GGP: Cuadrilla Has A Right to Engage with Schools: Ken Wilkinson

The statements, opinions and data contained in the content published in Global Gas Perspectives (GGP) are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s) of Natural Gas World. 

This article by Ken Wilkinson is in response to a GGP published August 1.

For the editor of Natural Gas World

I was surprised that you ran a piece from the anti fossil fuel blog ‘DeSmog UK’ by Frances Rankin.

For my part, I have tried hard to dispel some of the myths that surround this technology, and was the author of a widely reported complaint against Friends of the Earth This exposed the false claims they were making regarding shale gas. I have also taken the local opposition group to task (Resident Action on Fylde Fracking) when they also made false claims, as well as three other anti-shale gas groups.

My views are informed by 12 years as a graduate engineer for Schlumberger and later Halliburton as a wireline specialist. I was appointed as District Engineer for my final two years in Libya, in 1979. I then became a physics teacher, and am now totally independent and retired. When I started reading about the opposition [to fracking] I was surprised at the ridiculous claims made by people who appeared to have no knowledge of science or drilling. I then started to research using reliable sources of information and challenged false claims on some Facebook pages.

The responses were often abusive, followed by personal attack, followed by a block. It is the refusal of the antis to discuss science and evidence in any depth that means their campaign is ultimately doomed to failure. I frequently witness on social media, eminent scientists and experienced geophysical experts being criticised by people who seem to have problems with science, as well as basic English spelling and grammar. Fracking has become the new byword for ‘enlightened’ protesters who are convinced that the world can run on renewables. But who would protest about mobile phone masts these days? Less than a decade ago there was an opposition campaign based on fears of cancer….and that had about as much scientific credibility as the current shale gas debate.

Returning to the article, it takes issue with Cuadrilla sponsoring sports and school events. Why is this issue? It is common for companies to involve themselves in such matters. UK supermarket chain Tesco’s ‘Computers for Schools’ for instance.

In my 25 years as a secondary school physics teacher, I have been involved with various activities organised by banks and engineering companies like Cuadrilla, mainly. These have involved setting up imaginary businesses, learning to work as a team, designing some equipment, making model bridges to a budget and testing them and the like. The kids love these normally! Local sports teams are always happy to find a sponsor, to get free kit and other financial help. It helps companies establish their reputation and gives something back to society.

Why does Claire consider Cuadrilla to be a pariah?  The basic assumption is that they are an immoral company, because of their desire to safely extract a resource that the UK desperately needs. North Sea gas production is collapsing, our gas storage capacity is tiny, and we use gas to heat over 80% of our homes, and generate around half of our electricity. The chances are that activists will use gas that Cuadrilla may find, to heat their houses in winter, and to power their computers as they complain about using fossil fuels online.

One of the main ‘anti’ complaints is that water will be polluted. This is laughable, as can be seen in the list of regulations below. Friends of the Earth were specifically instructed not to repeat that claim in the Advertising Standards complaint that I made (see link above).

The protesters make reference to poor quality US based research that is supposed to show health effects due to shale gas. It’s a pity that Public Health England and many other highly respected health bodies have found that there are no issues, even in the US. The UK forbids the use of hazardous chemicals of the type cited in these reports. They ignore the hard evidence that airborne pollution and greenhouse gas emissions have dropped in the US. Coal usage has plummeted, as clean burning gas has replaced dirty coal.

As for having an employed graduate geologist coming in to give a talk, why not? Somehow the impression given is that the children will be told ‘lies’ by someone who has been ‘bribed’. The facts about fracking are pretty boring really. It’s a well-established technology that is very low risk, even when done badly, as happened a few times in the US in the early days. Even these events were bad drilling rather than hydraulic fracturing. These issues were all looked at by the Royal Academy of Engineering in 2012, and its report has been the basis of the regulatory system that precludes poor practice. That led to restrictions that include:

• No shallow fracking. At least 1000 metres depth.
• No drilling in water abstraction areas, and chemical proof wellpads are required.
• Regulated well design, including an extra layer of casing, and cementation to surface (if possible)
• No nasty chemicals, to follow the 2006 EU groundwater directive and the UK Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010
• No open storage of fluids, and environmental monitoring.
• Proper treatment of frack fluids
• No open flaring and so on.

Of course activists have been rolled out to talk of Cuadrilla trying to gain ‘social licence’. Why shouldn’t they? Are Cuadrilla a bunch of ill-educated psychopaths? You would think so, seeing some social media comments. In fact drilling attracts the best science graduates. Drilling companies have been subject to protest based on fake science, as can be seen by the fact that the opposition groups are unable to provide any credible evidence for their claims when challenged. The protesters have no interest in reading the Royal Academy of Engineering report, or other reputable technical papers on fracking from expert groups. One viewing of the latest cleverly produced propaganda film, a bit of chat and they are immediately ‘experts’ after all! The detailed planning document that approved the Cuadrilla operation would answer most of their questions, but it’s not on the bedtime reading list of protesters.

Now there are frequent road blockades and lock ons, arrests, violence, and intimidation around the Cuadrilla site. Policing costs are huge, with the blockages affecting ambulances and local businesses and residents. This has alienated local people. Suppliers have also been threatened, blockaded and subject to social media harassment.  Many have confused the right to protest with ‘direct action’ which generally means illegal actions.

Ineos has brought in a High Court Injunction on their sites to prevent this happening. That can only be a positive step. To allow a well-researched, licensed and legal activity to be stopped by a small group of ill-informed activists would be unacceptable in our society.

Ken Wilkinson 

The statements, opinions and data contained in the content published in Global Gas Perspectives are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s) of Natural Gas World.