Bishop Hill Closing submissions
Sep 1, 2014 Energy: gas Greens The closing submissions for the planning inquiry into Dart Energy's coalbed methane project at Airth have been published and for sheer entertainment value it's going to be hard to better m'learned friends' summary of the evidence submitted by our old friends Professor David Smythe and Dr Marian Lloyd-Smith
The Professor is retired and has been since 1998. He agreed he has been out of mainstream geology since 1998, because as he put it he had no longer has “slaves” to do “donkey work” for him. When the question was put directly again he answered with a simple “yes” that he has been out of the mainstream for fifteen years. Since his retiral he has lived in the South of France running a little business (in fact a B&B).
Professor Smythe was unable (in cross examination) to give the example of fugitive emissions anywhere in the world!
In other passages of the cross examination it was apparent that the Professor has no real experience of drilling, despite criticising the techniques employed...
The best that Professor Smythe could offer was that he had on one occasion stood on a drilling platform in Murmansk
...it is very difficult indeed to understand why an experienced professional like Dr Lloyd-Smith continues to suggest that salt, citric acid, or other chemicals listed by her are hazardous and a threat to health. They are not and I submit that suggestion or allegation should not be made by a professional person acting reasonably and responsibly. In addition Dr Lloyd Smith and others refer to chemicals which the evidence confirms will not be used.
But it's not just these two reprobates. Whereever you look in the document, nearly 100 pages of it, there's fun to be had:
...the evidence of [Friends of the Earth witness, legal academic] Professor Hilston seems to amount to a warning that if a decision taker makes an error the decision may be challenged in Court. This is beyond dispute and is known by all involved in the planning system in Scotland. I can only repeat it seem a long way to come from Reading to inform the Inquiry about something so basic and obvious.
neither of the two Friends of the Earth witnesses argued for refusal [!!!]
I hesitate to suggest to readers that they read a whole submission to a planning inquiry, but if ever you are going to do it, this may be the occasion.
Reader Comments (17)
Two further particularly important conclusions can be drawn.
vii. There has been drilling and gas extraction over a period of about twenty years.
There is no evidence before the Inquiry of any complaint except one minor issue
of noise spoken to by Mr Fraser. I refer to the evidence of Mr Hemfrey. This lack
of complaints is quite remarkable given the amount of development, the level of [17]
concern and public scrutiny. One can be certain that if there had been any issue
of concern, complaints would have been made. In addition no complaints or
concerns have been expressed by the Regulators who have regulated and
supervised these activities over a period of about 20 years. This all amounts to a
significant material consideration to which great weight should attach when
considering the planning merits and whether there is any possibility of
environmental harm.
viii. Secondly it is apparent that all the consents which the Appellant has
implemented or is entitled to implement, do not have such stringent
environmental controls and safeguards as are currently proposed. That means
that from an environmental point of view it is clearly better to consent the
current proposals which will have bespoke, stringent and precautionary
safeguards in place rather than the status quo continuing. The status quo
entitles Dart to develop and the operate a significant number of drilling
locations, and plant without any such safeguards. It goes without saying
therefore that environmentally it is much preferable to consent that which is
before this Inquiry then allow the status quo to continue. The new consent will
render redundant in a practical sense the existing consents.
So no problems in 20 years and by refusing the application for development the current lower thresholds for monitoring will hold but increased drilling can take place anyway, allowing the application will increase environmental controls.
Green thinking at its best.
Having been at many planning inquiries, I have read and heard many closing submissions. This seems to be a very long one, particularly as the QC would have read it verbatim to the inquiry (assuming it is the same procedure in Scotland as in England). However QCs get paid by the hour (or the word), so it is to be expected.
Previously there seemed to be some doubt about Professor Smythe's use of the title but that is all in order, it seems.
I asked Glasgow University's HR department:
A Glasgow University HR person replied:It did not seem likely to me that the date of a professor's appointment and whether he was currently entitled to use the title Professor Emeritus was 'personal data' under the Data Protection Act. So I put in an FOISA request and the University replied:So:
- Glasgow University's HR department's reply to me was misleading.
- Prof Smythe was indeed a professor at GU from 1988 to 1998. The University did say whether or not he was "Professor of Geophysics".
- He entitled to use the title Emeritus Professor, if it can be assumed that 'normal practice' applied in his case.
"Professor Smythe's use of the title"
I think it's rather like the continued use of military rank after retirement from the services. Tolerated, but suggestive of a mild character defect. E.g. Major Gowen in Fawlty Towers.. :-)
An entertaining and edifying submission indeed!
If only we could all save up our pennies and get such a QC to review more of the climate-scare-related guff that is to be found all around us. Here is an extract from the abstract of such a review by a legal mind on the IPCC:
Full report here: http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf
BoFA, are you implying that greens actually think? I thought they only reacted as they were told to do - at least that is what their actions appear to be.
All I can say is that it refreshing to see the green arguments being taken apart by close scrutiny of that they say. In fact that scrutiny should be applied to all green statements but sadly it hardly ever is.
Final submissions on fugitive emissions.
But when he got there, the cupboard was bare.
------------------------------
(typo "olds friend"?)
Reading the FOTE (enemies of mankind?) closing submission, there doesnt seem to be any reference to the supposed bogeyman of coal bed mehane extraction - contamination of water suplies.
Whilst the enviro-fascists are often very quick to threaten legal proceedings, once instigated, their normal practice is to do anything to prevent actually going to court. This case shows why. A rigorous and objective cross examination of the greens' objections have been shown to be hot air.
I am looking forward to future court proceedings. Off to the BBC's website to see if the media outlet we all fund has covered this.
And in related news "Fracking is safe!" (H/T Tallbloke)
http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-california-fracking-is-safe/
Well that's a shocker.
Cue hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth.
Excellent submission and some first-class put-downs of the objectors' — shall we say — shortcomings.
A bit of proof-reading wouldn't have come amiss. On p 38 we had 'pubic' for 'public' — Oh, no! And on p 39 'Daft Energy' for 'Dart Energy'.
As for the rest: "Greenies Try to Mislead Public". There's a surprise!
Since his retiral? [shudder]
As Pravda reports:
" There is shale gas in Ukraine too. In the area of Luhansk and Donetsk, Washington does not bother to think of civilians, because all those people will die anyway, when the extraction of shale gas begins. .... all events that are now happening there, serves as a bargaining chip in the global game for Russian resources."
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/22-08-2014/128344-russia_usa_cold_war-0/
Obviously Putin's army (which is not there) is there to prevent Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine dying a horrible death from fracking.
Adding to my previous comment:
Perhaps Professor David Smyth absorbed more by standing on that drilling platform in Murmansk than one might think.
A nice piece of forensic analysis by Steele QC. His takedown of Dr Lloyd Smith is superb. Lloyd Smith was simply spreading a pack of lies to frighten people about health effects, including blatant factual errors which are easily checked and refuted. It reads like Michael Mann's original Statement of Claim (Nobel Prizewinner, cleared by multiple inquiries, etc).
Why anyone would put their reputation on the line by doing this kind of thing is a mystery. But, there seem to be numerous people on the environment bandwagon who are quite happy to do it.
If you lie in court there are severe penalties for perjury and contempt of court. Unfortunately the same does not apply to enquiries like this, so the greens concerned are free to move on to the next venue and peddle the same lies.
Excellent point, NW.
It reminds me of Le Carre's "A Perfect Spy." The protagonist's father, a con man, survived because in the pre WWII era, you could just move to another area and start all over again.
Here we are in an age where that is no excuse, but all these "inquiries" never seem to check on the history of people making significant claims about the proposals that they are considering.