What’s happening this week? 7-13 November 2016

whats happening this week

This week’s diary features the United Against Fracking national rally in Manchester, plus four film screenings, two parliamentary meetings, as well as talks, discussions, a lecture and debate.

Please let us know (click here) if any of these details are incorrect or if other events should be included. Event listings for the rest of November and later in the year here

Monday 7 November 2016

Screening of Groundswell Rising, the American documentary about the effects of fracking, followed by Q&A session with the executive producer, Mark Lichty. Hosted by Bassetlaw Against Fracking. Free admission. 7.30pm, Memorial Hall, High Street Blyth, nr Worksop Nottinghamshire S81 8EW. Details

Frack Free Notts action planning meeting, 7pm-9pm, Lincolnshire Poacher, 161-163 Mansfield Road, Nottingham NG1 3FR. Details

Tuesday 8 November 2016

Meeting of All Party Parliamentary Group on shale gas regulation and planning. Chaired by Kevin Hollinrake MP. Speakers include Amy Nassif (Mars Parents Group, Pittsburgh), Bishop Graham Cray (Frack Free Ryedale), Cllr Gordon Smith (Treales, Roseacre & Wharles Parish Council) and Barbara Richardson (Roseacre Awareness Group). 3pm-5pm, Committee Room 9, Palace of Westminster. Link to agenda

Investigating the economic realities and community impacts of fracking, and offering comparable clean energy security options for the UK. Meeting chaired by Baroness Lynne Featherstone, Lib Dem, Energy and Climate Change spokesperson and speakers include Gundi Royle (economic realities of fracking), Jason Hunter (alternatives for energy security), Rt Revd Graham Cray (ethical considerations of fracking) and Amy Nassif (personal testimony of living with fracking in Mars, Pennsylvania). 6.15pm, Committee Room G, The House of Lords, London SW1. Invitation Only.

Fracking – What can we do? Discussion hosted by Frack Free Bristol, Momentum Environment and Greater Bristol Alliance. 6.30pm-8.30pm, Baggator, 13 All Hallows Road, Bristol BS5 0HH. Details

Mole Valley, the new Texas? Ian R Crane presents his film Voices from the Gasfields, 7pm-10pm, The Green Room Theatre, behind Dorking Hall, Dorking, RH14 1SN. Details

Screening of Groundwell Rising followed by questions to executive producer, Mark Lichty, free but donations welcome, 7pm, The Crescent Community Venue, 8 The Crescent, York, YO24 1AW. Details

Salford Trades Union Council Environment Day event with discussion on issues including fracking. 7pm, Islington Mill, James Street, off Oldfield Road, Salford M3 5HW. Details

Wednesday 9 November 2016

Nottingham Trent University Distinguished Lecture Series: Sir Peter Fahy, Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, 2008-2015 during the period of the Barton Moss anti-fracking protests. 6pm-7.15pm,  Newton building, Main Entrance, Nottingham Trent University, NG1 4BU. Details

The Facts of Fracking talk with Dr Julie Richardson, 6.30pm-8.30pm, Dorset County Museum, 66 High West Street, Dorchester, Dorset DT1 1XA. Details

The Environment and the Media, discussion hosted by Real Media including Amelia Womack (Green Party); Andy Rowell (Spin Watch); Tina Louise (Grandmas Against Fracking); Sai Murray (Voices that Shake) on how the environment is currently reported on and how it could be changed in future. 7pm-9pm, Wharf Chambers, 23 – 25 Wharf Street, Leeds LS2 7EQ. Details and to book

Free screening of Groundswell Rising, followed by Q&A with producer, march Lichty, 7pm-10pm, St John’s Church, Bilton Lane, Bilton, Harrogate HG1 3DT. Details

Saturday 12 November 2016


United Against Fracking, National rally and march against fracking, with speeches from groups, celebrities, politicians. Meeting for rally and speeches at 11am at Piccadilly Gardens, Manchester M1 1RG, followed by march to Cathedral Gardens for more speeches. Details

Buses from:

Glastonbury, Bristol, Gloucester Services

Warminster, Westbury, Bradford on Avon


Bridlington, Driffield, Beverley, Hull

Fife, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Annandale

Blackpool and Preston


Please let us know (click here) if any of these details are incorrect or if other events should be included. Event listings for the rest of November and later in the year here

42 replies »

    • Thanks for the suggestion.

      Ruth covered this story on 18th October, when Stephen Tindale wrote a piece for the Sun.

      The blog has an efficient search box at the top right of each page. Try typing Tindale in this box and the October headlines post comes up as a result. Open the page and use CTRL+F to search for Tindale on the page.

      Regards Paul

      • Thanks, Paul. I didn’t find the story from October 18, but I will take your word that it was covered. I would have thought that a former head of Greenpeace campaigning to educate anti-frackers on the benefits of fracking would be worthy of a story unto itself? Seems like a pretty big deal to me.

    • Watch Stephen Tindale talk waffle at

      I love the bit where he says ‘I am doing a lot of work, everything I can, to try and persuade them to bring carbon capture and storage back into the equation.’

      Like his input on the subject means anything. Gosh, Stephen Tindale says it is a good idea so we really must make more effort.

        • Note the FORMER head of Greenpeace……I’m sure with the crap he’s putting out right now, they would not be at ‘peace’ with his words…

          • Nope. Not old-school Greenpeace. They are not a progressive, objective, and forward thinking environmental organization. However, many other national and international environmental groups that take a holistic and progressive viewpoint, have accepted that fracking can be done safely, and is protective of the environment. The Environmental Defense Fund is one. The National Resources Defense Council is another. And the Sierra Club has also come out in favor of gas production through fracking. These are all very large and reputable environmental groups. They were much smarter than FoE and Greenpeace, and saw the light fairly early on. They also haven’t been so bamboozled by the propaganda put out by anti-frackers. Have a great day Sherwulfe!

                • OK but you still thought if was fine to use deception and misrepresent Sierra Club’s position since 2012

                • … so aren’t you now going to change your tune about Sierra from being a “very large and reputable environmental group … much smarter than Foe or Greenpeace” or are you going to take those damning reports on shale gas production seriously?

                • I am sorry, Phil, but you are the posterchild for the all-too-gullible anti-frack hypester.

                  The first study was absolutely blown out of the water. First of all the facts from the study itself showed that there wasn’t a link between fracking and the symptoms. The incidence of CRS and migraines were higher in areas not associated with fracking. Second, they didn’t provide any baseline analysis with the exception of the work on CRS which contradicted a link to fracking. Last, the researcher behind the study is a known anti-fracktivist.

                  Regarding the second study – you’re kidding right? If you give pregnant mice frack fluid to drink, it will lead to adverse outcomes. That’s what the study proves. So, I would suggest that you not give any of your pregnant mice fracking fluid, Phil. Got it?

                  Obviously there has not been any kind of systemic water supply contamination around fracking sites, so the study is moot. If spills or accidents occur, those need to be contained as they would in any industrial operation.

                  Best of luck Phil!

                • And Phil, the only thing that is despicable is your unwillingness to be objective about the facts. You offer up junk propaganda science as evidence that fracking should not happen. This is sad because based on such flimsy and ill-conceived “evidence” those who live in fuel poverty may not have access to low priced gas and may perish as a result. Your propaganda may be killing those who are unable to defend themselves.

                • Yet more evasions and deceptions from you. First you say the conclusions of a large scale peer-reviewed study are the opposite of those stated giving no evidence at all – as if you are the sole authority on these matters. Give me a break!!
                  … and, as for the second let me help you out with your reading and attention span difficulties… a few lines down we find “This work suggests potential adverse developmental and reproductive health outcomes in humans and animals exposed to these oil and gas operation chemicals, with adverse outcomes observed even in the lowest dose group tested, equivalent to concentrations reported in drinking water sources” … i.e. none were given frack fluid to drink (as you suggest) but were exposed to concentrations of contamination found around actual fracking sites.

                  Contamination is found around fracking sites for sure – for get the word ‘systemic’ , you cannot hide behind linguistic shtick.

                • Phil, peer-reviewed is a propaganda tool. Many peer reviewed documents are junk science reviewed by anti-fracktivists. Just because it is peer-reviewed doesn’t connote any special validity.

                  If you’d like evidence to show that your widely panned report is not valid I am happy to provide it.

                  First you should reference this Pennsylvania Asthma report authored by the Penn Dept. of Health. http://www.health.pa.gov/My%20Health/Diseases%20and%20Conditions/A-D/Asthma/Documents/2015%20PENNSYLVANIA%20ASTHMA%20FOCUS%20REPORT%202009-2013%20INPATIENT%20%20HOSPITALIZATIONS%20WITH%20ASTHMA%20AS%20THE%20PRIMARY%20DISCHARGE%20DIAGNOSIS.pdf

                  That study showed that heavily drilled counties in PA actually have far fewer incidences of asthma than counties with no shale drilling.

                  Also, if you please note that the study authors claim that the high rate of incidence in quartile four is due to the close proximity of shale wells. Yet the data from quartile four show that the rate of incidence in that quartile is heavily dominated by counties where there is little or no shale development at all.

                  As far as the lack of baseline study – any serious scientific work incorporates it. This study, and previous work by the same highly biased authors does not. This is basic scientific method – nothing fancy. This is part of the reason why real and objective scientists have dubbed the work as “junk.”

                  Here is what Tony Cox, clinical professor of biosciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder, had to say about the authors’ earlier work, “First, ‘unconventional natural gas development adversely affects birth outcomes’ is an unwarranted causal interpretation of associational results”

                  It’s just very poor science, Phil. That claim is supported by plenty of hard fact and you are going to have to get used to it.

                  As for the second study, aside from a rare spill or other form of accident, there has never been a case of systemic water contamination from fracking. This is verified by the US EPA. So, again, you can feed mice frack fluid if it makes you feel good, but it certainly doesn’t prove anything! LOL

                • Phil, I’m sorry you are having such a tough time with all of this. It must be a bit overwhelming for you as you clearly cannot separate junk science from real scientific work. But you also appear to be having a tough time reading the junk science that you are trying to promote. You say “i.e. none were given frack fluid to drink (as you suggest). Yet the study abstract says, “In the current study, pregnant female C57Bl/6 dams were exposed to a mixture of 23 commonly used unconventional oil and gas chemicals at approximately 3, 30, 300, and 3000 μg/kg·d, flutamide at 50 mg/kg·d, or a 0.2% ethanol control vehicle via their drinking water from gestational day 11 through birth…..”

                  So, yes indeed, Phil, they were given frack fluid to drink. I would hope most people would avoid drinking frack fluid, and would also note that there hasn’t been a single confirmed case of water contamination due to fracking anywhere in the States. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I suggest you provide the factual basis for your claim not only here on an obscure message board, but also directly to the Secretary of the Environmental Protection Agency! Thanks

                • Have you ever thought of taking up tap-dancing Peeny? You’d be better at it than science where you’ve blown all credibility. But you are good at fancy footwork!

                • Is that your way of apologizing for bringing up junk science, Phil? When you are confronted with the facts regarding how poor your “proof” is, you resort to personal attacks, right?

                  How about you describe, instead, the data from the fourth quartile and tell me why my reading is incorrect? Why don’t you explain to us all why baseline data is not needed to make sense of the empirical data in your studies? Why do you run away from FACTS Phil?

  1. What’s happening this week is that electricity supplies are tight according to Plants the well known energy analysts…..

    “UK day-ahead power contracts rose sharply Monday, extending the previous week’s strong gains, as market jitters were markedly elevated due to tightening supply margins, sources said.

    “The system is pretty tight [in the UK] as well,” a trader said, signaling narrow margins in France.

    “There is a lot of risk on the table,” he said. “People are a lot more willing to jump big spreads. So, you see the price gapping around.”

    The nuclear reactor issues in France, which have raised fears of a potential cut in IFA interconnector flows, coupled with falling wind output forecasts and the ongoing unplanned biomass plant outages in the UK, have heightened supply concerns.”

    Someone predicted this might happen …oh yes, it was me. Low probability of black-outs or even reduced voltage but almost certainly increased prices for consumers.

    • Seeing as shale gas can never meet our base fuel needs and seeing as it could never be developed at a meaningful pace and seeing as the House of Lords Energy Select Committee have been told by the experts that ‘it is laughable to suggest that shale gas could save us from brown outs’ and seeing as this country has secure home grown North sea gas, contracted Norweign piped gas, and 5 modern LNG ports, your posts on blackouts implying that shale would save that from happening, to be frank, are hilarious.

  2. I posted this earlier this evening on an older post : Renewables installed capacity end Q2 2016 was 32.5GW. This coming winter total installed generating capacity quote National Grid 2016 -17 Winter Outlook is just under 74GW so renewables are not quite 50% yet. However when the low load factor of wind is incorporated (and other renewables plus any maintenance etc.) the 74Gw is derated to 55GW:

    “Our analysis is based on a de-rated generation capacity of 55 GW. The capacity margin assumes an average cold spell (ACS) peak demand of 52.7 GW and net interconnector imports of 2.0 GW.”

    You can download the report here:


    Table 2 on Page 17 shows the assumed availability of each type of power station type:

    Table 2

    Power station type Assumed availability
    CCGT 88%
    Coal and biomass 87%
    Hydro 86%
    Nuclear 84%
    OCGT 94%
    Pumped storage 96%
    Wind EFC 21%

    Look at wind – winter, highest demand period, contribution of 21%, due to high pressure, cold weather = no wind for long periods of time. Why would anyone want more wind turbines???? Look at CCGT (gas for those that don’t know) – 94%

    Renewables contributed less than 25% of our electricity in Q2 2016 despite being nearly 50% of our generating capacity. Perhaps this is why more coal has been used recently as gas appears to be flat out?

    And from the same report:

    Equivalent firm capacity
    In order to estimate the amount of available wind generation that we may
    expect at peak, we use the EFC. This measures the entire wind fleet’s
    contribution to security of supply. It represents how much conventional
    generation plant with an availability of 100 per cent would be needed to replace
    the entire wind fleet and leave security of supply unchanged. This approach
    to wind modelling combines the risks from wind variability with conventional
    system risks, such as high demand or low availability of conventional
    The wind EFC depends on several factors, including how much wind capacity
    is installed on the system. As installed wind currently makes up a small
    proportion of total generation, conventional risks remain the biggest threat
    to system security. As a result, the EFC is very close to the mean load factor
    for wind generation. In the future, as the proportion of installed wind capacity
    continues to increase, the risk that the variability of wind will have an impact of
    system security also increases. This will result in a decrease to the EFC.

    In a nutshell, more wind is bad and expensive…..

  3. Sorry CCGT (closed cycle gas) 88%, OCTG (open cycle gas) 94%…… OCTG are apparently only used in winter.

    • This article is predominantly about France’s nuclear down time and filling the gap. It’s interesting to see gas is only better financially because coal has a huge carbon tax.
      ‘Why no mention of all these renewables saving the day?’
      This is not really relevant Paul.

  4. I agree Sherwulfe, the renewables in the mix are not really relevant, they cannot be turned up when demand requires it.

    • Duh Paul, not relevant to the article…

      But for the planet, renewables are more than relevant.

      Hey, now you can creep out to smoker’s corner with your climate denying buddy Trump and pump the Earth full of crap. A very sad day.

  5. Trump wins, unbelievable but it has happened. And he has both houses. What will this mean for Paris and climate change, and shale?

    According to the BBC this morning his agenda for the first 100 days is as follows:

    Starting process of “removing the more than two million criminal, illegal immigrants”
    Denying visa-free travel to countries who refused to take back their citizens
    Repealing every Obama executive order
    Restrictions on White House officials becoming lobbyists
    Term limits for members of Congress
    Cancellation of all payments to UN climate change programmes
    Using that money to fix US infrastructure
    Label China a currency manipulator

    Items 3 and 6 have relevance to discussions on this BB. It will be interesting to see what happens with President Obama’s latter sudden rush to go Green and lead on climate change.

    Items 4 & 5 (for the House of Lords) should be introduced over here. And I quite like the idea of ending renewables subsidies and using the money for flood defences and to fix our infrastructure?

    • Paul- What is your suggestion on how to stop mass migration of the human species from areas of the planet that become uninhabitable from climate change? If you think they will not be heading this way then you are wrong.

      Why does the Pentagon consider climate change a national security threat?

      Are you a supporter of

      ‘Cancellation of all payments to UN climate change programmes’

      • John, actually I have a lot of experience with UN agencies, aid and development, WFP, WHO…. They are probably the most wasteful agencies I have seen in action. The amount of money wasted at the office level which should be going into the field to help people is incredible. I would cancel all payments to all UN agencies including climate change programmes – at least until they clean up their act, get rid of corruption, and remove most of their levels of management which are not necessary. They probably spend more money in Geneva and New York than they do helping people. The only entitity I give money to is MSF – most of the funds they receive are spent on the people they serve.

        The UN has also proven itself fairly useless (like the EU) in conflict zones. The Balkans is a good example. Only the US and the UK were able to provide what was required.

Add a comment

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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