Categories: Politics, Regulation
Support Drill Or Drop
Any donation, however small, will help DrillOrDrop to report independently on fracking, onshore oil and gas and the reactions to it.
Independent journalism can't be bought but it can be supported.
Independent journalism can't be bought but it can be supported.
DRILL OR DROP? 
Richard Drax has been notified
Odd that there have been no incidences of fracking induced chemical poisoning in the US, and the ambulance chasing lawyers are no longer taking cases. It sounds like the MPs can sleep easily in their beds, even ignoring the fact that the chemicals that are always implicated are not permitted in the UK, and the fluid handling is also more secure. Why do you give his non story such prominence Ruth, when the failure of RAFF and FFS to sustain their false anti frack arguments concerning complaints to the ASA is barely covered?
http://www.nohotair.co.uk/index.php/gas-guru-blog/shale-gas-2013/199-energy-policy/2766-the-hidden-shale-pollution-lawsuit-myths
Thanks for your comment and your question, which is a fair one.
I agree, I didn’t do a post about the ASA complaint but I did cover the story twice in the Daily Headlines section of the site. This often gets more views than individual posts, so potentially has more influence. The Infrastructure Act is a major piece of legislation and the passage through parliament attracted a lot of attention. I have been covering it in detail for the past few months. I felt the Notice Before Action story needed a post because it couldn’t be explained in a few sentences.
Ken – your repeated claim that lawyers are not taking on health related fracking cases is another of your all too frequent misleading statements. Are you naively repeating what somebody else has told you or are you deliberately lying? Just to demonstrate this here is an advert it took 5 seconds to find on Google http://www.gpwlaw.com/practice/toxic-exposures/benzene.php . Do some research before continuing to repeat such crass statements please. RAFF did sustain their arguments to the ASA as it happens. Your story is a non-story – unlike the successful complaint about Cuadrilla’s leaflet which resulted in this http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/4/Cuadrilla-Resources-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_203806.aspx
KW here in the US fracking is on it’s way out. The fossil fuel companies continue to pursue it but the cat is out of the bag, we know that fracking poisons water supplies and causes earthquakes. There are plenty of attorneys taking on clients with cases against the frackers so your post is erroneous to say the least. I wonder, are you employed by a fossil fuel company? Your post has all the earmarks of a shill.
The ASA judgement is on http://asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/Advanced-Search.aspx?Start=1/7/2015&End=1/7/2015#2
it states ‘After consideration by the ASA of complaints received, the following companies and organisations agreed to amend or withdraw advertising without the need for a formal investigation’ Do you need any more explanation?
Benzene may be used in the USA but it is not permitted in the UK or EU as it is a ‘hazardous pollutant’ (List 1) on the JAGDAG list. http://www.wfduk.org/sites/default/files/Media/Substances%20transferred%20from%20List%20I%20%26%20II%20to%20hazardous%20or%20non%20hazardous.pdf
The European wide Groundwater Directive is European legislation that states.’ In order to protect the environment as a whole, and human health in particular, detrimental concentrations of harmful pollutants in groundwater must be avoided, prevented or reduced’. The Environment Agency regulations state we must take all necessary measures to:
‘prevent the input of any hazardous substance to groundwater and limit the input of non-hazardous pollutants to groundwater so as to ensure that such inputs do not cause pollution of groundwater’
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2010/9780111491423/contents
The pollutants the Environment Agency are concerned with for groundwater are:
Hazardous substances, which are substances or groups of substances that are toxic, persistent and liable to bioaccumulate, and other substances or groups of substances that give rise to an equivalent level of concern.
Any non-hazardous pollutants, which is ‘any pollutant other than a hazardous substance”
Baruch, Not a shill, but a retired and financially independent ex drilling engineer that hates bullshit. The UK is regulated differently to the US. (Sounds like you are from the US, its different here)
Please tell me of a case where a company has been sued for poisoning. The only cases that have succeeded have been on nuisance grounds. Anyway fluid handling is totally different in the UK. No gas leakages permitted except in an emergency.
Do you need some anger management John? You persist in this ridiculous claim re the ASA. The reason that there was no judgment was that RAFF withdrew. That means they are KNOWINGLY TALKING RUBBISH THAT THEY CANT SUSTAIN! Its not proper science. The EA were very happy with the enviro issues in Lancs. Its going to go ahead and you will not even notice it
If you actually do your research you see that there have been reports in America of people who couldn’t drink the water in their homes they couldn’t even shower in it because of contamination due to fracking, there have also been reports of people being able to set fire to the water coming from their taps.
So if you can sleep at night then fine crack on with your lies but remember once you kill this planet you will also die and the devil doesn’t care how much money you have in the bank
Excellent idea. However I shared this report form the CHP New York with my (true blue Tory) MP last year and he dismissed it out of hand, citing that he only backs/reads UK Gov reports. So be prepared for denial and head in the sand approach. But I applaud and support you.
So, does this letter (written in September 2014) have any significant relevance now…can it be amended and used as a verbatim template? Remembering that section 4B of the Infrastructure Act has been changed, thanks to the recent change of definition re 10,000 cubic metres.
Please respond asap so we can relay the updated information, further.
They cannot change the definition of fracking . They can only change what the amendment applies to. If they use the process of hydraulic fracturing in any way and it causes harm then they are liable. Simples, the fact that they have gone against the wishes of parliament in allowing it to take place only further implicates them.
When has fracking (I mean the process, not drilling /cementing/poor fluid handling/truck accidents/floods etc etc etc) ever caused an environmental issue?
There are no cases of aquifer contamination due to it. Lots of other claims, but not due to fracking.
Hi, can anyone do this ? My MP voted in favour of Fracking and 3 local areas have been ear marked for it. I am concerned.If everybody did this to their local MP’s we would def win. Thank you.
I don’t understand a lot of the finer details, I just know I find the whole thing very scary. I just wanted to say thank you for this article, I found it very informative. I would love to meet Ms Jojo Mehta and thank her for having the knowledge and caring to take her action on behalf of all residents of the U.K. If I have understood this properly Samantha Evans does not have to do anything because it has already been done for her, is that right?