Moderator, Paul Seaman, looks back over comments posted by DrillOrDrop readers over the past 12 months
More than 7,000 comments from nearly 600 people were posted over the year, containing enough text to fill 1,200 A4 pages.
Contributions were posted by people living in fracking areas, campaigners and protectors, councillors, retired drilling engineers, geologists, shale investors and people working in drilling companies and the industry supply chain.
Discussions ranged far and wide:
Word cloud showing some of the most popular words appearing in comments in 2016
Topics covered included safety, economics, politics, the planning system, water, regulations, shale in the USA and Australia, the law, national versus local interests, energy policy, climate change, the feasibility of renewables, and, perhaps surprisingly, the Vikings.
Top ten pieces for comments
The pieces attracting the most comments this year were:
- Francis Egan on drilling in 2017, low gas prices, financing expansion and how many wells can you fit on a site (128)
- Photo post: Don’t Frack Yorkshire rally (125)
- “Frack Master” accused of $80m investment fraud (122)
- Lancashire bill for hosting fracking inquiry stands at £330k but council escapes most of Cuadrilla’s costs (120)
- Judgement reserved in High Court challenge over fracking in N Yorkshire (115)
- Friends of the Earth condemns leak of draft ASA ruling (110)
- Minister avoids questions on acceptable level of fracking emissions (109)
- Legal challenge next week to North Yorkshire fracking plans (108)
- Pictures and messages from United Against Fracking rally (98)
- Breaking: Government approves Cuadrilla’s Lancashire fracking plans at Preston New Road but Roseacre Wood on hold (95)
Top commenters of 2016
The most prolific commenter in 2016 was John Hobson/Refracktion, closely followed by hballypeenyahoocom and Paul Tresto.
November was the busiest month, and the most popular time to submit a comment to DrillOrDrop was between 5pm and 6pm.
Thank you to everyone who contributed a comment this year. Please carry on the conversation in 2017.
You can read DrillOrDrop’s comments policy here.
Categories: DrillOrDrop.com
DRILL OR DROP? 
The funniest comment I read was from Sherwulfe. ” Do you hear voice inside your head?” It was good timing and witty at the right moment which made it quite funny.
IMO Hballpeeny is the most passionate about his cause and conviction. Paul Tresto is most informative and wonderfully patient in being consistently informative in his responses. And of course Ruth is brilliant with the journalistic coverage.
John Hobson can take great satisfaction in knowing that he beat me at something. ;o)
How embarrassing to be beaten yet again Peeny – but to be the most verbally incontinent (or do I mean incompetent?) anonymous shill of 2016 is still quite an achievement given Kenny’s prolific output!
…and they didn’t even count your rantings as “Jim Georges”, “Brad Welsh” or the famous spelling mistake “Bard Welsh” (who is certainly no Dylan Thomas).
You know, old thing, if they’d added in all your sock puppet IDs and your postings on the pro-fracking PR front Facebook groups I’m sure you could have beaten all of us 🙂
Better luck in 2017 – remember it’s quality not quantity that counts – maybe try to less of the repeat posts and straw men next year eh?
Man, you are one angry dude! ;o) Best of luck, John.
No Peeny – not angry – just amused by you and your pals and your attempts at pretending that you have real support – try recalibrating your empathy settings LOL
We have support, and lots of it, but I’m not here to argue about something so flimsy and subject to manipulation as public support.
I argue about the facts, and the misrepresentations from the anti-frack mafia. That’s all. Pretty simple. ;o)
BTW, the “protest” camp near Kirby Misperton seems to lack much local support, huh John? LOL
Ah the old “we have lots of support but it’s just invisible” thing. Blimey that IS desperate Peeny.
I’d watch how the KM situation pans out before crowing too loudly Peeny – can you see it from America – the media coverage must be good then 🙂
Were you out there with your propane tank, John? I’m sure the extremists will make lots of noise and continue to alienate rational and thoughtful human beings, John.
Do you support the protesters, John? Do you support their allegation that fracking causes cancer? Have you yet found evidence that fracking is a systemic threat to drinking water?
Nope – I wasn’t Peeny, but you are right that extremists will make lots of noise and continue to alienate rational and thoughtful human beings, my anonymous little chum – why – look at what you are doing right now 🙂
I’m not playing your straw man games any more Peeny – nice try though. Why not make a New Year Resolution not to post rubbish any more? Go on give us all a break x
You won’t answer questions, and you hate facts. My guess is that you won’t change in the new year, or ever! ;o)
Oh I answer questions Peeny and I love facts – I just don’t feel a need to play your games.
I’m rather hoping that not only will you stop playing them in the new Year, you might even have the cojones to admit who you really are. I won’t hold my breath though
The fact that I am anonymous bothers you to no end doesn’t it, Johnny Boy? I wouldn’t waste a lot of mental energy on the subject. It’s not worth it my good friend!
Speaking of facts, do you agree with the occupiers that fracking causes cancer? Do you or they have facts to support the contention? Do you have any facts to support the argument that fracking is a systemic danger to human health, John?
You cannot provide accurate factual data to support these claims, can you John? Don’t feel too badly, Johnny, the EPA spent tens of millions of dollars and five years and they couldn’t find anything either. You’re not alone! ;o)
“The fact that I am anonymous bothers you to no end doesn’t it, Johnny Boy? I wouldn’t waste a lot of mental energy on the subject. It’s not worth it my good friend! ”
No, not really – it just means that your own credibility is compromised. (Is that really possible? Hmm….)
We’ve done your straw man questions before. Do me a favour and do a search of your own repeated comments and people’s responses to them before littering this section with the same dross over and over and over again. It’s simply not polite to pollute this area that way old sport. You spoil it for people with a serious interest in proper discussion.
PS “factual” data would by definition be “accurate”.
As to the EPA – their very expensive report found ” can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances.” So according to you that isn’t being able to find anything? OK! LOL.
Of course it seems they didn’t find that “fracking causes cancer” or that “fracking is a systemic danger to human health” in that report, but I wonder if the title , “Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States” might give us a little clue why not? What do you reckon Peeny?
Let’s stick to that “actual factual data” of yours shall we and stop conflating issues?
John, You are smarter than that! I just know it! You understand, deep down inside your bones, that the EPA found no systemic health hazard from fracking. And of course, that is what you and all of the anti’s were after.
Are you really willing to try to represent that the EPA’s conclusion that fracking can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances is reason to not frack? You’re better than that, John! You realize that any industrial activity has the potential to impact drinking water resources. Do you think we should stop all industry for this reason, John?
;o)
Peeny I am certainly smarter than you! I just know it! (And so does everyone else on here)
You understand, deep down inside your bones, that telling people what they think is a stupid thing to do and just makes you look as though you don’t have arguments to make of your own that will stand scrutiny.
I am certainly willing to represent that the EPA’s conclusion that fracking can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances is one of many reasons to not frack?
Maybe for 2017 you could stop it with these straw men Peeny? It’s so tedious my anonymous little sockpuppet and you know you want to be taken more seriously by the grown ups on here, don’t you? x
So, then you would advocate for ending all industry, John?
Don’t be sillier than you have to be Peeny. Pointing out that shale gas extraction has various negatives and potential negatives attached to it is hardly the same as advocating an end to all industry. (Except perhaps in the mind of somebody to childish to be able to analyse things in a logical fashion)
Please explain further then, John. Are you saying that shale extraction can be accomplished safely, under proper regulations, and it should be supported in the UK? Or are you saying that because there is potential for accidents which cause harm, that it should never be tried? If this is the case, how do you distinguish between fracking operations vs. traditional oil and gas operations, vs. chemical operations, vs agricultural operations, vs. most heavy manufacturing operations, etc..?
BTW, we’re still winning!!!!
Hey Peeny you are learning – no longer TELLING me what I think. That’s a great step forward. Well done boy!
Nope – I don’t think I’ve said either of those things but feel free to check back over the last year of posts 🙂
Well, John, then let’s get down to business shall we? Do you support a careful attempt to frack, or do you think it’s a bad idea? If you think it’s a bad idea please tell us why, and tell us what you propose as the alternative. Thanks!
Oh Goody! A game!
OK you tell us who you are and then we may chose to answer some of your questions.
Or if you prefer not to then don’t complain when we ignore you.
Seems reasonable to me 🙂
There you go again! John, you’re obsessed with me. Some might even call it a crush. I’m flattered, but I think that you need to focus on the facts of the discussion, and spend less time getting so hot and bothered about my identity.
Perhaps your focus on me is to divert attention from the fact that you have finally opened your eyes to the facts, and you have come to see that fracking can be a good thing for the UK. I’m on to something, am I not Johnny?
There you go again! John, you’re obsessed with me”
Only in our foetid dreams Peeny – it wasn’t me who couldn’t restrain himself from commenting on me on this post was it now poppet LOL. You on the other hand must realise how weak your failure to say who you are leaves you looking. Better get your own obsession sorted out before you start commenting on other people 🙂
I’m not focused on you, I’m focused on the inherent dishonesty of your position given your multiple use of sockpuppets here and elsewhere.
I don’t think you are on TO anything, although I wouldn’t be too surprised to find that you are on something.
Happy New Year my anonymous little chum.
KM protest’s new slogan: “Propane: Don’t Protest Against Natural Gas Extraction Without It!”
BTW – “Fracking Causes Cancer – Google it”
LOL
Getting a bit ranty with all of the repetition now Peeny. It’s bad netiquette to subject us to your silliness in duplicate you know..
Fracking causes cancer: http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/high_levels_toxins_bodies_people_living_near_fracking_sites/
Happy New Year
That is some solid propaganda, Phil. Brought to you by the same folks behind Gasland! And just as loose with the facts, I’m afraid.
1) The authors admit in the body of the paper that they cannot link fracking to the chemicals in peoples’ bodies.
2) The cited chemicals come from many different sources, and we have zero idea where these people may have acquired them. There is no baseline work either.
3) A study was completed at around the same time by the Dept of Environmental Quality which monitored air quality at natural gas extraction sites noted no problems with air quality.
4) A number of other independent studies have confirmed that ambient air quality is not impacted by operations.
See Co. Dept of Public Health: http://www.colorado.gov/airquality/tech_doc_repository.aspx?action=open&file=Erie_Air_Emissions_Case_Study_2012.pdf
See also: Penn Dept of Env Protection:
Click to access Marcellus_NE_01-12-11.pdf
So you see, when we apply the anti-frack-fearmongering filter, a completely different truth emerges my dear man! ;o) LOL
Phil, I do apologize for responding with so many facts. This must cause you great inconvenience!
Your so called facts peeny are just the official cover ups. The ‘no baseline’ excuse is no excuse either – it’s the typical get-out-of-jail line. And any real science that goes against your prejudices are suddenly propaganda … all too transparent I’m afraid.
The official position is simply to obfuscate any real evidence. I’d urge people to read my link and associated info. With respect to the last of halfpenny’s links the Penn State was (for a while) resolved to do a medical health audit around fracking influenced communities but, like for so many official studies, lo and behold, funding got stripped out mid process. The U.S. citizenry has got so fed up with the inadequacy of official monitoring, especially with respect to air quality that a number of initiatives have been started (including ‘bucket brigade’) at the grass roots level and these (despite what misinformers like peeny say) have involved real science and real scientists.
Phil, it’s hard not to laugh when I read your posts. You say, “Your so called facts peeny are just the official cover ups. The ‘no baseline’ excuse is no excuse either – it’s the typical get-out-of-jail line. And any real science that goes against your prejudices are suddenly propaganda … all too transparent I’m afraid.”
You do realize, Phil, that baseline data is required in “real science” right? C’mon, Phil, this is really elemental “scientific method” material.
Here’s an excerpt from the section on scientific method from “How Stuff Works.” …….”Controlling an experiment also means setting it up so it has a control group and an experimental group. The control group allows the experimenter to compare his test results against a baseline measurement so he can feel confident that those results are not due to chance.”
But even if you aren’t familiar with the scientific method, I would expect you to understand that you can’t measure the change in something without knowing what your starting point is.
So, the study you cited does not comport with basic scientific methodology. It doesn’t say what you think it says – that is, it doesn’t establish any causal relationships. It’s a farce, Phil. A completely debunked farce.
So, you can deny all you want. You can point your finger at me. You can point your finger at industry. But these are the FACTS Phil. Your study doesn’t prove anything. It was utterly debunked a long long time ago.
BTW, Phil, dozens of public health studies have been done around fracking and impact to air and water, and they have all found it can be done safely. So, I’m sorry that your fav project didn’t get funded, but we’ve got it covered!
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213397615000270
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969713010073
Click to access AirQualityStudy_final.pdf
Click to access Marcellus_NE_01-12-11.pdf
Click to access Healthwatch%20-%2012th_report.pdf
And there are more. So, when it comes to testing and monitoring, you’re wrong to imply that work isn’t being done. You’re right in not wanting to talk about the work that has been done, however, because it all points to the lack of health impact from fracking!
Sorry again for all the facts!
You’ve been defeated on these points time and again peeny…. let it go … letting yourself laugh may be therapeutic though – you need help!
Rather than make generalized statements, Phil, please explain. Are you claiming that the Scientific Method is flawed? If so, please provide logic to help the rest of us understand your claim.
I just posted five health impact studies that gave the all clear to fracking, Phil.
And Phil, to address your comments regarding the lack of funding for Penn’s health impact study. I wrote an earlier post with several links to other health impact studies, but my guess is that Paul will not approve it because it contains multiple links with factual information that supports the shale drilling cause. So, I will list these studies for you in groups of two so that Paul will not have to approve the post. Here you go:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213397615000270
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969713010073
Here are some more:
Click to access AirQualityStudy_final.pdf
Click to access Marcellus_NE_01-12-11.pdf
And a last one, Phil. http://www.aip.com.au/pdf/health/Healthwatch%20-%2012th_report.pdf
No, scientific method isn’t flawed, you’re just twisting things around to suggest that where base-line studies are absent that’s enough to suggest that toxins were already present, or that lack of proof that they weren’t there already is tantamount to saying that they were. It isn’t of course, and the very fact that so many studies end up revealing those toxins and undrinkable water, air carrying health damaging VOC’s etc, all near fracking sites, that these are not coincidences. You should get real and show some concern for those people whose lives you’re damaging, and whose properties and livelihoods you’re degrading through the activity you’re promoting. Remember Wes Wilson? you had no answer to the real (inside) stories from the ‘authoritive’ EPA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7XgoekcrBw
I’m surprised you even mention Texas – a state now in decline – fracking has exacerbated drought conditions there so badly that some towns are being abandoned – things have only got worse since this report:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/05/fracking-water-america-drought-oil-gas
That’s simply poor science Phil. It’s unreal to me that you are so deluded as to suggest that baseline data doesn’t matter. I make no claim about what the baseline data would have shown, I only point out that you cannot draw scientific conclusions without that data. And the authors of the very study you cite note that the study demonstrates no causality. So all your study does is show elevated levels of some toxins in some people and we have no idea how those people came to accumulate those toxins. That is hardly scientific proof.
You can’t win on the facts, so you try to change the subject to some hyped up conspiracy theory about the EPA and hyped up stories about the decline of Texas!
Pathetic. Sure, Texas’s economy rises and falls with hydrocarbon prices. What’s your point big fella? That’s been the case for a hundred years, no big mystery. As for water in Texas, it’s not a big issue with reuse – “Oil and gas production in general accounts for less than 1 percent of Texas’ water use, according to the Texas Water Development Board.” http://www.comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2015/october/fracking.php
” my guess is that Paul will not approve it because it contains multiple links with factual information that supports the shale drilling cause.”
It’s very rude to accuse the moderator on a page you infest with your anonymous shillery of deliberately suppressing your posts. It makes you sound like a very badly spoilt child Peeny.
And I doubt that your links give “the all clear to fracking” . Only a fool would claim that was even remotely possible. If you are seriously trying to claim that the debate is over what on earth are you doing wasting your time and ours here poppet? Just asking.
“anonymous shillery” says “Refracktion” Oh the irony!
The debate has been won, John. You cannot provide any evidence that supports the idea that fracking is a systemic threat to human health. Fracking is supplying over 2/3 of our gas in the US – the debate is over old man! You lost! It’s happening, and it’s happening safely! Find a new cause because your current one is quite stale ol’ fella!
Were those the 5 that give the all clear to fracking then Peeny ?
Really???
http://www.aip.com.au/pdf/health/Healthwatch%20-%2012th_report.pdf does not even mention the word fracking
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/aq/aqm/docs/Marcellus_NE_01-12-11.pdf tells us that the data
“do not represent a comprehensive study of emissions” and is “short-term sampling effort does not address the cumulative impact of air emissions from natural gas operations in northeastern Pennsylvania”
http://fortworthtexas.gov/uploadedFiles/Gas_Wells/AirQualityStudy_final.pdf tells us that
“The emissions contained dozens of pollutants with varying toxicities. Pollutants with relatively low toxicities (e.g., methane, ethane, propane, and butane) accounted for the overwhelming majority—approximately 98%—of the city-wide emissions. However, several pollutants with relatively high toxicities (e.g., benzene) were also emitted from these sites, though in considerably lower quantities. At a small subset of sites, the point source testing team noted signs of malfunctioning equipment that likely caused increased emissions.”
I don’t find your approach to the scientific method very convincing my anonymous little chum. Copying and pasting random links is just shillery – you really are wasting our time here Peeny old sport.
Ah, Refracktion, always dependable for some deception and deflection am I right? LOL
1) the first study doesn’t have to mention fracking, John. It’s a health survey of the industry in Australia, which would include fracking operations.
The second concluded, “Results of the limited ambient air sampling initiative in the northeast region
did not identify concentrations of any compound that would likely trigger airrelated health issues associated with Marcellus Shale drilling activities. ”
The third concluded, “Although this study did not reveal any significant health threats beyond setback distances,
it is important to remember that the sources of concern for this project—natural gas exploration
and production activity—are located in residential settings throughout a metropolitan area.
Though the most toxic pollutants these sources emit are released in relatively low quantities,
ERG fully supports implementing all reasonable precautions to reduce emissions from the well
pads and compressor stations.”
So yes, John, these studies did give the all clear to fracking because they did not find significant health threats from the activity. No one ever represented that these sites don’t produce emissions, but the evidence points to the fact that the level of emissions is not a threat to human health as long as regulations are followed!
There you go!
You are struggling now Peeny – time for your medication?
That’s it Refracktion. When you can’t win based on the facts, you start to make personal attacks. Nice job!
““anonymous shillery” says “Refracktion” Oh the irony!
The debate has been won, John.”
😂😂😂
We know you Merkins don’t do irony but I thought at least you’d understand the irony of suggesting that ““anonymous shillery” is ironic and then using my name 😅
Peeny you are priceless LOL
No facts, right Refracktion! Just lash out with the name calling when you can’t win. We’ve seen this movie before! LOL
“That’s it Refracktion. When you can’t win based on the facts, you start to make personal attacks. Nice job! ”
Look the thing is Peeny that you are really just a cut and paste time vampire. Don’t take this badly but life really is too short to waste on anonymous shills who don’t bother to read people’s answers. Tootle pip!
I read your answers and responded. To my response, you began your usual name-calling exercise. When you can’t win the debate, this is your default.
Peeny .. and there you go again – misreading and falsifying. Since when did I say ‘baseline data doesn’t matter’. I was pointing out how you and your studies hide behind the lack of baseline studies as proof of no connection, when all it proves is that there was no baseline studies. The coincidences of contamination are too numerous to suggest anything other than a causal connection to fracking – this is real science in the absence of baseline studies that your industry only pays lip service to, or usually avoids – as it does for air monitoring.
So, to sum your point of view, Phil, we should forget scientific method, forget baseline studies, forget the idea of proving causality, and just make wild a$$ assumptions about what is going on based a gut feeling that there must be some kind of connection.
Wow. I can see why you are a true anti-fracker, you will buy anything!
What if I told you that results from three counties away showed higher toxin levels than those in the study?
You are dangerous, Phil. There’s a reason they created the scientific method, and it is to stop people from doing EXACTLY what you are trying to do.
Wrong on all counts peeny. Your misreading and misrepresentation of what I just wrote are a glaring testament to your prejudiced mindset… but at least you’ve made that plain for all to see (again). Please work on basic comprehension .
SCIENTIFIC METHOD Phil. You might study it. LOL
600 separate people? Not all of whom were opponents. Could it be, as I’ve been pointing out that one of the greatest myths of all in UK fracking is that there is widespread opposition to it?
I imagine at least 6 were pro-fracking Nick. And maybe 1 of those 6 might not have had a financial interest in fracking. Could it be, as I’ve been pointing out that one of the greatest myths of all in UK fracking is that there is any real grassroots support for it?
I mean it’s not like we don’t all know that you have a two man and a dog outfit that was trying to get a licence to frack under London is it? LOL. Did you get one? I heard the bar was set pretty low.
Talk about straw men! Hobby, Hob, Hob, when has there ever been real grassroots support for any oil or gas installation? Is your suggestion then, that we should never have extracted this resource without grassroots support? I find that there is plentiful grass roots support for the heat, electricity, and power that oil and gas supply – ’nuff said!! LOL
No Peeny, that’s not a straw man. Look it up.
The point is that not only do you have to pretend to have grass roots support with the astroturf facebook groups and the “task forces” because you clearly don’t have any, but there is also ever increasing opposition as demonstrated by the surveys of UK polling organisations.
It’s funny how fracking seems to be the least popular method of supplying that heat and electricity by a very very long way isn’t it? – ’nuff said!! LOL
I, for one, do not think that energy policy should be dictated by a popularity contest. The most popular energy sources are rarely those that best serve the interests of the country.
Ask Australia or Germany about it. They went too far with renewables, and got sky high electricity prices and little or nothing to show for it.
I, for one, agree with you Peeny that energy policy should not be dictated by a popularity contest. But maybe economic arguments and long term thinking should come into it somewhere.
I see IGas are down to 11p today down from 148p in 2014
Hey, John, we agree on something! How about that.
Economic arguments and long-term thinking are crucial. As you know, fuel poverty is a big issue for much of the planet, and it is only humane that we find solutions that deliver energy efficiently and affordably, while at the same time we work to reduce GHG emissions.
As you know, we have been incredibly successful in the US moving toward those goals. We have reduced emissions dramatically, while Europe has not. We have also brought fuel prices down significantly around the world due to the introduction of fracking technology.
We are also building out renewable energy infrastructure. Though we took a more measured (less centrally planned) and market-driven approach to renewables, we are now building the sector quickly. Low gas prices are helping to pay for that transition.
Fracking has been a success of almost unimaginable proportion in the US, both for its economic and environmental impact.
BTW, Cuadrilla was up today, did you see that?
Glad that we have found some common ground at last!
Oh Peeny – I’d been hoping you’d finish 2016 with something new to say, but it seems you are more concerned with your post count old thing.
No, I didn’t see Cuadrilla was up today. That must be because their shares aren’t publicly traded I guess.
“We are a privately owned company and, as such, our shares are not available for purchase on the stock exchange. There are also no current plans for a float or IPO (Initial Public Offering). Cuadrilla is a privately owned company with investment from our partners A.J. Lucas and Riverstone LLC.”
My bad, John. I meant to say Centrica was up. I think Total was flat. BTW, Centrica’s small gain was more than enough to offset Igas’s entire loss, if you want to keep score that way. LOL
Oh that’s an an easy mistake to make isn’t it? Confusing a £28 billion t/o business with “fracking giant” (LOL) Cuadrilla. PMSL
I should perhaps point out that fracking does have some support – The Backing Fracking Facebook page now has over 300 likes in 18 months which is astounding – mind you some appear to be multiple accounts from the same people. It’s nearly as impressive as the Blackpool Fracking For a Better future page which had 666 likes but for some reason now has only about 350. Maybe people are seeing the light eh my anonymous little pal?
You’re a member of that group using your “Jim Georges” sockpuppet aren’t you Peeny?
So given that you support the Backing Fracking page and post on it, what do you think about the discussion on Kirby Misperton and how to get rid of trespassers, in which a “Dave Thompsön” suggests that “A bottle full of flammable liquid on fire under their caravan tends to make a point quickly.” Is that the kind of support you want and condone Peeny? I haven’t seen you post anything suggesting it’s out of order. Are you going to do so? It sounds awfully like incitement to criminal violence to me!
Maybe Ruth would like a screen shot to include in her post about extremism and terror lists? https://drillordrop.com/2016/12/13/take-us-off-all-the-terror-lists-say-anti-fracking-campaigners/ – If so I have one she can use 🙂
You didn’t answer my questions, huh John?
I hope that the protests at KM continue for a long time. It gives those trustafarians something to do with their time such that they feel productive. Meanwhile, it informs the public about exactly who is behind these misinformed schemes they’ve heard about. Yes, it’s the guy who brings propane to the camp, and who drives to the camp in his fossil fuel burning car, and uses all manner of consumer goods provided to him thanks to the use of gas and oil. It’s the rebel without a cause – who thinks he has a cause because he googled “cancer and fracking” and came up with a scary list of “peer reviewed” articles, which he never bothered to read in detail so he doesn’t realize that none of them have established a causal link between fracking and cancer. But that is beside the point, of course, because protest trustafarian has something to rant about now, and he can feel useful by bullying people around, trespassing on their property, and using his fossil-fuel-provided consumer goods to protest fossil-fuel while telling people to “keep it in the ground.”
Guess what, John? We’re still winning!
And trustafarian national protest man doesn’t care for other people’s property rights. He doesn’t care that due process was followed to allow Third Energy’s project. He doesn’t care that Third Energy prevailed at the local council. He doesn’t care that Third Energy prevailed in court. He doesn’t care that the country voted for onshore gas when it elected Conservative leadership. He doesn’t care that he will be interfering with business that supports the consumer goods upon which he relies. He doesn’t care that democratic processes support Third Energy’s activities. All of that is inconvenient to his way of thinking, which is completely self-centered, and is backed by his emotional belief that fracking will be the end of civilization as we know it. You go, trustafarian national protest man!
And what does anonymous international shill man care about the trespassing done by the frackers and the damage they caused? Not a lot I imagine – you probably don’t even have a clue what i am talking about eh Peeny?
“You didn’t answer my questions, huh John?”
I’ve answered many of your questions mulitiple times Peeny. To be honest I’m a little bored of reading the same rubbish from you over and over again which all just shows that your feedback loops are closed. Some of your questions I do ignore, either because you ask them so impolitely or because you set up straw men that don’t deserve an answer.
I’m sure the KM protests will continue for a while. Who is it that is telling you that there is no local support btw? It must be hard trying to pretend you know what is going on from 4,000 miles away.
You can’t be “still” winning when you’ve been losing for the last 5 years LOL
Nope. Still no answers. ;o)
LOL Peeny – you need to go on a course that teaches you how to use the internet, then you’d be able to look back over every time you’ve asked the same questions and read the answers you have been given.
Nobody is interested in pandering to your vanity and you are not “special” – at least not in the way that would mean people wanted to waste time on answering the same questions time and time again.
By the way – you didn’t say what you thought of pro-frackers threatening to set fire to people’s caravans. Are you OK with that then?
Nope. No good at all. Has no place.
Pity your side attracts these ne’erdo well terrorist types then isn’t it? Can’t you control them?
There are nuts on both side of the argument, John. More on your side, but who’s counting? ;o)
Third Energy fracking well approved! Appeal against Third Energy denied! Winning!!!
Well Peeny I suppose as there are about 100 times as many people on our side statistically it’s likely we’d have a few more nutters. Fair point
What pantomime are you watching Nick? No widespread opposition? Oh yes there is.
Muriel – it’s BEHIND him!