Comments on: Fracking: what is the British government trying to hide?

By: Obsidian

Obsidian — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:22:00 +0000

In reply to Alan Tootill. Yes I have read the report. No I am not paid, but I dislike bullsXXt and this report is BS of the highest order. The regs are very tight, ask anyone who works in them. Mike Hill has been exposed as a fraud and has no experience of WORKING in the regs. Flowback fluid (when it is not reinjected) has to be treated under licence from the EA. They licence all potential polluters and require a certain standard. Its all been looked at by proper scientists, not ill informed authors.

By: Nick Grealy

Nick Grealy — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 11:58:00 +0000

John, the Medact report was based on the same bad science as anti-vaccination and anti fluoridation.

I note that you continue to promote your FCO experience that ended in 2002. Things have changed somewhat since then. Perhaps you should speak to the US and Chinese negotiators for Paris today instead of relying on yesterday’s “achievements”?

By: Alan Tootill

Alan Tootill — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 10:16:00 +0000

Obsidian you really are deliberately attempting to mislead or have not read the Medact report. In case you have not read it, or for the benefit of others to enable them to form their own opinion, there is a link below.

To say Medact do not know there are regulations is patent nonsense. They query whether existing regulation is adequate, a very different matter.

As to pollutants, lead,
arsenic, chromium, cadmium; NORM and radon are not in fracking fluids, they are released from the shale. This is already demonstrated by the Preese Hall experience to be an issue in the UK just as it is in the US.

Pro-industry shill you may be, but you really do not enhance your argument by promoting untruths. If this is part of what the industry says it wants – a balanced and reasoned debate – you are not helping.

http://www.medact.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/medact_fracking-report_WEB3.pdf

By: gscales631

gscales631 — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 07:17:00 +0000

The Medact report was fundamentally flawed – it didn’t even know what country it was in. It also took data for 3 of its chapters from an anti fracking lobbyist who is running for parliament on that ticket and so benefits financially and politically by the report, but who never declared it to Medact.

Read:

http://frackland.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/medact-vs-british-columbia.html

and just: http://frackland.blogspot.co.uk/

in general.

The author is a geologist at Bristol university with no conflicts of interest and nothing more than a love of real science who cannot believe how much the anti fracking side is lying.

By: mulga mumblebrain

mulga mumblebrain — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 01:02:00 +0000

In reply to Obsidian. Industry apologist. The only question is whether it is paid or is a volunteer driven by Rightwing hatred of life and other people.This is the type that denies EVERY single ecological catastrophe and who have driven our species to self-destruction, for no greater purpose than sheer, insatiable, greed.

By: Obsidian

Obsidian — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 10:45:00 +0000

So much about the fundamentally flawed Medact report. They dont even know that there are regulations in the UK, and that chemicals scares they raised are with chemicals that are not permitted in the UK. Have you read this open

letter? https://www.facebook.com/groups/662867413859014/694177364061352/

or seen the UKOOG response? http://www.ukoog.org.uk/about-ukoog/press-releases/146-shale-gas-industry-says-medact-report-fails-to-understand-uk-regulatory-system-and-lacks-credibility