Leaflet cover
Friends of the Earth has agreed not to repeat claims it made in a leaflet about the effects of fracking.
In an informal resolution published this morning, the Advertising Standards Agency said the leaflet must not appear again in its current form. Friends of the Earth was also instructed not to make claims about the effects of fracking on health, water or property prices without adequate evidence.
The ASA received two complaints about the fundraising leaflet, including one from the shale gas company, Cuadrilla. A draft decision was leaked to The Times in September.
Cuadrilla’s chief executive, Francis Egan, said:
“Friends of the Earth’s repeated falsehoods have been exposed as nothing more than scaremongering designed to frighten the public into giving it money. It is the unacceptable face of the charity sector.”
But Donna Hume, senior campaigner, Friends of the Earth, said:
“We continue to campaign against fracking, alongside local people, because the process of exploring for and extracting shale gas is inherently risky for the environment, this is why fracking is banned or put on hold in so many countries.”
Fracking claims
The leaflet was published more than a year ago. A spokesperson for the ASA explained the background to the case:
“We received a complaint about claims in a magazine insert by Friends of the Earth which promoted its anti-fracking campaign.
“The complainant challenged whether the claim ‘Fracking involves pumping millions of litres of water containing a toxic cocktail of chemicals deep underground … Up to 80% never returns to the surface and could end up in your drinking water’ was misleading and could be substantiated; and ‘A hospital near a US fracking site reports asthma rates three times higher than average’ misleadingly implied that fracking caused such increases in asthma rates.
“Separately, Cuadrilla challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
- “25% of fracking chemicals could cause cancer. Also, more than 75% of fracking chemicals could affect your skin, eyes and respiratory system. Whilst 50% could affect your nervous, immune and cardiovascular systems”; and
- “Plummeting house prices”.
“We approached Friends of the Earth with the concerns that had been raised about its ad. The advertiser agreed not to repeat the claims, or claims that had the same meaning.
“On that basis we closed the case informally. The ad must not appear again in its current form. We have told Friends of the Earth Trust Ltd and Friends of the Earth Ltd not to make claims about the likely effects of fracking on the health of local populations, drinking water, or property prices in the absence of adequate evidence.”
Cuadrilla’s reaction
In a statement, Cuadrilla’s Francis Egan said:
“After many attempts by Friends of the Earth to delay this decision, the charity’s admission that all of the claims it made, that we complained about, were false should hopefully put a stop to it misleading the UK public on fracking.
“Friends of the Earth’s repeated falsehoods have been exposed as nothing more than scaremongering designed to frighten the public into giving it money. It is the unacceptable face of the charity sector.”
“Friends of the Earth has committed to the ASA that “it will not to repeat the claims, or claims which have the same meaning, in future”.
Cuadrilla said the agreement covered what it described as the “false claims” that:
- “the fluid used in fracking contains chemicals dangerous to human health, and that the fluid would, as a natural consequence of the act of fracking, contaminate the drinking water of nearby communities because it remained underground;
- “the US fracking site [the FoE leaflet] referred to was responsible for the increase in asthma rates, and that the public would be at risk of equivalent increases in asthma rates by living or working near a fracking site in the UK;
- “that there is an established risk of the chemicals concerned causing cancer and other conditions among the local population, when used in fracking in the UK;
- “that fracking will cause plummeting house prices.”
Friends of the Earth response
Donna Hume, of Friends of the Earth, responded:
“Cuadrilla’s complaint isn’t surprising from a profit-driven fracking company, after all, they have shareholders to keep happy.
“They started this process to distract from the real issues about fracking, and how burning fossil fuels is dangerous for climate change. This is a pro-fracking company doing all they can to shut down opposition to fracking. It hasn’t worked though. What’s happened instead is that the ASA has dropped the case without ruling.
“We continue to campaign against fracking, alongside local people, because the process of exploring for and extracting shale gas is inherently risky for the environment, this is why fracking is banned or put on hold in so many countries.”
Other reaction
Tom Pickering, Operations Direction of INEOS Shale, said in a statement:
“The false claims have formed the heart of the FOE’s wrongheaded opposition to fracking and we are pleased to see the record corrected.
“INEOS is always happy to debate on the facts and answer any questions and concerns that members of the public or groups may have. However, as today’s ruling has made clear Friends of the Earth have been spreading false information and misleading the public about this important issue.
“For too long Friends of the Earth, and their Scottish counterparts Friends of the Earth Scotland, have been wilfully misleading the public on fracking to fulfil their anti-fossil fuel agenda. Hopefully this ruling will be a lesson to those organisations but more importantly give the public cause to reflect on the duplicity they have been subjected to by Friends of the Earth.”
Link to posts by one of the complainants in this case here and here
Categories: Regulation
DRILL OR DROP? 
It’s all LIE LIE LIE.
Oj course when someone make false claims and lie about your business you are going to defend yourself. FOE would do the same if Caudrilla or frackers put out a leaflet claims for example climate change will make you rich (by making your property water front by increasing sea level for instance) or CO2 emission is good for your health.
TW, FOE have not only been exposed for the scaremongering lies they have been spreading, but a repeat of their disgraceful method of raising funds from their [edited by moderator] supporters, will see them in deeper trouble.
Let’s read what their supporters have to say about all of this. To be honest I’m surprised this story has been reported by this “independent” journalist.
We all know this independent reporting is merely a smoke screen for this anti brigade
Michael – are you the same Michael who is currently despairing on the Hot Copper AJL board? You sound very much like him.
Yes sure am, don’t know about despairing refracktion, what’s your point?
What has my “despairing” to do with your “mob” being caught out for their lying propaganda, you’re drawing a long bow their refracktion, is that your only fall back?
FOE have been caught out and you and your fellow anti’s are losing credibility……..fast.
Gullible donations by their followers. FOE don’t even have the respect to inform their followers where money WILL be spent, all they say is it COULD be spent.
No credibility whatsoever.
Wow, who would have predicted that Refracktion would respond to this story by making personal attacks and attempting to deflect attention to other matters? So weird, am I right? LOL
Personal attacks Peeny – I asked him if he was who I thought he was and he admitted that he was. You are a silly shilly!
You cannot help yourself, John. Things are really going badly for you aren’t they?
I think the coverage of different side of fracking by the team on this forum is very balanced in content of key issue and event. There’s so much one can do with limited resources.
Well said TW
Point taken TW
Yes, TW, this is what most anti-frackers would believe. But then again, they believe the hyped up fearmongering from FoE, so we know how credible this group is!
It’s not a group Peeny – it’s a news site. You may hate it and you may waste hours every day ranting about it, but there you are. Life’s a bitch innit? PS Please don’t be rude to our hosts – it’s very ungracious!
No work started. No work finished. No explanation. Still showing on their site.
‘In accordance with the planning consent well plugging and site restoration work will be carried out after the wintering bird’s season, ending 31st March 2016 and before the deadline set by Lancashire County Council of 31st October 2016. Cuadrilla will inform local residents in advance of exactly when the work will begin next year.’
Blatant disregard for local communities.
“On that basis we closed the case informally. The ad must not appear again in its current form. We have told Friends of the Earth Trust Ltd and Friends of the Earth Ltd not to make claims about the likely effects of fracking on the health of local populations, drinking water, or property prices in the absence of adequate evidence.”
Presumably the ASA must officially reject any claims by the industry that fracking is safe (well regulated or not). fracking can supply jobs and prosperity, and that it is good for the economy.
The ‘Benefits’ section on Cuadrilla’s website should be removed immediately by the ASA.
This is my problem with the ASA – there is only conjecture about many of the claims made by industry. In terms of jobs, viability, benefits etc. Meanwhile Yale and John Hopkins have carried out peer reviewed scientific studies that chemicals liberated by fracking cause cancer. Chemicals like BETEX, known carcinogens. The EPA has admitted fracking has and can contaminate drinking water. The mainstream media refers to the findings of the redacted DEFRA report frequently – which was only classed as being draft AFTER the government was forced to disclose the full report, yet the ASA has ruled this report cannot be cited by those opposed to fracking. The whole situation is a legal farce. Irrespective of this decision, the ASA needs a major overhaul.
LOL. Yes, and the earth is flat, right John?
Yawn Peeny
This is my thoughts exactly. They don’t have the management or staff or maybe even financial resources to complete the tasks and permit through on schedule so just let them run out of time and forfeit their license. Why bother protesting or hand out leaflet. Wouldn’t it be funny if they run out of time?
Yes, I have heard that Kerogen and Riverstone have run out of money, TW. Good call. Smart thinking!
You never know Hbpeeny maybe they ready to pull out of this venture. Caudrilla haven’t even start their Belcombe well which they need to stary a community forum before working and they only have till 2nd May. Not sure if they have tje human resource to do ot.
TW, do you have any evidence that Riverstone and Kerogen are ready to pull out? This would seem a very odd time to do that would it not? They’ve injected tens of millions into the project, secured a partnership with Centrica, who will help pay many of the bills, and just as they’ve been given the green light after four years of waiting, and are about to get a second green light, they would throw it all away and give up? I’m very anxious to see your support for this idea!
Yep Peeny – they are in it up to the eyeballs – fracking doesn’t seem to have been a great investment for them but what can they do eh? Stick it out and hope they can big up whatever flow test results they get so they can sell out to some other poor sap
That’s your official recommendation, huh John? Have you sent in an application to work at Cuadrilla yet? ;o)
Hbpeeny. Sorry no I don’t have any evidence. It was just a throw away comment. You are right. But these small companies (maybe not Caudrilla and Ineos) are on a very tight schedule and budget.
The TV coverage of this issue has strengthened the case against fracking.
FOE responses were solid and pushed the case of harm from fracking.
Focusing on whether or not fracking causes cancer and pollutes the environment gets people talking and researching the subject.
No one trusts the word of the oil companies
When the oil and gas industry challenge an organisation who operate to protect the environment for the benefit of all, the majority will presume the oil industry is the one who is lying.
This must be terribly deflating for all you anti’s.
This recent finding against FOE for their lying propaganda coupled with council decision losses, and legal losses sees your side not only getting your dues, but also you are losing influence.
Truth always wins out in the end.
Michael Is it only “lying proaganda” when it’s from someone you dislike? How would you characterise this then?
https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/4/Cuadrilla-Resources-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_203806.aspx#.WGzIe5LDSZk
That must be terribly deflating for all you pros. Truth always wins out in the end.
Michael – can you please state which bit of the leaflet as displayed on the (top-of-page) picture here could be called “lying propaganda”. I looked down the list of statements on the orange front page and from the history of human exposure to fracking none of those points could be claimed untrue. Citizens in the states are now so fed up with the so called self monitoring of the industry and toothless protection agencies that they have been founding initiatives and establishing data records that (by now) are substantial enough to be scientifically verified:
http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/high_levels_toxins_bodies_people_living_near_fracking_sites/
and
http://oilandgasthreatmap.com/
Philip, it is understandable that you would disagree with the ASA, FoE, scientists, and industry with respect to the claims being false. Anyone who does not believe that the scientific method should be applied to scientific study and findings, would not see any problems with the claims. As soon as you can convince the rest of the world that science should rely on “gut feel” rather than the scientific method, we will all see the logic in your statement! Best of luck with that!
Off topic and incapable of relating to the points made. Are you on some kind of medication peeny? But the query was addressed to Michael not you – I hope his response will be more on target, and arguing the point not the person.
Philip – I think Peeny has been reading Wikipedia again and has come across a page on “the scientific method” which he thinks makes him sound knowledgeable. Fortunately we know form his posts not to fall for that one 😉
It’s terribly deflating for everyone that cares about this planet Mr Dobbie. By the way, why do you care so much about this issue? I wonder if there is something in it for you? Presumably you have some financial interest here [Edited by moderator]
Well John – he HAS admitted to being a poster on the AJ Lucas stock board. I don’t imagine too many of them don’t own shares, but perhaps he’ll confirm the facts?
John, can you expand on why in your and other anti’s opinion, my private and personal investment portfolio has any relevance whatsoever on the outcome FOE finds themselves in.
My financial interest position has absolutely no relevance on the lying and completely fabricated so called evidence FOE and other members of the anti brigade have indulged in.
So what other personal attacks are you and others going to throw up as a sidetrack to the topic on hand?
Michael – it clearly has no bearing on the informal resolution agreed with FoE.
The fact that you do clearly have a financial interest in fracking is interesting merely as it provides a context to your rather rabid comments.
Whether the decisions made by the ASA are in relation to pro or anti fracking material – I really have little faith in the judgement and decisions of the ASA. Some of the reasoning is arbitrary. One of the problems is impartiality. Having Chris Smith, a man that declared himself pro fracking in 2012 and who headed up the Task Force Shale at its head does not help.
How the ASA handled the complaint by Greenpeace over whether fracking lowered energy prices – was a complete debacle. The ASA initially dismissed the complaint on the basis that it must be correct if the Prime Minister says so. This was despite statements from industry that it would not lower energy prices. Only on appeal did the ASA have to admit the information was inappropriate as there was no evidence to support the claim.
The ASA have also ruled against Cuadrilla and a Chris Faulkner advert and have also criticised some anti fracking material. But looking at the cases objectively, on both sides of the argument, and accepting this is a difficult subject matter – I remain completely unimpressed.
Science denier!
Peeny you are getting tedious now – like a spoiled child. A sort of fracking Donald Trump lite
there’s the ad hominem attack. I knew you would be liberal with those today, right John? ;o)
It’s interesting that this is the 5th attempt by the fracktastic pensioner tag team of Michael Roberts and Ken Wilkinson to get a ruling from the ASA on the subject of fracking and yet they have failed again. Just another informal resolution.
TW – you may not realise this but the only ruling ever made by the ASA council on the subject of fracking was made against ….. yes ….. Cuadrilla Resources whose “Community Newsletter” was found to breach regulations by making unsupportable claims about safety, government support for fracking, the potential for damage from earthquakes, whether induced earthquakes might be felt, the potential for water contamination, the use of toxic chemicals, and false comparisons with non HVHF sites.
https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/4/Cuadrilla-Resources-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_203806.aspx#.WGyv1ZLDSZk
Cuadrilla narrowly scraped away from censure for making claims that fracking won’t industrialise the countryside by persuading the ASA that they only planned to have 10-20 well sites in PEDL 165. With the EURs and 40 wells per pad predicted by the IoD report which Cuadrilla sponsored, 20 sites would only allow extraction of 2.5 Tcf of gas. That’s about half a years UK gas demand over a period claimed by Cuadrilla to the ASA (to be able to sustain their claim of “decades of employment”) be “40–50 years”.
Friends of the Earth have done themselves and opponents of fracking no favours by handing the fracktastic duo an open goal, but I’m amazed that Roberts and Wilkinson managed to miss the penalty after 4 previous attempts. At this rate we’ll be seeing them lining up for the England team shortly. Better luck next time.
I have just read the risible reverend’s self-congratulatory blog piece entitled “Friends of the Earth f**ck it up” (strong words for a vicar Michael!)
In it the Reverend Roberts makes the claim to be independent of the industry writing of himself and Clockwork Ken “We are NOT ‘pro fracking’ as such”.
Perhaps in that case he would like to explain why he is an admin of a Facebook Group called “Backing Fracking” 😂
You couldn’t make it up (although he appears to be doing so)
Wow, Refracktion, you sound bitter! Someone beat you at your game perhaps! ;o) Why was it an informal resolution old pal? Perhaps because it was such a clear cut ruling that FoE knew they had no other course than to back down? Why have the other complaints not led to resolutions? Perhaps because the anti-frackers knew they were wrong and backed down? Hmmmmm? Hey, if you call that a victory for your side, that’s just fine. Then we’re all winners, right Johnny boy?
Your complaint against Cuadrilla was successful on some items and very unsuccessful on others. Where it was successful, it was often a matter of a judgement call, an interpretation of wording. But the FoE matter is entirely different. There is little wiggle room. They just outright lied and now the country is onto them. Now we all see that the study which claimed emotional damage to communities from fracking should have claimed emotional damage to communities due to FALSE claims about fracking. And when you cite the lack of social license, or overwhelming local opposition, we all know that it’s a farce because that opposition is due to false claims. What a mess Refracktion.
So, thank you very much to Ken and to Michael. Your hard work and diligence has paid off spectacularly, and we are thankful to you for bringing the issues to the ASA. Please keep up the fantastic work! And let me know if I can help!
Priceless stuff Peeny – Comedy gold keep it up 🙂
The pamphlet just needs updating. Only some of it was over the top and misleading. But FoE does need to be careful with sources and verifiability.
Says the man who has disavowed the scientific method. ;o)
Inventing your own style of fake fact reporting are we peeny? The burden of proof is on your side – I always respect scientific method.
Well, Phil, actually you are wrong. The burden of proof is on your creed for the assertion that fracking causes cancer. [Edited by moderator] no rational human being would put the burden of proof on someone to prove a negative. It can’t be done [edited by moderator].
Here it is, Phil, in all its glorious glory….”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.”
Yes, that’s where you’ve decided that baseline study is for the birds and that you should be “free” to come to your own conclusions regarding causality despite a lack of scientific proof via the scientific method.
That worked really well for FoE didn’t it Phil? LOL
That’s simply your comprehension/learning difficulties at play there peeny. Just read it again, carefully… I won’t rush you. Got it?
No? OK, I’ll help. Complaints get raised after the fact (of drilling/fracking in any vicinity), by which time there is no way to reverse engineer baseline studies – they have to be initiated before any drilling takes place for them of course (ground water, air, medical profiles etc) to be a valid, scientific way of proving conditions weren’t pre-existing. Of course I’m all in favour of baseline studies, but your industry does not take responsibility for these for obvious reasons. If they do it’s usually a sham and crucial readings are known to get ‘lost’ or fudged when there’s any likelihood of any incriminating data. Local environment agencies are simply not given the resources to do this properly, let alone scientifically.
You argue that nothing can be proven without scientific baseline studies, so it gets you/drilling-companies off the hook. That’s what happens. What I’m saying is that it doesn’t disprove anything either, in fact there are far too many coincidences of similar health/water/air impacts being complained about, by people who’ve never heard of each other (from widely different localities but with fracked wells nearby), for there to be nothing in it. If pollution/health issues were pre-existing complaints would have been pre-existing also. Anyway the wiggle room is narrowing as citizens with the help of real scientists are mobilising, but Trump and his anti EPA and Global Warming denying partners will put the clock back as far as they can without a doubt.
Never mind, of all the hundreds of complaints – health, water and air pollution cases that get raised in the vicinity of fracking sites, if they are ever investigated at all (often a buffalo tank for clean water and a bribe with a gagging order attached is enough to keep people quiet), the authorities and companies can usually worm there way out of culpability using your kind of slippery logic. I trust it will be different in the UK.
My “slippery logic” is commonly referred to as Scientific Method, Phil. I’m sorry that it is inconvenient to your way of seeing things, but I don’t think that this inconvenience means that it should be ignored. Fracking has been going on in some of these areas for dozens of years. If there is/was a problem, there has been plenty of opportunity to take longitudinal measurements, which, if fracking were the culprit, would indicate that the problem is becoming worse.
There is a reason that your authors from the study you cited disavowed the statement that fracking causes cancer. They knew that their work did not prove any such thing. Yet you still see fit to make the assertion, despite the lack of scientific proof grounded in scientific method.
Actions like yours are why the anti-frack mafia is getting such a scolding by the ASA and the media today. When you make false claims it will catch up to you Phil.
More ‘overlays’ from you. Please could you read what is actually there and relate to that instead of what immediately leaps into your head. You misrepresent nearly everything to suit yourself – hardly objective let alone scientific. Now you’re just shifting from my disavowal to the author’s. People can read that for themselves without your slippery interpretations, thanks.
You’re the slippery one, Phil. You claimed that fracking causes cancer, did you not? In support of your claim you reference a study. That study’s authors wrote, “Unfortunately there is no way that scientists can prove that chemicals detected at an emission source are the same chemicals detected in the air immediately surrounding people. In addition, differences in the monitoring devices and laboratory techniques meant we were not able to make apples-to-apples comparisons between the sample results.”
They know that they can’t prove causality and that without the basis of causality the claim is not proven. They know it, but it seems that you do not.
This is very simple Phil. You made a claim and you cannot support it with scientific evidence. Everyone realizes the games that you play. No need to try and obfuscate.
I’m not making the claims I’m simply pointing to sources that should be taken seriously and it is very irresponsible for you to suggest otherwise. Benzene and Toluene are commonly found in concentrations many times higher than recommended safe limits around fracking sites and along with methane and other VOCs which can (and do) cause a whole range of illness symptoms sometimes with lasting damage to health and well being, including neurological disorders. Benzene has a range of nasty health impacts and is a known carcinogen.
Sorry to disappoint, but yes there is a lot of game playing going on here, but not from my side. This is serious and you should take other peoples’ health seriously too. I’ve seen enough examples of real life cases, from moving to tragic, of people and loved ones impacted by fracking and gas field proximity to make me despise some of the games that the pro-frackers are playing here.
… another source: http://www.bcaction.org/our-take-on-breast-cancer/stop-fracking/
LOL. Right, Phil.
You say, “I’m not making the claims, I’m simply pointing to sources.”
Do you deny writing “Fracking causes cancer” on this board on Jan 1, 8:25pm?
It appears that this brilliant nugget came from your account.
You made the claim and then pointed to the study, which doesn’t corroborate your claim. Now you try to back away from it and say that you didn’t make the claim.
I get it. Business as usual from the anti-science, anti-fact, anti-frack mafia.
The ASA should hire a staff of people to look at your side’s claims 24/7 because they certainly need monitoring!
Peeny – That was simply my response of your ‘Fracking causes cancer – google it’ challenge – i.e. a ‘topic heading’ created by you. Kind of backfired didn’t it. LOL indeed!
(free comprehension lesson – no need to say thank you).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/04/largest-earthquake-to-hit-uk-in-decade-felt-off-scarborough-north-yorkshire-coast
Was it the oil and gas industry? Will we shortly see methane filled exploding whales?
3.9 – are the people in North Yorks safe? Is Ian Cranes anti fracking camp still standing…..? Have Third Energy already fracked?
Paul – I think that just about sums this story up – nothing to see here, move along, let’s talk about exploding whales instead 🙄
Interesting start to the year. FoE are only interested in lining their pockets like ambulance chasing lawyers. Their underhand tactics are doing more harm than good to the small number of genuine anti frackers (ie people that will be directly affected and not the more vocal and quite frankly scary – eco warriors).
The draft ruling has been held up since July by FoE as they know their anti fracking revenue stream is coming to an end.
And just to clear it up, one of the UKs largest quakes was NOT caused by the murmurs of Third Energy’ soon to commence fracking tests.
Hope everyone had a good festive time 🙂
Graham – I think you’ll find that the draft ruling was held up because FoE put together a cogent defence against the claims. If they hadn’t then ASA would have simply made a ruling and that would have been that. Still we realise how sore you lot must be to have failed to get a ruling for the FIFTH time.
How would an earthquake be related to something that has not happened. Have you been having too good a festive time?
Who the heck is “Graham” ?
Yes, must have been very cogent indeed!
It was Peeny – and that’s why Kenny and Michael failed for the FIFTH time to get a ruling out of the ASA 🙂
I see. It had nothing to do with the fact that FOE backed down. If that is a victory to you, please enjoy it. I know they’ve been hard to come by!
BTW, you look incredibly weak when you claim that this was some sort of failure for those who brought the claims. It just makes you look out of touch with reality. Just like FoE rep who was completely destroyed on the BBC NWT after making the same lame argument. Sure, it was withdrawn….LOL….under threat of action by ASA because all of the appeals had lost……
Trying to justify a bunch of lies with another lie doesn’t add to your side’s credibility, John. ;0)
Hey Peeny
Refracktion – 1 (ASA ruling against Cuadrilla)
Madrev & Ken – 0 (ASA Rulings against 5 attempts)
My kind of score line – suck it up big boy LOL!
Here you go, Refracktion…..read this excerpt from a radio interview with an FoE rep and revel in your victory … ;0)
RJ: “Let’s talk to ROSE DICKINSON from the Friends of the Earth who joins us live from London….
RJ: “The ASA says there was no evidence for these claims on health risks, water contamination and falling house prices – so did you make them up?”
RD: ” The ASA have not made a ruling against us – they have dropped the case against Friends of the Earth – and FoE stands by everything it said about fracking in fact the evidence is mounting against fracking all the time – showing that it does pose a risk to people and the environment and the climate.
The fact is that people……
RJ INTERRUPTING: “Show they evidence to prove that – because they said there was no evidence to back up the claims that you had made.”
RD: “In our formal agreement with the ASA they have dropped the case against us and as I say we stand by absolutely everything we have said ……
RJ INTERRUPTING AGAIN: “Well you have agreed not to repeat the claims so surely you accept that they are right?”
RD: “What we have said is that particular old leaflet produced around a year and a half ago will not be distributed anymore – and that is what we have agreed.”
RJ: “So have you got some evidence to prove that fracking causes cancer?”
RD:”Absolutely everything we said in that leaflet and that we say about fracking is backed up by evidence. Indeed we sent over 10 0 references to back up what we said in that leaflet…
RJ INTERRUPTING AGAIN: “Yes you sent it to the ASA so why on earth do they not believe you – if you sent them this compelling evidence?”
RD: ” Well they haven’t come back to us on the points we raised in the leaflet. The point they are making is that this leaflet is not circulated any more which it isn’t.
“Actually I think this is a distraction from the main point – and it is a distraction by Cuadrilla here, who complained against Friends of the Earth, when the fact remains that people in Lancashire do not want fracking and that is the point we should be talking about now.”
RJ: “The leaflet had a picture of Grasmere on the front of it. There are no plans to frack in Grasmere. You couldn’t frack in Grasmere. The fact is this leaflet was sent to sensationalise things from the start wasn’t it?”
RDL:”That picture was an illustration of the beautiful English countryside that Cuadrilla and other fracking companies would like to frack – for example there are plans to frack in places like Sherwood Forest and other places around the North West. The point remains that fracking poses a risk to people and it shouldn’t go ahead not in the North West and not anywhere.”
RJ:”Three years ago, as we said, Cuadrilla had to withdraw a leaflet of their own. The fact is there are some people watching this who support fracking, some people who don’t support fracking – but if neither side is completely transparent and making claims that are backed up and are 100 % true how on earth can people make an informed decision for themselves?”
RD: “As I said everything we said in our leaflet has been 100% backed up by many different studies and peer reviews……
RJ INTERRUPTING AGAIN: “They are claims… so you can sit there and say that as much as you like but you have agreed not to repeat the claims, that is what the ASA has told us. ”
RD: “If you take a step back from this and look at what is happening around the world in places where there has been fracking. In New York State they have banned fracking due to the significant risk to public health. It’s been halted or banned in the Netherlands, France, Germany and recently in Victoria, Australia. It hasn’t been halted or banned for no reason – it is because of the risk it poses and the environment.
RJ INTERRUPTING FOR THE LAST TIME: “And lots of places too where it hasn’t been banned…..We have run out of time. Many thanks.”
PMSL – There’s none so blind as those sitting 4000 miles away who get fed info that is incorrect. Roger Johnson is a TV interviewer on a local TV station Peeny. (But how would you known that LOL). He does a lot of interrupting doesn’t he? Just saying 🙂
There you go, John. Let’s not discuss the fact that FoE was absolutely destroyed on the show, utterly embarrassed, and that they continue to lie to cover up their previous lies. Yes, let’s talk about where I sit instead. That’s completely germane. You don’t look desperate at all, John. Again, this is a big victory for you so congratulations! ;o) LOL
Well Peeny as you obviously didn’t see it (as you thought it was on the radio), you won’t have realised how our favourite angry reporter Roger Johnson lost a lot of hos cool when he wasn’t able to push his interviewee around. I’d say Rose handled him pretty well, but then I actually saw the interview. You didn’t 🙂
Do I really have to keep telling you that simply restating reality doesn’t change it?
Yeah, Refracktion, I read the transcript. It sure read like she got the better of him! ;0)
And from the head of the ASA:
[Edited by moderator] Blog post here
and DrillOrDrop’s report here. [\edit]
You are really killing it, Refracktion! What great success for you! Well, accept for the fact that two and perhaps three sites will begin fracking this year and dozens of other applications are lined up, you lost the ASA thing, the Yorkshire council voted against you, the Secty of State voted against you, the planning officers in Yorkshire and Lancs voted against you…..keep up the great work! ;o)
No Peeny. I won the ASA thing – it was Cuadrilla who lost ! Do keep up old chap.
LOL. If that makes you feel better John.
Well better than you at least Peeny 🙂
Hey Johnny Boy, by my count, you lodged 18 claims against Cuadrilla. 13 of those 18 were knocked down. Of the 5 that were upheld, one was only partly upheld. So we’ll give you credit for 4.5 of 18. That’s a failing score, my boy! And the 4.5 that were upheld were for technical reasons, sometimes very subjectively.
On the other hand, Ken and Michael went four for four. That’s right, a perfect score of 100% for our friends. All of their claims were upheld despite vigorous opposition.
You lose just about any way you look at it Johnny Boy!
Well Peeny, let’s take a little look at one of those 13 as an example shall we?
Cuadrilla narrowly scraped away from censure for making claims that fracking won’t industrialise the countryside by persuading the ASA that they only planned to have 10-20 well sites in PEDL 165. With the EURs and 40 wells per pad predicted by the IoD report which Cuadrilla sponsored, 20 sites would only allow extraction of 2.5 Tcf of gas. That’s about half a years UK gas demand over a period claimed by Cuadrilla to the ASA (to be able to sustain their claim of “decades of employment” and wriggle out of another of the 13 problems) be “40–50 years”.
Is zero out of four really a perfect score in your eyes Peeny? No claims were “upheld” here. Do you not understand the words “informally resolved”?
It doesn’t matter how often you try to restate reality, you can’t change it old thing 🙂
Sorry you see it differently, John. But then again, you’re under so much pressure these days. Not only beaten by the sec of state, the planning agent in Lancs, the council in Yorkshire, the ASA, but now the Charity Commission with an investigation. Wow! That is a lot to handle.
Ken and Michael went four for four! Awesome!
As for your numbers on drilling, we shall see! If we use actual numbers from the Marcellus, each pad would deliver 200bcf, so 20 sites would deliver 4 tcf. But I think the numbers will be bigger than that based on the thickness of the Bowland.
The fantastic news is that we’ll be able to see who is right. Isn’t that right Johnny? Yes, because the work is starting. It’ll take some time, but don’t worry, the industry is going to rescue you my friend! LOL
Gosh 4 tcf from Pedl 165 – I’m trembling with excitement. I don’t think Frankie would be though 🙂
Good to see FoE exposed for what they are. Now goverment, the industry & all concerned for our economy should take a firm stand against the antics of FoE & their fellow travellers.
” Peaceful Protests ” by a cult blockading a hospital “for interfering with nature” would soon be dealt with. Are the green blob that different?
You are funny Rod – this was just an informal settlement – a sort of no score draw. Nobody has been exposed. Calm down. All you ranting about cults and hospitals and green blobs won’t be doing your blood pressure any good.
Interesting to read that these protesters against fossil fuel burning use gas burners for cooking and heating, driving car to their camp sites and park car on the road that cause disruption to local traffic and create unsafe road conditions to local daily life. The exact issues they bring up against Caudrilla and iGas in their planning applications.
This is no way a “no score draw”. I worked in marketing and this is the normal outcome for such a case. In commerce, it would mean all competitors would rush along and tell your customers they were buying a lie, and your P45 would be handed out pretty quick if you were responsible.
In this case, it will work against FOE in any legal case they may try and bring, and will seriously restrict their ability to fight cases, especially on top of the nonsense they tried in Yorkshire. They will still find gullible persons to fill their tins, so will probably continue, but their credibility to the legal profession and the planners will be eroded, so more like an “own goal” I would suggest.
Martin – if there is logic to what you say and we follow it to its conclusion then Cuadrilla are in exactly the same boat – just a couple of years further down the reputational damage line and with more holes below the water having had an actual ruling made against them.