Lies Propaganda and Methane

I find myself an unlikely defender of fracking. This is not because I think there is anything particularly dodgy (or wonderful) about fracking but because I think that gas is only useful in the short term. The hope for a low pollution low emissions future lies firmly with nuclear.

Even so, I feel I need to blog the rampant scare mongering, lies and black propaganda surrounding what is a relatively minor modification to a well established industrial activity.

I wont bore you with yet another synopsis of fracking or how fracturing rock in non horisontal wells has been common practice for about 40 years. Instead I'll cut straight to the fear mongering surrounding fracking.

Fear Mongering Item One: Water Table Pollution

After years of outright lies, faked or irrelevant videos (including flaming faucets) and other general hysteria about water table pollution, the US Environmental Protection Agency produced a mammoth report on the potential and real impacts of Fracking on drinking water (Executive Summary Here)

This report, while carefully worded, essentially demolishes the whole basis of the propaganda alleging widespread pollution and water contamination from fracking.

True, there have been a small number of spills and pollution incidents, mainly from poor well head and surface maintenance. These have been dealt with and in some cases prosecuted as you would expect.

In the USA, fracking is a very, very large and diverse industry. Sadly occasional errors do and will occur. All industries suffer similar and often much worse failures.

But rampant water table pollution? No.

Black propaganda always has a shelf life. Today the lies and gross exaggeration peddled about fracking and water table damage is now pretty much an embarrassing busted flush.

So instead, now we have:

Fear Mongering Item Two: Methane Leaks

Using natural gas (Methane) as a replacement for coal in Electrical generation cuts the Carbon Dioxide emissions by about a half. That is why people are excited about it as a way to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions.

Since around 2007 when Fracking took off in the USA Fracking gas has replaced coal to such an extent that USA Carbon Dioxide emissions from electrical generation have been reduced by about 15%.

Her is a graph on how its dropped in the last few years.

It might not look like much but it is the largest drop for any country in the world in the last ten years. Today Dirty USA has electricity emissions that are lower than Energiewende obsessed Germany.

Notice how the drop correlates with the rise in fracking in the graph below.

So whats not to like?

Methane is a Greenhouse gas about 25 times more virulent than Carbon Dioxide. So if you use Methane to cut down Carbon Dioxide emissions by replacing Coal with it, but then manage to lose somewhere between 4 and 7% of your gas into the atmosphere you end up back at square one. Lose a higher percentage and you are in negative territory.

(First of all - as an analogy, would you happily slop close on to a gallon of fuel over your shoes every time you filled your car because the filler cap leaked? Or would you get it fixed?)

The general anti-fracking hysteria surrounds a respectable 2013 paper by Karion Sweeney et. al. In their paper on a single day they measured rogue Methane above one area of the USA. They found leakage rates corresponding to 6-11%.

Is that bad? Yes.

Does it need investigating further? Yes.

Does it mean that gas fields in USA are leaking between 6-11%? No.
(Paper is Here)

To be fair to Karion, Sweeney and colleagues - they do say in the introduction:
[quote]
This study demonstrates the mass balance technique as a valuable tool for estimating emissions from oil and gas production regions and illustrates the need for further atmospheric measurements to determine the representativeness of our single-day estimate and to better assess inventories of
CH4 emissions.
[unquote]

The main and most definitive source for data on Methane and other gaseous emissions in the USA is the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). They have been accumulating evidence on American rogue Methane for over 30 years.

Firstly the EPA have produced a breakdown of the different industrial areas that release rogue Methane. (document ref Here )

They also give an idea of Methane release by year.

From this graph we see rogue Methane from all sources has actually fallen by 15% since 1990 to 2013. The greatest decrease has actually coincided with the massive shale gas bonanza from 2007. Furthermore the EPA state that while rogue Methane has fallen by 15%. the rogue Methane emitted by farming has actually risen and has been offset by a bigger fall in release of rogue Methane from the oil and gas industry. So while fracking has been rapidly expanding, Methane loss has actually gone down in the oil and gas industry by somewhere between 15-20%.

The main reason organisations like the FoE continually promote mistruths about Methane release is because of the success Gas has had in cutting Carbon Dioxide emissions in the USA while their poster boys of wind and solar have barely scratched the surface. Gas has shown us how their dogmatic obsession with wind and solar has led us all down a blind alley.

We must make sure we judge fracking in the UK by the plentiful scientific evidence from the USA and not by the manipulated half truths from the FoE.

The Devils Mark and the UKIP Witch.

As the General Election approaches we watch a comedic and vacuous contest between the main parties as they attempt to variously bribe, frighten or deceive the electorate into electing them.

The major parties need bogeymen. So whether it's the SNP, Plaid Cymru, UKIP or the Greens, you can bet the spin doctors are working overtime vilifying those who threaten their traditional voting base.

Generally the pompous self serving propaganda is more high farce than high politics.

But even so, a special and vile black propaganda is reserved for “racist” UKIP. While the other minor parties are disliked, UKIP is despised - and feared. Probably because it offers the biggest immediate threat to the status quo.

Racist. What a word!

A vile word speaking of Eugenics, pseudo science and demonic bigotry.

A word that today, is chanted, screamed and spat out. A vile word currently aimed at generally decent and politically virginal folk. Folk who generally wouldn't know how to be racist if they tried.

It is the modern day equivalent of the 17^th century Witch-Finder judgement of Witch! Witch! Witch!

A word of hate screamed with the aim of subjugating opposition and silencing dissent.

Most of the supporters of UKIP are blue collar working people. Folk who feel impelled to support UKIP because they feel disenfranchised by the ruling metropolitan elites. In some ways UKIP support is a mirror of the way working class Scots have rallied behind the SNP and abandoned a complacent, tired and irrelevant Scottish Labour Party.

But Racist!

The word racist, by such gross misrepresentation, loses its meaning. It is now a word that has become the property of anti-democratic bigots all the way from the upholstered boardrooms at the BBC down through to the vile spiteful losers that inhabit the sewer like recesses of the extreme left.

But the word racist screamed out by a hate filled zealot and aimed at a decent, kind and moral 80 year old pensioner is of course, still sadly undeniable. Just as terrified young girls in the 17^th century found that being tortured and then declared a witch was undeniable as well.

In the 17^th century a woman accused of witchcraft would be “Pricked”. Pricking involved drawing blood with a needle. If a place was found that either didn't bleed or had maybe become numb from the torment then the woman bore the “Devils Mark” and was clearly a witch.

It was a pathetically stupid way of determining guilt for a non crime.

Today's equivalent of pricking is the continual hostile interrogation. The perpetual attempts to put words into people's mouths. The sneering innuendo and trickery perpetrated on simple folk as they seek to explain their position. A media inquisition (led by the BBC) intent on building an ugly image, no matter how false.

Truly, like other political parties, UKIP policies need to be subjected to tight scrutiny and clear analysis but conducting a hate filled pogrom against their right to free-speech is simple mindless witch hunting.

There is no place for it in modern society.

Please Note:

Billothewisp is not a member of UKIP or any other political party. He knows nobody within UKIP. He has never had any direct contact with anyone within UKIP. He is unlikely to vote UKIP in the coming General Election. 

He does however believe in free speech. 

If such a travesty was perpetrated against the Lib-Dems or the Greens or even the Labour or Conservative parties, he would write the same.

The Merchants of Doubt

I know some folk who read this blog are nervous about Nuclear power or even out-right hostile.

Today I do not want you to listen to my reasoning as to why Nuclear is the only practical solution to our problems. Instead I would ask you to read  the following quote from one of the greatest scientists who has ever lived.

Then I would ask you to look at the people who have previously advised you to be against Nuclear.

Look at them closely. What are their skills? Where is their expertise?

How good are they actually as scientists? How many papers have they published in leading journals?

How do they compare with the likes of pro-nuclear scientists like Hansen, Lovelock, Wigley and Allinson?

Anyway, here's the quote:

Dr James Hansen writes:

[quote]

The public is unaware of pressure put on scientists to be silent about nuclear power.

After I mention nuclear power I receive numerous messages, often heart-breaking in their sincerity as they repeat Caldicott like unfounded assertions and beg me not to mention nuclear power.

More disconcerting is the pressure from environmental organizations and the liberal media. Each large environmental organization has a nuclear “expert” (often a lawyer, not a physicist) with a well-developed script to respond to any positive statement about nuclear power.

Liberal media follow precisely the “merchants of doubt” approach that the right-wing media use to block action on climate change; raising fears about nuclear power is enough to stymie support. The liberal media employ not only environmental organization “experts”, but former heads of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) appointed during Democratic Administrations.

These NRC talking heads are well-spoken professionals with a spiel that has been honed over years. And they have a track record. The NRC, despite its many dedicated capable employees, has been converted from the top into a lawyer-laden organization that can take many months or years to approve even simple adjustments to plans. 

It is almost impossible to build a nuclear power plant in the United States in less than 10 years, and this is not because an American worker cannot lay one brick on top of another as fast as a Chinese worker. Anti-nukes know that the best way to kill nuclear power is to make it more expensive.
[unquote]

Those are the exact words of one of the worlds leading scientists. the full text of his statement is Here (the above extract, fully in context, is on page 15.)

Now, ask yourself this: Who is telling the truth?

The world leading scientist and his many peer level colleagues?

Or the propaganda department from Greenpeace?

Half truths at the Guardian

Look at this hopelessly partisan propaganda piece from the Guardian. Half truths, cherry picked data and innuendo like this should shame any editorial desk. ( See HERE )

Like all propaganda, this piece is based around a morsel of truth. But it then goes on to vent its bigotry in as many flavours of nudge-nudge-wink innuendo as it can possibly manage.

Laughably they shoot themselves in the foot with a graph, (below) which actually is about the only truly unsullied part of the article. Maybe they thought their Guardian readership would be overawed with a graph, even if it junks most of their propaganda.

So let us look at this a little more.

True - carbon emmissions went up last year in the UK by 3.1%. But if you look at the graph you will see that the shock-horror-probe "blip" is actually a decreasing trend spanning many years.

True - this 3.1% is the first rise in a very long time, But then the previous years drop (8.7%) was unprecendented, as was the recession.

Also true - the increase was made worse by break downs in our old nuclear plant, most of which is at the end of its life. Perhaps instead of making ridiculous statements about the "fickleness" of nuclear power, these two dismal journalists should address the need for more nuclear now. I would put money on it though that the last thing they would support would be more nuclear, irrespective of the consequences for carbon emissions.

Instead it looks like they are dedicated followers of fashion and would rather kill a few thousand more old folk with their ludicrous though very trendy windmills, which unfortunately, are the truly ineffective option.

Nuclear, like all rotating machinery may break down but at least when it is up and running it generates useable quantities of power. Except for mechanical breakdown it will perform.

Of course, whether wind farms produce any power at all at a particular time  is a total lottery.

Their silence about the appalling performance of the wind farms last year is deafening - again we see just more propaganda -leave out the bits that don't fit with your wishful thinking.

One thing we should have all learned from the cold snap last year (including this hopeless pair of propagandists) is that so called "green" energy - especially the Wind Turbine fleet was hopelessly ineffective.

Old nuclear plant may have broken down and needed fixing but the wind turbine fleet, at crucial times, simply did not work. Fixed or not.

Of course they also drag in their mates from Greenpeace, WWF and New Economics Foundation who can be relied on to issues various flavours of "Its a bloody disgrace".

But for all their pompous bluster they simply cannot disguise the truth so graphically displayed in their graph.

The UK's carbon emissions are on a long term downward trend, and that this is with no thanks whatsoever to their beloved windmills.

The Cucumbers are Innocent OK?

Germany: Strain O105 E-Coli.

25 dead. Approaching 3000 infected. 800 very seriously ill.

Billothewisp admits he got it wrong. The Spanish Organic cucumbers were not to blame. They were infected with the wrong strain of E-Coli. That is of course assuming that there is a right strain of E-Coli in the first place.

But whatever.

It would appear that the cow shit sprayed onto these wronged veggies held the wrong version of the E-Coli infection. Basically the E-Coli outbreak has, as yet, not been pinned down.

But we do know where it is. We also know what it has done so far.

So, is this a not a major disaster? Should we indulge in a little hysteria? Maybe spread some fear and panic?

So here goes. Panic And Fear Mode ON:

Already 25 are dead with 800 whose lives are seriously compromised.

Even with the 3000 lesser infections: How many of these in future years will develop cancer or other fatal illnesses?

How many more infections will there be?

How many will die now?

But more importantly, how many will die later?

How many are so mildly infected that they do not even know thay have been infected?

We know millions of will die in future years from cancer and other illnesses. Can anyone say with certainty that these deaths were not triggered by a mild unreported dose of E-Coli?

How many more will die because they stopped eating healthy vegetables and then develop cancer (in later years) from the junk food they subsequently indulged in?

In fact, should we not evacuate the German state of Saxony-Anhalt until the emergency is over?

Perhaps we need to draw a 20Km exclusion zone around the centre of the outbreak.

We could forcibly re-locate the people into shelters and school halls until the emergency is over.

Perhaps we should spend billions "decontaminating" Saxony-Anhalt, so even the smallest possibility that any form E-Coli benign or otherwise, is eradicated.

You know, Just in case.

After all, if it is good enough for Fukishima, where no one died and barely anyone was "infected", surely we need to adopt similar draconian tactics to stop this E-Coli outbreak in Germany.

If you live in Saxony-Anhalt then maybe you should be afraid. Very afraid.

Panic And Fear Mode OFF:

So. Are you panicked? On the verge of Hysteria? Did that hit the mis-information spot for you?

Besides the body count (Saxony-Anhalt: 25 Fukishima: 0)  the main difference between The Saxony-Anhalt Disaster and the Fukishima Disaster is the tsunami of self serving hysteria from the press that surrounded Fukishima.

While there is obviously a great deal of concern over the E-Coli outbreak, the press, so far, have avoided the incoherent feeding frenzy of fear that accompanied the difficulties in Fukishima.

In years to come, the "Fukishima Disaster" that killed no-one, and injured maybe 20 workers will still be held up as a item of fear and dread.

While a preventable toxin, produced in bovine effluent that killed dozens and crippled hundreds, leaving many in need of a transplant, will be quietly forgotten.

Nobody will remember the Saxony-Anhalt Disaster. Except maybe those left bereaved or on dialysis.

Worse still, you can guarantee that sometime, somewhere in the world the Saxony-Anhalt Disaster will be repeated again, and again, and again.

But (sensibly) we won't stop eating vegetables.

---

p.s. I just read on Google News that it may have been the Cucumbers all along. See News Report Here

Dare I say: Cucumbers  are obviously intrinsically unsafe. Maybe they should be be banned?

You know it makes (non)sense

Subliminal Propaganda

I awoke this morning to a set of adverts on the radio. Not nice at the best of times.

I counted. There were six.

Of these, four (yes four) were self promotional government propaganda.

Of the other two, one was for Vauxhall vans. (fair enough)

The other was for a foreign car manufacturer bragging about how you/he could extract £2000 of my taxes for your old banger.

One of the pieces of government propaganda one was actually repeated. Once at the beginning of the ad slot and once at the end.

How do these crooks get away with this?

This country is supposed to be broke and yet there is plenty of dosh floating around to buy the Labour party a little more subliminal promotion at our expense.

How much do they spend on this stuff? I know the grotty little global warming diatribe cost £6 million. I imagine this trite junk costs about the same.

Have we got money to burn?

There seems to have been a noticeable upturn in this dirty political self promotional rubbish. The government sponsored propaganda is everywhere. I do not know how to tap into this but there must be a way of seeing if this is (as I suspect) being ramped up as the election nears. Anyone know a way?