Bishop Hill Shale fights back?
Feb 9, 2016 Energy: gas Do I detect a new, more aggressive approach toward the greens from the shale gas industry? An article in the Times today (£) implies that Cuadrilla were behind a complaint to the Charities Commission about the way in which Friends of the Earth (the charity) seemed to be engaged in campaigning activity:
The charity said: “Cuadrilla seem to be trying to silence their opposition. They should stop changing the subject from the real issues at stake and join us in engaging in democratic debate on fracking and climate change. Our campaign against fracking will continue.”
And this morning, Greenpeace - which also seems quite happy for its charitable arm to get involved in political campaigning and media stunts - has launched an occupation of Parliament Square, with a mockup of a shale drilling rig, complete with flaring. Which prompted a rather-more-cutting-than-usual response from the Onshore Operators' Group
Parliament Square stunt @greenpeace shows importance of regulation. Did they have flaring permit?
— UKOOG (@UKOOGroup) February 9, 2016
You have to say that it's about time the shale gas industry stopped lying back and hoping that the greens were going to adopt a more honest approach.
It's not what they do.
Reader Comments (48)
It is long past time both these outfits (GP + FoE) got a good seeing to.
While they're at it - can they take a few chunks out of WWF and FrackOff too?
Time to get on with it. We pay taxes to keep civil order - time we saw our money being used properly.
I thought that if you made a complaint to a Government body then your identity was protected.
If the charity commission has informed Fiends of the Earth who made the complaint then they may be breaking some regulation or other.
Alternatively Fiends of the Earth might just be making it up, not that they have form for that sort of thing.
The government has already announced that it will become illegal for any charity to campaign or lobby on political issues.
These outfits are no more a charity than I am.
And I am not a charity....
From the comments of Phil Clarke last week, intially stemming from FoE's insinuations that sand, as used in the fracking processes, could cause cancer, then it is not surprising that Cuadrilla are getting tough. There all sorts of claims that are either diversions, are prejudiced opinions, or fail to connect to the specific issue of fracking in the UK complying to current UK laws and regulations.
Given FoE's motive of stopping fracking by any means (including making unsubstantiated claims) a fair system would entitle Cuadrilla to claim damages for further nonsense claims. Alternatively, further claims made by FoE should be treated as nonsense until demonstrated otherwise.
On the basis of know your enemy - I follow their output (and other coverage) - and the notion that charity funding plays any part I really do find offensive and utterly wrong on every level.
The supine stance of the bland managers in the energy industries in particular and the idiotic "Beyond Petroleum" pandering to the "Green Movement" has given these gits a sense of invulnerability that has turbocharged their presumption. Let's hope the worm's turned etc.
Worthless parasites /self snip .... venting
I can't imagine a company trying to extract gas flaring it away would be that successful.
wrong @Dung "The government has already announced that it will become illegal for any charity to campaign or lobby on political issues."
It will be illegal to campaign or lobby on political issues using MONEY the UK GOVERNMENT pays in for projects.
They'll still be able to do it with the money the EU GIVES THEM and their private donated money.
Dung:
Not the way I read it, Dung. The government have said that charities must not use government grant money to pay for lobbyists. They may still use donations though. (Yeah, like how is that gonna work?)Rob Burton
oh, I dunno...
There has been a campaign to reduce it - but several years ago Nigeria was happily flaring off more gas in 28 days than the UK's entire annual consumption for all purposes - so the story went.... It's been photographed quite a lot from the ISS at night.
Of course - to challenge that state of affairs would be racist and it's the fault of the eeevil international oil companies ... except for the fact that the Nigerian government owns the lion's share.
Having personally seen quite a bit of flaring in producer countries (from mostly state owned facilities) - the silence of GP, FoE, WWF and their ilk on that topic tells it's own story. Had to chuckle when Lord Brown of BP went all transparency and all in Angola - for about 5 minutes.
From the comments of Phil Clarke last week, intially stemming from FoE's insinuations that sand
I got that wrong, and admitted as such.
Apologies for my incorrect understanding of our government's position :(
"Cuadrilla seem to be trying to silence their opposition." (FoE)
"Calling pot, kettle on line 2.."
stewgreen
The point has been made elsewhere that there is nothing wrong with any charity campaigning with donated money, but surely with the proviso that its donors should approve.
I've seen the suggestion (which I'm fully in favour of) that if FoE or anyone else were to set up a separate campaign fund then it is up to the donors to decide whether to put their money into that fund or not and that is what they should be required to do.
My problem is that I cannot see any way in which the eco-activist NGOs (unlike, say, the RSPCA or WaterAid) can by any sane definition be described as charities. As in, what charitable activities do they carry on? It seems that their entire raison d'être is to use any means, legal, illegal, moral, immoral, honest, dishonest, to get their own way in the face of what the majority of people want.The opposition to fossil fuels and their activities in that respect are typical.
As a footnote, the reports I have seen strongly suggest that those most opposed to the government proposal are those who would lose their access to the "great and the good". I reckons it's more about the effect on their egos than on the charity!
>join us in engaging in democratic debate on fracking and climate change.
Love it! The greens are going engage in democratic debate! When is this unprecedented, historical event going to happen?
Well I for one certainly hope this is a turning worm! GP/FoE/WWF have got away with their anti-fossil fuel "campaigns" for far too long, they need their wings well & truly clipped, perhaps hitting them in the wallet will do the trick! Perhaps the UNIPCC could have its funding reduced too!
Friends of the Earth ‘misled regulator’ over fracking campaign
(via Unthreaded Feb 9, 2016 at 10:57 AM Robert Christopher)
"One of Britain’s biggest charities altered documents after questions were raised about its political campaigning against fracking, The Times has learnt.(£) .. ah viewable here
Friends of the Earth stands accused of deceiving the regulator after claiming that its charitable arm was no longer lobbying against drilling for shale gas.
The green group changed anti-fracking statements made in the charity’s name. The changes suggested they had been published by a separate non-charitable company called Friends of the Earth Limited."
Remember in all fracking references to say "FoE Ltd (signifies limited honesty I suppose)
"Frack Free North Yorkshire is pretending to be a grass-roots #Yorkshire community group. But you're run by FoE Co Ltd from London"
UK trade figures published for 2015.
As I have suspected , goods deficit increased to £125 Billion despite the drop in oil prices.
This is primarily because the deficit with the EU28 increased from 79 billion to 89 billion with poor countries such as Spain pushed into ever increasing goods surplus.
This trade dynamic is not one of comparative advantage.
Its the more traditional usurer vs victim model.
The FT this morning stared this was just terrible when in fact it was the objective from the start.
They claim more efforts must be vectored toward exports ( cue behind door laughter)
When the core problem is lack of national and sub national production / consumption in both the deficit and surplus country.
Authorative source says fracking has made my hair go pink and made my eyebrows blue
(not actually a direct quote)
That "FoE misled" story was on the front page of the Times screenshot
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ee6a8c1a-cf17-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377.html#axzz3zgQs2wMD
Typical financial subterfuge from the FT.
It was not a policy failure.
It was success.
Only colonies export for company tokens.
The government has already announced that it will become illegal for any charity to campaign or lobby on political issues.
Feb 9, 2016 at 12:20 PM | Dung
================================
Do keep up Dung old chap. Greenpiss and Enemies of the Earth have a charitable arm and a commercial arm. The latter does the campaigning. Of course. So whilst the reversal of Gordon Brown's largely successful attempt to co-opt charities into campaigning for Labour, this will make no difference to this.
Greenpeace have a lot of form when it comes to breaking the law and ignoring H&S rules. They do not care who might get killed or injured by their stupidity.
Jeremy Poynton
"co-opt charities" ... - that reminds me that the jolly old Co-Op has been very active in the anti-fracking / SJW game - remember that they used their reach and bankrolled promotion / the distribution of Josh Fox's GasLand across the nation and have 32 Westminster MPs on leashes....
Andrew, for years the oil industry have been working hand in glove with the greens to push the government to increase oil prices. So, they have been more than happy to help fiends of the earth and green spin persuade the gullible public and politicians to increase energy prices (which went straight to their bottom line as profit).
But that relationship broke down when the high energy prices had their inevitable effect: massive recession - and when at the same time the US started massive fracking and further hit energy.
Now the oil companies are not so much dividing up the profit from the green=gullible boost to energy prices, but dividing up the job losses as our US friends wipe the floor with them as they undercut them.
The simple truth is that UK based oil companies are now in catch-up mode. As their dream of a green=high-energy-price future have fallen apart ... and now they are reaping the reward of all those years when they indulged in "green energy" and so cynically promoted the green agenda against the public interest.
Curious, Dork, when you know everything there is to know about economics and the modern world, that you are a cleaner.
Green blob concerned that Corbyn is stealing their thunder and their supporters and their votes.
Need a good protest stunt to get them back in the Headlines. Pick Parliment Square to do it ,maybe it was a protest aimed more at the current opposition than the current government.
So what is the Labour Party position on Shale would a future Corbyn Government revoke the previous Fracking licences.
If Corbyn as with Kinnock reluctantly has to keep Trident then he will reluctantly have to keep Shale.
Feb 9, 2016 at 2:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeremy Poynton
I already apologised boss, 'onest I did.
@Phil C
"I got that wrong, and admitted as such"
Really? What did you say?
PC,
It was not that you "got it wrong", it is that a group you had reason to trust deceived you.
Does that realization have any impact on your position regarding fracking?
Jeremy Poynton
The new government regulations on how they, the charities, spend government money leaves them open to requests to prove where the money comes from. As Mike Jackson has previously pointed out these aren't really charities in the traditional sense. Eventually the money will have to be shown to come from other sources with two effects, small donors such as those who take an annual membership and do sponsored marathons may not be happy with money they raised to save whales has gone to a group of demonstrators in Parliament Square. Second major high profile celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio and Bono may also find there is a hostile reaction to them funding political action and decide to also demand charity only, not that they'll be asked awkward questions on chat shows. We may also see much more details accounts being published as the charities prove the sources of money and where it goes.
This may take a little time to work through, and even longer for charitable status to be withdrawn.
Whenever I think of those thick Albionic shale formations I think of other insular thicknesses.
================
Can I offer to organise a Bishop Hill coach trip to Parliament square to watch the fun when Greenpeace erect a mock 50 acre solar farm and ten 100 metre Wind turbines in Parliament square, because obviously they would want to be objective in demonstrating the harm that renewables cause (when they work of course)
tonyb
Here is a good word ..................'menace'
I'm sure the oil and gas industry are more than happy to work with the greens to kill off the coal industry (or nuclear) knowing, as they do, that so-called "renewables" don't have a hope in hell of running an industrialised economy.
But "he who sups with the devil needs a long spoon" etc.
Dung, no worries! SandyS, age to all that. I believe Greenpeace have had their charitable status removed in both NZ and Canada. They and FoE give charities a bad name, tho' many are too big for their own boots. Time some pressure was put on them
Age = aye. Bloody tablet stabscreen
Presumably permission for this was obtained from Sir Bernard Hogan Howe. Is it his part of his revenge for being required to apologise to Lord Bramall?
I don't approve of Mr Putin, but Greenpeace aren't too keen on kicking off in Russia anymore. India has also adopted an attitude of meeting obstruction with an equally opposing obstructive attitude.
If you don't want to attract rats and other vermin, don't feed them or provide them with a comfortable place to live and breed. They can all go to Islington.
The anti-fracking campaign is simply a convenient front for people who for whatever reason, want to shut down oil and gas E&P.
They don't care what techniques are being used.
They don't really know anything about them anyway, just the propaganda.
The important thing is that they took ownership of the word "fracking" before anyone outside the industry had heard of it, and thus were able to control the flow of information to the public, aided by a wretchedly compliant media, with ludicrous films like Gasland and incessant internet activism.
Nothing but bluster, backtracking and sleight of word.
It's pointless confronting him. Clarke cedes nothing. He has form on other blogs. A century or so ago he would be pacing up and down the high street wailing that the end is nigh, wearing a board strapped to his back and front, throwing crucifixes and religious books at you, and when you confronted him, he'd throw a different colored book at you saying the pox is the devil's work due to those incombustible mechanisms.
I'll leave it up to EternalOptimist to sum up the situation, as he stated earlier:
BBC 6pm SE News gave the fracking protesters a free hit piece tonight, complete with featured soundbites from the green blob.
I note that the anti fracking protesters turned up in Blackpool in a hydro-carbon powered bus.
kellydown "The important thing is that they took ownership of the word "fracking" before anyone outside the industry had heard of it,"
What most people still fail to understand is that the anti-fracking campaign is largely of the oil-company's own making.
In the early 2000s when I was in the wind industry, the very big players were oil companies like BP and Shell. Indeed when I checked all the "BIG OIL" corps were set to make money from this huge global warming scam not only directly from their wind divisions but indirectly through the raising of oil prices as green protesters forced up the price of energy.
So, oil companies were working hand in glove with the greens. It was largely the oil companies that created the wind scam, they were the ones with the energy expertise - the greens were the ones with the public PR - and between the two they stuffed this diabolical scam onto the public.
But of course, just like the CIA funded Al Kidya and then regretted it after 911, so the oil companies were doing more than anyone else to increase the influence of green groups - until the price of oil collapsed with fracking and then suddenly UK companies found themselves having to do catch up - but now the same groups who were promoting their high energy prices turned against them when they tried to follow the US into the new lower cost energy sources of fracking.
If the oil companies had really had any interest in tackling the green groups rather than working with them to push the wind scam --- they would have actually funded us sceptics -- and we'd have had some real money to have stopped this scam becoming so endemic in the more stupider echelons of society.
So ... the oil companies made their own bed ... and I for one am not going out of my way to support them when they were actively working against proper sceptical based science (until it suited them to turn coats).
@Mike Jackson, Feb 9, 2016 at 1:34 PM
Mike, good post. Agree with most, but, but...
*RSPCA has been discredited and shown to be a political campaign group for years, same as RSPB.
+ WaterAid
In every £1 we spend, 78p on delivering WASH services and influencing decision makers. - obfuscation, lump the two together, suggests lobbying is primary aim.
eg: WaterAid, climate change and the road to the UN Conference on Climate Change 9 Dec 2015
No link to accounts on home page is more obfuscation.
I only donate to charities that receive (last time I looked) £0 from Gov't, EU etc eg RNLI, PDSA, Hols for Heroes
P
Pcar.
I only donate to local charities, where I know my money is well spent and whose accounts are openly available and thus trustworthy. I'd rather walk on broken glass, than give to a green advocacy or, some bunch of Common Purpose ****wit social engineering faux do gooders like 'Save the Children'.
Mike H, one of the reasons I understood for oil companies getting involved in this stuff was to get concessions to allow further drilling and also fear of further punitive taxes and sanctions.
You mentioned BP & Shell, but from what I could see they weren't just the tip of the iceberg, they were the iceberg. Not so much other majors like ExxonMobil, who weren't afraid to call it like they saw it.
Their position, then as now, was like: We hire the best engineers in the world. We do our own research. Why should we listen to your guys?