Former oil engineer, Ken Wilkinson, has made several complaints about anti-fracking material to the advertising watchdog, the Advertising Standards Authority. In this Guest Post, he describes what motivates his action.
Ken Wilkinson photographed while paragliding
On 3rd June, the Advertising Standards Authority announced that Frack Free Alliance (FFA) had withdrawn their advertising in the Farmers Guardian and the Daily Farmer. I, along with Rev Michael Roberts had challenged the factual basis of the advert. FFA did not attempt to defend their statements about poisoned land, leaking wells, unsaleable produce etc etc.
This is the third time this has happened. I took a complaint against Frack Free Somerset, on 13 separate points. Michael Roberts and I made a complaint against Resident Action on Fylde Fracking (RAFF) last year, on a similar number. These included pictures of flares, and open storage pits, claims of no regulation, well leaks, health impacts etc. They all withdrew and had to promise to remove the adverts, and not present them again. This was done to avoid an ASA council judgement on the matter.
Both of us are appalled at the way false scientific data is being presented as a way of stopping fracking. That is why I took on Breast Cancer UK and had them withdraw their material, twice. It simply was appallingly bad science, in the UK context.
I think both of us would describe ourselves as anti bullshit, rather than pro fracking. If people wish to oppose fracking on climate change grounds then they should argue on that premise, not introduce false information trying to prove it is risky when it is not. The data from the US strongly indicates it has been a great economic boost to the US, and has cut coal usage, the elephant in the room on climate change, pollution, and CO2 emissions.
It is also very poor that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are not able to stand up to some of the ideas that appear in so many anti frack media. The above groups [mentioned in paragraphs 1-4] had months to get technical assistance, but the withdrawal indicates that they know the information is false, but are happy that it is used as a campaigning tool.
Biography
- Following graduation as an engineer from Manchester University, I worked in the Far East in the mid 70s, for 2 years for Schlumberger, doing open and cased hole logging. I left as a senior field engineer. In the 80s I worked for Halliburton Wireline (Welex) as a field engineer, eventually becoming the most senior engineer in my district, dealing with well problems, and oil company engineers. I then became a Physics teacher and recently retired. Michael Roberts is an Oxford University geology graduate with mining experience. He then became a vicar, and has also recently retired. Neither of us have any financial or other interest in any of the oil/gas companies.
Categories: Industry
DRILL OR DROP? 
Reblogged this on Peddling and Scaling God and Darwin and commented:
Good stuff from Ken on anti-fracking deception
It would be interesting to know where it is stated that open storage pits are prohibited. There are references to open pits not being permitted but nowhere does it say they are prohibited. Similarly it has been suggested that reinjection of waste fluid is prohibited. Reinjection is not prohibited it has in fact been permitted for conventional wells and an application to reinject waste fluid is being made by Barclay’s Bank in the North York Moors National Park. There exists video footage of unshielded flaring at West Newton in the East Riding of Yorkshire. The same video evidence corroborates other evidence of repeated direct venting at the West Newton site. Given that products from venting include toxic volatile organic compounds it would not be surprising if consumers boycotted vegetables such as frozen peas grown in the immediate vicinity of the venting particularly when the venting has taken place immediately prior to the pea harvest as happened at West Newton. The Advertising Standards Authority has made rulings against Cuadrilla Resources Limited. It’s assessment states the following
“We therefore considered that the claim that CRL used “proven” safe technologies had not been substantiated.” The ASA has made no rulings in relation to the leaflets referred to in the piece above.
Wells water waste… You can see the requirement by going to https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277211/Water.pdf and looking on page 4.
There is a debate about injection of wastewater in the Ryedale wells. Injjection of water into an already polluted and deep aquifer would not be massively different from water injection that happens in most oilfields. The deepwater injection thing that has caused earth tremors in the US is different but I do not know enough about it to comment more.
I gather there was a problem with attempted flaring but was this to due to inadequate gas flow? As to a gas release, its the same as the gas you probably cook with, and could be a fire risk, but no other. Be fair, there are a whole bundle of new regs and procedures in place!
Like most technical things, expert knowledge is required before passing judgement. The passing of opinions by people who know nothing is one of the things that motivates me to make the complaints. (I am currently working on a complaint abouit the recent ridiculous Medact report.)
As to the ASA not giving rulings, that is ENTIRELY due to the organisations withdrawing. I was furious when they were, but that is the ASA procedure. Cuadrilla stood by what they said.
The judgements involved fine distinctions about ‘proven technologies’ (they are), whether dilute HCl is toxic (it isnt) and whether 0.5M earthquakes can be a risk (they cannot). I did request that if any of these matters were to go to the ASA panel, that expert opinion be sought, as ASA did not seem up to the job, technically.
The document linked is not a regulation and does not refer to a regulation. It would be interesting to see where it is stated in any regulation that storing waste fluid from wells open to the air whether in pits, ponds, reservoirs or lagoons is prohibited. The details on proposed reinjection in the North York Moors National Park are in the operator’s application which is in the public domain. The venting at West Newton consisted of all the untreated gaseous products of the formation. These products include methane and a range of other hydrocarbons including benzene and other toxic volatile organic compounds. The untreated products of the formation as vented at West Newton are unlikely to be fed in to the mains gas grid to domestic consumers, to suggest otherwise would be foolish. Regarding the ASA ruling against Cuadrilla’s misleading leaflet the grounds shown by the ASA are clear and are not disputed. Cuadrilla has not appealed the decision. The ASA has made no rulings against the leaflets produced by groups campaigning to highlight their views on the impact of unconventional oil and gas.
Reblogged this on Eat Your Brains Out; Exploring Science, Exposing Creationism and commented:
It’s wrong when climate warming denialists tell lies, it’s wrong when Creationists tell lies, it’s wrong when anti-vaxxers tell lies, and it’s just as wrong when anti-frackers tell lies.
Cheap gas from fracking helps keep coal in the ground, and the industry is much more closely regulated than in the US. We can, and should, be discussing whether the environmental benefits outweigh the costs (although gas only generates around half as much CO2, per unit of energy, as coal, any cheap fossil fuel undermines alternatives). We should also be examining the effectiveness and enforcement of environmental regulations, as for all major extraction and construction. Silly scare stories can only detract from these important debates.
h/t Michael Roberts
WellsWaterWaste you really do not understand how ‘best practice regulation’ works. Rather than having a set formula, as technology improves, the bar can be raised. You are required as an operator to present the EA with what you plan to do. If you plan to use open pits you will not be issued with a licence to drill. It took the EA 6 months plus to evaluate Cuadrillas environmental protection plans BTW, and Lancs planning approved it.
There is a whole series of those documents to explain what will be required as a minimum by the EA (see link below, tho I doubt you will bother to read em…). If this is stated on a Govt publication, that will be a minimum requirement. Take a look at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/265978/Onshore_UK_oil_and_gas_exploration_all_countries_Dec13.pptx
or https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/about-shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking
As to ‘These products include methane and a range of other hydrocarbons including benzene and other toxic volatile organic compounds.’ the risk to the public was evaluated a insignificant (cant remember where I read this). Where will the benzene and other VOCs come from? They only exists in insignificant amounts in natural gas, which is what shale gas is. They are certainly not permitted in additives, as these are on the JAGDAG list of chems not permitted in any circumstances under UK and EU law.
You get a decent dose of benzene when you fill up your car, which I assume you have?
There are two sides to whether the UK should pursue fracking however what is very clear is that there is many pushing out propaganda and lies in order to scare people into opposing it sending some into what can only be described as radicalism. It’s time there was proper debate and dialogue on the issue, without the scare tactics, ignorance and spin. It is only right this propaganda is challenged and exposed and I applaud those who are. I want to make my own mind up based on the facts, not the spin.
Irrespective of the definition of ‘best practice regulation’ its interpretation, implementation, monitoring, recording and effectiveness or otherwise it remains the case that there is no reference to a regulation stating that storing waste fluid from wells open to the air whether in pits, ponds, reservoirs or lagoons is prohibited. Statements suggesting open air storage of waste is prohibited are incorrect in the absence of such a statement in a regulation. There are recorded incidents of large releases of benzene onshore in the UK. The releases were unplanned and occurred through direct venting of the well. If there were regulation in the UK of the standard in Pennsylvania then such unplanned venting would give rise to a specific violation, record of the violation, notice to correct and financial penalty for the operator. Information about the violation would be in the public domain. It would be illustrative of the practice in the UK to try to access data about lapses from best practice.
Please read https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277211/Water.pdf Page 4 ‘make appropriate plans for storing fluid safely, and not in open pits’. That clear enough?
‘large releases of benzene onshore in the UK’ Really? evidence? odd seeing as benzene does not exist in shale gas for a start, its an oil issue. I gather there was one blowout recorded in this FOI request, that was fixed. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/268623/13_1664.pdf
Re venting see https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277219/Air.pdf Page 3 ‘operators must minimise the release of gases as a condition of their licence from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). Natural gas may only be vented for safety reasons.
All correspondence etc with the Environment Agency is subject to FOI requests. In fact with the gas release in Yorkshire, warnings at a low level were issued by the EA and in the public domain.
You are trying to find problems that have been looked at by regulators and specialists or that do not exist.
Take a look at information from the DEP in Pennsylvania then have a look at the information available from the Environment Agency in the UK. All violations are listed by DEP. The EA seems to provide far less information about things that can and have gone wrong. If there is any basis for the belief that shale gas does not contain benzene it would be surprising. Venting occurs routinely and is inevitable in the case of fracked shale wells when the rush of fluids and gases at flowback occurs following the release of hydraulic pressure. The US EPA has been proposing mandatory green completions which attempt to capture the gaseous products however mandatory green completions have been resisted successfully. Green completions are not mandatory in the UK.
I’m on the fence (jus) regarding fracking, but as a keen walker/climber/kayaker/camper/cyclist I do have an affiliation with the countryside/environment and feel it is absolutely essential it is protected. I have spent some time looking into the subject. Whilst I wholeheartedly back the absolute need for transparent and open debate on any subject, including a lack of scaremongering and misinformation, it does appear on the surface (perhaps wrongly) that Ken and Michael are only interested in eradicating the misinformation that some people are publishing, who believe fracking is bad and not those who use misinformation to suggest it is good.
Perhaps I am wrong, but the dubious claims from the Prime Minister himself who told the Daily Telegraph in 2013: ‘If we don’t back this technology we will miss a massive opportunity to help families with their bills and make our country more competitive’. ‘Energy bills would fall if we can lower our dependence on imported gas’, he added.
That is not debatable, IT IS INCORRECT AND MISLEADING. The way the European gas network functions, at least to my understanding, means that we can’t flood the domestic market, sell the gas nationally and lower the cost to the consumer, so proceeding with fracking will not do as Mr Cameron suggests. Given the position of power and influence Mr Cameron holds, would it not be more prudent if one is ‘anti bullshit and not pro fracking’ to pursue sources of misinformation with far, far more influence and reach than a leaflet in a couple of agricultural publications from a group with no on/off line presence?
CO2 is by no means the only ‘greenhouse gas’ to be concerned about either from my research, fugitive methane escapes are a major concern, as they seem, technically, very difficult to monitor and manage. The effects of methane, in regards to climate change, are more potent than CO2 and depending which source you use, some peer reviewed articles suggest it can be calculated by factors of 10.
From all my research over the last 14 months and aside from the arguments above, why on earth are we not pursuing larger scale mixed renewable’ projects as opposed to new techniques to extend the life of fossil fuel usage? But then I’m just a blue collar construction worker so this is far far outside my area of expertise.
Ian, ‘as a keen walker/climber/kayaker/camper/cyclist’ I do all of those things! and paraglide as the picture shows. I love nature, and would hate to see it destroyed.
As to gas market issue, I agree its difficult to see how things will work here. Maybe prices will not fall for domestic users but Grangemouth will not be viable with expensive imported gas. Same for the rest of the 1 million jobs in chemicals and pharma. They need cheap feedstock.
Re gas leaks, wells are required to be gas secure. The US has some very lax regulations and some media show flowback belching out unburned methane. Disgusting, and also not permitted in the UK
If the same level of scrutiny being applied deceitfully to fracking was applied honestly to wind energy, wind would be shut down.