Cuadrilla Resources has confirmed it has reported a fracking leaflet produced by Friends of the Earth to the Advertising Standards Authority, saying it was misleading and scaremongering. The company says it has also reported FoE to the Charity Commission.
Friends of the Earth said the health and environmental impacts of fracking was well-documented and the public were right to be concerned about it.
The leaflet aimed to raise money to campaign against fracking. It said: “Help protect your community from:
- Chemicals that could cause cancer
- Air pollution and higher asthma risk
- Water contamination
- Plummeting house prices and bigger insurance bills
Cuadrilla’s Chief Executive, Francis Egan, said in a statement:
“It is irresponsible and shameful that a charity such as Friends of the Earth should use misleading and scaremongering statements to encourage members to part with their hard earned money.
“Friends of the Earth must know perfectly well that the UK Environment Agency would never permit the use of a ‘toxic cocktail of chemicals’ in UK fracking fluid and Cuadrilla has no intention of doing so.”
“Furthermore there is no credible scientific evidence that the non-hazardous chemicals proposed for use in Cuadrilla’s UK fracking fluid having caused cancer or any other human disease.”
Michael Roberts and Ken Wilkinson, two supporters of fracking, have also complained about the leaflet to the ASA (reproduced here). They said:
- The use of the words “dangerous” and “threatened” in relation to fracking were inaccurate
- It was incorrect to say fracking used “a toxic cocktail of chemicals”
- The statement that fracking fluid could end up in drinking was unproven
- It was incorrect to say the planning decision in Lancashire had been concluded
- Experiences in the US should not be extrapolated to the UK
Friends of the Earth’s head of campaigns, Andrew Pendleton, said: “There is a growing body of evidence to suggest negative health and environmental impacts from fracking.
“It has already been banned in New York State because of a two-year long study that found ‘significant health risks’.
“We are helping people in the UK to resist fracking being pushed in their area by companies like Cuadrilla, who have the backing of David Cameron and George Osborne.
“The public are right to be concerned about fracking because it is a controversial and risky technique that produces more dirty fossil fuels that cause climate change and could threaten our water.
“To avoid dangerous climate change, more than 80% of known fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground. So, setting up a whole new fossil fuel industry in the form of fracking will only add to the stockpile of fossil fuels that we can’t burn.”
Categories: Industry
DRILL OR DROP? 
The fracktastic tag team of Mike and Ken also complained…. haha
Read the complaint and you can see that the Mike and Kenny show continues as normal – trying to claim that a limited decision on 2 development wells in Lancashire clears the industry for production scale development, as they often do on newspaper columns all over the country. You have to hope that the ASA can see that they are just being used by these two charlatans. They really are a disgrace 🙂
Really Mr Hobson, can you point out where that is written? It is in fact 8 wells on two pads. Would it change things massively if there were 20? No it wouldnt, except that the rig would be there a lot longer. It really is a disgrace that anti groups up and down the country show pictures of dozens of separate wells that are not the way things are forseen in the UK. A single wellpad, with a spacing of 5km, discretely sited behing bunding and trees, providing masses of energy. It is one of many lies that anti groups state, and it really is a disgrace.
This will be a big problem for F o E as the evidence they have lied again and again is massive. If Cuadrilla has been unable to perform its trade due to deliberate misinformation from F o E I could see that being a lawsuit. 1.5 billion? Hmmm… Perhaps the people that have lost their jobs will also be able to sue F o E. There is a lot more disgraceful info, the deliberately misinterpreted well leaks, the incorrect health issues, the made up stories. They are on the website however and are immune from complaint, even tho they really are a disgrace
Oh, and they would not be able to raise funds by making an appeal as I have also made a complaint to the Fund Raising Standards body. They require CAP standard information. That means legal decent honest and truthful. F o E are none of those.
I would do the same for Greenpeace, but they are a private company and not a member of FRSB. They are immoral as well, but untouchable, unless Cuadrilla sue them.
Reblogged this on Peddling and Scaling God and Darwin and commented:
Friends of the Earth won’t get out of this one!!
Yes indeed Ken – two development well pads not two development wells – my error. It was late 🙂
Of course for you down in the safety of your home in DELETED nothing would change whether it is 2 wells, 2 pads, 20 pads or 200 pads. The latter figure is of course the closest to a likely reality if fracking goes ahead on a national basis (although it is probably an underestimate).
As regards your question “can you point out where that is written” that you are “trying to claim that a limited decision on 2 development wells in Lancashire clears the industry for production scale development”, yes, indeed I can.
In response to FoE’s statements about the impacts of fracking *in general* (not the impacts of these 2 pads specifically, you disingenuously wrote: “The Lancashire County Council Planning Dept, who wrote a long report on the matter, and approved the process, as it was considered safe.”
As you know very well Ken, LCC planners only approved the mitigation of potential impacts on these two relatively small scale developments and did say anything anywhere about the industry as a whole being “considered safe”, as you infer in your complaint. We have seen you use the same “argument” as this several times previously on newspaper comment columns. You should be ashamed to misrepresent the truth in this way but,sadly, I am sure you are not.
As to your comment “It really is a disgrace that anti groups up and down the country show pictures of dozens of separate wells that are not the way things are forseen in the UK. A single wellpad, with a spacing of 5km, discretely sited behing bunding and trees, providing masses of energy” I am simply gob-smacked that even you could make such a ludicrous and misleading statement.
A single well pad? Even just a single year’s UK gas demand (~3tcf) would require around 1000 wells using the average EURs estimated by the Institute of Directors in their report Getting Shale Gas Working. Even assuming they could manage 40 wells per pad that would require 25 well pads. We all know that the industry claims to be able to extract many times more than that – even just Cuadrilla have claimed to have a reserve of 300tcf and to be able to extract 10%, so that would be around 250 well pads just in their PEDL. A single well pad Ken? Now THAT suggestion “really is a disgrace.” Again you should be ashamed to misrepresent the truth in this way but,sadly, I am sure you are not.
The ASA and FRS should be made aware of posts like the one you made above so they can see exactly what they are dealing with. I have taken a screen print 🙂
Ken – you state “This will be a big problem for F o E as *the evidence they have lied again and again is massive*. If Cuadrilla has been unable to perform its trade due to deliberate misinformation from F o E I could see that being a lawsuit. 1.5 billion? Hmmm…”
Of course assuming, as is likely, that FoE are able to substantiate their claims and rebut your allegations then that leaves you and Michael on something of a sticky legal wicket yourselves, as you have now both publicly and repeatedly accused them of lying and published that accusation far and wide. Now FoE and most of the rest of us normally leave you to waste your time publishing misleading information wherever you can, but they may just consider this a step too far.
Can a defamation action be far away? Maybe you should start saving some pennies up Ken and Michael as legal battles are VERY expensive and time-consuming.
25 wellpads would be a sqare 25 km x 25km. 5 km between each well. Thats 3 miles, a load of opportunity to hide wellpads, as they have on Wytch Farm which has 10, and 100 wells. Nobody knows they are there
Why do you post such nonsense? Its all words with you, ‘disingenuous’ ‘misleading’ ‘disgrace’ when you clearly are just trying to intimidate. Please advise where Lancs CC found the process dangerous? They passed it as it was ‘low risk’ and the expert body the EA was happy. Low risk means it is ‘safe’ to an engineer. Your post is content free.
The ASA, FRSB, and Charity Commission will decide, so your opinion is worth nothing in this.
You also appear to have no understanding of the law. Making a complaint through the proper channels is not defammation. Is Fo Es leaflet ‘legal decent honest and truthful’? Cuadrillas lawyers evidently do not think so. Speculation of a possible outcome is also not defamation. Yet more attempts to intimidate.
Have you read the supporting links in the complaint? The ones about non hazardous chemicals? The ones about sequestration of water, etc. Please do.
“Making a complaint through the proper channels is not defammation. Is Fo Es leaflet ‘legal decent honest and truthful’? Cuadrillas lawyers evidently do not think so. Speculation of a possible outcome is also not defamation. ”
Clearly not Ken, but stating (very publicly) things like “This will be a big problem for F o E as the evidence they have lied again and again is massive.” and “Friends of the Earth won’t get out of this one!! may well be.
Do we really have to to the “Hydrochloric Acid isn’t toxic or hazardous” thing again? Honestly? The ASA have already made a ruling on that claim .
So you think Cuadrilla would only try to site 50 well pads on PEDL 165 then Ken (its 1180 km2). Even with 40 wells per pad that would only allow 2000 wells . At 3.2 bcf EUR per well as per IoD that would get them two year UK gas demand. Scraping the barrel a bit here.
Francis Egan is quoted as saying “no intention” in relation to using a toxic cocktail of chemicals. “No intention” is not in any sense the same as “will not”. Egan’s predecessor Mark Miller in evidence to Parliament stated explicitly that Cuadrilla would use any number of additives depending on the challenges. As explained by the former CEO of Cuadrilla additives are required as friction reducers, gelling agents, gel breakers, anti foaming agents, corrosion inhibitors and biocides. Of course with or without additives the products of a fracked well include VOC.’s like benzene which are released in a large plume of venting at the conclusion of pumping and the release of pressure. These venting releases can be reduced but Cuadrilla due to cost pressure has “no intention” of using the methods that would reduce the post frack venting plumes. As for Friends of the Earth it is playing catch up with a grass roots movement against fracking, it has helped in that effort but it does not lead it and by the way nor does Greenpeace. As for the Environment Agency it is being held hostage by among other things the appointment of the former head of Arup, who represented Cuadrilla in planning applications, as head of the agency. Fortunately the atmosphere of bullying and fear laced with redundancies prevalent in the Environment Agency gives rise to whistle blowers. The British people will defend their beautiful countryside, believe it.
“That’s 3 miles, a load of opportunity to hide wellpads” – Look I know you don’t live anywhere near where they are planning to drill up here but the Fylde peninsula is effectively flat. From where I was yesterday (and I was only about 10 metres above sea level) I could see Snowdon, The Irish Sea rigs, Southport, the Lake District and the East Lancs fells. I’m afraid You can’t hide things very effectively on a plain Ken as you’d probably know if you lived anywhere near. Neither can you hide the impact of thousands of lorries on rural lanes.
I’m disappointed (but not alas surprised) that you trot out Wytch Farm to try to prop up your weak arguments again! Even DECC admit that non-shale non HVHF fracks are not comparable to what is being proposed here. Honestly Ken, what other words than “misleading”, “disgrace” and “disingenuous” could be appropriate for your posts? 🙂
I have not claimed (as you seem to be trying to suggest) that LCC “found the process dangerous”. Are your arguments really so weak that you have to put words into my mouth? I stated, quite accurately, that “LCC planners only approved the mitigation of potential impacts on these two relatively small scale developments and did say anything anywhere about the industry as a whole being “considered safe”, as you infer in your complaint”
It cannot be reasonably inferred from the fact that 2 minor development pads on 2 sites might have been passed as having mitigatable risks AT THAT LEVEL, that the process of fracking in general, and/or at a production level is “safe”. Why DO you repeatedly try to force this false inductive argument onto people inclusing it seems the ASA , FRSB and the Charity Commission?
You are of course absolutely correct that I have no part in this decision. I am just an observer and commentator, but that does not mean my opinion is worthless. Your patronising remarks don’t really help your argument.
I have no intent or need to intimidate you. I am just responding to your aggressive and, in my opinion, unjustified attacks on an NGO that is evidently causing serious problems for you and your fellow pro-frackers.
My advice is that you should prepare yourself for a legal counter-attack from FoE – you really have exposed yourselves here and you will be very lucky if FoE are generous enough to let you off this hook of your own making.
The medical and scientific evidence is clear and cannot be dismissed by an industry or corporation that seeks to profit from intentional ignorant pursuits. The Concerned Health Professionals of New York has just released the 3rd edition of a “Compendium of Medical, Scientific and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction)”. http://concernedhealthny.org/compendium/