Bishop Hill The Canonbie mystery
Nov 23, 2013 Energy: gas Greens Media 
Here's another of those stories I got from my visit to Dart Energy.
Back in April a story appeared in the Glasgow Herald reporting claims that some of Dart's coalbed methane wells at Canonbie in Dumfriesshire were leaking. Written by veteran very green reporter Rob Edwards, the story was rather exciteable, but a bit reticent about explaining who the main protagonists were:
The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) is launching an investigation into claims that methane is "bubbling up" in wells drilled to test for the gas in coal seams near Canonbie in Dumfries and Galloway. The claim is denied by the company that owns the wells.
The Sunday Herald received information claiming gas was escaping in the wells.
The information was passed to Sepa, which promised to investigate. "Sepa has recently become aware of information regarding the potential release of gas from coal-bed methane wells in the Canonbie area," said a Sepa spokesman. "Sepa will shortly be carrying out investigations into this."
So there was no indication of who the source of the information about the alleged leak was and even the identity of the person who passed the information to Sepa is somewhat uncertain - from the way the text is written it would appear to have been Edwards, but there is room for doubt.
The following day Friends of the Earth Scotland picked up the story with their own inimitable approach to truth and accuracy: the headline reads "Leaks at Canonbie should signal the end for Dart's dirty gas plans". No room for doubt there then - there's a leak. In fact the article switches between "if there turn out to be leaks" to "the leaks mean they should be shut down" without apparently batting an eyelid. This is, of course, part of the modus operandi of the green activist.
A month later Sepa gave the wells an unequivocally clean bill of health, in particular noting that there was no evidence of the "bubbling up" that Rob Edwards had reported. Unfortunately, the report does not indicate the source of the complaint, saying only that there had been "allegations".
So there's a mystery here. Who told Rob Edwards that there was a leak? Who told Sepa? And did Rob Edwards investigate before writing the story, or was his source so unimpeachable that he felt he didn't need to bother? There's so much we don't know.
One thing we do know is that Rob Edwards has never written about the outcome of the Sepa investigation or corrected his story.
What can you say?
Bishop Hill
Rob Edwards emails to say that he did report the outcome of the Sepa investigation.
On 24 June 2013, I added an update to the end of the story on my website reporting the outcome of Sepa’s investigation:
http://www.robedwards.com/2013/04/probe-into-leaking-gas-claims.html
The investigation’s outcome was also reported in stories published by the Sunday Herald and on my website on 29 June 2013:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/environment/scottish-fracking-licences-to-be-dropped.21483645
http://www.robedwards.com/2013/06/scottish-fracking-licences-to-be-dropped.html
Bishop Hill
I asked Rob Edwards a couple of follow up questions
- Did you attempt to verify the claims made?
- Was it you that contacted Sepa?
The answer was as follows:
When I received the allegations, I asked both Dart and Sepa if they were true and reported what they said.
I then asked him to confirm that he was the source through which Sepa found out about the allegations. I also suggested that his own source must have been reputable for him to file the story without further checking of the facts.
He answered in the affirmative to both of these propositions.
Reader Comments (44)
What I can say is that my mentor (and sponsor when it came to applying for NUJ membership) was an experienced and highly respected journalist on the Daily Record.
He was also a kind man without a bad word for anyone. His opinion of Edwards was not high.
In my distant past I was good friends with a chap training to be a reporter. He told me about being taught the 'denial story' which, on a slow news day was always worth a go. Apparently, the 'trick' was to call the local vicar and ask him if it was true he was having an affair with the organist/fondling choir-boys (delete as required by the depth for the newspaper's gutter). Of course, the vicar would deny such a scurrilous accusation but the newspaper could then, legitimately, run the headline: 'Local Vicar Denies Affair With Organist!'
This does not surprise me at all. I have had email correspondence with Rob Edwards about genuine concerns over a proposed hydro-electric scheme which would negatively impact an SSSI (and take typically 50% of the flow away from a famous waterfall and tourist attraction). He was only mildly interested, and no copy emerged. I got the impression that despite the Herald paying his salary, he is working as much for WWF and Renewables Scotland.
UPDATE - to be fair to Rob, he did say that it is ultimately up to his editor if he gets the go ahead for a story, but I don't think he put up a very good case.
This is all too typical nowadays. Every alarmist story put out by activists is faithfully reported, with no checking or confirmation. The correction is not published. Environmental "journalists" are quite simply corrupt.
On a lighter note, just got back from holiday to find the Josh calendar awaiting me. Great.
What can you say?
How about " Well done, Mr Edwards! There'll be a bigger cheque in the post this month!"
(signed - FOE Scotland)
When people make a false claim to the police they can be charged with wasting police time. Perhaps this concept needs to be expanded to cover more organisations.
SEPA is subject to FOI. They must have a record of who complained about the leak, and that claimant must have indicated a source for their concern.
http://www.sepa.org.uk/about_us/what_we_do/informing/freedom_of_information.aspx
Edwards is just another activist posing as a journalist. It's well known he will print any old nonsense his masters at WWF, Friends of the Earth or Greenpeace feed him. To them he's just another useful idiot.
John B
No, whatever he is Rob Edwards is not an idiot.
And to be fair to the man — what I know of him — he would not have invented the leak at Canonbie simply to create the story. I.e. he's not another Gleick.
On the other hand I would not be shocked to the core to discover that having had a call from someone with the story his interest in "the environment" (so called) would lead to his using it without over much in the way of checking. After all everyone has to make his own decision about the balance between being effective and being honest, somebody once said!
Are there really Environment Journalists? Or are there just friends of the Green Taliban who present themselves as journalists.
Lapogus
"UPDATE - to be fair to Rob, he did say that it is ultimately up to his editor if he gets the go ahead for a story, but I don't think he put up a very good case."
From the Guardian
"Rob Edwards is a freelance journalist specialising in environmental issues. As well as writing for the Guardian, he is the environment editor of the Sunday Herald in Scotland and the co-author of three books on nuclear power."
http://www.theguardian.com/profile/rob-edwards
Environment editor of the Sunday Herald!
According to his CV he has an MA in English Literature from Cambridge - wow yet another environmental "journalist" who has an english degree! I think a english qualification is a prerequisite for his bias!
What, if anything, does Dart say?
Activist = Trouble-maker
I think that since there are very few genuine activists, the words trouble-maker should be included in parentheses whenever it is felt necessary to describe someone as such.
Editorial guidelines and other "set the tone stuff" in the regional press impact massively on the visibility of evidenced rebuttals and criticism. I know from direct experience that stories contrary to the "official line" and particularly NGO assertions have a difficult passage and those stories aren't subject to the customary individual editorial judgement process. There is considerable pressure being applied behind the scenes to maintain the "correct narrative". I regularly challenge my own paranoia on this - but every time so far - the binning of stories defies logic. Anectodally it seems phone calls and emails behind the scenes "work wonders".
x-posted from unthreaded:
A small observation - Newsquest UK (AKA Gannet Media of Maclean VA.) have been dutifully running climate alarmist PR goop from UEA / Met Office / DECC / sock puppets across their several hundred titles with the comments enabled - only those comments aren't actually working AFAICT most comments on nationally syndicated (i.e. Press Association "climate" stories) flounder and fail.
I'm prepared to accept it's a web server mis-configuration or somesuch - but other "national" comments work from here - it seems to me that these pronouncements from the usual suspects get special treatment. Anyway if you're minded to try commenting on this: "CO2 emissions 'set to hit new peak'" goes to room 101 from here.
Looks like extruded "correct think" BS to me.
@TerryS
When people make a false claim to the police they can be charged with wasting police time. Perhaps this concept needs to be expanded to cover more organisations.
Actually, making a false claim with intent to gain an advantage or damage an individual is a criminal act in itself under English law - the crime of Fraud. It seems to me, on the facts indicated, that there is a strong possibility that such a crime has taken place (though Scottish law presumably applies, and there may be some differences)
It would be very appropriate for Dart to get in touch with the Glasgow Herald and ask what the basis for the story was, as it appears that a criminal action may be appropriate. At the least the Glasgow Herald might need to justify its actions to the relevant journalist's regulatory body.
Er........ has anyone asked Mr Edwards?
I pointed Edwards to the story, so he can respond if he wants.
Is this Rob Edwards?
A member of Socialist Environment and Resources Association and of Friends of the Earth Scotland for more than 20 years.
What about a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission? Could the Herald Scotland (The Glasgow Herald changed its name) not be compelled to print a correction to the original story?
TerryS
That's him.
At the end of his bio he has a couple of favourite quotes. The first one is:
"I do not see how a reporter attempting to define a situation involving some sort of ethical conflict can do it with sufficient demonstrable neutrality to fulfil some arbitrary concept of 'objectivity'. It never occurred to me in such a situation, to be other than subjective, and as obviously so as I could manage to be...As I see it, the journalist is obliged to present his attitude as vigorously and persuasively as he can, insisting that it is his attitude, to be examined and criticised in the light of every contrary argument, which he need not accept but must reveal."
James Cameron, Point of Departure, Oriel Press, 1967.
--------------------------------------
He doesn't even pretend to aspire to objectivity.
Technically, rather than saying that FoE picked up the story from the Glasgow Herald you could say that FoE planted the story in the Glasgow Herald, to give it some credibility, before distributing their own version.
So were any of the big NGO s called before the Leveson Inquiry ?
j, I 'must reveal' what's been neglected.
=======
"Rob Edwards emails to say that ... "
Praise the gods he is neither dead or deaf. He is just taking cover or gone underground like all other climate doomsday cult members in self-preservation mode.
"Sepa probe at coal-bed methane wells
By Rob Edwards
Saturday 13 April 2013
AN allegation that explosive and highly-polluting gas is leaking from boreholes in southwest Scotland are being probed by the Scottish Government's green watchdog."
My name is Rob Edwards and I am addicted to spreading green propaganda despite all my efforts to reform.
I thought methane was actually pretty innocuous (ie. it wont kill you...unlike the most noxious and dangerous gas known to mankind in the entire universe...Co2!!!) when released in to the atmosphere?
Mailman
Bish : you linked to the FOE story twice ..I think you meant to link to the Herald one first
that original article ends
.. it was not updated with the negative finding
I stopped reading the Herald because it is full of churnalism from WWF, FOE, Greenpeace etc., and Edwards is the chief churnalist. Never any investigation, just "This is happening and here's what Richard Dixon or Patrick Harvie think about it" Why pay for the Herald when you can go straight to the source and read their press releases for free?
Actually, save the time and don't bother, it's not as if there is any doubt about what they think about any given issue.
Scottish fracking licences to be dropped By Rob Edwards Saturday 29 June 2013 ..buried away is - almost same phrase buried in the middles of the longer same June story his website
- Yes Rob's own website April story same BIG HEADLINE ..
tiny correction at bottomThe April Herald article was not corrected
- Does it look like Rob Edwards is interested in portraying a correct truthful image of reality ?
or interested in portraying a certain narrative.
.... Balanced reporting ? yes with a foot on one side of the balance.
The hyperbolic FOE article ..was not corrected
Greens can you trust them ?
"Shouting Headline & whispered corrections" - spot on, Stew.
I stopped reading the Herald some time ago precisely because of their use of activists like Edwards. They have gone badly downhill and they now have zero credibility. This will only make the situation worse but then what do they expect when they employ someone who is associated with the Guardian and a cabal of BIG GREEN NGO's.
With all the weeping and wailing about the decline of traditional journalism, papers going broke, and so on - why are they not looking at this guy as an example of their problems.
Edwards has a long list of awards reminiscent of a South American despot's medals They are awards bestowed to advocates by advocates. It is the gold braid, epaulettes and fringing and other self referential paraphernalia of those who regard themselves to be in charge.
His favourite quote refers to "reporters" - but that is a slur. "Reporters" report - they don't use their position to insert propaganda. They don't acknowledge from the outset that they have no intention of being impartial.
He is a commenter or opinion writer, not a reporter. Which is fine.
But he, and his publishers, should never describe him as a "reporter."
Mailman.
Methane is highley toxic.It can be leathal in confined spaces and can explode if the concentration is high enough .
Sorry Clive, but that's just not true. Methane is decidedly non-toxic. Explosive in concentrations of around 5%-10% and over yes (but it would still need to be ignited), but not toxic. At all.
Clive,
Are you thinking of carbon monoxide in closed spaces?
Mailman
Nobody lies, cheats and scams like environmentalists and their patsy journalists.
Know how you can tell an environmental journalist from a regular one?
Knee pads.
The like to be as comfortable as possible when they are working.
Here is one for the vermin at the SPCA who refused to do nothing about the deaths of endangered species namely a White Throated Needletail caused by windmills on the Isle of Harris.
"A MAJOR US power company has pleaded guilty to killing eagles and other birds at two wind farms and agreed to pay $1 million as part of the first enforcement of laws protecting birds against wind energy facilities…
Duke Energy ... pleaded guilty to killing 14 eagles and 149 other birds at its Top of the World and Campbell Hill wind farms outside Casper, Wyoming…
So the
“Wind energy is not green if it is killing hundreds of thousands of birds,” said George Fenwick, president of the American Bird Conservancy...
But let us not forget the Scottish Greens writing on a BBC website claiming that:-
"There is evidence that badly sited wind farms can kill birds. However, there is no evidence of any bird kill from any wind farm in the UK to date." http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/islandblogging/blogs/005292/0000007020.shtml
I am glad that Dr Who has reached 50. So we should all remember the mantra. "Exterminate, exterminate, exterminate"
Brian, did they really say:
"There is evidence that badly sited wind farms can kill birds. However, there is no evidence of any bird kill from any wind farm in the UK to date."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is Kafkaesque. So, well-sited wind farms won't kill birds? Or bats? On that definition, a well-sited wind farm is under the ocean or at the bottom of Lake Eyrie.
As for "no evidence", that is like saying that as long as a crime is not "reported" (to whom?), it didn't happen, even though the victim, the neighbours, the local Plod and the local paper all were aware of it.
As I have just been watching some old Merrie Melodies, all I can say is that they are "desssshpicable!" To which I would add lowlife hypocrites, and other things that the Bish's admirable editorial policies prohibit here.
The Canonbie story was about allegations of the coalbed methane wells leaking. An investigation found these to be totally unfounded. A parallel may be emerging at Barton Moss, to the West of Manchester. A company has started an exploratory well. The BBC reports that Friends of the Earth claim this is 'breaching planning permission'. IGas disputes this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-25060266
The Manchester Evening News reports that local MP Barbara Keeley is deeply disappointed that the Environment Agency saw fit to issue a permit. But she does not raise any concerns about IGas being in breach of that permit.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/fracking-fury-protesters-angry-gas-6334597
"An allegation received by the Sunday Herald". No mention of the identity or affiliation of this alleged allegator, or any reasons given for why their entirely false allegation should have had any credibility. Then having got SEPA to waste their time and money and that of Dart, Edwards couldn't even wait for the outcome of the investigation - surely nothing to do with the high risk that doing so would mean that there would be no story?
Big splash story followed by quiet correction that there was no substance to it is a trick associated with the worst kind of tabloid journalism, but the Herald is supposed to be a "quality" paper. The "lifestyle" sections however reveal that its core readership is made up of vacuous conspicuous consumers working for NGOs and fake charities. Not that the Scotsman is any better these days.
There was no original complaint from a member of the public it seems
- Look I'll post again how that the original April Herald article ends
"Sepa has confirmed within the past few hours that the only suggestion that wells are leaking has come from the Sunday Herald newspaper."
..note the reporter does not rush to say we "on no I know a member of the public complained"
- It seems just an attempt by Rob Edwards to monster DART energy
The claim was published 5 times and corrections were only whispered 3 times
seems Edwards & FOE care more about their anti-industry narrative than the truth.
Edwards on Dart Energy's twitter pretending to be a real investigative journalist: "I don't reveal my sources."
Usually they are obvious as the same green advocacy group press release all the other watermelon "journalists" are quoting on any given day.
It's pretty clear this scam was cooked up by Edwards himself.
@stewgreen
There was no original complaint from a member of the public it seems..
Then it seems like a complaint to the relevant newspaper regulatory organisation is in order...
Sue him for recovery of the costs of the Sepa investigation.