For a catalogue of Paul Mobbs’ research outlining the government manipulation of facts, creating the dodgy dossier behind Owen Paterson’s and Cameron’s policy pronouncements on fracking, go to his website’s latest report from May 2014 –
In paragraph 1, estimates of output are doubled to massage the figures.
Paragraph 3 makes it clear that all the risks of loss will fall on the taxpayer leaving the oil companies free to destroy the environment at will.
The assessment of industry reports used as sources for the report regarding exposure of people around the world to chemical and radioactive pollutants was cut off at December 2012. Funny how that avoids the primary reports which all came out in 2013.
This is ‘Iraq War’ level of information ‘mishandling’, at the very top of the deception scale. Alastair Campbell would have been proud. Fracking safety is as big a lie as was Saddam Hussein’s 45 minute Weapons of Mass Destruction. Cameron is matching Blair in his adoption of untruth and manipulation to drive through a programme designed to kill thousands of human beings and drive them from their homes.
The final weasel words are telling. The report summarises that all will be OK as long as operations are properly managed and regulated.’ That’s a great get-out clause if ever there was one. Authored by weasel writers, David McKay and Timothy Stone for the carefully named Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Facts such as these are omitted.
Pennsylvania. Major regional pollution from fracking.
Rivers downstream from fracking contain 8X the permitted level of radioactive waste.
Water is full of chemicals including bromide, which is said by justifiers to enable less chlorine to be used in the public water supply.
The worst air pollution takes place where they clean the gas, taking out impurities (not to mention methane leaking to the surface above the fracks)
Effects on human health include respiratory problems, birth defects, nausea, skin rashes, nosebleeds, sickness and other effects. Progressive nervous system collapse.
The water, which is retrieved, (Only partial. 50% at best) is reprocessed, and the filter cake is sent to landfill, polluting and irradiating for thousands of years to come. The run off goes into rivers, and the rest lodges in the water table permanently.
One other fact I caught from Paul Mobbs was that Local Councils are not allowed to investigate pollution where fracking’s concerned. Only the Enironment Agency can do so. Many fracks take place much nearer the surface than frackers maintain that they do.
Add to that that half the drills in the US are losing money. The financial effects of fracking are another lie. It’s a madness from start to finish in any conventional analysis. It’s only when you place fracking into the context of Agenda 21 that you can start to see why it’s happening round the globe. It’s designed to clear the countryside of people, pure and simple. It’s an economic and environmental disaster, deliberately caused to meet the objectives of those who desire the objectives of Agenda 21 to be achieved.
For the details of Agenda 21, watch Youtube – Agenda 21 For Dummies.
EXTRACT FROM PAUL MOBBS
Section 2. The MacKay-Stone report on shale gas and climate change
Arguably their position regarding the low climate impacts of shale gas cannot be supported from a
detailed reading of the text of the report. It states the opposite in fact – that there is no clear evidence
to support many of the current assertions about unconventional gas extraction in the UK. As stated in
in Appendix B
‘In the absence of information about the quality of the UK’s shale gas we have assumed that shale
gas would produce similar emissions to those in the production and processing of conventional gas.’
It would appear, irrespective of any evidence to the contrary, that the Government believes
shale gas development in Britain to be acceptable in terms of its impact upon the climate; and
that this position is based upon an assumption, not upon fact.
This presents significant legal
obstacles in relation to the Government’s policy, which will be discussed further in section 5
the description of the impacts of pollution from hydraulic fracturing shows a
misunderstanding of the mechanisms involved in hydrogeological pollution migration. Likewise the
discussion of pollution from drilling, and from well failure mechanisms, demonstrates a disregard for
the large amount of information available on this subject.
page 4 A critical review of UK Government policy on unconventional fossil fuels and climate change place at depth can also be invalidated if we examine the geology of the areas which are to be exploited
released under the Government’s 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Licensing Round (see section 8A)……..
Building upon the Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering review, the MacKay-Stone
report makes various assertions about risk, the regulation of environmental pollution, and the
safety of the shale gas process. If we look at the evidence available – and in particular at more
wide-ranging studies of the environmental risks of oil and gas development –
This faith in the
low risk of operation, and the way in which regulation can guarantee this, cannot be
More recent studies have identified significant environmental hazards from
At the same time studies of the financial or energy effects of these
processes do not show them to be as positive as anticipated.
Therefore, these reports do not
demonstrate that the risks of shale gas operations are quantifiable, nor that they are
controllable, nor that they are justified by the benefits created.
The assumption within the Government’s energy policy is that natural gas is a cleaner fuel than coal
or oil. That, as I will outline below, may be a highly questionable assumption. During 2011/2012
various studies questioned the role of natural gas as a “bridge fuel” to a low carbon energy system.
The production of the MacKay-Stone report is, arguably, the Government’s attempt to counter these
studies, and to bolster the reputation of natural gas.
Chronologically, MacKay and Stone begin their review with Brown’s study of the policy implications
of growing shale gas resources.
Digging through the literature we can find earlier studies which
examine the apparently high rates of fugitive emissions which are common with unconventional fossil
fuels, such as the Southern Methodist University study of fugitive emissions in the Barnett Shale.
© May 2014 Paul Mobbs/MEI – http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/ page 5