#BBCbias on Fracking: Shalegas in your water

Posted: January 27, 2015 by tallbloke in Accountability, alarmism, Shale gas
Tags: ,

bbc-greenpeace-medThe BBC doesn’t like fracking. This is evident from their coverage over the years (example). In order to ramp up concern, they use every trick in the book. This one is a diagram they use which is designed to worry people about shalegas getting into the water table, and the ongoing presence of a big ugly tower (wind turbines anyone?) making a blot on the lanscape. Of course, they include a ‘not to scale’ grey on a grey background label for plausible deniability purposes.

UPDATE: Josh has kindly send a ‘to scale’ drawing for us to refer too. BBC take note. See bottom of post.


Below the break, I’ve made an improved version which the BBC is welcome to make use of if they are interested in escaping further criticism of their blatant bias. I left them some tidying work to do, since I don’t get paid for correcting their deceptive output.



  1. Go the extra mile…..Add it.

  2. Stephen Richards says:

    Even that method is changing now. In Canada they are experimenting with ultra-sound instead of pressurised water

  3. tallbloke says:

    Fen: Might fit better on one of your cartoon graphics!

  4. wolsten says:

    Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
    TallBloke countering misleading propaganda by the BBC.

  5. M Simon says:

    Europe would rather be at the mercy of Putin?

  6. tallbloke says:

    UKIP’s Roger Helmer on wider EU energy policy

  7. tallbloke says:

    UPDATE: Josh has kindly send a ‘to scale’ drawing for us to refer too. BBC take note. See bottom of post.

  8. thefordprefect says:

    Natural fractures can extend 1000metres upwards. simulated fractures 500metres. Fracking depth is between 2000m and 3000m
    this report suggests at least 600metres should exist between aquifers and fracking depth.


    So your graphic is also invalid since it should show fractures going up 1/3rd the distance to the aquifer.

    You also have to maintain the structure of the well – leakage would be disastrous – for the life of the aquifer

    Of course you have not mentioned disposal of fracking and produced fluids. Down another bore hole – I hope not!

  9. tallbloke says:

    Ah, here’s the bloke who told us large wind turbines don’t fall down. Where have you been? 🙂
    So 2000-1000=1000=400m more than your safety margin. Around half a kilometre of rock.

    You also have to maintain the structure of the well – leakage would be disastrous – for the life of the aquifer

    The life of the pipework easily exceeds the productive life of the well. This is just fearmongering.

    Of course you have not mentioned disposal of fracking and produced fluids.

    You can be sure our zealous ministry enviro-monitors will be making sure disposal is careful and expensive.

  10. Rubbish Fordperfect. I bet you never have been underground in a coal mine and have seen CSG extracted for a) safety and b) to produce electricity in converted to gas large diesel engines, as I have. Removal of the CSG does not change the overall structure of the coal seam. Even removing 3m seam of coal some 300m or more underground does not usually cause any surface subsidence or in anyway affect the aquifer. I have been in coal mines under rivers and even under the ocean. Green trolls who have no technical qualifications or experience often spread lies. They should be taken to court where they will tell the truth or be jailed for perjury..

  11. Signifiantly; fraccing for shale gas is done below the natural, impermeable layer of tyically clay, well below any aquifer.

    If it weren’t for the impermeable layer, much of the gas would already have percolated to the surface.

  12. Richard111 says:

    “”If it weren’t for the impermeable layer, much of the gas would already have percolated to the surface.””

    And of course polluted the water on the way up. Lucky for us the dinosaurs didn’t complain.

  13. graphicconception says:

    This picture is relevant too. It is courtesy of Bishop Hill. What is blighting the landscape here?


    Correct, it is full of gas production sites!

  14. oldbrew says:

    Since about 99% of the UK public gets its drinking water via mains supplies, all those people get their water cleaned up by the supplier anyway.

  15. DD More says:

    M Simon says: at 11:37 am
    Europe would rather be at the mercy of Putin?

    Well he is paying for the opposition with Russian oil interest money.


    The interest of Russian oil companies and American environmentalist financiers intersect at a Bermuda-based law firm called Wakefield Quin. The firm acts as a corporate registered agent, providing office space for clients, and, for some, “managing the day to day affairs,” according to its website.
    As many as 20 companies and investment funds with ties to the Russian government are Wakefield Quin clients. Many list the firm’s address on official documentation.
    Klein Ltd. also shares that address. Documents filed with Bermuda’s registrar of companies list just two individuals associated with the company: Hoskins, Wakefield Quin senior counsel and managing director, and Marlies Smith, a corporate administrator at the firm.

    The only publicly available documentation of any business conducted by Klein Ltd. were two Internal Revenue Service filings by the California-based Sea Change Foundation, which showed that Klein had contributed $23 million to the group in 2010 and 2011. Klein Ltd. was responsible for more than 40 percent of contributions to Sea Change during those years.
    The foundation passed those millions along to some of the nation’s most prominent and politically active environmentalist groups. The Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Food and Water Watch, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Center for American Progress were among the recipients of Sea Change’s $100 million in grants in 2010 and 2011.

    The Sierra Club, which received nearly $8.5 million from Sea Change in 2010 and 2011, launched its “Beyond Natural Gas” campaign the following year. The effort has become one of the largest and best-funded environmentalist campaigns combating fracking and the extraction of natural gas in general.
    Sea Change’s “skeletal staff quietly shovels tens of millions of dollars out the door annually to combat climate change. And that’s pretty much all it does,” noted Inside Philanthropy, which awarded the foundation its “sharpest laser focus in grantmaking” award last year.
    Nathaniel Simons and his wife run the foundation and are, except for Klein Ltd., its only donors. Simons, a hedge fund millionaire who commutes to work across San Francisco Bay aboard a 50-foot yacht, also runs a venture capital firm that invests in companies that benefit from environmental and energy policies that Sea Change grantees promote.
    Simons himself has ties to Klein Ltd. Several Wakefield Quin attorneys are listed as directors of hedge funds that his firm manages, and in which Sea Change has assets.

  16. Kon Dealer says:

    Sent the BBC “propaganda” diagram and Josh’s reality check to my local MP.
    The crackpot, eco-loon, Julian Huppert.

  17. hunter says:

    Again: Are the citizens of the UK uniquely incompetent, or are the laws of geophysics and engineering so different in the UK that fracking is somehow more dangerous in your country?
    Every other place in the world where fracking is done is free of the problems your caring informed government and state media are so concerned about. I am worried about my ancestral homeland. If physics don’t work the same, or if somehow Brits are not capable, then the rest of the world must pitch in and help with this terrible problem. Text books must be rewritten to explain the diffferences. Those incapable of doing what everyone else in the world does well should be assisted. Certainly the problem could not be due to lying cynical extremists posing as environmentalists instead, could it?

  18. tallbloke says: