaithinfracking.org/2018/04/18/no-faith-in-fracking-week-23-28-april-lancashire/

The controversial process of fracking* for shale gas could begin in the UK as early as this spring. In response, three months of community and civil society action, under the banner ‘United Resistance’, are being planned from April – June 2018. As part of this, Quakers from the North West are working alongside people of all faiths and spiritualities to co-create a ‘No Faith in Fracking’ week at the Cuadrilla fracking site at Preston New Road (PR4 3PF) near Blackpool from 23-28 April 2018.

The No Faith in Fracking Week will offer a space for people moved by faith and spirit to express in their various and distinctive ways their shared care for the Earth, their resistance to fracking and their concerns about climate change and climate justice.

This is sheer spiritual one-upmanship and assumes anyone of faith will agree with No faith in fracking. It is rather bigoted and ignores all the sincere Christians who disagree and may reckon that fracking is the best (or least bad) for the environment. Here I would include several members of Lancashire for Shale, Prof Younger of Glasgow, Dr Nick Riley – the expert on the Bowland Shales  – to name but a few. WE see that fracking is the best option for mitigating climate change and as it can provide energy throughout the world , then we support climate justice

Wendy Pattinson a Quaker from Lancaster and member of the No Faith in Fracking group said: “Fracking crosses a climate red line and we cannot allow a new source of fossil fuel to take hold in the UK. The oil coal and gas in reserves already in production and development globally is more than we can afford to burn. There is no room for any new coal, oil or gas exploration and production.”[1]

She needs to explain why fracking crosses a climate red line. Without a good argument she has simply resorted to assertion and emotion. She would have done better than to rely on the Friends of the Earth whom were shown to be duplicitous in their activities in Lancashire culminating in their leaflet crossing the requirements of the Advertising Standards Agency which hit the media in Jan 2017  https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2017/01/04/friends-of-the-earth-fck-it-up/ . Here is the substance of their misinformation as found in their leaflet and spread round Lancashire https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2015/10/14/dont-let-fracking-destroy-all-of-this/  

She needs a reasoned approach rather than virtue signalling

Dot Kelk, a Catholic from Preston, said: “Pope Francis in his Encyclical Laudato Si puts it very clearly: ‘I urgently appeal..for a new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet. We need a conversation which includes everyone since the environmental challenge we are undergoing and its human roots concern and affect us all’.

In his Encyclical the Pope said nothing about fracking and spoke in general terms. He cannot be used to support opposition to fracking. What he said and rightly so, is that we MUST care for the environment and also our use of fossil fuels.

Clíodhna Mulhern, a Quaker from Lancaster, said “ Hydraulic fracturing poses significant, proven risk to the health of local people, it undermines local communities, and contaminates air, water and soil – the very building blocks of life. As people of faith and spirit it is our privilege and our duty to protect life on earth and if that means standing at Cuadrilla’s gates then that is where we shall be. “

There are several doubtful statements here. What is the evidence of “proven risk to health”? Medact 1 failed to provide any and Medact2 stated that there was no proof. Yes, local communities have been undermined – by anti-fracking groups and NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. What is the evidence that fracking “contaminates air , water and soil”? Apart from the odd spillage – as happens in any industry including farming – nothing. And the final sentence shows are rather superior attitude, claiming that they , and only they, care for the earth. That is offensive and bigoted.

Chayley Collis, a Quaker from Huddersfield, said: “Fracking is clearly incompatible with the global Paris climate commitment. The UK Government itself has also recently acknowledged that to have a reasonable chance of keeping global temperature rise below 2 degrees we need to leave up to 75% of existing reserves of fossil fuels in the ground” [2]

This was not claimed in the Paris Climate commitment and is ONLY what some environmentalists claim. She needs to read the govt response more precisely. It said “In 2011 the IPCC estimated the amount of carbon within existing proven reserves of coal, oil and gas to be 1,053 billion tonnes. Based on these figures, between 70-75 percent of known fossil fuels would have to be left unused in order to have a 50% chance of limiting global temperature rise to below 2°C.” That answer refers to ALL fossil fuel reserves and not just gas. It does mean it is best to leave the worst fuel  -Coal- in the ground, but it does not say fracking should not occur. This is an emotive, but vacuous, argument

In February 2017 Quakers in Britain issued a statement opposing fracking in the UK Fracking.

This statement https://www.quaker.org.uk/our-work/sustainability/fracking is weak in content but high in activism and gives no fundamental reason to oppose fracking

Hilary Whitehead, a Quaker and one of the organisers of the No Faith in Fracking week, said: “Care for the vulnerable in society, such as those people impacted by climate change, is a theme that unites all faith traditions, as is care for the Earth, our shared home. The No Faith In Fracking Week will bring together a range of faiths and spiritual traditions in upholding the sacredness of Earth. These will include Catholic, Christian, Buddhist, Green Spirit, Wiccan, Quaker and Druid and will involve prayers, rituals, ceremonies, meditations, silent vigils and liturgies at the roadside entrance to Cuadrilla’s fracking site.”

If she really cared for the vulnerable in society she would not put the poor at risk over energy. Again appeals to the sacredness of the earth  means she claims the spiritual high ground and other Christians who dare to disagree are negligent in following their faith teaching

Events planned for the week include:

Tibetan Buddhist chanting and guided meditation,
Christian Celtic Care of Creation
Green Spirit readings from Thomas Berry and Matthew Fox
Earth care rituals
Catholic liturgy
Talks and workshops on the effects of climate change
Walking meditation led by the Community of Interbeing.
Meditations led by Dharma Action Network for Climate Engagement (DANCE)
‘Earth Agape’ Liturgy led by Christian Climate Action and Faith & Resistance Network
Quaker-led silent vigils
Wiccan Wellbeing Celebration Day
Earth and spirit poetry and readings
Songs of Hope
A link to the event diary is here: https://nofaithinfracking.org/events/

The co-ordinators of the week are inviting people of all faiths and spiritualities and none to join the peaceful gatherings at any time during the week. More information:

Notes for the Editor

Press contact: 0798 3355955

A film, with interviews from members and supporters of the No Faith in Fracking group, from a range of faith traditions, is available to view here: https://vimeo.com/255967037

1. ‘The Sky’s Limit’, Oil Change International, 2016 and ‘Tackling climate change: Keeping coal , oil and gas in the ground’ Friends of the Earth briefing, July 2017

2. Fossil Fuels: Written question: https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2016-12-09/56871

3. Faith Against Fracking https://vimeo.com/140180741

Film about US faith groups witness against the fracking industry

* Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a technique designed to recover gas and oil from shale rock.

SHARE THIS:

hh;;

GMO critic Vandana Shiva’s anti-modernity crusade threatens world’s poor

A vital green shibboleth is GMO food , which is seen as dangerous both physically and mentally. Thus eco-activists tend to be anti-GMO as well as anti-vaxxer, anti-petroleum and so on.

This article raises questions about the anti-GMO darling Vandana Shiva whose views are widely accepted including Green Christian circles. It shows the follow of too many Greens, who , in fact, undermine their own cause

She has fanned the opposition to Golden Rice and GMO cotton as this article shows.

Genetic Literacy Project

Viewpoint: GMO critic Vandana Shiva’s anti-modernity crusade threatens world’s poor

Henry Miller, Drew Kershen | Genetic Literacy Project | April 12, 2018
Vandana Shiva GMO 4248987

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/04/12/viewpoint-gmo-critic-vandana-shivas-anti-modernity-crusade-threatens-worlds-poor/
The recently-published “Social Justice Warrior Handbook,” which satirizes people who promote liberal, multicultural, anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, politically correct views, could have had Indian activist and mountebank Vandana Shiva on the cover. She opposes the tools and practices of modern agriculture and science–and well, modernity in general—and advocates retrogressive policies that will cause widespread malnourishment, deprivation and death to the very people she claims to champion. And she’s no friend of the environment, either.

 

Vandana Shiva GMO 4248987

Illustrating the quest for “Back to Nature” and anti-globalization fervor that has infected many U.S. universities, Shiva has been a popular guest lecturer at American universities. In recent years, she has been invited to a number of U.S. campuses, including Beloit College, the College of New Jersey, Arizona State, the University of Utah and Wake Forest and Georgia Southern Universities, among others. Although she gets good press from left-wing and environmental publications, and naïve undergraduates dote on her, Shiva is widely considered by the scientific community to be abjectly unbalanced (in both senses of the word) for advocating unsound policies and promulgating disproven theories about agriculture.

As science writer Jon Entine and Monsanto science communicator Dr. Cami Ryan discussed in a Forbes article, many of Shiva’s hobby horses have proven to be exceedingly lame. Some prominent examples:

The “Green Revolution.” The new varieties and practices of the Green Revolution provided greater food security to hundreds of millions of people in developing countries on much of the planet; it made available high-yielding varieties of wheat and also new agronomic and management practices that transformed the ability of Mexico, India, Pakistan, China, and parts of South America to feed their populations. From 1950 to 1992, the world’s grain output rose from 692 million tons produced on 1.70 billion acres of cropland to 1.9 billion tons on 1.73 billion acres of cropland—an extraordinary increase in yield per acre of more than 150 percent. India is an excellent case in point. In 1963, wheat grew there in sparse, irregular strands, was harvested by hand, and was susceptible to rust disease. The maximum yield was 800 lb per acre. By 1968, the wheat grew densely packed, was resistant to rust, and the maximum yield had risen to 6000 lb per acre. Without high-yield agriculture, either millions would have starved or increases in food output would have been realized only through drastic expansion of land under cultivation—with losses of pristine wilderness far greater than all the losses to urban, suburban and commercial expansion.
rice 2 13 18 2And yet, from her perch in a parallel universe, Shiva contends that the Green Revolution actually caused hunger. Here, as elsewhere, she employs the propaganda technique known as the Big Lie, a phrase coined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 book Mein Kampf. Shiva promulgates lies so “colossal” (as Hitler put it) that it seems inconceivable that someone could “have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” Read on.

rice 2 13 18 2

Golden Rice, genetically engineered varieties that are biofortified, or enriched, by genes that produce beta-carotene, the precursor of vitamin A. These could be a monumental public health breakthrough, because vitamin A deficiency is epidemic among poor people whose diet is composed largely of rice, which contains no beta-carotene or vitamin A. In developing countries, 200 million-300 million children of preschool age are at risk of vitamin A deficiency, which increases their susceptibility to illnesses including measles and diarrheal diseases. Every year, about half a million children become blind as a result of vitamin A deficiency and 70% of those die within a year. But Shiva is opposed to it: “By focusing on only one crop, rice, which by itself does not provide all the nutrients, including higher quantities of Vitamin A than Golden Rice, the Golden Rice pushers are in fact worsening the crisis of hunger and malnutrition.” “Promoters of Golden Rice are blind to diversity, and hence are promoters of blindness, both metaphorically and nutritionally,” she adds. Shiva has dismissed Golden Rice as a hoax and a myth–which are the vilest sort of lies, not unlike those of the pernicious charlatans who condemn childhood vaccination for the prevention of infectious diseases.
As Entine and Ryan wrote: “Shiva’s alternate proposed solution for promoting a ‘diversity of diet’ has not worked for the very poor who cannot afford to buy vegetables or fruits, or cannot devote the land on their subsistence farm to grow more of them.” The hoax is Shiva’s unworkable alternative, not the proven capabilities of genetic engineering.

cotton 2 13 18

Genetically engineered, pest-resistant cotton (Bt-cotton, so-called because it contains a protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis that kills certain insects). Shiva claims that the cultivation of these seeds is not only ineffective but actually causes hundreds of thousands of farmer suicides in India. But Shiva’s statistics are cherry-picked, largely irrelevant and often simply wrong, and her argument relies on a fallacy of logic known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc–after the fact, therefore because of the fact. In other words, she confuses correlation with causation, the kind of “logic” that leads one to believe that autism is caused by organic food because of graphs like this one.
In a 2013 article in the journal Nature, agricultural socio-economist Dominic Glover observed, “It is nonsense to attribute farmer suicides solely to Bt cotton,” and moreover, “Although financial hardship is a driving factor in suicide among Indian farmers, there has been essentially no change in the suicide rate for farmers since the introduction of Bt cotton.”

Reinforcing Glover’s observations, a definitive, comprehensive study of Bt-cotton in India published in 2011 concluded: “Bt cotton is accused of being responsible for an increase of farmer suicides in India. . . Available data show no evidence of a ‘resurgence’ of farmer suicides. Moreover, Bt cotton technology has been very effective overall in India. Nevertheless, in specific districts and years, Bt cotton may have indirectly contributed to farmer indebtedness, leading to suicides, but its failure was mainly the result of the context or environment in which it was planted.” A 2006 study of four of India’s major cotton-producing states found that Bt-cotton gave rise to yield gains of approximately 31% and a 39% decrease in number of insecticide sprays, which led to an 88% increase in profitability, equivalent to about $250 per hectare.

cotton 2 13 18Eminent UC Berkeley agricultural economist David Zilberman echoes those findings and sums up India’s experience with genetic engineering this way: “India gained from adopting [genetic engineering applied to] cotton but has lost from not adopting it with other crops. The US, Brazil and Argentina adopted [genetic engineering] in corn and soybean, which led to increases in output and gains from exporting these extra crops. India and the rest of the world have also indirectly enjoyed benefits from the increased global supply of corn because of [genetic engineering].

In a 2014 article, “Seeds of Doubt,” in The New Yorker, investigative journalist Michael Specter called into question a number of Shiva’s claims regarding genetic engineering, as well as her ethics and judgment:

At times, Shiva’s absolutism about [genetic engineering] can lead her in strange directions. In 1999, ten thousand people were killed and millions were left homeless when a cyclone hit India’s eastern coastal state of Orissa. When the U.S. government dispatched grain and soy to help feed the desperate victims, Shiva held a news conference in New Delhi and said that the donation was proof that “the United States has been using the Orissa victims as guinea pigs” for genetically engineered products. She also wrote to the international relief agency Oxfam to say that she hoped it wasn’t planning to send genetically modified foods to feed the starving survivors. When neither the U.S. nor Oxfam altered its plans, she condemned the Indian government for accepting the provisions.

We endorse shopping in the marketplace of ideas, but not when toxic goods there pollute it. Recall Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s observation that everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts. Shiva is a seemingly endless font of bogus, made-up facts–that is to say, lies–and bizarre reasoning.

Even the way Shiva represents herself to the public at large and to potential speaking venues–variously as a “scientist,” “nuclear physicist,” or “quantum physicist–is untrue. However, she earned her doctorate not in physics, but in philosophy.

Ironically, Shiva’s connection with physics illustrates not her expertise in the discipline, but her wrong-headedness. Her dissertation in the philosophy of science at the University of Western Ontario focused on the debate over a central notion in physics known as Bell’s Theorem, which is concerned with “testing whether or not particles connected through quantum entanglement communicate information faster than the speed of light,” and which has been called the “most profound theory in science.” The abstract of Shiva’s dissertation states, in part: “It has been taken for granted that Bell’s [theorem] is based on a locality condition which is physically motivated, and thus his proof therefore falls into a class by itself. We show that both the above claims are mistaken”(emphasis added).

But contrary to Shiva’s conclusion, Bell’s theorem has been proven scientifically correct. As Entine and Ryan wrote, “The main thesis of quantum mechanics that she challenged has since been confirmed by experimental physics, meaning that her thesis stands at odds with factual reality.” But reality testing has never been Shiva’s forte.

The New Yorker’s Michael Specter wrote that Shiva has been called the “Gandhi of grain” and been “compared to Mother Teresa.” We think a more apt comparison would be to Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, the charlatan and ideologue who single-handedly laid waste to Soviet agriculture during the Stalin era and for years thereafter.

While this upper-caste Indian gets little right about science, she is adept at extracting money from sponsors on the lecture circuit. According to her speakers’ agency, the Evil Twin Booking Agency (we did not make up that name), Shiva’s usual fee for an American university appearance is $40,000 plus a business class round-trip ticket from New Delhi. We can infer, then, that American universities probably pay Shiva around $50,000 for each appearance, at which she exposes their students to her mendacious, baseless attacks on modern agriculture and science.

As for the actual substance of Shiva’s presentations at universities, we can only imagine… After all, she is the author of “In Praise of Cowdung” – a paean to peasant agriculture and an attack on improved seeds and modern fertilizers in Indian agriculture. That essay in particular reminds us of an old “Peanuts” cartoon in which the character Lucy van Pelt is about to embark on a writing assignment. “Write about something you know well,” the teacher instructs. Lucy begins typing, “The air hung heavy with stupidity…”

Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and a former trustee of the American Council on Science and Health. He was the founding director of the Office of Biotechnology at the FDA. Follow him on Twitter @henryimiller

Drew L. Kershen is the Earl Sneed Centennial Professor of Law (Emeritus), University of Oklahoma College of Law, in Norman, Okla.

This article was originally published at the American Council on Science and Health as “‘Social Justice Warrior’ Vandana Shiva Is A Poor Advocate For The Poor” and has been republished here with pe

 

 

×

Fracked Gas is worse than Coal. Whoops, another paper claiming that is retracted!!

Coal-power-plant-sunset-retire-XL_721_420_80_s_c1So often we are told fracked gas is worse than coal for emissions. Here is a peer-reviewed article which claims just that.

Oh dear, it has been retracted for errors which showed just the opposite

Retraction of Peer Reviewed Report Indicates Need for Smear Review
Posted on March 4, 2018 by Tom Shepstone
penneast pipeline – Tom Shepstone ReportsTom Shepstone
Shepstone Management Company, Inc.

Thanks

http://naturalgasnow.org/retraction-peer-reviewed-report-indicates-need-smear-review/
A retracted study that had been peer reviewed indicates the danger in relying on it to ensure sound science when it comes to fractivist applauded reports.

Back in 2015, this is how an Akron, Ohio newspaper headlined some methane leakage research then being conducted by the University of Maryland:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Natural Gas Wells
Are Increasing & Traveling Far Downwind

 

 

A new University of Maryland study shows a steep rise in greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas wells produced by fracking in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The emitted gases travel far downwind from the producing states, suggesting the need for regional cooperation in monitoring and reducing emissions from natural gas production, say the authors.

The preliminary reporting turned into a study released in April, 2017 as a peer reviewed document. Now, the study has been retracted. It’s a lesson in the risk of depending on the words “peer reviewed” as a measure of credibility.

 

 

Here’s more from the early reporting on the preliminary research conducted by the same University of Maryland team that produced the subsequent retracted study:

Emissions linked to hydraulic fracturing, the method of drilling for natural gas commonly known as “fracking,” can be detected hundreds of miles away in states that that forbid or strictly control the practice, according to a new paper published in the journal Atmospheric Environment. The study, conducted at the University of Maryland (UMD), is among the latest data presented in the ongoing debate over fracking’s long-term effects on the environment.

The team used years’ worth of hourly measurements from photochemical assessment monitoring stations (PAMS) in the Baltimore, Md., and Washington, D.C., areas to identify the sources of organic carbons in the region’s air. Starting in 2010, the data didn’t seem to make sense…

Preliminary research revealed that there was nothing happening in Maryland that could account for the steep increase. Maryland does not currently permit fracking, but when Ehrman’s team compared the rise in ethane to the extraction of natural gas from the Marcellus shale play in neighboring states, they found a month-to-month correlation. After running a wind rose analysis – a tool used by meteorologists to track the wind direction, distribution and speed in a specified area – they felt even more confident that Maryland was receiving the tail end of emissions originating from Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio…

“The question you start to ask yourself is, if ethane levels are going up this much, and it’s only a small percentage of all natural gas, how much methane and other, more reactive emissions are escaping from these wells?” says Ph.D. student Tim Vinciguerra, the paper’s lead author. “Following the fracturing process, the well undergoes completion venting to clear out fluid and debris before production. A substantial amount of hydrocarbons are emitted as a result of this flowback procedure.”

These new findings on natural gas emissions also are consistent with established findings by University of Maryland scientists showing westerly winds can carry power plant emissions and other pollution from states like Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania to the Washington, D.C., region and elsewhere on the East Coast of the U.S.

Thus was a false story born. The University of Maryland team that effectively generated it went on to conclude, in the retracted report, the following (emphasis added):

We estimate the mean ± 1σ CH4 leak rate from O&NG operations as 3.9 ± 0.4% with a lower limit of 1.5% and an upper limit of 6.3%… Although recent regulations requiring capture of gas from the completion venting step of the hydraulic fracturing appear to have reduced losses, our study suggests that for a 20 year time scale, energy derived from the combustion of natural gas extracted from this region will require further controls before it can exert a net climate benefit compared to coal.

There was just one problem; the University of Maryland team had made a critical error, revealed, to their credit, by themselves in the subsequent retraction:

The article… has been retracted by the authors because of an error in wind measurements used to calculate methane emissions in the southwestern Marcellus Shale region. The error was discovered by the authors in October 2017 upon their installation of an improved, differential GPS, wind measurement system onto the aircraft used in this study. The original wind measurements led to an overestimate of methane emissions from oil and natural gas operations.

A reanalysis with corrected winds reduced the total estimated emissions by about a factor of 1.7, with a correspondingly larger reduction in emissions of methane attributed to oil and natural gas in the southwestern Marcellus Shale area.

This is expected to reverse a conclusion of the paper, which had asserted that leakage from oil and natural gas extraction in this region results in a climate penalty compared to the use of coal.

The authors are in the process of submitting a new manuscript based on an updated analysis that will describe the process to correct the erroneous wind measurements used in the original manuscript, provide a more accurate estimate of the methane emissions, and assess the implications of the fossil fuel production from the Marcellus Shale.

If your wondered whether the Akron Beacon Journal covered the retraction with the same enthusiasm as the original research, the unsurprising answer is a simple “no.” That almost never happens, of course. The public was told something that was blatantly wrong and it is now ingrained in memory as part of a big picture on fracking that is one gigantic distortion because of a rush to judgment in a mad dash for political correct publicity and research dollars. Correcting the false impression, as usual, is no easy task and will require years of explanation.

Who’s at fault? Well, we can blame lots of folks, but most of the discredit has to go those who gave the 2017 a peer reviewed imprimatur. Here’s how Tim Benson at the Heartland Institute summed it up:

Jordan McGillis, a policy analyst at the Institute for Energy Research, says with so much potential to affect public policy, it’s troubling the initial paper passed peer review.

“That an error of this magnitude made it through the publication process is unfortunate,” said McGillis. “It is not difficult to imagine the paper’s startling conclusions influenced the public against hydraulic fracturing, against gas infrastructure, and against gas generally.

“Misinformation perpetuates anti-energy bias in our culture and can result in real harm,” McGillis said.

McGillis says state governments in two regions near Marcellus energy operations have limited pipeline development because of environmental activists’ opposition.

“Consider the fact the New York and New England regions should be benefiting from the Marcellus Shale’s proximity but are instead hamstrung by pipeline opposition,” said McGillis. “Just this winter, ISO New England [the regional electric power transmission provider] produced a report citing insufficient gas infrastructure as a leading factor in their prediction of future fuel insecurity and operator-imposed blackouts.”

And, who were those peers? We’ll never know because their names aren’t provided. There’s no accountability with much of peer review today and these are the fruits of such lax publication and university policies. Peer review today now requires smear reviews to get to the truth.