John Streicker Backtracks and Frack Dances
Feb. 28 Jacqueline Ronson reports on an interview of the Yukon News with John Streicker, in which his relentless campaign for moving forward with regulated gas fracking in Yukon attempts damage control but continues (for more evidence google: streicker synergy deception).
In the interview his denial of supporting fracking lacks credibility as an actor’s role does in a badly written theatre plot. One that might re-appear unexplained on stage 20 min after dying a memorable death. The News and Ronson pitched Puff Balls, delivering less than critical thinking. It seems to me Streicker droned on in self reference while shutting out criticism from science and the community, as he has done.
John Streicker, who now tries to say he opposes fracking, in the interview does not come clean on any of his pro-frack positions and well worn industry talking points such as the following ones.
Streicker’s language is seductive, it charms Yukoners into the frack tent to hang themselves.
Who would push back against nice sounding ideas and who would want:
- to oppose a "local energy source" (streicker pitch for fracking, Whse Star, Aug. 2, 2013)?
- to go against “prime alternate energy” (Streicker in a green party blog:
"Our prime alternate energy potential is natural gas.")?
- to go against "open and informed discussion" (streicker's committee submission implies independent science and citizens as not "open and informed”)?
- a "polarized debate" (streicker essentially blames frack critics, in his submission, to be an extreme pole)?
- draw adversarial lines in the sand (Streicker mass email to Yukoners Oct. 4, 2013 “I have never liked making ‘fracking’ the line in the sand.”)?
- to go against a 0.4% target for frack gas leakage that supposedly helps the climate (submission)?
- to oppose regulations to manage or minimize “risk” (Streicker uses “risk” in the interview, as before, to hide proven frack harms that are not risk but geological certainties)?
And his most recent cover up for his frack lobby work is as dishonest as the litany of frack industry talking points he again brings forward seamlessly. In the News interview he starts off with the "benefits and risks” advertisement language he introduced to Yukon in 2012.
Streicker’s false language was adopted in its title by the select committee on the risks and benefits of hydraulic fracturing in 2013. The by him brokered synergy contract from 2012 already attempted with the same words to recruit the community to fracking, in the fine print. (google: synergy yukon contract). We are not splitting hairs as Streicker is known for a clever command of words.
In the first sentence of the Ronson report on the interview he is quoted asserting there are “benefits of fracking”, as if benefits were a fact. He claims to weigh those unfavourably against “risks”, as if “risks” would be truthful to proved harms. By shifting these aspects Streicker opens the back door further to a YG under fire to come up with a supposed balance in favour of fracking.
In reality there are no credible net benefits, profits or useful energy returns except for falsely presenting geological occurrences of oil & gas in shales as reserves. Hollow energy security and phoney geological reserve claims are fabricated to look worthy of investor commitments and government subsidies.
The point is made by natural gas industrialists like Art Berman, veteran geologists like David Hughes, and financial analysts specializing on oil & gas like Deborah Rogers.
Consequently Streicker’s hype starts to look like the oil & gas version of salting gold claims. But a false front is advertisement gold as it appears not big oil doing the frack bubble bidding but the green party guy.
Except the investment fraud in the unconventional oil & gas sector, exceeds in scale large crimes like the Bre-X scandal. Streicker’s talk of benefits and conventional/unconventional bait and switch tricks hide the disastrous write down of billions in shale gas assets and investment, but also job and infrastructure losses.
No, with two nearly abandoned conventional wells at Kotaneelee the Yukon does not have an oil & gas industry or possibilities. A dangerous exception are shale and coal bed fracking disasters moved forward by Streicker’s frack regulation advice.
The Yukon News report on the Streicker interview concludes: "Those regulations need to be in place whether or not fracking is allowed in the territory, because methane leaks from conventional gas production pose the exact same risk, he said.”
This is false. Every single study that was not contracted, paid for and controlled by the oil & gas industry determines frack wells and frack fields leak more methane and cause more pollution. Also unconventional oil & gas heavily industrializes communities and landscapes, conventional does not.
Again, Streicker is using the uncertainty language of frack PR, and the word “risk” to great effect. With this method he confuses awareness of proven destruction in order to silence the community and control dialogue.
As with he conclusion of the interview Streicker’s representations are permeated with putting gas fracking in a continuum of conventional drilling. It is also a much repeated gas industry angle we have heard in Whitehorse from Kevin Heffernan (CSUR) and Aaron Miller (CAPP).
When unconventional really is different to conventional oil & gas drilling which is spot development. A steel pipe is inserted into a reservoir essentially like a straw into a cocktail drink. Unconventional drilling is spatial development and involves shattering the geology of entire regions.
It is seamless spatial saturation and toxic degradation in 3D.
In the interview Streicker does not address these or any specific concerns his critics bring forward, and rather quotes himself instead throughout the interview. This appears arrogant and certainly not trust promoting for an engineer.
Ronson quotes Streicker, without probing or following up:
“If methane leaks, or fugitive emissions, are any higher than 0.4 per cent of production, natural gas is no better than other fossil fuel alternatives, according to Streicker’s Jan. 31 submission to the (YG frack) committee.”
Countless times he has brought up the 0.4 figure that is out of whack with reality. Independent studies by the University of Colorado and others show fugitive frack gas field emissions that are 20, 25 times higher than that.
The oil funded shale lobby group Environmental Defence Fund (EDF) is the funder and initiator of a bulk of phoney frack studies. It created the fiction of a 0.4% target together with other frack talking points that in broken record fashion come out of Streicker.
High leakage and pollution, resulting in economic and environmental devastation are consistent with unconventional geology. They are not as Streicker claims determined by regulatory regimes.
That is why there are moratoriums and bans in place in many jurisdictions, nationally and internationally, that have extensive regulations or the ability to generate them, like Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Germany, France and most recently and notably, even oil producing Los Angeles. Los Angeles City Council, as most recent high profile case, passed the fracking ban in a 10 to 0 vote (google: list of bans worldwide).
It is disturbing how Streicker sets up his argument and how he positions the conversation on climate crisis and unconventional oil & gas extraction. 0.4 per cent might not be met but he gets to say it again and again exercising his power of suggestion on people. Especially those folks are exploited with gaps in their understanding of energy technologies and policies.
He continues to pitch climate concerns and even anxiety to counter-act and demobilize as much as possible an effective no-frack position. John Streicker has proven to be formidable in deceptive and slick application of such gas industry tactics.
(google: Newfoundland Bans Unconventional Oil & Gas Extraction yukonblogger)
However, John Streicker’s misuse of the 0.4 per cent leakage figure is among the finest in trade craft of psychological frack warfare.
No comments:
Post a Comment