Collaborator

Researcher

Verifiability

Sourcer

I am a retired physics teacher and an oil rig engineer before that. I graduated from Manchester University in Engineering, and worked for 2 years for Schlumberger as a wireline engineer. After a break of 3 years I joined Halliburton in their wireline department and finished as District Engineer, dealing with problem wells and advising oil engineers. I worked offshore and onshore in Libya, Kuwait, Taiwan, Bangladesh, the Philipines, Saudi Arabia. I then left the oilfields for 25 years of Physics teaching in secondary schools.

Is editing based on established science and regulation a POV?

I am involved in the debate about Hydraulic Fracturing, using my engineering experience to ensure scientific accuracy. I am however totally independent from the industry. Is it a POV to trust organisations like the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Environment Agency, the HSE, the British Geological Survey, Public Health England and the like? That is what I have used as a basis for my edits rather than the ample amounts of dubious pseudoscience around. Wikipedia should be based on solid evidence. I have made several complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority against anti frack organisations including Friends of the Earth^[1], Resident action on Fylde Fracking (RAFF)^[2] and others, including Breast Cancer UK and Medact. In all cases, once the science has been discussed, these organisations have withdrawn their claims as they were based on inaccurate science. In the case of the Medact report, I made a professional complaint that was not upheld against one of the authors, and it was reported in the Lancashire County Council comments on that report that "Unfortunately one of the contributors (contributing to three of the report’s six chapters (ie 2, 4 and 5)) has led a high profile campaign in the Fylde related to shale gas. This has led to questions from some quarters about the report’s objectivity. In light of these uncertainties it is not clear how much weight the county council should attach to the report." ^[3] I also sent a comment letter to Yorks County Council that stated that decisions should be taken on science rather than inaccurate statement. ^[4] I also spoke in opposition to a motion 'This house calls for an immediate ban on Hydraulic Facturing' Again all I used was reliable evidence. I debunked the false claims of the local opposition group. That is not promoting industry, it is calling for proper science to be used. In my editing I use my extensive knowledge of regulations and proposed drilling practice which was necessary to sustain the complaints I made. This is not POV editing. It informs a NPOV edit. There is no need to 'bias' reports. The science and research has been done, and the article should reflect that.

On these matters AND ON THESE MATTERS ONLY I undertake not to make any edits as I had a personal input. THat is the reason for the tag.

I also was an editor on the Facebook page 'Blackpool Fracking for a better future' but resigned that some time ago. I also comment on social media, helping to dispel misconceptions about fracking.

I have never been remunerated for the edits I do, or for any other activity relating to this in any way or form. My motivation is to present an accurate account of HF in the UK, (using evidence from expert bodies mentioned above, who have researched this extensively) and only that. Kennywpara (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this page. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Kennywpara (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

^ "Friends of the Earth must not repeat misleading fracking claims". BBC. Retrieved 5 April 2017.
^ "http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/anti-cuadrilla-groups-fracking-protest-leaflet-misleading-says-watchdog-9961373.html". The Independent. Retrieved 5 April 2017. {{cite news}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ Lancs Planning document. "Lancashire County Council Development Control Committee" (PDF). Lancs CC. p. 723. Retrieved 5 April 2017. PHE did not comment on the Medact report in this document. The Council commented: Many objectors refer to the 2015 report of the public health charity Medact. Medact say the risks and serious nature of the hazards associated with fracking, coupled with the concerns and uncertainties about the regulatory system, indicate that shale gas development should be halted until a more detailed health and environmental impact assessment is undertaken. The Medact report has not produced new epidemiological research but has reviewed published literature and has requested short papers from relevant experts in particular subject areas. It has also interviewed academics and experts. Unfortunately, one of the contributors (contributing to three of the report's six chapters – chapters 2, 4 and 5) has led a high profile campaign in the Fylde related to shale gas. Another contributor to the report (chapter 3) has previously expressed firm views on shale gas and has objected to this application. This has led to questions from some quarters about the report's objectivity.In light of these uncertainties it is not clear how much weight the County Council should attach to the report.
^ "Statement by editor kennywpara". Yorkshire County Council. Retrieved 5 April 2017. As a Yorkshire man, born and bred, and an occasional visitor to your area, I am disturbed at the amount of nonsense and intimidation from groups such as Frack Free Ryedale concerning fracking. I am a graduate engineer with 12 years of experience as a senior engineer on oil rigs. I am now retired and totally independent in my views. The lack of understanding of the risks and effects of drilling have appalled me, to the extent that I have researched the process, and complained about many organisations to the Advertising Standards Authority. These include Frack Free Ryedale, RAFF, FrackFreeAlliance, FrackFreeSomerset, and Breast Cancer UK. None of these have been able to sustain any of their false science. I currently have a complaint against Friends of the Earth who claim that sand is toxic and a carcinogen, and that polyacrylamide is carcinogenic, when it is classed as a food additive, and is present in babies nappies! FoE's science is not sustainable and it presents fracking as a risky process when it is not. With the upcoming NYCC decision, please be sure to listen to the experts, your own planning committee, the Environment Agency, and the HSE. I see today the EA have approved Third Energy's plans. Their decisions are informed by the Royal Academy of Engineering, and Public Health England England studies, as well as a massive research base, the extensive experience of the US, and many other competent organisations that find the environmental risks to be easily controlled, under a proper regulatory regime. Meanwhile the antis seem to spread scare stories of poisoning, industrialisation, farming blight, aquifer pollution, leaking wells etc. On examination all of these concerns turn out to be baseless, as the problems cited are not permitted under UK regulations, are simply made up, or nothing to do with fracking. The bulk of the anti movement seem scientifically inept, yet this does not stop them passing comment on complex matters that they do not appear to understand. I would hope that you would distance yourself from the noisy, but ultimately ill informed groups that want to stifle a potential gold mine for the area.

[1] "Friends of the Earth must not repeat misleading fracking claims". BBC. Retrieved 5 April 2017.

[2] "http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/anti-cuadrilla-groups-fracking-protest-leaflet-misleading-says-watchdog-9961373.html". The Independent. Retrieved 5 April 2017. {{cite news}}: External link in |title= (help)

[3] Lancs Planning document. "Lancashire County Council Development Control Committee" (PDF). Lancs CC. p. 723. Retrieved 5 April 2017. PHE did not comment on the Medact report in this document. The Council commented: Many objectors refer to the 2015 report of the public health charity Medact. Medact say the risks and serious nature of the hazards associated with fracking, coupled with the concerns and uncertainties about the regulatory system, indicate that shale gas development should be halted until a more detailed health and environmental impact assessment is undertaken. The Medact report has not produced new epidemiological research but has reviewed published literature and has requested short papers from relevant experts in particular subject areas. It has also interviewed academics and experts. Unfortunately, one of the contributors (contributing to three of the report's six chapters – chapters 2, 4 and 5) has led a high profile campaign in the Fylde related to shale gas. Another contributor to the report (chapter 3) has previously expressed firm views on shale gas and has objected to this application. This has led to questions from some quarters about the report's objectivity.In light of these uncertainties it is not clear how much weight the County Council should attach to the report.

[4] "Statement by editor kennywpara". Yorkshire County Council. Retrieved 5 April 2017. As a Yorkshire man, born and bred, and an occasional visitor to your area, I am disturbed at the amount of nonsense and intimidation from groups such as Frack Free Ryedale concerning fracking. I am a graduate engineer with 12 years of experience as a senior engineer on oil rigs. I am now retired and totally independent in my views. The lack of understanding of the risks and effects of drilling have appalled me, to the extent that I have researched the process, and complained about many organisations to the Advertising Standards Authority. These include Frack Free Ryedale, RAFF, FrackFreeAlliance, FrackFreeSomerset, and Breast Cancer UK. None of these have been able to sustain any of their false science. I currently have a complaint against Friends of the Earth who claim that sand is toxic and a carcinogen, and that polyacrylamide is carcinogenic, when it is classed as a food additive, and is present in babies nappies! FoE's science is not sustainable and it presents fracking as a risky process when it is not. With the upcoming NYCC decision, please be sure to listen to the experts, your own planning committee, the Environment Agency, and the HSE. I see today the EA have approved Third Energy's plans. Their decisions are informed by the Royal Academy of Engineering, and Public Health England England studies, as well as a massive research base, the extensive experience of the US, and many other competent organisations that find the environmental risks to be easily controlled, under a proper regulatory regime. Meanwhile the antis seem to spread scare stories of poisoning, industrialisation, farming blight, aquifer pollution, leaking wells etc. On examination all of these concerns turn out to be baseless, as the problems cited are not permitted under UK regulations, are simply made up, or nothing to do with fracking. The bulk of the anti movement seem scientifically inept, yet this does not stop them passing comment on complex matters that they do not appear to understand. I would hope that you would distance yourself from the noisy, but ultimately ill informed groups that want to stifle a potential gold mine for the area.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]