Reaction to social impacts of fracking study


A new piece of research has concluded that the prospect of fracking for shale gas in Lancashire has already had a profound effect on local people, leading to stress, anxiety, depression and feelings of disenfranchisement.

The study by Anna Szolucha, of the University of Bergan in Norway, found that residents near Cuadrilla’s proposed sites had a lack of confidence in the company, distrust of council officers and regulators and changed perceptions of the police. They reported community conflicts and an atmosphere of intimidation and fear. Link to DrillOrDrop report on the study

Both sides in the argument about fracking have responded to the research. DrillorDrop invited Cuadrilla to comment but it declined.

Opponents of fracking

Pam Foster, Residents Action on Fylde Fracking

“Dr Szolucha’s publication is a critical report containing the first peer-reviewed research based on the social impacts of fracking in the UK. It will join a huge library of 888 other peer-reviewed papers that reveal negative and unwanted impacts on water, air and health of people living close to fracking sites.”

Claire Stephenson, Preston New Road Action Group

“This comprehensive research marks a new level in our understanding of the destructive social impacts of fracking and the threat of fracking in rural communities. This is the first peer-reviewed evidence of its kind, and yet another nail in the coffin of an industry that deserves no place in our communities. It was interesting to watch one of the few pro-shale attendees, Stephen Tindale, actually fall asleep mid-presentation and he also left 30 minutes before the speakers had concluded.”

Halsall Against Fracking

“The event was organised by Dr Anna Szolucha PhD, Department of Social Anthropology University of Bergen to launch her peer-reviewed study. The pro-fracking “lifelong environmental campaigner” in attendance, slept through most of the presentations and left before the end therefore is able to make no reference to the subject of the study itself, only quoting the same old tired industry rhetoric.”

Supporters of fracking

Backing Fracking

“It’s no surprise that Fylde residents have experienced stress over local shale gas plans when you consider that they have been bombarded with scaremongering propaganda by anti-fossil fuel, anti-establishment and anti-capitalist activists over several years.

“It is these outside interests that have done the most to split communities, fomenting a ‘them and us’ culture of confrontation and making it impossible for shale gas companies to have meaningful, two-way dialogue. Professional activists, backed by Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, have cultivated an attitude of no surrender and no compromise, and it’s become a barrier to residents and operators that would like to talk more openly.

“We would also question the motives of the report author who, herself, appears to be an activist using her academic position in order to give credibility to her campaigning in much the same way that Professor Tony Ingraffea does in the United States.

“It seems odd that she should be so critical of UK shale gas when you consider that her own university in Bergen received over £5 million in funding from Norwegian oil and gas major, Statoil, just two years ago (The Guardian) a company that has fracking interests of its own in the Bakken Shale Oil fields (source)


DrillorDrop also invited Lancashire County Council to comment on the research. We will update this post it the council chooses to respond.

Link to report


55 replies »

  1. To those backing fracking, your argument is so weak that it falls apart in the first sentence, “It is these outside interests that have done the most to split communities, fomenting a ‘them and us’ culture of confrontation and making it impossible for shale gas companies to have meaningful, two-way dialogue” . Did you actually read this article? it clearly states that ” DrillorDrop invited Cuadrilla to comment but it declined.” I have yet to go to any debate apart from the recent Chichester Theater fracking debate which followed the sell out performances of the play Fracked, where any pro fracking or industry related representative has had the guts to turn up. This is because they know how well researched the anti fracking community is and they cannot answer any straight questions. The standard answers are all they have. Whatever the supporters of fracking think, they will not find it easy to get started in the UK , i just wonder if they have enough money in the coffers to last the long haul of protesting and the ever more ingenious antics that they will have to face. It’s going to be an interesting year ahead. I humbly invite you Pro’s to a debate with our side , you name the time and place.

    • I’d be happy to debate you right here and right now John Houston. First question to you: Can you show me one legitimate piece of science that has established a causal systemic relationship between fracking and water contamination or health impacts?

      I’m just asking for one, John. That’s it.

      • Well my anonymous little chum, we can show you the EPA’s report on this subject with the spurious conclusion, not backed up by the evidence, that there is no widespread systemic impact on drinking water . We can also show you the EPS’s own Science Advisory Board’s conclusion that those “major findings are ambiguous or inconsistent with the observations/data presented in this report”. ops!

        I’m afraid you’ll have to wait for the science to catch up with the hypotheses for the rest – it shouldn’t take too long – I believe there are nearly 900 peer-reviewed studies on fracking impacts, about 80% of which (if I recall the presentation correctly) were critical of fracking.

        By the way – who did you say you were? Ah sorry I forgot – you have to comment anonymously because you have a vested interest you’d prefer us not to know about.

        • That’s what you’ve got, John? Really? Nothing better than that? I was hoping that I’d at least have to do a little work to rebut your points!

          The EPA concluded that there was NO EVIDENCE of systemic impact on water supply. The SAB hasn’t found any evidence of systemic impact either, but has requested the EPA quantify its conclusion. Sure there is evidence that is inconsistent with the observation, but anyone with an elementary understanding of statistics understands the need to dispense with outliers (ground spills, or a few poor casings) when trying to understand systemic impacts, right John?

          Part of the SAB’s letter noted the following: “While the report could have articulated the agency’s statistical assessment more clearly, there has not been any facts or evidence demonstrating a systemic or widespread impact to existing drinking water resources or other water resources that may not meet the current criteria of a drinking water resource.”

          The SAB has been on a witch hunt since the EPA issued its study, trying to make the EPA retract its conclusion. They’ve been on the witch hunt not because they have data that disproves the EPA’s conclusion, but because many of them are very much aligned against the industry. But they’ve failed to find any way to make the EPA remove its statement, so instead they’ve asked the EPA to provide statistical data proving a negative which is utterly absurd.

          Your “peer reviewed” studies are a joke, John. They have been completely discredited time, and time, and time again. Many have even been retracted. You cannot give me one single example that proves a causal relationship between fracking and ill health impacts. We are all waiting for you to prove me wrong, John. Come on old boy, let’s have it!

          • Witch hunts and conspiracy theories eh? It just gets crazier.

            They are not “my” peer-reviewed studies Peeny – I don’t think you understand the concept of peer review very well do you?

            I’m sorry – who did you say you were? Ah yes I forgot – you have to comment anonymously because you have a vested interest you’d prefer us not to know about. I’ll keep asking though Mr Sockpuppet 😉

            • “Witch hunts and conspiracy theories eh? It just gets crazier.” No, John, FACTS. The EPA study said it found no evidence of systemic impact – that’s a FACT which you cannot disprove. The SAB could not disprove it either, John. They did not ask for a retraction – that’s a FACT, John.

              Again, John, we are all waiting to see you offer a shred of scientific evidence that confirms a causal relationship between fracking and systemic impacts to poor health and/or water contamination. If the technology is as bad as you think it is, this should be a slam dunk John. So, where’s the beef my fine friend?

              • The problem is though that the conclusion reached by the EPA was not supported by the FACTS presented in the report. It’s shillarious watching you try to defend an approach that you were criticising just minutes before .

                Who did you say you were again?

                • “The problem is though that the conclusion reached by the EPA was not supported by the FACTS presented in the report.”

                  Oh really, John? I challenge you to submit evidence from the report that challenges the conclusion that there is no evidence of systemic impacts. You talk a mean game, John, but you can never back your statements with FACTS!

                • ” Of particular concern in this regard is the high-level conclusion statement on page ES -6 that “We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States.” The SAB finds that the EPA did not support quantitatively its conclusion about lack of evidence for widespread, systemic impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources, and did not clearly describe the system(s) of interest (e.g., groundwater, surface water), the scale of impacts (i.e., local or regional), nor the definitions of “systemic” and “widespread” ”

                  You will now probably try to argue that the SAB pointing out that the EPA “did not support quantitatively its conclusion” does not mean they the SAB) challenged the conclusion, but of course it does.

                  You are so predictable my anonymous little friend. Who do you work for again?

                • Can you point out where in the quote the SAB challenges the conclusion that there is a lack of evidence of systemic impacts? They have asked for clarification and further support but for the life of me I cannot find evidence that the SAB disagrees with the conclusion. Help me out, John.

                • Er “The SAB finds that the EPA did not support quantitatively its conclusion about lack of evidence for widespread, systemic impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources”

                  Do you really not understand English?

  2. What absolute codswallop from Backing Fracking. I am a resident and certainly do not consider myself bombarded by with ‘scaremongering propaganda by anti-fossil fuel, anti-establishment and anti-capitalist activists over several years’. Who are these professional activists I wonder? I consider myself reasonably intelligent and capable of rational independent thought. I am perfectly capable of making up my own mind after evaluating evidence from all sides. I could say I have been bombarded by information from the industry if that is the case. I attended the event and found it interesting and informative. There were many members of the public there as well as those opposed to fracking.The attempt to besmirch anyone who speaks up opposed to fracking smacks of desperation! Just wait they will be onto me next for replying to this article.

  3. Cuadrilla’s attempts at community engagement have been pretty pathetic. Surely Backing Fracking can’t fail to be aware that they seriously mislead the public back in 2013 with a “community newsletter” which was censured for being exaggerated and misleading by the Advertising Standards Authority?

    Those lies by Cuadrilla were the fault of anti-fossil fuel, anti-establishment and anti-capitalist activists and outside interests were they? I don’t THINK so.

    Now they spend their time sponsoring the local Faragist football team, which is hardly going to win them many hearts and minds either.

    And how ridiculous to suggest that people are unable to express support for shale gas because Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace oppose it. Didn’t their sleepy poster boy Mr Tindale used to run Greenpeace a while back?

    We know Backing Fracking don’t “do” logic but it’s more than ridiculous to suggest that Dr Szolucha is biased against fracking because her University receives funding from a company that has fracking interests in the Bakken Shale Oil fields. Surely that merely emphasises the independent nature of here research? Honestly – if you are going to have to resort to an ad hominem attack like that at least think through first 😉

  4. it’s obvious that fracking is a dirty dangerous industry if it isn’t why is it banned in so many places, we have to move to renewables in the end, hopefully the whole fracking project is just a hoax aimed at getting more gullible people to invest in something that is never going to happen

    • Peeny – repeatedly posting the same juvenile pap is most irritating, but seeing as how you lack the manners to realise this I’ll repeat my comment

      Er Peeny – even your Forbes frack-attack dog has to admit that “The study does not and cannot claim that any adverse heath impacts are caused by fracturing.” – This is how science works though my anonymous little chum – somebody comes up with a hypothesis, it gets chewed around, either data is found to support it or it doesn’t. Remember how we learned quite slowly that smoking causes cancer? Would you deny that now? I doubt it – but there were shills just like you poo-pooing the idea back then, indeed there probably still are. I think the stress and anger are mostly evident in your reaction to Dr Szolucha’s study, and I can read the results of your mild bowel discomfort.

      So who are you my American chum and what is your interest in a UK based fracking page about UK fracking?

      In future though I imagine we’d all appreciate it if you could restrict your childish “humour” to a single post on a single topic.

      • Well, John, this certainly explains a lot. Your statement: ” This is how science works though my anonymous little chum – somebody comes up with a hypothesis, it gets chewed around, either data is found to support it or it doesn’t.”

        Correction, John. That’s how the anti-factivists believe that science works. But real scientists propose a thesis and TEST it rigorously before arriving at a conclusion.

        Here’s what one of the anti-fracksters who authored the Hopkins study said about the work, “The moratorium was put in place before we even knew that there were health effects associated with these wells,” Schwartz says. “Now that we do, regulators need to carefully consider their next steps.”

        Not much doubt there, right John. Sounds like he has all the evidence he needs to conclude there is a causal relationship between fracking and ill health effects.

        ONE PROBLEM, John…..he doesn’t have that evidence, in fact, his own data contradicts the statement he makes. This is nothing more than sponsored propaganda masquerading as science and all of you anti-fracking sheep fall for it every single time without asking the pertinent questions.

        The study’s data showed some of the lowest incidences of symptoms in counties with the highest fracking intensity. Areas with the highest health symptoms were not close to fracking sites. No baseline data was established for migraines or asthma, and the baseline data that was established for chronic respiratory syndrome yielded too few patients to even draw a conclusion (because too few patients had come down with symptoms after fracking commenced in their county.)

        This same group issued the study on premature births that suffered from almost identical issues. That work of shoddy science was likewise panned by the scientific community.

        Yes, John, this is how your “peer reviewed studies” work. So, it makes sense that you would think a scientist should propose his thesis in the form of a conclusion and then back it up with data that doesn’t support his conclusion. THAT’S THE ANTI FRACK WAY!

          • Once again, your anti-science biased rears its ugly head, John! “that appears to be the EPA way.” Okay, John, back up your words then as I have backed up mine. I have pointed to very firm factual inconsistencies between the data in the Hopkins study and the conclusion the author drew. Let us have your evidence of systemic impact to water supplies from fracking. What did the EPA miss, John? We are all waiting. Where is the beef, John?

            • Actually Peeny the point at discussion is whether the EPA proposed a thesis in the form of a conclusion and then backed it up with data that doesn’t support this conclusion. Please stop trying to reframe the dialogue to suit your own “argument”

              I’d be wasting my time discussing it with you any further Peeny as you seem to have convinced yourself that the EPA’s own Science Advisory board is on a mission to destroy the fracking industry and the EPA itself (LOL)

              When a conspiracy theorist is so crazy that they reshape their reality to accommodate their paranoia there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion – and I do have better things to do with my time than humour anonymous industry shills. Tell me who you are and what your interest is here before expecting me to waste more time on you.

              • John, name call and sling as much mud as you desire. The fact is that you cannot prove your point. If the EPA proposed a conclusion that the data do not support, then show us the data that disproves the EPA’s conclusion! WHERE IS IT JOHN?

                This is a very simple request. Please back up your statement with FACT. Thank you!

                • Peeny old thing – I don’t have to prove anything to you Sock Puppet Guy. What’s at issue here is whether the EPA used the sort of bad science that you are accusing others of, and they indisputably did.

                  In this argument I don’t have to prove to you that their conclusion is wrong – I just have to demonstrate as I did above by quoting the SAB report that the conclusion is not backed up by those FACTS you keep putting in capital letters.

                  If you disagree with that, then I challenge you to start by proving to me that fracking is harmless and showing me the data that disproves the concerns raised by the hundreds of peer-reviewed reports which suggest otherwise.

                  This is a very simple request. Please back up your statement with FACT. Thank you!

                  By the way who are you and who do you work for?

  5. One can also interpret from this study that baseless, unscientific unproven claims from anti fracking propaganda is the direct cause of stresses and anxiety related to shale planning permission. A bit like claim of autism due to vaccination in children which is baseless and no statistics to back it up but it did cause serious harm and stresses for a lot of parent.
    So in part this study is a vindication of what harm the disinformation and purposedly manipulation scare story by anti fracking activists can do to a unaware and ill informed community.

    • Ah TW – the bad netiquette seems to be infectious (or is it just that the pair of you have little original to say)

      Again I’ll repeat my comment to the identical comment you left on the previous post.

      TW – the problem you and your friends actually have is that the community is NOT unaware and ill-informed. A significant section of it has spent considerable time and effort making sure that they are well aware and well-informed.

      You’ll be telling us that house price impacts are not due to fracking but to those opposing it. In fact you sound like the sort of person who would notice a plant’s leaves are turning brown and get out the green paint.

      • Yeah, John, like you they’ve spent a significant amount of time and effort making sure they are well informed in understanding shoddy anti-frack peer reviewed “science”…..what a joke!

        • Peeny – you are of course entitled to hold whatever trashy opinions you wish, but anonymously insulting the people of Lancashire from over therein the US of A is not winning you or your industry any friends. Just saying – keep it up – every little helps.

  6. “We would also question the motives of the report author who, herself, appears to be an activist using her academic position in order to give credibility to her campaigning in much the same way that Professor Tony Ingraffea does in the United States.”
    What a fascinating sentence, i asked many times on this forum to give me evidence that Dr Anthony Ingraffea had any hidden agenda whatsoever. Not one of you was able to reply with anything, just the usual dismissal and insults. Dr Szolucha seems to be getting the same treatment, unsubstantiated allegations that have nothing to do with the facts. Perhaps such spurious evidence was dreamed by Stephen Tindale whilst he was asleep? When he did wake, he could not even be bothered to stick around to listen to anything, is this the sort of person the pro fracking movement relies on for its evidence?

    • Phi C, you are way behind on this issue, aren’t you? Ingraffea’s anti-fracking bias was long ago established. In the most recent instant he was asked point blank during the Dimock trial whether he was a self-admitted advocate for the anti-fracking movement. Here are Ingraffea’s own words in response to that question:

      “A. I am a self admitted advocate, yes.”

      So you see, Phi C, there is no doubt about the matter, just as there is no doubt about Dr. Szolucha’s allegiance. She retweets anti-fracking group messages and her home website describes her interest in the anti-fracking movement.

      You are right on one count. These anti-frackers don’t really have a hidden agenda. They are proud of their biased position which has obviously biased their work (like the vast preponderance of the peer reviewed propaganda).

      So, there are some facts for you. Enjoy!

      • Peeny – would you say Dr James Verdon, to take one obvious example is a non-aligned academic? If not do you believe that this fact discredits his academic work? I am not talking about funding here but opinion by the way. Funding is a different issue entirely. I’m not sure where your belief that academics have to remain totally neutral comes from but it is not borne out of any real world experience is it?

        • I don’t recall claiming that academics need to remain totally neutral. Can you substantiate that claim or is it yet one more spurious accusation of yours? Please supply the time and date and link to the quote from me. Thank you!

          I object to intellectual dishonesty and we see it quite frequently in the “peer reviewed” propaganda that you so frequently cite, John. This is a FACT.

          • You clearly have an issue with your belief that the academics you cite have apparently taken a position. If you didn’t mean that in your previous post then you have a real problem with using English.

            So what *are* your qualifications for trying to discredit the entire academic peer-review system? Do tell!

            S stating something is a FACT doesn’t make it so. That is just infantile.

            • So, you admit to your spurious claim, John? I didn’t see any evidence of my quotation in your response. Did I miss it somewhere?

              Again, I have a problem with intellectual dishonesty. If a scientist discloses his/her affiliations and/or funding that could reveal a bias then transparency has been served. Yet that does not absolve a scientist of the responsibilities of academic rigor and intellectual honesty.

              So, again, John, I ask for one bit of proof of systemic impact from fracking. This shouldn’t be difficult to produce if the practice is as bad as you represent. Where is it, John?

              • Are you seriously trying to say that your rant about Prof Ingraffea and Dr Szolucha above was not based on them having, in your opinion taken a partisan position? Like I said if not then you have more serious communication issues than I thought

                I have never claimed there IS a systemic impact from fracking Peeny so do calm down. I merely pointed out the embarrassment that the EPA suffered at having their own claims that there isn’t one rubbished by their own SAB. I know you like to set up straw men, but try to keep to the subject in hand. After all it’s only polite.

                Who did you say you work for?

                • So, for the sake of intellectual honesty, John, let’s just make this perfectly clear. You made the claim that I had expressed a belief that academics must remain perfectly neutral. You cannot back that claim because you invented it, John. You’ve taken liberties, as so often you have in the past.

                  You also made the claim that the EPA’s conclusion was not supported by the facts in the report. But again, you cannot provide factual evidence to support your claim. The SAB didn’t rubbish the EPA’s conclusion, but it did ask for more quantitative support. Again, your biases have impacted your thought process.

                  Like so many of the “peer reviewed” propaganda that you cite, you are full of hot air, John. Facts are facts and you don’t have them on your side evidently.

                • I have provided evidence regarding the EPA above Peeny – keep up! And your problem with non-neutral academics isn’t open to debate – it’s right there in your own post of 3:39pm. Squirm all you like – you can’t delete or edit it can you? LOL Maybe even you can’t understand what you write?

                  With your embarrassing level of debate I can see why you prefer to hide your identity 😉

                • John, Where have you provided evidence that the EPA’s conclusion wasn’t supported by the facts from the report? The EPA said that they could not find evidence of systemic impact. So, if there is evidence that the EPA’s conclusion is not supported by facts, then show us the facts that refute it. Again, this is a simple request.

                  Where in my post of 3:39 pm did I say that academics needed to remain perfectly neutral?

                  Now you concede that you cannot provide even a single shred of evidence that fracking causes systemic damage to health or water. So, what is your beef with fracking, John? A blight on the landscape? Well, your solution is a blight that is orders of magnitude larger than gas extraction. Is it the carbon/methane emissions? That’s a real point, but those of us who appreciate rigorous science understand the fact that gas is much better for the environment than the coal it replaces. This is why the US is dominating Europe in cleaning its air while Europe has wasted billions and billions on expensive renewables without reducing GHG. What’s your beef, John?

                • “Where have you provided evidence that the EPA’s conclusion wasn’t supported by the facts from the report”

                  Oh for goodness’ sake Peeny – I know with your cross posting here you must find it hard to follow but do your own looking 😉

                  You are getting very tiresome

      • How fascinating that you raise the Dimock case as some sort of victory? It was nothing of the sort, the Dimock trial was won by the complainants to the extent of $4.2 million against Cabot Oil and Gas, for nuisance!

        That’s it crow from the rooftops if you want to, There are some facts for you to enjoy! Having fun yet?

        “When this case began, it included water contamination, health impacts, loss of property value and nuisance. By the time Cabot’s attorney’s were done, the case was whittled down to nuisance,” Ingraffea said.
        According to Ingraffea and others at the trial, no one was allowed to talk about the violations state regulators levied against Cabot, a total of 610 from 2009 to date, or anything contained in the four Consent Orders issued ordering Cabot O&G to replace contaminated water supplies.
        “That means all documentation regarding water contamination, the moratorium on drilling inside a 9-mile square area where drinking water wells were polluted, and activities or problems at any other wells operated by Cabot besides the two gas wells implicated in this case – all of that evidence was forbidden,” Ingraffea explained.
        “I even tried to use one of Cabot’s own maps of the contaminated area, showing where the company’s gas wells were in relations to drinking water wells. They wouldn’t let me use it.”

        The report in the Marcellus Drilling News is simply abusive and typical of the nasty viscous troll attitude we have come to expect from the pro fracking industry. Dr Ingraffea clearly was not allowed to present his data by the opposing lawyers. but the result was still in favour of the Dimock case. If i had been treated in this way i would probably admit to being pissed off with pro frackers and be an advocate too.

        Having fun? Take a deep breath into a paper bag my dear chap, sit down and take some of those drugs you claim to be so fond of, or maybe bang away with your ball peen hammer. Who are you by the way?

  7. Yes it seems quite strange when the anti fracking activists here dismiss and discredit multiple independent organisation and academic study or US EPA and Royal Society or EPH that support and rebuke the scary propaganda by activists but when one single academic report that supports their causes they jump up and down like a fire ant in their pants claiming they have the answerand the matter is settled.

  8. Deafening silence on the Victorian onshore gas ban…. and no doubt they will be accused of having listened to “scare mongering” and activists too.

    But, this is what their acting Chief Medical Officer had to say on health impacts – Professor Ackland stated that the sort of health effects that can occur as a result of exposure to those chemicals, and importantly to mixtures of those chemicals, include: ‘effects on the immune system, the nervous system, liver and kidney toxicity, reproductive issues, cancers, respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses and psychological effects’.

    He said that people may be exposed to these hazards through contaminated land (for example, from chemical spills or inappropriate disposal of wastes), through contaminated surface and groundwater supplies, or through pollutants in the air (for example, from fugitive emissions, dust from contaminated land and the operation of machinery).

    Professor Ackland stated that there are ‘a range of knowledge gaps’ regarding public health risks related to unconventional gas activities:
    Knowledge is lacking regarding potential hazards and their physical and chemical properties, how they move in the environment, associated health effects and the dose-response relationships. In those points I am suggesting that even if we did know some of the names of those chemicals it may still be unknown as to what the actual effects those chemicals would have on people who are exposed to them, so that is a significant knowledge gap.

    He further said that these knowledge gaps prevent the carrying out of comprehensive risk assessments, and that there is a limited understanding of the health impacts from exposure to chemical mixtures. He additionally highlighted that health guideline values are not available for all known hazards, including those relevant to different exposure routes such as oral intake, inhalation or topical contact; that there is limited evidence regarding the long-term and short-term effects in relation to those exposures; and that there is no evidence to rule out such health effects.

    Now I know how much those in favour of fracking like to quote the ( very outdated ) PHE report, but the Parliamentary Inquiry looked at ALL the available evidence and chose to protect their citizens and their $12 billion agricultural sector because they found the risks OUTWEIGH any potential benefits.

  9. It’s a wonder that Ruth doesn’t find a story in this, but here’s what they’re talking about in the US Congress these days: “U.S. carbon emissions from power plants have fallen to 25-year lows. No country is reducing its emissions faster. Remarkably, we are doing this while still growing our economy. In fact, wholesale electricity prices have fallen 40 percent over the past five years.

    This remarkable achievement is not the product of a “green revolution.” Yes, we are subsidizing and building wind and solar power. But despite billions in taxpayer funds, these two power sources still generate less than 7 percent of our electricity. Rather, it’s natural gas which leads the charge in our emissions and cost reduction efforts.”

    But why on earth would the UK take their cues from the nation that has pioneered shale development, that has more experience than anyone in the field, that has achieved energy independence through the technology while lowering GHG dramatically more than any of the “Green Concious” nations of Europe? Yes, why would you focus on all the obvious good that fracking has done when you can play up the fearmongering hyperbolic propaganda from “peer reviewed” anti-frackers?

    • What ‘energy independence’. You have drilled 1.7 million wells but still rely on 80 countries to keep yourselves from going under.
      Maybe you should drill another 1.7 million to try and become independent. Unfortunately you are trying to tap the dearest and most environmentally invasive sources which is why you are onto a loser.

      Why you ever thought OPEC would ever let you take their market share never ceases to amaze me.

      In 2015, the United States imported approximately 9.4 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of petroleum from about 82 countries. Petroleum includes crude oil, natural gas plant liquids, liquefied refinery gases, refined petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel fuel, and biofuels including ethanol and biodiesel. About 78% of gross petroleum imports were crude oil.

      In 2015, the United States exported about 4.8 MMb/d of petroleum to 136 countries. Most of the exports were petroleum products. The resulting net imports (imports minus exports) of petroleum were about 4.6 MMb/d.

      The top five source countries of U.S. petroleum imports in 2015 were Canada, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, and Colombia.

      We do however look to the US for cues. New York state has thought long and hard about fracking.and have concluded that the health risks and poor economics make shale a bad investment. We agree with their findings.

    • I begin to see a pattern from this hballpeeny address, clearly it is not one person but many, one is virtually illiterate and abusive, one seems to be versed in diverting the subject away from the real issues, and another seems to have at least a better working knowledge of the subject. I could suspect this is some sort of group office address used by several people as some sort of multiple pro fracking movement. The fact that none of these are willing to admit their own identity is quite telling.

      • Interesting isn’t it – there are also 3 other social media accounts in the names of Bard Welsh, Brad Welsh and Jim Georges who post almost identical guff in the identical style – none of these is what you’d imagine a genuine account to be – no photo, not history, no public posts etc. I think the art of sock-puppetry is being practiced here by some shale industry PR group. Why else will “he” not say who “he” is or who “he” works for?

        Of course it could be the same person – just sober at certain times of the day?

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s